diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 01:31:54 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 01:31:54 -0700 |
| commit | f0097f96f6cbbd0eab5936db4d0c2b7f61cb1acf (patch) | |
| tree | b79184489d324ab7e6263cc71e4cc56b426c234d /21112-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '21112-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 21112-h/21112-h.htm | 13250 |
1 files changed, 13250 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/21112-h/21112-h.htm b/21112-h/21112-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e606e31 --- /dev/null +++ b/21112-h/21112-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,13250 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + } /* page numbers */ + + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + .sidenote {width: 20%; padding-bottom: .5em; padding-top: .5em; + padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em; margin-left: 1em; + float: right; clear: right; margin-top: 1em; + font-size: smaller; color: black; background: #eeeeee; border: dashed 1px;} + + .bb {border-bottom: solid 2px;} + .bl {border-left: solid 2px;} + .bt {border-top: solid 2px;} + .br {border-right: solid 2px;} + .bbox {border: solid 2px;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .u {text-decoration: underline;} + + .caption {font-weight: bold;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + .figleft {float: left; clear: left; margin-left: 0; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: + 1em; margin-right: 1em; padding: 0; text-align: center;} + + .figright {float: right; clear: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; + margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center;} + + .footnotes {;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem br {display: none;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem span.i0 {display: block; margin-left: 0em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 2em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i4 {display: block; margin-left: 4em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i1 {display: block; margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i11 {display: block; margin-left: 11em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i14 {display: block; margin-left: 14em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i15 {display: block; margin-left: 15em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i19 {display: block; margin-left: 19em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i3 {display: block; margin-left: 3em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i32 {display: block; margin-left: 32em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i8 {display: block; margin-left: 8em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Causes of the Corruption of the +Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John Burgon + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels + Being the Sequel to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels + +Author: John Burgon + +Editor: Edward Miller + +Release Date: April 16, 2007 [EBook #21112] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CORRUPTION OF THE GOSPELS *** + + + + +Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan, David +King, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + +<h1>THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS</h1> + +<h3>BEING THE SEQUEL TO</h3> +<h2>THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS</h2> + +<h3>BY THE LATE</h3> + +<h2>JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B. D.</h2> + +<h3>DEAN OF CHICHESTER</h3> + +<h3>ARRANGED, COMPLETED, AND EDITED BY</h3> + +<h2>EDWARD MILLER, M. A.</h2> + +<h3>WYKEHAMICAL PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER</h3> + +<p class="center"> +LONDON<br/> +GEORGE BELL AND SONS<br/> + +CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.<br/> + +1896.</p> + +<p>'Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et +immotam Tertulliani regulam "Id verius quod prius, id prius +quod ab initio." Quo propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus, +eo purior decurrit Catholicae doctrinae rivus.'</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Cave's</span> <i>Proleg.</i> p. xliv.</p> + +<p>'Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et +ambulate in ea.'—Jerem. vi. 16.</p> + +<p>'In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab +initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, +id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum +fuerit sacrosanctum.'—<span class="smcap">Tertull.</span> <i>adv. Marc.</i> l. iv. c. 5.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p> + + + + +<h2><a name="preface" id="preface"></a>PREFACE</h2> + + +<p>The reception given by the learned world to the +First Volume of this work, as expressed hitherto +in smaller reviews and notices, has on the whole +been decidedly far from discouraging. All have had +some word of encomium on our efforts. Many have +accorded praise and signified their agreement, sometimes +with unquestionable ability. Some have pronounced +adverse opinions with considerable candour +and courtesy. Others in opposing have employed +arguments so weak and even irrelevant to the real +question at issue, as to suggest that there is not +after all so much as I anticipated to advance against +our case. Longer examinations of this important +matter are doubtless impending, with all the interest +attaching to them and the judgements involved: but +I beg now to offer my acknowledgements for all the +words of encouragement that have been uttered.</p> + +<p>Something however must be said in reply to an +attack made in the <i>Guardian</i> newspaper on May 20, +because it represents in the main the position +occupied by some members of an existing School. +I do not linger over an offhand stricture upon my +'adhesion to the extravagant claim of a second-century +origin for the Peshitto,' because I am<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[Pg iv]</a></span> +content with the companionship of some of the very +first Syriac scholars, and with the teaching given +in an unanswered article in the <i>Church Quarterly +Review</i> for April, 1895. Nor except in passing +do I remark upon a fanciful censure of my account +of the use of papyrus in MSS. before the tenth +century—as to which the reviewer is evidently not +versed in information recently collected, and described +for example in Sir E. Maunde Thompson's +Greek and Latin Palaeography, or in Mr. F. G. +Kenyon's Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, +and in an article in the just mentioned Review +which appeared in October, 1894. These observations +and a large number of inaccuracies shew +that he was at the least not posted up to date. But +what will be thought, when attention is drawn to +the fact that in a question whether a singular set of +quotations from the early Fathers refer to a passage +in St. Matthew or the parallel one in St. Luke, the +peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew—'them that +persecute you'—is put out of sight, and both +passages (taking the lengthened reading of St. +Matthew) are represented as having equally only +four clauses? And again, when quotations going +on to the succeeding verse in St. Matthew (v. 45) +are stated dogmatically to have been wrongly +referred by me to that Evangelist? But as to the +details of this point in dispute, I beg to refer our +readers to pp. 144-153 of the present volume. The +reviewer appears also to be entirely unacquainted +with the history of the phrase μονογενησ Θεοσ in +St. John i. 18, which, as may be read on pp. 215-218, +was introduced by heretics and harmonized with<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span> +Arian tenets, and was rejected on the other side. +That some orthodox churchmen fell into the trap, +and like those who in these days are not aware of +the pedigree and use of the phrase, employed it even +for good purposes, is only an instance of a strange +phenomenon. We must not be led only by first +impressions as to what is to be taken for the genuine +words of the Gospels. Even if phrases or passages +make for orthodoxy, to accept them if condemned +by evidence and history is to alight upon the quicksands +of conjecture.</p> + +<p>A curious instance of a fate like this has been +supplied by a critic in the <i>Athenaeum</i>, who, when +contrasting Dean Burgon's style of writing with +mine to my discredit, quotes a passage of some +length as the Dean's which was really written +by me. Surely the principle upheld by our opponents, +that much more importance than we allow +should be attributed to the 'Internal evidence +of Readings and Documents,' might have saved +him from error upon a piece of composition which +characteristically proclaimed its own origin. At all +events, after this undesigned support, I am the +less inclined to retire from our vantage ground.</p> + +<p>But it is gratifying on all accounts to say now, +that such interpolations as in the companion volume +I was obliged frequently to supply in order to +fill up gaps in the several MSS. and in integral +portions of the treatise, which through their very +frequency would have there made square brackets +unpleasant to our readers, are not required so often +in this part of the work. Accordingly, except in +instances of pure editing or in simple bringing up<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span> +to date, my own additions or insertions have been +so marked off. It will doubtless afford great +satisfaction to others as well as the admirers of +the Dean to know what was really his own writing: +and though some of the MSS., especially towards +the end of the volume, were not left as he would +have prepared them for the press if his life had +been prolonged, yet much of the book will afford, +on what he regarded as the chief study of his life, +excellent examples of his style, so vigorously fresh +and so happy in idiomatic and lucid expression.</p> + +<p>But the Introduction, and Appendix II on 'Conflation' +and the 'Neutral Text,' have been necessarily +contributed by me. I am anxious to invite +attention particularly to the latter essay, because +it has been composed upon request, and also +because—unless it contains some extraordinary +mistake—it exhibits to a degree which has amazed +me the baselessness of Dr. Hort's theory.</p> + +<p>The manner in which the Dean prepared piecemeal +for his book, and the large number of fragments +in which he left his materials, as has been +detailed in the Preface to the former volume, have +necessarily produced an amount of repetition which +I deplore. To have avoided it entirely, some of +the MSS. must have been rewritten. But in one +instance I discovered when it was too late that after +searching for, and finding with difficulty and treating, +an example which had not been supplied, I had +forestalled a subsequent examination of the same +passage from his abler hand. However I hope +that in nearly all, if not all cases, each treatment +involves some new contribution to the question<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span> +discussed; and that our readers will kindly make +allowance for the perplexity which such an assemblage +of separate papers could not but entail.</p> + +<p>My thanks are again due to the Rev. G. H. +Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, for +much advice and suggestion, which he is so capable +of giving, and for his valuable care in looking +through all the first proofs of this volume; to +'M. W.,' Dean Burgon's indefatigable secretary, +who in a pure labour of love copied out the text +of the MSS. before and after his death; also to the +zealous printers at the Clarendon Press, for help in +unravelling intricacies still remaining in them.</p> + +<p>This treatise is now commended to the fair and +candid consideration of readers and reviewers. The +latter body of men should remember that there was +perhaps never a time when reviewers were themselves +reviewed by many intelligent readers more +than they are at present. I cannot hope that all +that we have advanced will be finally adopted, +though my opinion is unfaltering as resting in my +belief upon the Rock; still less do I imagine that +errors may not be discovered in our work. But +I trust that under Divine Blessing some not unimportant +contribution has been made towards +the establishment upon sound principles of the +reverent criticism of the Text of the New Testament. +And I am sure that, as to the Dean's part +in it, this trust will be ultimately justified.</p> + +<p>EDWARD MILLER.</p> + +<p>9 <span class="smcap">Bradmore Road, Oxford</span>:</p> + +<p><i>Sept.</i> 2, 1896.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span></p> + + + + +<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> + +<p><a href="#introduction">INTRODUCTION.</a></p> + +<p>The Traditional Text—established by evidence—especially before +St. Chrysostom—corruption—early rise of it—Galilee of the Gentiles—Syrio-Low-Latin +source—various causes and forms of corruption.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_i">CHAPTER I.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">General Corruption</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. Modern re-editing—difference between the New Testament and +other books—immense number of copies—ordinary causes of error—Doctrinal +causes. § 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings—nature +of inquiry. § 3. Smaller blemishes in MSS. unimportant except when +constant. § 4. Most mistakes arose from inadvertency: many from +unfortunate design.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_ii">CHAPTER II.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Accidental Causes of Corruption. I. Pure Accident</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. St. John x. 29. § 2. Smaller instances, and Acts xx. 24. +§ 3. St. Luke ii. 14. § 4. St. Mark xv. 6; vii. 4; vi. 22. § 5. St. Mark +viii. 1; vii. 14—St. John xiii. 37.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_iii">CHAPTER III.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Accidental Causes of Corruption. II. Homoeoteleuton</span>.</p> + +<p>St. Luke ii. 15—St. John vi. 11; vi. 55—St. Matt. xxiii. 14; xix. 9—St. +Luke xvi. 21.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[Pg ix]</a></span></p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_iv">CHAPTER IV.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Accidental Causes of Corruption. III. From +Writing in Uncials</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. St. John iv. 35-36. § 2. St. Luke xv. 17—St. John v. 44. +§ 3. Acts xxvii. 14—St. John iv. 15—St. Luke xvii. 37—St. Matt. xxii. +23—and other passages. § 4. St. John v. 4—St. Luke xxiii. 11—St. +Matt. iv. 23. § 5. 2 St. Peter i. 31—Heb. vii. 1. § 6. St. Matt. +xxvii. 17.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_v">CHAPTER V.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Accidental Causes of Corruption. IV. Itacism</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. Various passages—St. John xii. 1, 2; 41. § 2. Rev. i. 5—Other +passages—St. Mark vii. 19. § 3. St. Mark iv. 8. § 4. Titus ii. 5.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_vi">CHAPTER VI.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Accidental Causes of Corruption. V. Liturgical +Influence</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. Lectionaries of the Church—Liturgical influence—Antiquity of +the Lectionary System. § 2. St. John xiv. 1—Acts iii. 1—Last Twelve +Verses of St. Mark. § 3. St. Luke vii. 31; ix. 1—Other passages. +§ 4. St. Mark xv. 28. § 5. Acts iii. 1—St. Matt. xiii. 44; xvii. 23. +§ 6. St. Matt vi. 13 (doxology in the Lord's Prayer).</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_vii">CHAPTER VII.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. +I. Harmonistic Influence</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. St. Mark xvi. 9. § 2. St. Luke xxiv. 1—other examples. +§ 3. Chiefly intentional—Diatessarons—St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26—Harmonized +narratives—Other examples.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_viii">CHAPTER VIII.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. +II. Assimilation</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. Transfer from one Gospel to another. § 2. Not entirely intentional—Various +passages. § 3. St. John xvi. 16. § 4. St. John xiii. +21-25. § 5. St. Mark i. 1, 2—Other examples—St. Matt. xii. 10 (St. Luke +xiv. 3)—and others. § 6. St. Mark vi. 11. § 7. St. Mark xiv. 70. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[Pg x]</a></span></p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_ix">CHAPTER IX.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. +III. Attraction</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. § 2. Acts xx. 24—2 Cor. iii. 3.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_x">CHAPTER X.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. +IV. Omission</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. Omissions a class of their own—Exemplified from the Last +Twelve Verses of St. Mark—Omission the besetting fault of transcribers. +§ 2. The <i>onus probandi</i> rests upon omitters. § 3. St Luke vi. 1; +and other omissions. § 4. St. Matt. xxi. 44. § 5. St. Matt. xv. 8. +§ 6. St. Matt. v. 44—Reply to the Reviewer in the <i>Guardian</i>. +§ 7. Shorter Omissions.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_xi">CHAPTER XI.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. +V. Transposition</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. St. Mark i. 5; ii. 3—Other instances. § 2. St. Luke xiii. 9; +xxiv. 7. § 3. Other examples—St. John v. 27—Transpositions often +petty, but frequent.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">VI. Substitution</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class—Various instances.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">VII. Addition</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 5. The smallest of the four—St. Luke vi. 4—St. Matt. xx. 28. +§ 6. St. Matt. viii. 13; xxiv. 36—St. Mark iii. 16—Other examples.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_xii">CHAPTER XII.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. +VIII. Glosses</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. Not so numerous as has been supposed—St. Matt. xiii. 36—St. +Mark vii. 3. § 2. St. Luke ix. 23. § 3. St. John vi. 15; xiii. 24; +xx. 18—St. Matt. xxiv. 31. § 4. St. John xviii. 14—St. Mark vi. 11. +§ 5. St. Mark xiv. 41—St. John ix. 22. § 6. St. John xii. 7. +§ 7. St. John xvii. 4. § 8. St. Luke i. 66. § 9. St. Luke v. 7—Acts +xx. 4.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[Pg xi]</a></span></p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_xiii">CHAPTER XIII.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. +IX. Corruption by Heretics</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. This class very evident—Began in the earliest times—Appeal to +what is earlier still—Condemned in all ages and countries. § 2. The +earliest depravers of the Text—Tatian's Diatessaron. § 3. Gnostics—St. +John i. 3-4. § 4. St. John x. 14, 15. § 5. Doctrinal—Matrimony—St. +Matt i. 19.</p> + +<p><a href="#chapter_xiv">CHAPTER XIV.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. +X. Corruption by the Orthodox</span>.</p> + +<p>§ 1. St. Luke xix. 41; ii. 40. § 2. St. John viii. 40; and i. 18. +§ 3. 1 Cor. xv. 47. § 4. St. John iii. 13. § 5. St. Luke ix. 54-56.</p> + +<p><a href="#appendix_i">APPENDIX I.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Pericope de Adultera</span>.</p> + +<p><a href="#appendix_ii">APPENDIX II.</a></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Dr. Hort's Theory of Conflation and the +Neutral Text</span>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap"><a href="#index-i">Index of Subjects</a></span>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap"><a href="#index-ii">Index of Passages of the New Testament +Discussed</a></span>. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS.</h2> + + + +<h2><a name="introduction" id="introduction"></a>INTRODUCTION.</h2> + + +<p>In the companion volume to this, the Traditional Text, +that is, the Text of the Gospels which is the resultant +of all the evidence faithfully and exhaustively presented +and estimated according to the best procedure of the courts +of law, has been traced back to the earliest ages in the +existence of those sacred writings. We have shewn, that +on the one hand, amidst the unprecedented advantages +afforded by modern conditions of life for collecting all the +evidence bearing upon the subject, the Traditional Text +must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious +revision of the Received Text; and that on the other +hand it must, as far as we can judge, differ but slightly +from the Text now generally in vogue, which has been +generally received during the last two and a half centuries.</p> + +<p>The strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies +in its being logically deducible and to be deduced from +all the varied evidence which the case supplies, when it +has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed, compared, compounded, +and contrasted with dissentient testimony. The +contrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span> +which controversy has gathered. On one side the +vast mass of authorities is assembled: on the other +stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the advantage +possessed by that group, as regards numerous +students who do not look beneath the surface, in the +general witness in their favour borne by the two oldest +MSS. of the Gospels in existence. That advantage +however shrinks into nothing under the light of rigid +examination. The claim for the Text in them made at +the Semiarian period was rejected when Semiarianism +in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And the +argument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional +Text was a new Text formed by successive recensions +has been refuted upon examination of the verdict of the +Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the early Syriac +and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manuscripts +have been traced to a local source in the library +of Caesarea. And on the other hand a Catholic origin of +the Traditional Text found on later vellum manuscripts +has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus which +existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia, +and were to some degree in use even as late as the ninth +century; before and during the employment of vellum in +the Caesarean school, and in localities where it was used in +imitation of the mode of writing books which was brought +well-nigh to perfection in that city.</p> + +<p>It is evident that the turning-point of the controversy +between ourselves and the Neologian school must lie in +the centuries before St. Chrysostom. If, as Dr. Hort +maintains, the Traditional Text not only gained supremacy +at that era but did not exist in the early ages, then our +contention is vain. That Text can be Traditional only +if it goes back without break or intermission to the original +autographs, because if through break or intermission it +ceased or failed to exist, it loses the essential feature of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> +genuine tradition. On the other hand, if it is proved to +reach back in unbroken line to the time of the Evangelists, +or to a period as near to them as surviving testimony can +prove, then Dr. Hort's theory of a 'Syrian' text formed +by recension or otherwise just as evidently falls to the +ground. Following mainly upon the lines drawn by Dean +Burgon, though in a divergence of my own devising, I claim +to have proved Dr. Hort to have been conspicuously wrong, +and our maintenance of the Traditional Text in unbroken +succession to be eminently right. The school opposed to +us must disprove our arguments, not by discrediting the +testimony of the Fathers to whom all Textual Critics have +appealed including Dr. Hort, but by demonstrating if they +can that the Traditional Text is not recognized by them, +or they must yield eventually to us<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>.</p> + +<p>In this volume, the other half of the subject will be +discussed. Instead of exploring the genuine Text, we +shall treat of the corruptions of it, and shall track error +in its ten thousand forms to a few sources or heads. The +origination of the pure Text in the inspired writings of the +Evangelists will thus be vindicated anew by the evident +paternity of deflections from it discoverable in the natural +defects or iniquities of men. Corruption will the more +shew itself in true colours:—</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>:<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>and it will not so readily be mistaken for genuineness, +when the real history is unfolded, and the mistakes are +accounted for. It seems clear that corruption arose in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> +very earliest age. As soon as the Gospel was preached, +the incapacity of human nature for preserving accuracy until +long years of intimate acquaintance have bred familiarity +must have asserted itself in constant distortion more or +less of the sacred stories, as they were told and retold +amongst Christians one to another whether in writing or +in oral transmission. Mistakes would inevitably arise from +the universal tendency to mix error with truth which +Virgil has so powerfully depicted in his description of +'Fame':—</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">Tam ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>And as soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work, a spirit +of infidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the +details of the new religion must have impelled such as +were either imperfect Christians, or no Christians at all, to +corrupt the sacred stories.</p> + +<p>Thus it appears that errors crept in at the very first +commencement of the life of the Church. This is a matter +so interesting and so important in the history of corruption, +that I must venture to place it again before our readers.</p> + +<p>Why was Galilee chosen before Judea and Jerusalem as +the chief scene of our Lord's Life and Ministry, at least +as regards the time spent there? Partly, no doubt, because +the Galileans were more likely than the other inhabitants +of Palestine to receive Him. But there was as I venture +to think also another very special reason.</p> + +<p>'Galilee of the nations' or 'the Gentiles,' not only had +a mixed population<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> and a provincial dialect<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>, but lay +contiguous to the rest of Palestine on the one side, and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> +on others to two districts in which Greek was largely +spoken, namely, Decapolis and the parts of Tyre and Sidon, +and also to the large country of Syria. Our Lord laid +foundations for a natural growth in these parts of the Christian +religion after His death almost independent as it seems +of the centre of the Church at Jerusalem. Hence His +crossings of the lake, His miracles on the other side, His +retirement in that little understood episode in His life when +He shrank from persecution<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>, and remained secretly in the +parts of Tyre and Sidon, about the coasts of Decapolis, on +the shores of the lake, and in the towns of Caesarea Philippi, +where the traces of His footsteps are even now indicated +by tradition<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>. His success amongst these outlying populations +is proved by the unique assemblage of the crowds +of 5000 and 4000 men besides women and children. What +wonder then if the Church sprang up at Damascus, and +suddenly as if without notice displayed such strength as +to draw persecution upon it! In the same way the Words +of life appear to have passed throughout Syria over congenial +soil, and Antioch became the haven whence the +first great missionaries went out for the conversion of +the world. Such were not only St. Paul, St. Peter, and +St. Barnabas, but also as is not unreasonable to infer +many of that assemblage of Christians at Rome whom +St. Paul enumerates to our surprise in the last chapter +of his Epistle to the Romans. Many no doubt were +friends whom the Apostle of the Gentiles had met in +Greece and elsewhere: but there are reasons to shew that +some at least of them, such as Andronicus and Junias +or Junia<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> and Herodion, may probably have passed along<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> +the stream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and +Rome<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a>, and that this interconnexion between the queen +city of the empire and the emporium of the East may +in great measure account for the number of names well +known to the apostle, and for the then flourishing condition +of the Church which they adorned.</p> + +<p>It has been shewn in our first volume that, as is well +known to all students of Textual Criticism, the chief +amount of corruption is to be found in what is termed the +Western Text; and that the corruption of the West is so +closely akin to the corruption which is found in Syriac +remains, that practically they are included under one head +of classification. What is the reason of this phenomenon? +It is evidently derived from the close commercial alliance +which subsisted between Syria and Italy. That is to say, +the corruption produced in Syria made its way over into +Italy, and there in many instances gathered fresh contributions. +For there is reason to suppose, that it first +arose in Syria.</p> + +<p>We have seen how the Church grew of itself there +without regular teaching from Jerusalem in the first +beginnings, or any regular supervision exercised by the +Apostles. In fact, as far as the Syrian believers in Christ +at first consisted of Gentiles, they must perforce have been +regarded as being outside of the covenant of promise. Yet +there must have been many who revered the stories told +about our Lord, and felt extreme interest and delight in +them. The story of King Abgar illustrates the history: +but amongst those who actually heard our Lord preach +there must have been very many, probably a majority, +who were uneducated. They would easily learn from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> +Jews, because the Aramaic dialects spoken by Hebrews +and Syrians did not greatly differ the one from the other. +What difference there was, would not so much hinder the +spread of the stories, as tend to introduce alien forms of +speech and synonymous words, and so to hinder absolute +accuracy from being maintained. Much time must necessarily +have elapsed, before such familiarity with the genuine +accounts of our Lord's sayings and doings grew up, as +would prevent mistakes being made and disseminated in +telling or in writing.</p> + +<p>The Gospels were certainly not written till some thirty +years after the Ascension. More careful examination seems +to place them later rather than earlier. For myself, +I should suggest that the three first were not published +long before the year 70 <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> at the earliest; and that +St. Matthew's Gospel was written at Pella during the +siege of Jerusalem amidst Greek surroundings, and in face +of the necessity caused by new conditions of life that +Greek should become the ecclesiastical language. The +Gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their +entirety of the stories constituting the Life of our Lord; +and corruption must have come into existence, before the +antidote was found in complete documents accepted and +commissioned by the authorities in the Church.</p> + +<p>I must again remark with much emphasis that the +foregoing suggestions are offered to account for what may +now be regarded as a fact, viz., the connexion between the +Western Text, as it is called, and Syriac remains in +regard to corruption in the text of the Gospels and of +the Acts of the Apostles. If that corruption arose at the +very first spread of Christianity, before the record of our +Lord's Life had assumed permanent shape in the Four +Gospels, all is easy. Such corruption, inasmuch as it beset +the oral and written stories which were afterwards incorporated +in the Gospels, would creep into the authorized<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> +narrations, and would vitiate them till it was ultimately +cast out towards the end of the fourth and in the succeeding +centuries. Starting from the very beginning, and +gaining additions in the several ways described in this +volume by Dean Burgon, it would possess such vigour +as to impress itself on Low-Latin manuscripts and even +on parts of the better Latin ones, perhaps on Tatian's +Diatessaron, on the Curetonian and Lewis manuscripts of +the fifth century, on the Codex Bezae of the sixth; +also on the Vatican and the Sinaitic of the fourth, on +the Dublin Palimpsest of St. Matthew of the sixth, on the +Codex Regius or L of the eighth, on the St. Gall MS. +of the ninth in St. Mark, on the Codex Zacynthius of the +eighth in St. Luke, and a few others. We on our side +admit that the corruption is old even though the manuscripts +enshrining it do not date very far back, and cannot +always prove their ancestry. And it is in this admission +that I venture to think there is an opening for a meeting +of opinions which have been hitherto opposed.</p> + +<p>In the following treatise, the causes of corruption are +divided into (I) such as proceeded from Accident, and +(II) those which were Intentional. Under the former class +we find (1) those which were involved in pure Accident, +or (2) in what is termed Homoeoteleuton where lines or +sentences ended with the same word or the same syllable, +or (3) such as arose in writing from Uncial letters, or (4) in +the confusion of vowels and diphthongs which is called +Itacism, or (5) in Liturgical Influence. The remaining +instances may be conveniently classed as Intentional, +not because in all cases there was a settled determination +to alter the text, for such if any was often of the faintest +character, but because some sort of design was to a +greater or less degree embedded in most of them. Such +causes were (1) Harmonistic Influence, (2) Assimilation, +(3) Attraction; such instances too in their main character<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> +were (4) Omissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions, +(7) Additions, (8) Glosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics, +(10) Corruption by Orthodox.</p> + +<p>This dissection of the mass of corruption, or as perhaps +it may be better termed, this classification made by Dean +Burgon of the numerous causes which are found to have +been at work from time to time, appears to me to be most +interesting to the inquirer into the hidden history of the +Text of the Gospels, because by revealing the influences +which have been at work it sheds light upon the entire +controversy, and often enables the student to see clearly +how and why certain passages around which dispute has +gathered are really corrupt. Indeed, the vast and mysterious +ogre called corruption assumes shape and form under +the acute penetration and the deft handling of the Dean, +whose great knowledge of the subject and orderly treatment +of puzzling details is still more commended by his +interesting style of writing. As far as has been possible, +I have let him in the sequel, except for such clerical +corrections as were required from time to time and have +been much fewer than his facile pen would have made, +speak entirely for himself.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span></p> + +<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> It must be always borne in mind, that it is not enough for the purpose of +the other side to shew that the Traditional Text was in a minority as regards +attestation. They must prove that it was nowhere in the earliest ages, if they +are to establish their position that it was made in the third and fourth centuries. +Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 95.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> +</p> +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">'A hydra in her direful shape,</span> +<span class="i0">With fifty darkling throats agape.'—</span> +</div></div> +<p> +Altered from Conington's version, Aen. vi. 576.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> +</p> +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">'How oft soe'er the truth she tell,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">What's false and wrong she loves too well.'—<br /></span> +</div></div> +<p> +Altered from Conington, Aen. iv. 188.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians, and +Phoenicians.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken in +Palestine in the time of Christ.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> My devoted Syrian friend, Miss Helanie Baroody, told me during her stay +in England that a village is pointed out as having been traversed by our Lord +on His way from Caesarea Philippi to Mount Hermon.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> It is hardly improbable that these two eminent Christians were some of +those whom St Paul found at Antioch when St. Barnabas brought him there, +and thus came to know intimately as fellow-workers (επισημοι εν τοις αποστολοις, +οι και προ εμου γεγονασιν εν Χριστω). Most of the names in Rom. xvi are either +Greek or Hebrew.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> +</p> +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">'Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Et <i>linguam</i> et mores ... vexit.'<br /></span> +</div></div> +<p> +—Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_i" id="chapter_i"></a>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>GENERAL CORRUPTION.</h3> + + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + +<p>We hear sometimes scholars complain, and with a certain +show of reason, that it is discreditable to us as a Church +not to have long since put forth by authority a revised +Greek Text of the New Testament. The chief writers of +antiquity, say they, have been of late years re-edited by +the aid of the best Manuscripts. Why should not the +Scriptures enjoy the same advantage? Men who so speak +evidently misunderstand the question. They assume that +the case of the Scriptures and that of other ancient writings +are similar.</p> + +<p>Such remonstrances are commonly followed up by statements +like the following:—That the received Text is that of +Erasmus:—that it was constructed in haste, and without +skill:—that it is based on a very few, and those bad +Manuscripts:—that it belongs to an age when scarcely any +of our present critical helps were available, and when the +Science of Textual Criticism was unknown. To listen to +these advocates for Revision, you would almost suppose +that it fared with the Gospel at this instant as it had fared +with the original Copy of the Law for many years until the +days of King Josiah<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>.</p> + +<p>Yielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> +New Testament judiciously revised, I freely avow that +recent events have convinced me, and I suppose they have +convinced the public also, that we have not among us the +men to conduct such an undertaking. Better a thousand +times in my judgement to leave things as they are, than to +risk having the stamp of authority set upon such an unfortunate +production as that which appeared on the 17th May, +1881, and which claims at this instant to represent the +combined learning of the Church, the chief Sects, and the +Socinian<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> body.</p> + +<p>Now if the meaning of those who desire to see the +commonly received text of the New Testament made +absolutely faultless, were something of this kind:—That +they are impatient for the collation of the copies which +have become known to us within the last two centuries, and +which amount already in all to upwards of three thousand: +that they are bent on procuring that the ancient Versions +shall be re-edited;—and would hail with delight the +announcement that a band of scholars had combined to +index every place of Scripture quoted by any of the +Fathers:—if this were meant, we should all be entirely at +one; especially if we could further gather from the programme +that a fixed intention was cherished of abiding by +the result of such an appeal to ancient evidence. But +unfortunately something entirely different is in contemplation.</p> + +<p>Now I am bent on calling attention to certain features of +the problem which have very generally escaped attention. +It does not seem to be understood that the Scriptures of +the New Testament stand on an entirely different footing +from every other ancient writing which can be named. +A few plain remarks ought to bring this fact, for a fact it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> +is, home to every thoughtful person. And the result will +be that men will approach the subject with more caution,—with +doubts and misgivings,—with a fixed determination to +be on their guard against any form of plausible influence. +Their prejudices they will scatter to the winds. At every +step they will insist on proof.</p> + +<p>In the first place, then, let it be observed that the New +Testament Scriptures are wholly without a parallel in +respect of their having been so frequently multiplied from +the very first. They are by consequence contained at this +day in an extravagantly large number of copies [probably, +if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts +and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evangelistaries, +and Apostolos, exceeding the number of four +thousand]. There is nothing like this, or at all approaching +to it, in the case of any profane writing that can be named<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a>.</p> + +<p>And the very necessity for multiplying copies,—a necessity +which has made itself felt in every age and in every +clime,—has perforce resulted in an immense number of +variants. Words have been inevitably dropped,—vowels +have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or +less competent:—and the meaning of Scripture in countless +places has suffered to a surprising degree in consequence. +This first.</p> + +<p>But then further, the Scriptures for the very reason +because they were known to be the Word of God became +a mark for the shafts of Satan from the beginning. They +were by consequence as eagerly solicited by heretical +teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by +the orthodox on the other. Alike from friends and from +foes therefore, they are known to have experienced injury, +and that in the earliest age of all. Nothing of the kind +can be predicated of any other ancient writings. This<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> +consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of +judicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence +of whatever sort.</p> + +<p>For I request it may be observed that I have not said—and +I certainly do not mean—that the Scriptures themselves +have been permanently corrupted either by friend +or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, and was contradicted +by other error: besides that it sank eventually before +a manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain +manuscripts belonging to a few small groups—particular +copies of a Version—individual Fathers or Doctors of the +Church,—these do, to the present hour, bear traces incontestably +of ancient mischief.</p> + +<p>But what goes before is not nearly all. The fourfold +structure of the Gospel has lent itself to a certain kind of +licentious handling—of which in other ancient writings we +have no experience. One critical owner of a Codex considered +himself at liberty to assimilate the narratives: +another to correct them in order to bring them into (what +seemed to himself) greater harmony. Brevity is found to +have been a paramount object with some, and Transposition +to have amounted to a passion with others. Conjectural +Criticism was evidently practised largely: and almost with +as little felicity as when Bentley held the pen. Lastly, +there can be no question that there was a certain school of +Critics who considered themselves competent to improve +the style of the <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span> throughout. [And before the +members of the Church had gained a familiar acquaintance +with the words of the New Testament, blunders continually +crept into the text of more or less heinous importance.] All +this, which was chiefly done during the second and third +centuries, introduces an element of difficulty in the handling +of ancient evidence which can never be safely neglected: +and will make a thoughtful man suspicious of every various +reading which comes in his way, especially if it is attended<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> +with but slender attestation. [It has been already shewn +in the companion volume] that the names of the Codexes +chiefly vitiated in this sort prove to be B[Symbol: Aleph]CDL; of the +Versions,—the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain +specimens of the Old Latin; of the Fathers,—Origen, +Clement of Alexandria, and to some extent Eusebius.</p> + +<p>Add to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter +of the New Testament Scriptures, and it will become +abundantly plain why they should have been liable to +a series of assaults which make it reasonable that they +should now at last be approached by ourselves as no other +ancient writings are, or can be. The nature of <span class="smcap">God</span>,—His +Being and Attributes:—the history of Man's Redemption:—the +soul's eternal destiny:—the mysteries of the unseen +world:—concerning these and every other similar high +doctrinal subject, the sacred writings alone speak with +a voice of absolute authority. And surely by this time +enough has been said to explain why these Scriptures +should have been made a battle-field during some centuries, +and especially in the fourth; and having thus been made +the subject of strenuous contention, that copies of them +should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverse +influences. I say it for the last time,—of all such causes of +depravation the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers, +Historians, neither knew nor could know anything. And +it thus plainly appears that the Textual Criticism of the +New Testament is to be handled by ourselves in an entirely +different spirit from that of any other book.</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>I wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of +the Text of the New Testament. I do not entitle the +present a discussion of 'Various Readings,' because I consider +that expression to be incorrect and misleading<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> +Freely allowing that the term 'variae lectiones,' for lack of +a better, may be allowed to stand on the Critic's page, +I yet think it necessary even a second time to call attention +to the impropriety which attends its use. Thus Codex B +differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture +in the Gospels alone in 7578 places; of which no less than +2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissions constitute +by far the larger number of what are commonly called +'Various Readings.' How then can those be called 'various +readings' which are really not readings at all? How, for +example, can that be said to be a 'various reading' of +St. Mark xvi. 9-20, which consists in the circumstance that +the last 12 verses are left out by two MSS.? Again,—How +can it be called a 'various reading' of St. John xxi. +25, to bring the Gospel abruptly to a close, as Tischendorf +does, at v. 24? These are really nothing else but indications +either of a mutilated or else an interpolated text. +And the question to be resolved is,—On which side does +the corruption lie? and, How did it originate?</p> + +<p>Waiving this however, the term is objectionable on other +grounds. It is to beg the whole question to assume that +every irregularity in the text of Scripture is a 'various +reading.' The very expression carries with it an assertion +of importance; at least it implies a claim to consideration. +Even might it be thought that, because it is termed +a 'various reading,' therefore a critic is entitled to call in +question the commonly received text. Whereas, nine +divergences out of ten are of no manner of significance and +are entitled to no manner of consideration, as every one +must see at a glance who will attend to the matter ever so +little. 'Various readings' in fact is a term which belongs +of right to the criticism of the text of profane authors: +and, like many other notions which have been imported +from the same region into this department of inquiry, it +only tends to confuse and perplex the judgement.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p> + +<p>No variety in the Text of Scripture can properly be +called a 'various reading,' of which it may be safely declared +that it never has been, and never will be, read. In the +case of profane authors, where the MSS. are for the most +part exceedingly few, almost every plausible substitution of +one word for another, if really entitled to alteration, is +looked upon as a various reading of the text. But in the +Gospels, of which the copies are so numerous as has been +said, the case is far otherwise. We are there able to +convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed 'various +reading' is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness or +inattention on the part of a previous scribe or scribes, and +we can afford to neglect it accordingly<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>. It follows therefore,—and +this is the point to which I desire to bring the +reader and to urge upon his consideration,—that the number +of 'various readings' in the New Testament properly so +called has been greatly exaggerated. They are, in reality, +exceedingly few in number; and it is to be expected that, +as sound (sacred) Criticism advances, and principles are +established, and conclusions recognized, instead of becoming +multiplied they will become fewer and fewer, and at last +will entirely disappear. We cannot afford to go on disputing +for ever; and what is declared by common consent +to be untenable ought to be no longer reckoned. That +only in short, as I venture to think, deserves the name of +a Various Reading which comes to us so respectably +recommended as to be entitled to our sincere consideration +and respect; or, better still, which is of such a kind as to +inspire some degree of reasonable suspicion that after all it +may prove to be the true way of exhibiting the text.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p> +<p>The inquiry therefore on which we are about to engage, +grows naturally out of the considerations which have been +already offered. We propose to ascertain, as far as is +practicable at the end of so many hundred years, in what +way these many strange corruptions of the text have +arisen. Very often we shall only have to inquire how it +has come to pass that the text exhibits signs of perturbation +at a certain place. Such disquisitions as those which +follow, let it never be forgotten, have no place in reviewing +any other text than that of the New Testament, because +a few plain principles would suffice to solve every difficulty. +The less usual word mistaken for the word of more frequent +occurrence;—clerical carelessness;—a gloss finding its way +from the margin into the text;—- such explanations as these +would probably in other cases suffice to account for every +ascertained corruption of the text. But it is far otherwise +here, as I propose to make fully apparent by and by. +Various disturbing influences have been at work for a great +many years, of which secular productions know absolutely +nothing, nor indeed can know.</p> + +<p>The importance of such an inquiry will become apparent +as we proceed; but it may be convenient that I should call +attention to the matter briefly at the outset. It frequently +happens that the one remaining plea of many critics for +adopting readings of a certain kind, is the inexplicable +nature of the phenomena which these readings exhibit. +'How will you possibly account for such a reading as the +present,' (say they,) 'if it be not authentic?' Or they say +nothing, but leave it to be inferred that the reading they +adopt,—in spite of its intrinsic improbability, in spite also +of the slender amount of evidence on which it rests,—must +needs be accepted as true. They lose sight of the correlative +difficulty:—How comes it to pass that the rest of the +copies read the place otherwise? On all such occasions it +is impossible to overestimate the importance of detecting<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> +the particular cause which has brought about, or which at +least will fully account for, this depravation. When this +has been done, it is hardly too much to say that a case +presents itself like as when a pasteboard mask has been +torn away, and the ghost is discovered with a broad grin +on his face behind it.</p> + +<p>The discussion on which I now enter is then on the Causes +of the various Corruptions of the Text. [The reader shall +be shewn with illustrations to what particular source they +are to be severally ascribed. When representative passages +have been thus labelled, and the causes are seen in operation, +he will be able to pierce the mystery, and all the better +to winnow the evil from among the good.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>When I take into my hands an ancient copy of the +Gospels, I expect that it will exhibit sundry inaccuracies +and imperfections: and I am never disappointed in my +expectation. The discovery however creates no uneasiness, +so long as the phenomena evolved are of a certain kind +and range within easily definable limits. Thus:—</p> + +<p>1. Whatever belongs to peculiarities of spelling or fashions +of writing, I can afford to disregard. For example, it is +clearly consistent with perfect good faith, that a scribe +should spell κραβαττον<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> in several different ways: that he +should write ουτω for ουτωσ, or the contrary: that he should +add or omit what grammarians call the ν εφελκυστικον. +The questions really touched by irregularities such as these +concern the date and country where the MS. was produced; +not by any means the honesty or animus of the copyist. +The man fell into the method which was natural to him, +or which he found prevailing around him; and that was all.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> +'Itacisms' therefore, as they are called, of whatever kind,—by +which is meant the interchange of such vowels and +diphthongs as ι-ει, αι-ε, η-ι, η-οι-υ, ο-ω, η-ει,—need excite +no uneasiness. It is true that these variations may occasionally +result in very considerable inconvenience: for +it will sometimes happen that a different reading is the +consequence. But the copyist may have done his work in +perfect good faith for all that. It is not he who is responsible +for the perplexity he occasions me, but the language +and the imperfect customs amidst which he wrote.</p> + +<p>2. In like manner the reduplication of syllables, words, +clauses, sentences, is consistent with entire sincerity of +purpose on the part of the copyist. This inaccuracy is +often to be deplored; inasmuch as a reduplicated syllable +often really affects the sense. But for the most part +nothing worse ensues than that the page is disfigured +with errata.</p> + +<p>3. So, on the other hand,—the occasional omission of +words, whether few or many,—especially that passing from +one line to the corresponding place in a subsequent line, +which generally results from the proximity of a similar +ending,—is a purely venial offence. It is an evidence of +carelessness, but it proves nothing worse.</p> + +<p>4. Then further,—slight inversions, especially of ordinary +words; or the adoption of some more obvious and familiar +collocation of particles in a sentence; or again, the occasional +substitution of one common word for another, +as ειπε for ελεγε, φωνησαν for κραξαν, +and the like;—need +not provoke resentment. It is an indication, we are willing +to hope, of nothing worse than slovenliness on the part +of the writer or the group or succession of writers.</p> + +<p>5. I will add that besides the substitution of one word +for another, cases frequently occur, where even the introduction +into the text of one or more words which cannot +be thought to have stood in the original autograph of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> +Evangelist, need create no offence. It is often possible +to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way.</p> + +<p>But it is high time to point out, that irregularities which +fall under these last heads are only tolerable within narrow +limits, and always require careful watching; for they may +easily become excessive or even betray an animus; and +in either case they pass at once into quite a different +category. From cases of excusable oscitancy they degenerate, +either into instances of inexcusable licentiousness, +or else into cases of downright fraud.</p> + +<p>6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex +(<i>a</i>) that entire sentences or significant clauses are habitually +omitted:—(<i>b</i>) that again and again in the course of the +same page the phraseology of the Evangelist has upon +clear evidence been seriously tampered with: and (<i>c</i>) that +interpolations here and there occur which will not admit +of loyal interpretation:—we cannot but learn to regard +with habitual distrust the Codex in which all these notes +are found combined. It is as when a witness, whom we +suspected of nothing worse than a bad memory or a random +tongue or a lively imagination, has been at last convicted +of deliberate suppression of parts of his evidence, misrepresentation +of facts,—in fact, deliberate falsehood.</p> + +<p>7. But now suppose the case of a MS. in which words +or clauses are clearly omitted with design; where expressions +are withheld which are confessedly harsh or +critically difficult,—whole sentences or parts of them +which have a known controversial bearing;—Suppose further +that the same MS. abounds in worthless paraphrase, +and contains apocryphal additions throughout:—What are +we to think of our guide then? There can be but one +opinion on the subject. From habitually trusting, we +shall entertain inveterate distrust. We have ascertained +his character. We thought he was a faithful witness, but +we now find from experience of his transgressions that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> +we have fallen into bad company. His witness may be +false no less than true: confidence is at an end.</p> + + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>It may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations +discoverable in Codexes of the Sacred Text have +arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency +of the scribes. That such was the case in a vast number +of cases is in fact demonstrable. [Inaccuracy in the apprehension +of the Divine Word, which in the earliest ages +was imperfectly understood, and ignorance of Greek in +primitive Latin translators, were prolific sources of error. +The influence of Lectionaries, in which Holy Scripture +was cut up into separate Lections either with or without +an introduction, remained with habitual hearers, and led +them off in copying to paths which had become familiar. +Acquaintance with 'Harmonies' or Diatessarons caused +copyists insensibly to assimilate one Gospel to another. +And doctrinal predilections, as in the case of those who +belonged to the Origenistic school, were the source of +lapsing into expressions which were not the <i>verba ipsissima</i> +of Holy Writ. In such cases, when the inadvertency was +genuine and was unmingled with any overt design, it is +much to be noted that the error seldom propagated itself +extensively.]</p> + +<p>But next, well-meant endeavours must have been made +at a very early period 'to rectify' (διορθουν) the text thus unintentionally +corrupted; and so, what began in inadvertence +is sometimes found in the end to exhibit traces of design, +and often becomes in a high degree perplexing. Thus, +to cite a favourite example, it is clear to me that in the +earliest age of all (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 100?) some copyist of St. Luke ii. 14 +(call him X) inadvertently omitted the second εν in the +Angelic Hymn. Now if the persons (call them Y and Z) +whose business it became in turn to reproduce the early<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> +copy thus inadvertently depraved, had but been content +both of them to transcribe exactly what they saw before +them, the error of their immediate predecessor (X) must +infallibly have speedily been detected, remedied, and forgotten,—simply +because, as every one must have seen +as well as Y and Z, it was impossible to translate the +sentence which results,—επι γης ειρηνη ανθρωποις ευδοκια. +Reference would have been made to any other copy of +the third Gospel, and together with the omitted preposition +(εν) sense would have been restored to the passage. But +unhappily one of the two supposed Copyists being a learned +grammarian who had no other copy at hand to refer to, +undertook, good man that he was, <i>proprio Marte</i> to force +a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy +before him: and he did it by affixing to ευδοκια the sign +of the genitive case (σ). Unhappy effort of misplaced +skill! That copy [or those copies] became the immediate +progenitor [or progenitors] of a large family,—from which +all the Latin copies are descended; whereby it comes to +pass that Latin Christendom sings the Hymn 'Gloria in +excelsis' incorrectly to the present hour, and may possibly +sing it incorrectly to the end of time. The error committed +by that same venerable Copyist survives in the four oldest +copies of the passage extant, B* and [Symbol: Aleph]*, A and D,—though +happily in no others,—in the Old Latin, Vulgate, +and Gothic, alone of Versions; in Irenaeus and Origen +(who contradict themselves), and in the Latin Fathers. +All the Greek authorities, with the few exceptions just +recorded, of which A and D are the only consistent +witnesses, unite in condemning the evident blunder<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span></p> +<p>I once hoped that it might be possible to refer all the +Corruptions of the Text of Scripture to ordinary causes: +as, careless transcription,—divers accidents,—misplaced +critical assiduity,—doctrinal animus,—small acts of unpardonable +licence.</p> + +<p>But increased attention and enlarged acquaintance with +the subject, have convinced me that by far the larger +number of the omissions of such Codexes as [Symbol: Aleph]BLD must +needs be due to quite a different cause. These MSS. omit +so many words, phrases, sentences, verses of Scripture,—that +it is altogether incredible that the proximity of +like endings can have much to do with the matter. +Inadvertency may be made to bear the blame of some +omissions: it cannot bear the blame of shrewd and significant +omissions of clauses, which invariably leave the +sense complete. A systematic and perpetual mutilation +of the inspired Text must needs be the result of design, +not of accident<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a>.</p> + +<p>[It will be seen therefore that the causes of the Corruptions +of the Text class themselves under two main +heads, viz. (I.) Those which arose from Inadvertency, and +(II.) Those which took their origin in Design.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> 2 Kings xxii. 8 = 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> [This name is used for want of a better. Churchmen are Unitarians as well +as Trinitarians. The two names in combination express our Faith. We dare +not alienate either of them.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller), p. 21, +note 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> See Traditional Text, chapter ii, § 6, p. 33.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> [Perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into two classes, +viz. (1) such as really have strong evidence for their support, and require +examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt; and (2) those +which afford no doubt as to their being destitute of foundation, and are only +interesting as specimens of the modes in which error was sometimes introduced. +Evidently, the latter class are not 'various' at all.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> [I.e. generally κραβαττον, or else κραβατον, +or even κραβακτον; seldom +found as κραββαττον, or spelt in the corrupt form κραββατον.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> I am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeeding that of the +Apostles, some person or persons of great influence and authority executed +a Revision of the N.T. and gave the world the result of such labours in +a 'corrected Text.' The guiding principle seems to have been to seek to +<i>abridge</i> the Text, to lop off whatever seemed redundant, or which might in any +way be spared, and to eliminate from one Gospel whatever expressions occurred +elsewhere in another Gospel. Clauses which slightly obscured the speaker's +meaning; or which seemed to hang loose at the end of a sentence; or which +introduced a consideration of difficulty:—words which interfered with the easy +flow of a sentence:—every thing of this kind such a personage seems to have held +himself free to discard. But what is more serious, passages which occasioned +some difficulty, as the <i>pericope de adultera</i>; physical perplexity, as the troubling +of the water; spiritual revulsion, as the agony in the garden:—all these the reviser +or revisers seem to have judged it safest simply to eliminate. It is difficult +to understand how any persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred +deposit; but it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period there +were found some who did act in some such way. Let it be observed, however, +that unlike some critics I do not base my real argument upon what appears +to me to be a not unlikely supposition.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption, as +described in The Traditional Text.]</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_ii" id="chapter_ii"></a>CHAPTER II.</h2> + +<h3>ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.</h3> + +<h3>I. Pure Accident.</h3> + +<p>[It often happens that more causes than one are combined +in the origin of the corruption in any one passage. +In the following history of a blunder and of the fatal +consequences that ensued upon it, only the first step was +accidental. But much instruction may be derived from the +initial blunder, and though the later stages in the history +come under another head, they nevertheless illustrate the +effects of early accident, besides throwing light upon parts +of the discussion which are yet to come.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + +<p>We are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress +of accidental depravations of the text: and the study is as +instructive as it is interesting. Let me invite attention to +what is found in St. John x. 29; where,—instead of, 'My +Father, who hath given them [viz. My sheep] to Me, is +greater than all,'—Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, are for +reading, 'That thing which My (<i>or</i> the) Father hath given +to Me is greater (i.e. is a greater thing) than all.' A vastly +different proposition, truly; and, whatever it may mean, +wholly inadmissible here, as the context proves. It has +been the result of sheer accident moreover,—as I proceed +to explain.</p> + +<p>St. John certainly wrote the familiar words,—'ο πατηρ μου<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> +ος δεδωκε μοι, μειζων παντων εστι. But, with the licentiousness +[or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, +some remote copyist is found to have substituted for 'οσ +δεδωκε, its grammatical equivalent 'ο δεδωκως. And this +proved fatal; for it was only necessary that another scribe +should substitute μειζον for μειζων (after the example of +such places as St. Matt. xii. 6, 41, 42, &c.), and thus the +door had been opened to at least four distinct deflections +from the evangelical verity,—which straightway found +their way into manuscripts:—(1) ο δεδωκως ... μειζων—of +which reading at this day D is the sole representative: +(2) ος δεδωκε ... μειζον—which survives only in AX: +(3) ο δεδωκε ... μειζων—which is only found in [Symbol: Aleph]L: +(4) ο δεδωκε ... μειζον—which is the peculiar property +of B. The 1st and 2nd of these sufficiently represent the +Evangelist's meaning, though neither of them is what he +actually wrote; but the 3rd is untranslatable: while the 4th +is nothing else but a desperate attempt to force a meaning +into the 3rd, by writing μειζον for μειζων; treating ο not +as the article but as the neuter of the relative ος.</p> + +<p>This last exhibition of the text, which in fact scarcely +yields an intelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum +of manuscript evidence, would long since have been forgotten, +but that, calamitously for the Western Church, its +Version of the New Testament Scriptures was executed +from MSS. of the same vicious type as Cod. B<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a>. Accordingly, +all the Latin copies, and therefore all the Latin +Fathers<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a>, translate,—'Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus +omnibus est<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a>.' The Westerns resolutely extracted a meaning +from whatever they presumed to be genuine Scripture:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> +and one can but admire the piety which insists on finding +sound Divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else +but a sorry blunder. What, asks Augustine, was 'the +thing, greater than all,' which the Father gave to the <span class="smcap">Son</span>? +To be the Word of the Father (he answers), His only-begotten +Son and the brightness of His glory<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a>. The Greeks +knew better. Basil<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a>, Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a>, Cyril on nine occasions<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a>, +Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a>—as many as quote the place—invariably +exhibit the <i>textus receptus</i> ως ... μειζων, which is obviously +the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation.</p> + +<p>'But,'—I shall perhaps be asked,—'although Patristic and +manuscript evidence are wanting for the reading ο δεδωκε +μοι ... μειζων,—is it not a significant circumstance that +three translations of such high antiquity as the Latin, the +Bohairic, and the Gothic, should concur in supporting it? +and does it not inspire extraordinary confidence in B to +find that B alone of MSS. agrees with them?' To which +I answer,—It makes me, on the contrary, more and more +distrustful of the Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic +versions to find them exclusively siding with Cod. B on +such an occasion as the present. It is obviously not more +'significant' that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, +should here conspire with—than that the Syriac, the Sahidic, +and the Ethiopic, should here combine against B. On the +other hand, how utterly insignificant is the testimony of B +when opposed to all the uncials, all the cursives, and all the +Greek fathers who quote the place. So far from inspiring +me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatal +sympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which +confessedly many of the Old Latin were executed, confirms<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> +me in my habitual distrust of it. About the true reading +of St. John x. 29, there really exists no manner of doubt. +As for the 'old uncials' they are (as usual) hopelessly at +variance on the subject. In an easy sentence of only +9 words,—which however Tischendorf exhibits in conformity +with no known Codex, while Tregelles and Alford blindly +follow Cod. B,—they have contrived to invent five 'various +readings,' as may be seen at foot<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a>. Shall we wonder more +at the badness of the Codexes to which we are just now +invited to pin our faith; or at the infatuation of our guides?</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>I do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to +grave disturbances of the Text which have resulted from +a slight clerical error. While we are enumerating the +various causes of Textual depravity, we may not fail to +specify this. Once trace a serious Textual disturbance +back to (what for convenience may be called) a 'clerical +error,' and you are supplied with an effectual answer to +a form of inquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing: +viz. If the true meaning of this passage be what you suppose, +for what conceivable reason should the scribe have +misrepresented it in this strange way,—made nonsense, in +short, of the place?... I will further remark, that it is +always interesting, sometimes instructive, after detecting +the remote origin of an ancient blunder, to note what has +been its subsequent history and progress.</p> + +<p>Some specimens of the thing referred to I have already +given in another place. The reader is invited to acquaint +himself with the strange process by which the '276 souls' +who suffered shipwreck with St. Paul (Acts xxvii. 37), +have since dwindled down to 'about 76<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>.'—He is further<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> +requested to note how 'a certain man' who in the time of +St. Paul bore the name of 'Justus' (Acts xviii. 7), has been +since transformed into '<i>Titus</i>,' '<i>Titus Justus</i>,' and even +'<i>Titius Justus</i><a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>.'—But for a far sadder travestie of sacred +words, the reader is referred to what has happened in +St. Matt. xi. 23 and St. Luke x. 15,—where our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> +is made to ask an unmeaning question—instead of being +permitted to announce a solemn fact—concerning Capernaum<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a>.—The +newly-discovered ancient name of the Island +of Malta, <i>Melitene</i><a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a>, (for which geographers are indebted to +the adventurous spirit of Westcott and Hort), may also be +profitably considered in connexion with what is to be the +subject of the present chapter. And now to break up fresh +ground.</p> + +<p>Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in +Acts xx. 24. It is but the change of a single letter (λογοΥ +for λογοΝ), yet has that minute deflection from the truth led +to a complete mangling of the most affecting perhaps of +St. Paul's utterances. I refer to the famous words αλλ' +ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι, ουδε εχω την ψυχην μου τιμιαν εμαυτω, +'ως τελειωσαι τον δρομον μου μετα χαρας: excellently, because +idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of 1611,—'But +none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear +unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.'</p> + +<p>For ουδενος λοΓΟΝ, (the accusative after ποιουμαι), some +one having substituted ουδενος λοΓΟΥ,—a reading which +survives to this hour in B and C<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a>,—it became necessary to +find something else for the verb to govern. Την ψυχην was +at hand, but ουδε εχω stood in the way. Ουδε εχω must +therefore go<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a>; and go it did,—as B, C, and [Symbol: Aleph] remain to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> +attest. Τιμιαν should have gone also, if the sentence was +to be made translatable; but τιμιαν was left behind<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a>. The +authors of ancient embroilments of the text were sad +bunglers. In the meantime, Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] inadvertently retained +St. Luke's word, ΛΟΓΟΝ; and because [Symbol: Aleph] here follows B in +every other respect, it exhibits a text which is simply +unintelligible<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>.</p> + +<p>Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words +ουδε εχο την ψυχην μου τιμιαν εμαυτω, may on no account be +surrendered. It is indeed beyond the reach of suspicion, +being found in Codd. A, D, E, H, L, P, 13, 31,—in fact in +every known copy of the Acts, except the discordant [Symbol: Aleph]BC. +The clause in question is further witnessed to by the +Vulgate<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a>,—by the Harkleian<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>,—by Basil<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>,—by Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a>,—by +Cyril<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a>,—by Euthalius<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a>,—and by the interpolator<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> +of Ignatius<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a>. What are we to think of our guides (Tischendorf, +Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who +have nevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and +presented us instead with what Dr. Field,—who is indeed +a Master in Israel,—describes as the impossible αλλ' ουδενος +λογου ποιουμαι την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>?</p> + +<p>The words of the last-named eminent scholar on the +reading just cited are so valuable in themselves, and are +observed to be so often in point, that they shall find place +here:—'Modern Critics,' he says, 'in deference to the +authority of the older MSS., and to certain critical canons +which prescribe that preference should be given to the +shorter and more difficult reading over the longer and +easier one, have decided that the T.R. in this passage +is to be replaced by that which is contained in those +older MSS.</p> + +<p>'In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term +seems hardly applicable to the present case. A difficult +reading is one which presents something apparently incongruous +in the sense, or anomalous in the construction, which +an ignorant or half-learned copyist would endeavour, by +the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, to remove; +but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation, +and a comparison of similar cases, to defend against all +such fancied improvements. In the reading before us, αλλ' +ουδενος λογου ποιουμαι την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω, it is the construction, +and not the sense, which is in question; and this +is not simply difficult, but impossible. There is really no +way of getting over it; it baffles novices and experts alike<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a>.' +When will men believe that a reading vouched for by only<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> +B[Symbol: Aleph]C is safe to be a fabrication<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a>? But at least when Copies +and Fathers combine, as here they do, against those three +copies, what can justify critics in upholding a text which +carries on its face its own condemnation?</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>We now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten +Ist or IInd century scribes who, beguiled by the +similarity of the letters ΕΝ and ΑΝ (in the expression +ΕΝΑΝθρωποις +ευδοκια, St. Luke ii. 14), left out the preposition. +An unintelligible clause was the consequence, as has been +explained above (p. 21): which some one next sought to +remedy by adding to ευδοκια the sign of the genitive (Σ). +Thus the Old Latin translations were made.</p> + +<p>That this is the true history of a blunder which the latest +Editors of the New Testament have mistaken for genuine +Gospel, is I submit certain<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a>. Most Latin copies (except 14<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a>) +exhibit 'pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,' as well as many +Latin Fathers<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a>. On the other hand, the preposition ΕΝ is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> +retained in every known Greek copy of St. Luke without +exception, while the reading ευδοκιας is absolutely limited +to the four uncials AB[Symbol: Aleph]D. The witness of antiquity on +this head is thus overwhelming and decisive.</p> + + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,—is discoverable. +Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) certainly +wrote 'ενα δεσμιον, ΟΝΠΕΡ ητουντο, the scribe of Δ, +who evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in +uncial letters is found to have divided the Evangelist's +syllables wrongly, and to exhibit in this place ΟΝ.ΠΕΡΗΤΟΥΝΤΟ. +The consequence might have been predicted. +[Symbol: Aleph]AB transform this into ΟΝ ΠΑΡΗΤΟΥΝΤΟ: which accordingly +is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by +Westcott and Hort.</p> + +<p>Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can +possibly be mistaken for the first syllable of the next, or +<i>vice versa</i>, it is safe sooner or later to have misled somebody. +Thus, we are not at all surprised to find St. Mark's +'α παρελαβον (vii. 4) transformed into 'απερ ελαβον, but +only by B.</p> + +<p>[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is +supplied by the substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of της +θυγατρος αυτου 'Ηρωδιαδος for της θυγατρος αυτης της 'Ηρωδιαδος. +Here a first copyist left out της as being a repetition +of the last syllable of αυτησ, and afterwards a second attempted +to improve the Greek by putting the masculine +pronoun for the feminine (ΑΥΤΟΥ for ΑΥΤΗΣ). The consequence +was hardly to have been foreseen.]</p> + +<p>Strange to say it results in the following monstrous +figment:—that the fruit of Herod's incestuous connexion +with Herodias had been a daughter, who was also named<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> +Herodias; and that she,—the King's own daughter,—was +the immodest one<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> who came in and danced before him, +'his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee,' as +they sat at the birthday banquet. Probability, natural +feeling, the obvious requirements of the narrative, History +itself—, for Josephus expressly informs us that 'Salome,' +not 'Herodias,' was the name of Herodias' daughter<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>,—all +reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the truth. But +what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settles the +question, is the testimony of the MSS.,—of which only +seven ([Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ with two cursive copies) can be found to +exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading +ΑΥΤΟΥ is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, +Tischendorf and Alford. It has nevertheless found favour +with Dr. Hort; and it has even been thrust into the margin +of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, as a reading +having some probability.</p> + +<p>This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of +accidental errors—another proof that [Symbol: Aleph]BDL cannot be +trusted.</p> + +<p>Sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present +erroneous reading was brought to perfection. The immediate +proximity in MSS. of the selfsame combination +of letters is observed invariably to result in a various +reading. ΑΥΤΗΣΤΗΣ was safe to part with its second +ΤΗΣ on the first opportunity, and the definitive article +(της) once lost, the substitution of ΑΥΤΟΥ for ΑΥΤΗΣ +is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directed intelligence +would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing +sufficient attention on the subject to be aware that the +person spoken of in verses 20 and 21 is Herod the King.</p> + +<p>[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near +together was a frequent source of error. Copying has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> +always a tendency to become mechanical: and when the +mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his monotonous toil, +as well as if it became too active, the sacred Text suffered +more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the +seed of serious depravation.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 5.</h3> + +<p>Another interesting and instructive instance of error +originating in sheer accident, is supplied by the reading +in certain MSS. of St. Mark viii. 1. That the Evangelist +wrote παμπολλου οχλου 'the multitude being very great,' +is certain. This is the reading of all the uncials but eight, +of all the cursives but fifteen. But instead of this, it has +been proposed that we should read, 'when there was +again a great multitude,' the plain fact being that some +ancient scribe mistook, as he easily might, the less usual +compound word for what was to himself a far more +familiar expression: i.e. he mistook ΠΑΜΠΟΛΛΟΥ for +ΠΑΛΙΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΥ.</p> + +<p>This blunder must date from the second century, for +'iterum' is met with in the Old Latin as well as in the +Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic, and some other versions. +On the other hand, it is against 'every true principle of +Textual Criticism' (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that the +more difficult expression should be abandoned for the +easier, when forty-nine out of every fifty MSS. are observed +to uphold it; when the oldest version of all, the +Syriac, is on the same side; when the source of the mistake +is patent; and when the rarer word is observed to be in +St. Mark's peculiar manner. There could be in fact no +hesitation on this subject, if the opposition had not been +headed by those notorious false witnesses [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, which +it is just now the fashion to uphold at all hazards. They +happen to be supported on this occasion by GMNΔ and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> +fifteen cursives: while two other cursives look both ways +and exhibit παλιν παμπολλου.</p> + +<p>In St Mark vii. 14, παλιν was similarly misread by some +copyists for παντα, and has been preserved by [Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ +(ΠΑΛΙΝ for ΠΑΝΤΑ) against thirteen uncials, all the +cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian.</p> + +<p>So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads δυνασαι μοι by +an evident slip of the pen for δυναμαι σοι. And in xix. 31 +μεγαλΗ Η Ημερα has become μεγαλη 'ημερα in [Symbol: Aleph]AEΓ and +some cursive copies.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th ed.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 <i>bis</i>): +Hilary (930 <i>bis</i>, +1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii^2. 615): Maximinus, an Arian bishop +(<i>ap</i>. Aug. viii. 651).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Pater (<i>or</i> Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (<i>or</i> mihi dedit), +majus omnibus est +(<i>or</i> majus est omnibus: <i>or</i> omnibus majus est).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> iii^2. 615. He begins, '<i>Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut ipsi ille +esset unigenitus Filius</i>.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> i. 236.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> viii. 363 <i>bis</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> i. 188: ii. 567: iii. 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): +v^1. 326, 577, 578: <i>ap.</i> Mai +ii. 13: iii. 336.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> v. 1065 (=Dial<sup>Maced</sup> <i>ap.</i> Athanas. ii. 555).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Viz. + μου ABD:—μου [Symbol: Aleph] +| ος A: ο B[Symbol: Aleph]D +| δεδωκεν B[Symbol: Aleph]A: δεδωκωσ +| μειζων [Symbol: Aleph]D: μειζον AB +| μειζ. παντων εστιν A: παντων μειζ. εστιν B[Symbol: Aleph]D.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> The Revision Revised, p. 51-3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> The Revision Revised, p. 53-4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Ibid. p. 51-6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Ibid. p. 177-8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> +Also in Ammonius the presbyter, <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 458—see Cramer's Cat. p. 334-5, +<i>last line</i>. Λογου is read besides in the cursives Act. 36, 96, 105.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in 1875—'The +real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T.R. is, that if the +words ουδε εχω had once formed a part of the original text, +there is no possibility +of accounting for the subsequent omission of them.' The same remark, but considerably +toned down, is found in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. iii, p. 84.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> B and C read—αλλ' ουδενος λογου ποιουμαι την ψυχην εμαυτω: which +is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,—'<i>sed pro nihilo aestimo animam +meam caram esse mihi</i>' (Galland. vi. 241).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> [Symbol: Aleph] reads—αλλ' ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω 'ως τελειωσω +τον δρομον μου.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> '<i>Sed nihil horum</i> (τουτων is found in many Greek Codd.) +<i>vereor, nee facio +animam meam pretiosiorem quam me</i>.' So, the <i>Cod. Amiat.</i> It is evident +then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes '<i>nec facio animam meam cariorem +mihi</i>,' he is quoting the latter of these two clauses. Augustine (iii<sup>1</sup>. 516), when +he cites the place thus, '<i>Non enim facto animam meam preliosiorem quam me</i>'; +and elsewhere (iv. 268) '<i>pretiosam mihi</i>'; also Origen (<i>interp.</i> iv. 628 c), '<i>sed +ego non facto cariorem animam meam mihi</i>'; and even the Coptic, '<i>sed anima +mea, dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo</i>':—these evidently summarize +the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the second clause. The +Latin of D exhibits '<i>Sed nihil horum cura est mihi: neque habeo ipsam animam +caram mihi</i>.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> +Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized—αλλ' ουδενα λογον ποιουμαι, +ουδε λελογισται μοι ψυχη τι τιμιον.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> ii. 296 e,—exactly as the T.R.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> +Exactly as the T.R., except that he writes την ψυχην without +μου (ix. 332). +So again, further on (334 b), ουκ εχω τιμιαν την εμαυτου ψυχην. This latter +place is quoted in Cramer's Cat. 334.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> +<i>Ap.</i> Mai ii. 336 εδει και της ζωης καταφρονειν 'υπερ του τελειωσαι τον +δρομον, ουδε την ψυχην εφη ποιειωσαι τιμιαν 'εαυτω.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> +λογον εχω, ουδε ποιουμαι την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω, ωστε κ.τ.λ. (<i>ap.</i> +Galland. x. 222).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> +αλλ' ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι των δεινων, ουδε εχω την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω. +Epist. ad Tars. c. 1 (Dressel, p. 255).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> The whole of Dr. Field's learned annotation deserves to be carefully read +and pondered. I speak of it especially in the shape in which it originally +appeared, viz. in 1875.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Ibid. p. 2 and 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at the hands +of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words ποιουμαι +and εχω have +been made to change places. The latter Codex introduces μοι after +εχω,—for +εμαυτω writes εμαυτου,—and exhibits του τελειωσαι +without 'ως. C writes 'ως το +τελειωσαι. [Symbol: Aleph]B alone of Codexes present us with τελειωσω +for τελειωσαι, and +are followed by Westcott and Hort <i>alone of Editors</i>. The Peshitto ('<i>sed mihi +nihili aestimatur anima mea</i>'), the Sahidic ('<i>sed non facto animam meam in +ullâ re</i>'), and the Aethiopic ('<i>sed non reputo animam meam nihil quidquam</i>'), +get rid of τιμιαν as well as of ουδε εχω. +So much diversity of text, and in +such primitive witnesses, while it points to a remote period as the date of the +blunder to which attention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utter +perplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> +Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of ΕΝ by +the first syllable of ΑΝθρωποις) is to be seen in Acts iv. 12,—where however +the error has led to no mischievous results.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> +For those which insert <i>in</i> (14), and those which reject it (25), see Wordsworth's +edition of the Vulgate on this passage.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Of Fathers:—Ambrose i. 1298—Hieronymus i. 448<sup>2</sup>, 693, 876: ii. 213: +iv. 34, 92: v. 147: vi. 638: vii. 241, 251, 283,—Augustine 34 times,—Optatus +(Galland. v. 472, 457),—Gaudentius Brix. (<i>ap.</i> Sabat.),—Chromatius Ag. (Gall. +viii. 337),—Orosius (<i>ib.</i> ix. 134), Marius M. (<i>ib.</i> viii. 672), +Maximus Taur. (<i>ib.</i> +ix. 355),—Sedulius (<i>ib.</i> 575),—Leo M. (<i>ap.</i> Sabat.),—Mamertus Claudianus +(Gall. x. 431),—Vigilius Taps. (<i>ap.</i> Sabat.),—Zacchaeus +(Gall. ix. 241),—Caesarius +Arel. (<i>ib.</i> xi. 11),—ps.-Ambros. ii. 394, 396,—Hormisdas P. (Conc. +iv. 1494, 1496),—52 Bps. at 8th Council of Toledo (Conc. vi. 395), &c., &c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> See Wetstein on this place.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_iii" id="chapter_iii"></a>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.</h3> + +<h3>II. Homoeoteleuton.</h3> + + +<p>No one who finds the syllable ΟΙ recurring six times +over in about as many words,—e.g. και εγενετο, 'ως απηλθον +... ΟΙ αγγελΟΙ, και ΟΙ ανθρωπΟΙ ΟΙ πΟΙμενες ειπον,—is +surprised to learn that MSS. of a certain type exhibit +serious perturbation in that place. Accordingly, BLΞ +leave out the words και 'οι ανθρωποι; and in that mutilated +form the modern critical editors are contented to exhibit +St. Luke ii. 15. One would have supposed that Tischendorf's +eyes would have been opened when he noticed that +in his own Codex ([Symbol: Aleph]) one word more ('οι) is dropped,—whereby +nonsense is made of the passage (viz. 'οι αγγελοι +ποιμενες). Self-evident it is that a line with a 'like ending' +has been omitted by the copyist of some very early codex +of St. Luke's Gospel; which either read,—</p> + +<p> +ΟΙ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙ<br/> +[ΚΑΙ ΟΙ Α<strong>ΝΟ</strong>Ι ΟΙ]<br/> +ΠΟΙΜΕΝΕΣ +</p> +<p>or else</p> +<p> +ΟΙ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙ<br/> +[ΚΑΙ ΟΙ Α<strong>ΝΟ</strong>Ι]<br/> +ΟΙ ΠΟΙΜΕΝΕΣ +</p> + +<p>Another such place is found in St. John vi. 11. The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> +Evangelist certainly described the act of our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> on a +famous occasion in the well-known words,—και ευχαριστησας</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i4">διεδωκε<br /></span> +<span class="i0">τοις [μαθηταις,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">οι δε μαθηται<br /></span> +<span class="i0">τοις] ανακειμενοις.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>The one sufficient proof that St. John did so write, being +the testimony of the MSS. Moreover, we are expressly +assured by St. Matthew (xiv. 19), St. Mark (vi. 41), and +St. Luke (ix. 16), that our <span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> act was performed +in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has +suffered his eye to wander from τοις in l. 2 to τοις in l. 4,—whereby +St. John is made to say that our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> himself +distributed to the 5000. The blunder is a very ancient +one; for it has crept into the Syriac, Bohairic, and Gothic +versions, besides many copies of the Old Latin; and has +established itself in the Vulgate. Moreover some good +Fathers (beginning with Origen) so quote the place. But +such evidence is unavailing to support [Symbol: Aleph]ABLΠ, the early +reading of [Symbol: Aleph] being also contradicted by the fourth hand in +the seventh century against the great cloud of witnesses,—beginning +with D and including twelve other uncials, beside +the body of the cursives, the Ethiopic and two copies of +the Old Latin, as well as Cyril Alex.</p> + +<p>Indeed, there does not exist a source of error which has +proved more fatal to the transcribers of MSS. than the +proximity of identical, or nearly identical, combinations +of letters. And because these are generally met with +in the final syllables of words, the error referred to is +familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes 'likeness +of ending' (Homoeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe +on reverting from his copy to the original before him is +of necessity apt sometimes to alight on the same word, +or what looks like the same word, a little lower down.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> +The consequence is obvious. All that should have come +in between gets omitted, or sometimes duplicated.</p> + +<p>It is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to +find oneself in this way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, perhaps +thirty words, no very serious consequence for the most +part ensues. Nevertheless, the result is often sheer nonsense. +When this is the case, it is loyally admitted by all. +A single example may stand for a hundred. [In St. John vi. +55, that most careless of careless transcripts, the Sinaitic [Symbol: Aleph], +omits on a most sacred subject seven words, and the +result hardly admits of being characterized. Let the +reader judge for himself. The passage stands thus:—'η +γαρ σαρξ μου αληθως εστι βρωσις, και το 'αιμα μου αληθως εστι +ποσις. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph] by a very easy mistake let +his eye pass from one αληθως to another, and characteristically +enough the various correctors allowed the error +to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, though +the error issued in nothing less than 'My Flesh is drink +indeed.' Could that MS. have undergone the test of frequent +use?]</p> + +<p>But it requires very little familiarity with the subject +to be aware that occasions must inevitably be even of +frequent occurrence when the result is calamitous, and even +perplexing, in the extreme. The writings of Apostles +and Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine <span class="smcap">Lord</span> Himself, +abound in short formulae; and the intervening matter +on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence, which +occasionally may be discovered from its context without +evident injury to the general meaning of the place. Thus +[ver. 14 in St. Matt, xxiii. was omitted in an early age, +owing to the recurrence of ουαι 'υμιν at the beginning, by +some copyists, and the error was repeated in the Old +Latin versions. It passed to Egypt, as some of the +Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origen testify. The +Vulgate is not quite consistent: and of course [Symbol: Aleph]BDLZ,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> +a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew, +follow suit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and +five or more cursives, enough to make the more emphatic +the condemnation by the main body of them. Besides the +verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (as against five) +including Φ and Σ, the Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, +Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen (iii. 838 +(only in Lat.)); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (<i>bis</i>); ix. 755); Opus +Imperf. 185 (<i>bis</i>); 186 (<i>bis</i>); John Damascene (ii. 517); +Theophylact (i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; +v. 52; vi. 138: vii. 185)].</p> + +<p>Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen +that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote +period; (for there have been careless scribes in every +age:) and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have +propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist (suppose) +in several of the known copies; and if,—as very often is +the case,—it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old +uncials,' all hope of its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead +of being loyally recognized as a blunder,—which it clearly +is,—it is forthwith charged upon the Apostle or Evangelist +as the case may be. In other words, it is taken for granted +that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the +sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an unauthorized +accretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth +becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a +hundred which contain the missing words. I proceed to +give an instance of my meaning.</p> + +<p>Our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span>, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that +whosoever putteth away his wife ει μη επι πορνεια, και +γαμηση αλλην, μοιχαται,—adds και 'ο απολελυμενην γαμησας +μοιχαται. Those five words are not found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]DLS, +nor in several copies of the Old Latin nor in some copies +of the Bohairic, and the Sahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles +accordingly reject them.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span></p> + +<p>And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are +genuine. Those thirty-one letters probably formed three +lines in the oldest copies of all. Hence they are observed to +exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleian and Jerusalem), the +Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and +the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including +BΦΣ), and the vast majority of the cursives. So that there +can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.</p> + +<p>A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from +precisely the same cause meets us a little further on in +the same Gospel. The threefold recurrence of των in the +expression ΤΩΝ ψιχιων ΤΩΝ πιπτονΤΩΝ (St. Luke xvi. +21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the dropping of the +words ψιχιων των out of some copies. Unhappily the sense +is not destroyed by the omission. We are not surprised +therefore to discover that the words are wanting +in—[Symbol: Aleph]BL: or to find that [Symbol: Aleph]BL are supported here by +copies of the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian +versions, nor by Clemens Alex.<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> and the author of the +Dialogus<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a>. Jerome, on the other hand, condemns the Latin +reading, and the Syriac Versions are observed to approve +of Jerome's verdict, as well as the Gothic. But what +settles the question is the fact that every known Greek +MS., except those three, witnesses against the omission: +besides Ambrose<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a>, Jerome<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a>, Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> Alex., Gregory<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> +Naz., Asterius<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a>, Basil<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a>, Ephraim<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> Syr., Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a>, and +Cyril<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> of Alexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding +to discover, and distressing to have to record, that all the +recent Editors of the Gospels are more or less agreed in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> +abolishing 'the crumbs which fell from the rich man's +table.'</p> + +<p>[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence +of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age +of the Text of the Gospels. Before the sense of the exact +expressions of the Written Word was impressed upon the +mind of the Church,—when the Canon was not definitely +acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet +gathered round writings which had been recently composed,—severe +accuracy was not to be expected. Errors +would be sure to arise, especially from accident, and early +ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny; +besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations +would give rise in the course of natural development to +serious and perplexing corruptions.</p> + +<p>In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will +come under consideration.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> P. 232.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Orig. i. 827.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:—places which shew how insecure would be +an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Mai ii. 516, 520.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> i. 370.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> P. 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> ii. 169.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> ii. 142.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (<i>bis</i>) 764; vii. 779.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> v<sup>2</sup>. 149 (luc. text, 524).</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_iv" id="chapter_iv"></a>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.</h3> + +<h3>III. From Writing in Uncials.</h3> + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + + +<p>Corrupt readings have occasionally resulted from the +ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character, +without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the +text. Especially are they found in places where there +is something unusual in the structure of the sentence.</p> + +<p>St. John iv. 35-6 (λευκαι εισι προς θερισμον ηδη) has +suffered in this way,—owing to the unusual position +of ηδη. Certain of the scribes who imagined that ηδη +might belong to ver. 36, rejected the και as superfluous; +though no Father is known to have been guilty of such +a solecism. Others, aware that ηδη can only belong to +ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at the +beginning of ver. 36. A few, considering both words of +doubtful authority, retained neither<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a>. In this way it has +come to pass that there are four ways of exhibiting this +place:—(<i>a</i>) προς θερισμον ηδη. Και 'ο θεριζων:—(<i>b</i>) προς +θερισμον. Ηδη 'ο θ.:—(<i>c</i>) προς θερισμον ηδη. 'ο θεριζων:—(<i>d</i>) +προς θερισμον. 'ο θεριζων, κ.τ.λ.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span></p> +<p>The only point of importance however is the position +of ηδη: which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of +the copies: as well as by Origen<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a>, Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a>, Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a>, +Cyril<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a>, the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac. +The Italic copies are hopelessly divided here<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a>: and Codd. +[Symbol: Aleph]BMΠ do not help us. But ηδη is claimed for ver. 36 +by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis (= και +ηδη 'ο θεριζων): while Codex A is singular in beginning ver. +36, ηδη και,—which shews that some early copyist, with +the correct text before him, adopted a vicious punctuation. +For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly +received text and the usual punctuation is the true one: +as, on a careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced +reader will allow. But recent critics are for leaving out και +(with [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles +(<i>marg.</i>), are for putting the full stop after προς θερισμον +and (with ACDL) making ηδη begin the next sentence,—which +(as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible.</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers +propose in the parable of the prodigal son,—'And I perish +<i>here</i> with hunger!' But why '<i>here</i>?' Because I answer, +whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood +thus,—ΕΓΩΔΕΛΙΜΩΑΠΟΛΛΥΜΑΙ, some careless scribe +after writing ΕΓΩΔΕ, reduplicated the three last letters +(ΩΔΕ): he mistook them for an independent word.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> +Accordingly in the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten +cursives, we encounter εγω δε ωδε. The inventive faculty +having thus done its work it remained to superadd 'transposition,' +as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From εγω δε ωδε λιμω, the +sentence has now developed into εγω δε λιμω ωδε: which +approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to Lachmann and +Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alfoid and Westcott and Hort, +and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, εγω +δε ωδε is: for it is found in the Latin<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> and the Syriac +translations. It must therefore date from the second +century. But it is a blunder notwithstanding: a blunder +against which 16 uncials and the whole body of the +cursives bear emphatic witness<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a>. Having detected its +origin, we have next to trace its progress.</p> + +<p>The inventors of ωδε or other scribes quickly saw that +this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the +sentence. Accordingly, the same primitive authorities +which advocate 'here,' are observed also to advocate, above, +'in my Father's house.' No extant Greek copy is known +to contain the bracketed words in the sentence [εν τω οικω] +του πατρος μου: but such copies must have existed in the +second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis +recognize the three words in question; as well as copies of +the Latin with which Jerome<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a>, Augustine<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> and Cassian<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> +were acquainted. The phrase 'in domo patris mei' has +accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely +we of the Church of England who have been hitherto +spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end +of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step. +Our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> intended no contrast whatever between two<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> +localities—but between two parties. The comfortable +estate of the hired servants He set against the abject +misery of the Son: not the house wherein the servants +dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing +when he came to a better mind.—These are many words; +but I know not how to be briefer. And,—what is worthy +of discussion, if not the utterances of 'the Word made +flesh?'</p> + +<p>If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in +any quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the +context in [Symbol: Aleph]BL. What else but the instinct of a trained +understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place +like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in ver. 16, +for γεμισαι την κοιλιαν αυτου απο, [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR present us with +χορτασθηναι εκ: and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly +the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX), is made to say to his +father,—Ποιησον με 'ως 'ενα των μισθιων σου:</p> + +<p>Which certainly he did not say<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a>. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and +the Old Latin are for thrusting in ταχυ (D ταχεως) after +εξενεγκατε. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated +readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning +critic to improve upon the inspired original?</p> + +<p>From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were +in the oldest MSS. written thus,—ΜΟΝΟΥ<strong>ΘΥ</strong>ΟΥ (i.e. μονου +Θεου ου), the middle word (θεου) got omitted from some +very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run +thus in English,—'And seek not the honour which cometh +from the only One.' It is so that Origen<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a>, Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a>, +Didymus<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a>, besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, +exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives +only in B at the present day, the preserver of an +Alexandrian error.</p> + +<h3><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>St. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the 'typhonic +wind called Euroclydon' which caused the ship in which +St. Paul and he sailed past Crete to incur the 'harm and +loss' so graphically described in the last chapter but one +of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this +one place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible; +being compounded of Ευρος, the 'south-east wind,' and +κλυδων, 'a tempest:' a compound which happily survives +intact in the Peshitto version. The Syriac translator, not +knowing what the word meant, copied what he saw,—'the +blast' (he says) 'of the tempest<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a>, which [blast] is called +Tophonikos Euroklidon.' Not so the licentious scribes +of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the +actual 'Euroclydon,' the imaginary name 'Euro-aquilo,' +which accordingly stands to this day in the Vulgate. (Not +that Jerome himself so read the name of the wind, or he +would hardly have explained '<i>Eurielion</i>' or '<i>Euriclion</i>' +to mean 'commiscens, sive deorsum ducens<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a>.') Of this +feat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which ΕΥΡΟΚΛΥΔΩΝ +has been perverted into ΕΥΡΑΚΥΛΩΝ) are at this day +<i>the sole surviving Greek witnesses</i>. Well may the evidence +for 'Euro-aquilo' be scanty! The fabricated word collapses +the instant it is examined. Nautical men point +out that it is 'inconsistent in its construction with the +principles on which the names of the intermediate or +compound winds are framed:'—</p> + +<p>'<i>Euronotus</i> is so called as intervening immediately between +<i>Eurus</i> and <i>Notus</i>, and as partaking, as was thought, +of the qualities of both. The same holds true of <i>Libonotus</i>, +as being interposed between <i>Libs</i> and <i>Notus</i>. Both these +compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of +the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> +no other wind intervenes. But <i>Eurus</i> and <i>Aquilo</i> are at +90° distance from one another; or according to some +writers, at 105°; the former lying in the south-east quarter, +and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one of +which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and +Subsolanus<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a>.'</p> + +<p>Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossible +<i>Latin</i> name? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' +(ver. 6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has +'<i>Aquilo</i>' here? Next, if the wind did bear the name +of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way +(ανεμος τυφωνικος, 'ο καλουμενος) as if it were a kind of +curiosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, +which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term +Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote ΕΥΡΑΚ-, +how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has +written ΕΥΡΟΚ-? The testimony of B is memorable. +The original scribe wrote ΕΥΡΑΚΥΔΩΝ<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a>: the <i>secunda +mantis</i> has corrected this into ΕΥΡΥΚΛΥΔΩΝ,—which is +also the reading of Euthalius<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a>. The essential circumstance +is, that <i>not</i> ΥΛΩΝ but ΥΔΩΝ has all along been the last +half of the word in Codex B<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span></p><p>In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf +adopts διερχεσθαι (in place of the uncompounded verb), assigning +as his reason, that 'If St. John had written ερχεσθαι, +no one would ever have substituted διερχεσθαι for it.' But +to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations, +is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have +referred the learned Critic to plenty of places where the +thing he speaks of as incredible has been done. The +proof that St. John used the uncompounded verb is the +fact that it is found in all the copies except our two +untrustworthy friends. The explanation of ΔΙερχωμαι is +sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable (ΔΕ) of μηδε +which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the +same excuse,</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">St. Mark x. 16 ευλογει has become κατευλογει ([Symbol: Aleph]BC).</span> +<span class="i0">St. Mark xii. 17 θαυμασαν has become εζεθαυμασαν ([Symbol: Aleph]B).</span> +<span class="i0">St. Mark xiv. 40 βεβαρημενοι has become καταβεβαρημενοι (A[Symbol: Aleph]B).<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>It is impossible to doubt that και (in modern critical +editions of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence +to the same cause. In the phrase εκει συναχθησονται 'οι αετοι +it might have been predicted that the last syllable of εκει +would some day be mistaken for the conjunction. And so<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> +it has actually come to pass. ΚΑΙ οι αετοι is met with in many +ancient authorities. But [Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, +and substituted επισυναχθησονται for συναχθησονται. The +self-same casualty, viz. και elicited out of the insertion of +εκει and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable +among the Cursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28,—the parallel +place: where by the way the old uncials distinguish themselves +by yet graver eccentricities<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a>. How can we as +judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of +Scripture on evidence so precarious as this?</p> + +<p>It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. +xxii. 23 as follows:—'On that day there came to Him +Sadducees <i>saying</i> that there is no Resurrection.' A new +incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel +narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage. +Instead of 'οι λεγοντες, we are invited to read λεγοντες, on +the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BDMSZP and several of the Cursives, +besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respectable +array. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of +numbers in favour of the usual reading, which is also found +in the Old Latin copies and in the Vulgate. But surely +the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it is—</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">'οιτινες λεγουσιν αναστασιν μη ειναι (St. Mark xii. 18) and<br /></span> +<span class="i0">'οι αντιλεγοντες αναστασιν μη ειναι (St. Luke xx. 27)<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. +Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has +paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists. +Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the +words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial +copy:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">ΣΑΔΔΟΥΚΑΙΟΙΟΙΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>and really nothing more requires to be said. The second +ΟΙ was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> +that. It might also have been anticipated, that there +would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent +ΚΑΙ. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian +render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook +ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ for a separate phrase.</p> + + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>The termination ΤΟ (in certain tenses of the verb), when +followed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion; +sometimes to uncertainty. In St. John v. 4 for instance, +where we read in our copies και εταρασσε το 'υδωρ, but so +many MSS. read εταρασσετο, that it becomes a perplexing +question which reading to follow. The sense in either +case is excellent: the only difference being whether the +Evangelist actually says that the Angel 'troubled' the +water, or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance +that after the Angel had descended, straightway the water +'was troubled.'</p> + +<p>The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in +St. Luke vii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions +εχαρισατο βλεπειν (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and +11 other uncials) and εχαρισατο το βλεπειν which is only +supported by [Symbol: Aleph]<sup>b</sup>ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faithfully +maintain the former reading, and merge the article in +the verb.</p> + +<p>Akin to the foregoing are all those instances,—and they +are literally without number—, where the proximity of +a like ending has been the fruitful cause of error. Let me +explain: for this is a matter which cannot be too thoroughly +apprehended.</p> + +<p>Such a collection of words as the following two instances +exhibit will shew my meaning.</p> + +<p>In the expression εσθητα λαμπραν ανεπεμψεν (St. Luke +xxiii. 11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> +the verb (αν) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately +preceding λαμπραν. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported +by one copy of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. +concur in displaying επεμψεν in this place.</p> + +<p>The letters ΝΑΙΚΩΝΑΙΚΑΙ in the expression (St. Luke +xxiii. 27) γυναικων 'αι και were safe to produce confusion. +The first of these three words could of course take care of +itself. (Though D, with some of the Versions, make it +into γυναικες.) Not so however what follows. ABCDLX +and the Old Latin (except c) drop the και: [Symbol: Aleph] and C drop +the αι. The truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials +and with the cursives.</p> + +<p>Thus also the reading εν ολη τη Γαλιλαια (B) in St. Matt. +iv. 23, (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, +Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers,) is due simply +to the reduplication on the part of some inattentive scribe +of the last two letters of the immediately preceding word,—περιηγεν. +The received reading of the place is the correct +one,—και περιηγεν 'ολην την Γαλιλαιαν 'ο Ιησους, because +the first five words are so exhibited in all the Copies +except B[Symbol: Aleph]C; and those three MSS. are observed to +differ as usual from one another,—which ought to be +deemed fatal to their evidence. Thus,</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">B reads και περιηγεν εν 'οληι τηι Γαλιλαιαι.</span> +<span class="i0">[Symbol: Aleph] reads και περιηγεν 'ο <strong>ις</strong> εν τηι Γαλιλαιαι.</span> +<span class="i0">C reads και περιηγεν 'ο <strong>ις</strong> εν 'ολη τηι Γαλιλαιαι.</span> +</div></div> + +<p>But—(I shall be asked)—what about the position of the +Sacred Name? How comes it to pass that 'ο Ιησους, which +comes after Γαλιλαιαν in almost every other known copy, +should come after περιηγεν in three of these venerable +authorities (in D as well as in [Symbol: Aleph] and C), and in the Latin, +Peshitto, Lewis, and Harkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott +and Hort and the Revisers at all events (who simply +follow B in leaving out 'ο Ιησους altogether) will not ask +me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is sure to ask it.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span></p> + +<p>The phrase (I reply) is derived by [Symbol: Aleph]CD from the twin +place in St. Matthew (ix. 35) which in all the MSS. begins +και περιηγεν 'ο <strong>ις</strong>. So familiar had this order of the words +become, that the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], (a circumstance by the way of +which Tischendorf takes no notice,) has even introduced +the expression into St. Mark vi. 6,—the parallel place in +the second Gospel,—where 'ο ις clearly has no business. +I enter into these minute details because only in this way +is the subject before us to be thoroughly understood. This +is another instance where 'the Old Uncials' shew their +text to be corrupt; so for assurance in respect of accuracy +of detail we must resort to the Cursive Copies.</p> + + +<h3>§ 5.</h3> + +<p>The introduction of απο in the place of 'αγιοι made by +the 'Revisers' into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21,—derives +its origin from the same prolific source. (1) some +very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of αγιοι for +απο. It was but the mistaking of ΑΓΙΟ for ΑΠΟ. At the +end of 1700 years, the only Copies which witness to this deformity +are BP with four cursives,—in opposition to [Symbol: Aleph]AKL +and the whole body of the cursives, the Vulgate<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> and +the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of it<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a>. Obvious +it was, next, for some one in perplexity,—(2) to introduce +both readings (απο and 'αγιοι) into the text. Accordingly +απο Θεου 'αγιοι is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a>. +Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. 'υπο for απο—but +only because 'υπο went immediately before); of which fresh +blunder ('υπο Θεου 'αγιοι) Theophylact is the sole patron<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a>. +The consequence of all this might have been foreseen: +(4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both απο and +αγιοι were left out,—which accounts for the reading of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> +certain copies of the Old Latin<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a>. Unaware how the blunder +began, Tischendorf and his followers claim '(2)', '(3)', and +'(4)', as proofs that '(1)' is the right reading: and, by +consequence, instead of '<i>holy</i> men of God spake,' require +us to read 'men spake <i>from</i> God,' which is wooden and +vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP +and four cursive copies must stand self-condemned?</p> + +<p>Another excellent specimen of this class of error is +furnished by Heb. vii. 1. Instead of 'Ο συναντησας Αβρααμ—said +of Melchizedek,—[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit ΟΣ. The whole +body of the copies, headed by CLP, are against them<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a>,—besides +Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a>, Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a>, Damascene<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a>. It is +needless to do more than state how this reading arose. +The initial letter of συναντησας has been reduplicated +through careless transcription: ΟΣΣΥΝ—instead of ΟΣΥΝ—. +That is all. But the instructive feature of the case is that +it is in the four oldest of the uncials that this palpable +blunder is found.</p> + + +<h3>§ 6.</h3> + +<p>I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second +to none in suggestiveness. 'Whom will ye that I release +unto you?' asked Pilate on a memorable occasion<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a>: and +we all remember how his enquiry proceeds. But the +discovery is made that, in an early age there existed +copies of the Gospel which proceeded thus,—'Jesus [who +is called<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a>] Barabbas, or <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> who is called <span class="smcap">Christ</span>?'<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> +Origen so quotes the place, but 'In many copies,' he proceeds, +'mention is not made that Barabbas was also called Jesus: +and those copies may perhaps be right,—else would the +name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked,—of which no +instance occurs in any part of the Bible: nor is it fitting +that the name of Jesus should like Judas have been borne +by saint and sinner alike. I think,' Origen adds, 'something +of this sort must have been an interpolation of the +heretics<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a>.' From this we are clearly intended to infer that +'Jesus Barabbas' was the prevailing reading of St. Matt. +xxvii. 17 in the time of Origen, a circumstance which—besides +that a multitude of copies existed as well as those +of Origen—for the best of reasons, we take leave to +pronounce incredible<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a>.</p> + +<p>The sum of the matter is probably this:—Some inattentive +second century copyist [probably a Western +Translator into Syriac who was an indifferent Greek scholar] +mistook the final syllable of '<i>unto you</i>' (ΥΜΙΝ) for the +word '<i>Jesus</i>' (<strong>ΙΝ</strong>): in other words, carelessly reduplicated +the last two letters of ΥΜΙΝ,—from which, strange to say, +results the form of inquiry noticed at the outset. Origen +caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it though +he fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> +years. Then about just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, +Tischendorf and Tregelles began to construct that 'fabric +of Textual Criticism' which has been the cause of the +present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt +the suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is +supported by no surviving uncial, and in fact advocates the +very origin of the mischief which has been just described]. +But, as every one must see, 'such things as these are not +'readings' at all, nor even the work of 'the heretics;' +but simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, admitting +the blunder, yet pleads that 'this remarkable +reading is attractive by the new and interesting fact which +it seems to attest, and by the antithetic force which it +seems to add to the question in ver. 17,' [is more than +we can understand. To us the expression seems most +repulsive. No 'antithetic force' can outweigh our dislike +to the idea that Barabbas was our <span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> namesake! +We prefer Origen's account, though he mistook the cause, +to that of the modern critic.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> +It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of ηδη in +ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have began ver. 36—as +Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i. 1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. +443. 941. 1041).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> +i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 <i>bis</i>, 251 <i>bis</i>, 252, 253, 255 <i>bis</i>, +256, 257. Also +iv. 440 note, which = cat<sup>ox</sup> iv. 21.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> <i>dem.</i> 440. But not <i>in cs.</i> 426: <i>theoph.</i> 262, 275.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> vii. 488, 662: ix. 32.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> +i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, ετοιμος ηδη προς +το πιστευειν.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> +Ambrose, ii. 279, has '<i>Et qui metit</i>.' Iren.<sup>int</sup> substitutes +'<i>nam</i>' for '<i>et</i>,' and +omits '<i>jam</i>.' Jerome 9 times introduces '<i>jam</i>' before '<i>albae sunt</i>.' +So Aug. +(iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v. 531) he omits the word altogether.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> 'Hic' is not recognized in Ambrose. <i>Append.</i> ii. 367.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34: +x. 838) has εγω δε ωδε: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is +without the ωδε.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> i. 76: vi. 16 (<i>not</i> vi. 484).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> iii.<sup>2</sup> 259 (<i>not</i> v. 511).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> p. 405.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> [The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father's kindness stopped +him:—a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes θεου.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Mai vii. 135.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Praep. xiii. 6,—μονου του 'ενος (vol. ii. 294).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> iii. 101.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: 'Antequam +manum de tabulâ amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano +inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrimâ +suâ editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii. 14, codici +Vaticano tribuisse a primâ manu ευρακλυδων; nos vero ευρακυδων; +atque subjungit, +"<i>utrumque, ut videtur, male</i>." At, quidquid "videri" possit, certum +nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse ευρακυδων, prout +expressum fuit tum in tabella quâ Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in +alterâ quâ nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.'—Præfatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of +the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. § vi. [Any one may now see this in +the photographed copy.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Galland. x. 225.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the +copyist <i>knowing more of Latin than of Greek</i>. +</p><p> +True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. <i>That is the +reason why</i> the Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered it +<i>Euroaquilo</i>: instead of writing <i>Euraquilo</i>. +</p><p> +I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. +Like the man who wrote επ' αυτω τω φορω for επ' αυτοφωρω. +</p><p> +Readings of Euroclydon +</p> +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΡΑΚΥΔΩΝ B (sic)<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΡΑΚΥΛΩΝ [Symbol: Aleph]A<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΡΑΚΗΛΩΝ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΤΡΑΚΗΛΩΝ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΡΑΚΛΗΔΩΝ Peshitto.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΡΑΚΥΚΛΩΝ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Euroaquilo Vulg.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΡΟΚΛΥΔΩΝ HLP<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΡΑΚΛΥΔΩΝ Syr. Harkl.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΥΡΥΚΛΥΔΩΝ B<sup>2 man.</sup><br /></span> +</div></div> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> Οπου (ου [Symbol: Aleph]) +γαρ (—γαρ [Symbol: Aleph]BDL) +εαν (αν D) +το πτωμα (σωμα [Symbol: Aleph]).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> <i>Sancti Dei homines.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Galland. x. 236 a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> Trin. 234.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> iii. 389.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> '<i>Locuti sunt homines D</i>.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Their only supporters seem to be K [i.e. Paul 117 (Matthaei's §)], 17, 59 +[published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Why does +Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but a copy of D +of Paul?</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> Theodoret, iii. 584.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> J. Damascene, ii. 240 c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> St. Matt. xxvii. 17.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Cf. 'ο λεγομενος Βαραββας. St. Mark xv. 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> <i>Int.</i> iii. 918 c d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> On the two other occasions when Origen quotes St. Matt. xxvii. 17 (i. 316 a +and ii. 245 a) nothing is said about 'Jesus Barabbas.'—Alluding to the place, +he elsewhere (iii. 853 d) merely says that '<i>Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur +et Jesus.</i>'—The author of a well-known scholion, ascribed to Anastasius, +Bp. of Antioch, but query, for see Migne, vol. lxxxix. p. 1352 b c (= Galland. +xii. 253 c), and 1604 a, declares that he had found the same statement 'in very +early copies.' The scholion in question is first cited by Birch (Varr. Lectt. +p. 110) from the following MSS.:—S, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 146, 181, 186, +195, 197, 199 or 200, 209, 210, 221, 222: to which Scholz adds 41, 237, 238, +253, 259, 299: Tischendorf adds 1, 118. In Gallandius (Bibl. P. P. xiv. 81 d e, +<i>Append.</i>), the scholion may be seen more fully given than by Birch,—from +whom Tregelles and Tischendorf copy it. Theophylact (p. 156 a) must have +seen the place as quoted by Gallandius. The only evidence, so far as +I can find, for reading '<i>Jesus</i> Barabbas' (in St. Matt. xxvii. 16, 17) are five +disreputable Evangelia 1, 118, 209, 241, 299,—the Armenian Version, the +Jerusalem Syriac, [and the Sinai Syriac]; (see Adler, pp. 172-3).</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_v" id="chapter_v"></a>CHAPTER V.</h2> + +<h3>ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.</h3> + +<h3>IV. Itacism.</h3> + + +<p>[It has been already shewn in the First Volume that the +Art of Transcription on vellum did not reach perfection +till after the lapse of many centuries in the life of the +Church. Even in the minute elements of writing much +uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successive +ages. It by no means followed that, if a scribe possessed +a correct auricular knowledge of the Text, he would therefore +exhibit it correctly on parchment. Copies were largely +disfigured with misspelt words. And vowels especially +were interchanged; accordingly, such change became in +many instances the cause of corruption, and is known in +Textual Criticism under the name 'Itacism.']</p> + + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + +<p>It may seem to a casual reader that in what follows +undue attention is being paid to minute particulars. But +it constantly happens,—and this is a sufficient answer to +the supposed objection,—that, from exceedingly minute +and seemingly trivial mistakes, there result sometimes +considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of the +<span class="smcap">Spirit's</span> meaning. New incidents:—unheard-of statements:—facts +as yet unknown to readers of Scripture:—perversions<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> +of our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Divine sayings:—such phenomena +are observed to follow upon the omission of the article,—the +insertion of an expletive,—the change of a single letter. +Thus παλιν, thrust in where it has no business, makes it +appear that our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> promised to return the ass on +which He rode in triumph into Jerusalem<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a>. By writing +ω for ο, many critics have transferred some words from the +lips of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> to those of His Evangelist, and made Him +say what He never could have dreamed of saying<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a>. By +subjoining ς to a word in a place which it has no right +to fill, the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marred +effectually, and a sentence produced which defies translation<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a>. +By omitting τω and Κυριε, the repenting malefactor +is made to say, 'Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest +in Thy kingdom<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a>.'</p> + +<p>Speaking of our <span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> triumphal entry into Jerusalem, +which took place 'the day after' 'they made Him +a supper' and Lazarus 'which had been dead, whom He +raised from the dead,' 'sat at the table with Him' (St. John +xii. 1, 2), St. John says that 'the multitude which had been +with Him <i>when</i> He called Lazarus out of the tomb and +raised Him from the dead bare testimony' (St. John xii. +17). The meaning of this is best understood by a reference +to St. Luke xix. 37, 38, where it is explained that it was +the sight of so many acts of Divine Power, the chiefest +of all being the raising of Lazarus, which moved the crowds +to yield the memorable testimony recorded by St. Luke in +ver. 38,—by St. John in ver. 13<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a>. But Tischendorf and +Lachmann, who on the authority of D and four later uncials +read 'οτι instead of 'οτε, import into the Gospel quite another +meaning. According to their way of exhibiting the text,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> +St. John is made to say that 'the multitude which was with +<span class="smcap">Jesus</span>, testified <i>that</i> He called Lazarus out of the tomb +and raised him from the dead': which is not only an +entirely different statement, but also the introduction of +a highly improbable circumstance. That many copies +of the Old Latin (not of the Vulgate) recognize 'οτι, besides +the Peshitto and the two Egyptian versions, is not denied. +This is in fact only one more proof of the insufficiency of +such collective testimony. [Symbol: Aleph]AB with the rest of the uncials +and, what is of more importance, <i>the whole body of the +cursives</i>, exhibit 'οτε,—which, as every one must see, is +certainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf's +assertion that the prolixity of the expression εφωνησεν εκ +του μνημειου και ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων is inconsistent with +'οτε<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a>,—may surprise, but will never convince any one who +is even moderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar +manner.</p> + +<p>The same mistake—of 'οτι for 'οτε—is met with at ver. 41 +of the same chapter. 'These things said Isaiah <i>because</i> he +saw His glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not '<i>when</i> +he saw His glory'? which is what the Evangelist wrote +according to the strongest attestation. True, that eleven +manuscripts (beginning with [Symbol: Aleph]ABL) and the Egyptian +versions exhibit 'οτι: also Nonnus, who lived in the Thebaid +(<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 410): but all other MSS., the Latin, Peshitto, Gothic, +Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version:—Origen<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a>,—Eusebius +in four places<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a>,—Basil<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a>,—Gregory of Nyssa twice<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a>,—Didymus +three times<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a>,—Chrysostom twice<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a>,—Severianus +of Gabala<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a>;—these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute +a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> +three times reads 'οτι<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a>, three times 'οτε<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a>,—and +once 'ηνικα<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a>, +which proves at least how he understood the place.</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>[A suggestive example<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> of the corruption introduced by +a petty Itacism may be found in Rev. i. 5, where the +beautiful expression which has found its way into so many +tender passages relating to Christian devotion, 'Who hath +<i>washed</i><a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> us from our sins in His own blood' (A.V.), is +replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, 'Who hath +<i>loosed</i><a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> us from our sins by His blood.' In early times +a purist scribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured +of provincial retention of Aeolian or Dorian pronunciations, +wrote from unconscious bias υ for ου, transcribing λυσαντι +for λουσαντι (unless he were not Greek scholar enough to +understand the difference): and he was followed by others, +especially such as, whether from their own prejudices or +owing to sympathy with the scruples of other people, but +at all events under the influence of a slavish literalism, +hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise to +the spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed +therein. Accordingly the three uncials, which of those that +give the Apocalypse date nearest to the period of corruption, +adopt υ, followed by nine cursives, the Harkleian +Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the other side, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>two uncials—viz. B<sup>2</sup> of the eighth century and P of +the ninth—the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write +λουσαντι and—what is most important—all the other +cursives except the handful just mentioned, so far as examination +has yet gone, form a barrier which forbids +intrusion.]</p> + +<p>[An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept +into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke xvi. 25. +Some scribes needlessly changed 'ωδε into 'οδε, misinterpreting +the letter which served often for both the long and +the short ο, and thereby cast out some illustrative meaning, +since Abraham meant to lay stress upon the enjoyment +'in his bosom' of comfort by Lazarus. The unanimity of +the uncials, a majority of the cursives, the witness of the +versions, that of the Fathers quote the place being uncertain, +are sufficient to prove that 'ωδε is the genuine word.]</p> + +<p>[Again, in St. John xiii. 25, 'ουτως has dropped out of +many copies and so out of the Received Text because by +an Itacism it was written ουτος in many manuscripts. +Therefore εκεινος ουτος was thought to be a clear mistake, +and the weaker word was accordingly omitted. No doubt +Latins and others who did not understand Greek well considered +also that 'ουτως was redundant, and this was the +cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really 'ουτως, +being sufficiently authenticated<a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a>, is exactly in consonance +with Greek usage and St. John's style<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a>, and adds considerably +to the graphic character of the sacred narrative. +St. John was reclining (ανακειμενος) on his left arm over the +bosom of the robe (εν τωι κολπωι) of the <span class="smcap">Saviour</span>. When +St. Peter beckoned to him he turned his head for the +moment and sank (επιπεσων, not αναπεσων which has the +testimony only of B and about twenty-five uncials, [Symbol: Aleph] and C<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> +being divided against themselves) on the breast of the +Lord, being still in the general posture in which he was +('ουτωσ<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a>), and asked Him in a whisper '<span class="smcap">Lord</span>, who is it?']</p> + +<p>[Another case of confusion between ω and ο may be seen +in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where απολωλως has gained so strong +a hold that it is found in the Received Text for απολωλος, +which last being the better attested appears to be the right +reading<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a>. But the instance which requires the most attention +is καθαριζον in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more +because in <i>The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark</i>, the +alteration into καθαριζων is advocated as being 'no part of +the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment +on the <span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> words<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a>.' Such a question must be decided +strictly by the testimony, not upon internal evidence—which +in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way, +for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by +καθαριζων, and καθαριζον bears a very intelligible meaning. +When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there +being eight against the change (ΦΣKMUVΓΠ), and +eleven for it ([Symbol: Aleph]ABEFGHLSXΔ);—that not much is +advanced by the versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> +Codex, the Harkleian (?), the Gothic, the Old Latin<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a>, +the Vulgate, favour καθαριζον;—nor by the Fathers:—since +Aphraates<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a>, Augustine (?)<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a>, and Novatian<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> are contradicted +by Origen<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a>, Theophylact<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a>, and Gregory Thaumaturgus<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a>, +we discover that we have not so far made much way +towards a satisfactory conclusion. The only decided +element of judgement, so far as present enquiries have +reached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction +of [Symbol: Aleph]AB, is supplied by the cursives which with a large +majority witness to the received reading. It is not therefore +safe to alter it till a much larger examination of existing +evidence is made than is now possible. If difficulty is felt +in the meaning given by καθαριζον,—and that there is such +difficulty cannot candidly be denied,—this is balanced by +the grammatical difficulty introduced by καθαριζων, which +would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb +separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including +two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people +who form their judgement from the Revised Version should +bear in mind that the Revisers, in order to make intelligible +sense, were obliged to introduce three fresh English words +that have nothing to correspond to them in the Greek; +being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would +hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this +leave out the words in italics and try the effect for himself.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> +The fact is that to make this reading satisfactory, another +alteration is required. Καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα ought +either to be transferred to the 20th verse or to the beginning +of the 18th. Then all would be clear enough, though destitute +of a balance of authority: as it is now proposed to read, +the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple +and transparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore +be guided by the balance of evidence, and that is turned by +the cursive testimony.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>Another minute but interesting indication of the accuracy +and fidelity with which the cursive copies were made, is +supplied by the constancy with which they witness to the +preposition εν (<i>not the numeral</i> 'εν) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our +<span class="smcap">Lord</span> says that the seed which 'fell into the good ground' +'yielded by (εν) thirty, and by (εν) sixty, and by (εν) an +hundred.' Tischendorf notes that besides all the uncials +which are furnished with accents and breathings (viz. +EFGHKMUVΠ) 'nearly 100 cursives' exhibit εν here and +in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case. All the +cursives may be declared to exhibit εν, e.g. all Matthaei's +and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object examined +a large number of Evangelia, and found εν in all. +The Basle MS. from which Erasmus derived his text<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> +exhibits εν,—though he printed 'εν out of respect for the +Vulgate. The Complutensian having 'εν, the reading of the +Textus Receptus follows in consequence: but the Traditional +reading has been shewn to be εν,—which is +doubtless intended by ΕΝ in Cod. A.</p> + +<p>Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]CΔ (two ever licentious and Δ similarly so +throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition εν the +preposition εις,—(a sufficient proof to me that they understand +ΕΝ to represent εν, not 'εν): and are followed by +Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As for the chartered<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> +libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the first +εν (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the +preposition ΕΙΣ: while, in ver. 20, it retains the first εν, but +omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is +followed by Westcott and Hort<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a>. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span></p> + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>St. Paul<a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young +women shall be 'keepers at home,' οικουρους. So, (with five +exceptions,) every known Codex<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a>, including the corrected +[Symbol: Aleph] and D,—HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens +Alex.<a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 180),—Theodore of +Mopsuestia<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a>,—Basil<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a>,—Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a>—Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a>,—Damascene<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a>. +So again the +Old Latin (<i>domum custodientes</i><a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a>),—the Vulgate (<i>domus +curam habentes</i><a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a>),—and Jerome (<i>habentes domus diligentiam</i><a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a>): +and so the Peshitto and the Harkleian versions,—besides +the Bohairic. There evidently can be no doubt +whatever about such a reading so supported. To be οικουρος +was held to be a woman's chiefest praise<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a>: καλλιστον εργον +γυνη οικουρος, writes Clemens Alex.<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a>; assigning to the wife +οικουρια as her proper province<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a>. On the contrary, 'gadding +about from house to house' is what the Apostle, writing to +Timothy<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a>, expressly condemns. But of course the decisive +consideration is not the support derived from internal +evidence; but the plain fact that antiquity, variety, respectability, +numbers, continuity of attestation, are all in favour +of the Traditional reading.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span></p><p>Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, +Westcott and Hort, because they find οικουργους in +[Symbol: Aleph]*ACD*F-G, are for thrusting that 'barbarous and scarcely +intelligible' word, if it be not even a non-existent<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a>, into +Titus ii. 5. The Revised Version in consequence exhibits +'workers at home'—which Dr. Field may well call an +'unnecessary and most tasteless innovation.' But it is +insufficiently attested as well, besides being a plain perversion +of the Apostle's teaching. [And the error must have +arisen from carelessness and ignorance, probably in the +West where Greek was not properly understood.]</p> + +<p>So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, τι 'ημιν και σοι, +Ιησου, 'υιε του Θεου; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name Ιησου is +omitted by B[Symbol: Aleph].</p> + +<p>The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is +inspected:— ΚΑΙΣΟΙ<strong>ΙΥ</strong>ΥΙΕΤΟΥ<strong>ΘΥ</strong>:—the recurrence of the +same letters caused too great a strain to scribes, and the +omission of two of them was the result of ordinary human +infirmity.</p> + +<p>Indeed, to this same source are to be attributed an extraordinary +number of so-called 'various readings'; but which +in reality, as has already been shewn, are nothing else +but a collection of mistakes,—the surviving tokens that +anciently, as now, copying clerks left out words; whether +misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending, or by the +speedy recurrence of the like letters, or by some other +phenomenon with which most men's acquaintance with +books have long since made them familiar.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> St. Mark xi. 4. See Revision Revised, pp. 57-58.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> St. Mark vii. 19, καθαριζων for καθαριζον. +See below, pp. <a href="#Page_61">61-3</a>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> St. Luke ii. 14.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> St. Luke xxiii. 42.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> St. Matt. xx. 9. See also St. Mark xi. 9, 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> 'Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si +'οτε legendum +esset.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> iv. 577: 'quando.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> Dem. Ev. 310, 312, 454 <i>bis.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> i. 301.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> ii. 488, and <i>ap.</i> Gall. vi. 580.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> Trin. 59, 99, 242.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> viii. 406, 407. Also ps.-Chrysost. v. 613. Note, that 'Apolinarius' in +Cramer's Cat. 332 is Chrys. viii. 407.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Chrys. vi. 453.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> iv. 505, 709, and <i>ap</i>. Mai iii. 85.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> ii. 102: iv. 709, and <i>ap</i>. Mai iii. 118.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> v<sup>1</sup>. 642.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists of instances of Itacism, he +worked out none, except the substitution of 'εν for εν +in St. Mark iv. 8, which +as it is not strictly on all fours with the rest I have reserved till last. He +mentioned all that I have introduced (besides a few others), on detached +papers, some of them more than once, and λουσαντι and καθαριζον +even more +than the others. In the brief discussion of each instance which I have supplied, +I have endeavoured whenever it was practicable to include any slight expressions +of the Dean's that I could find, and to develop all surviving hints.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> λουσαντι.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> λυσαντι.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> +'ουτως. BCEFGHLMXΔ. Most cursives. Goth.<br /> +ουτος. KSUΓΛ. Ten cursives.<br /> +<i>Omit</i> [Symbol: Aleph]ADΠ. Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop. Armen. Georg. Slavon. Bohair. Pers. +</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> E.g. Thuc. vii. 15, St. John iv. 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> +See St. John iv. 6: Acts xx. 11, xxvii. 17. The beloved Apostle was therefore +called 'ο επιστηθιος. See Suicer. s. v. Westcott on St. John xiii. 25.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> +24. απολωλως. [Symbol: Aleph]<sup>a</sup>ABD &c.<br /> +απολωλος. [Symbol: Aleph]*GKMRSXΓΠ*. Most curs.<br /> +32. απολωλως. [Symbol: Aleph]*ABD &c.<br /> +απολωλος. [Symbol: Aleph]<sup>c</sup>KMRSXΓΠ*. Most curs. +</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> +Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted καθαριζων into his corrected +text, and on account of other indications which caused me to doubt whether he +retained the opinion of his earlier years, I applied to the Rev. W. F. Rose, who +answered as follows:—'I am thankful to say that I can resolve all doubt as to +my uncle's later views of St. Mark vii. 19. In his annotated copy of the <i>Twelve +Verses</i> he deletes the words in his note p. 179, "This appears to be the true +reading," and writes in the margin, "The old reading is doubtless the true one," +and in the margin of the paragraph referring to καθαριζων on p. 180 he writes, +"Alter the wording of this." This entirely agrees with my own recollection of +many conversations with him on the subject. I think he felt that the weight of +the cursive testimony to the old rending was conclusive,—at least that he was not +justified in changing the text in spite of it.' These last words of Mr. Rose +express exactly the inference that I had drawn.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> 'The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have "in secessum uadit (or exiit) +purgans omnes escas"; <i>i</i> (Vindobonensis) and <i>r</i> (Usserianus) have "et purgat" +for "purgans": and <i>a</i> has a conflation "in secessum exit purgans omnes escas +et exit in rivum"—so they all point the same way.'—(Kindly communicated +by Mr. H. J. White.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> Dem. xv. (Graffin)—'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in +secessum emittitur.' (Lat.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> Galland. iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali +lege purgari.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> iii. 494. ελεγε ταυτα 'ο Σωτηρ, καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> i. 206. εκκαθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> Galland. iii. 400. +αλλα και 'ο Σωτηρ, παντα καθαριζων τα βρωματα.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> [The following specimens taken from the first hand of B may illustrate +the kakigraphy, if I may use the expression, which is characteristic of that MS. +and also of [Symbol: Aleph]. The list might be easily increased. +</p><p> +I. <i>Proper Names.</i> +</p><p> +Ιωανης, generally: Ιωαννης, Luke i. 13*, 60, 63; Acts iii. 4; iv. 6, 13, +19; xii. 25; xiii. 5, 25; xv. 37; Rev. i. 1, 4, 9; xxii. 8. +</p><p> +Βεεζεβουλ, Matt. x. 25; xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15, 18, 19. +</p><p> +Ναζαρετ, Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; John i. 46, 47. Ναζαρα, Matt. iv. 13. +Ναζαρεθ, Matt. xxi. 11; Luke ii. 51; iv. 16. +</p><p> +Μαρια for Μαριαμ, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 19. Μαριαμ for +Μαρια, Matt. +xxvii. 61; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42; xi. 32; John xi. 2; xii. 3; +xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86. +</p><p> +Κουμ, Mark v. 41. Γολγοθ, Luke xix. 17. +</p><p> +Ιστραηλειται, Ιστραηλιται, Ισραηλειται, Ισραηλιται. +</p><p> +Ελεισαβετ, Ελισαβετ. +</p><p> +Μωσης, Μωυσης. +</p><p> +Δαλμανουνθα, Mark viii. 10. +</p><p> +Ιωση (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. Ιωσηφ, Matt. xxvii. 57, 59; +Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38. +</p><p> +II. <i>Mis-spelling of ordinary words.</i> +</p><p> +καθ' ιδιαν, Matt. xvii. 1, 19; xxi v. 3; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31, &c. κατ' ιδιαν, +Matt. xiv. 13, 23; Mark vi. 32; vii. 33, &c. +</p><p> +γενημα, Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. γεννημα, Matt. +iii. 7; xii. 34; xxiii. 33; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known γεννηματα +εχιδνων). +</p><p> +A similar confusion between γενεσις and γεννησις, Matt. i, and between +εγενηθην and εγεννηθην, and γεγενημαι and γεγεννημαι. See Kuenen +and Cobet N. T. ad fid. Cod. Vaticani lxxvii. +</p><p> +III. <i>Itacisms.</i> +</p><p> +κρεινω, John xii. 48 (κρεινει). κρινω, Matt. vii. 1; xix. 28; Luke vi. 37; +vii. 43; xii. 57, &c. +</p><p> +τειμω, τιμω, Matt. xv. 4, 5, 8; xix. 19; xxvii. 9; Mark vii. 6, 10, &c. +</p><p> +ενεβρειμηθη (Matt. ix. 30) for ενεβριμησατο. ανακλειθηναι (Mark vi. 39) +for ανακλιναι. σειτος for σιτος (Mark iv. 28). +</p><p> +IV. <i>Bad Grammar.</i> +</p><p> +τωι οικοδεσποτηι επεκαλεσαν for τον οικοδεσποτην εκαλ. (Matt. x. 25). +καταπατησουσιν for —σωσιν (Matt. vii. 6). 'ο αν αιτησεται (Matt. +xiv. 7). 'οταν δε ακουετε (Mark xiii. 7). +</p><p> +V. <i>Impossible words.</i> +</p><p> +εμνηστευμενην (Luke i. 27). ουρανου for ουρανιου (ii. 13). ανηζητουν +(Luke ii. 44). κοπιουσιν (Matt. vi. 28). ηρωτουν (Matt. xv. 23). +κατασκηνοιν (Mark iv. 32). 'ημεις for 'υμεις. 'υμεις for 'ημεις.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> This paper on Titus ii. 5 was marked by the Dean as being 'ready for +press.' It was evidently one of his later essays, and was left in one of his later +portfolios.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> <i>All</i> Matthaei's 16,—<i>all</i> Rinck's 7,—<i>all</i> Reiche's +6,—<i>all</i> Scrivener's 13, &c., &c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> 622.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> <i>Ed.</i> Swete, ii. 247 (<i>domos suas bene regentes</i>); +248 (<i>domus proprias optime regant</i>).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> ii. (<i>Eth.</i>) 291 a, 309 b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> xi. 750 a, 751 b c d—'η οικουρος και οικονομικη.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> iii. 704.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> ii. 271.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> Cod. Clarom.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> Cod. Amiat., and August. iii<sup>1</sup>. 804.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> vii. 716 c, 718 b (<i>Bene domum regere</i>, 718 c).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> κατ' οικον οικουρουσιν 'ωστε παρθενοι (Soph. Oed. Col. +343).—'Οικουρος est +quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: οικουργος est scribarum commentum,'—as +Matthaei, whose note is worth reading, truly states. Wetstein's collections +here should by all means be consulted. See also Field's delightful Otium Norv., +pp. 135-6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> P. 293, <i>lin.</i> 4 (see <i>lin.</i> 2).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> P. 288, <i>lin.</i> 20.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a> 1 Tim. v. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> +οικουργειν—which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c. 1)—is probably due +to the scribe.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_vi" id="chapter_vi"></a>CHAPTER VI.</h2> + +<h3>ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.</h3> + +<h3>V. Liturgical Influence.</h3> + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + + +<p>There is one distinct class of evidence provided by +Almighty <span class="smcap">God</span> for the conservation of the deposit in its +integrity<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a>, which calls for special notice in this place. The +Lectionaries of the ancient Church have not yet nearly +enjoyed the attention they deserve, or the laborious study +which in order to render them practically available they +absolutely require. Scarcely any persons, in fact, except +professed critics, are at all acquainted with the contents of +the very curious documents alluded to: while collations +of any of them which have been hitherto effected are few +indeed. I speak chiefly of the Books called Evangelistaria +(or Evangeliaria), in other words, the proper lessons +collected out of the Gospels, and transcribed into a separate +volume. Let me freely admit that I subjoin a few observations +on this subject with unfeigned diffidence; having +had to teach myself throughout the little I know;—and +discovering in the end how very insufficient for my purpose +that little is. Properly handled, an adequate study of the +Lectionaries of the ancient Church would become the labour<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> +of a life. We require exact collations of at least 100 of +them. From such a practical acquaintance with about +a tenth of the extant copies some very interesting results +would infallibly be obtained<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a>.</p> + +<p>As for the external appearance of these documents, it +may be enough to say that they range, like the mass of +uncial and cursive copies, over a space of about 700 +years,—the oldest extant being of about the eighth century, +and the latest dating in the fifteenth. Rarely are any so +old as the former date,—or so recent as the last named. +When they began to be executed is not known; but much +older copies than any which at present exist must have +perished through constant use: [for they are in perfect order +when we first become acquainted with them, and as a whole +they are remarkably consistent with one another]. They +are almost invariably written in double columns, and not +unfrequently are splendidly executed. The use of Uncial +letters is observed to have been retained in documents of +this class to a later period than in the case of the Evangelia, +viz. down to the eleventh century. For the most part they +are furnished with a kind of musical notation executed in +vermilion; evidently intended to guide the reader in that +peculiar recitative which is still customary in the oriental +Church.</p> + +<p>In these books the Gospels always stand in the following +order: St. John: St. Matthew: St. Luke: St. Mark. The +lessons are brief,—resembling the Epistles and Gospels in +our Book of Common Prayer.</p> + +<p>They seem to me to fall into two classes: (<i>a</i>) Those +which contain a lesson for every day in the year: (<i>b</i>) Those +which only contain [lessons for fixed Festivals and] the +Saturday-Sunday lessons (σαββατοκυριακαι). We are reminded<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> +by this peculiarity that it was not till a very late +period in her history that the Eastern Church was able to +shake herself clear of the shadow of the old Jewish Sabbath<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a>. +[To these Lectionaries Tables of the Lessons were often +added, of a similar character to those which we have in our +Prayer-books. The Table of daily Lessons went under +the title of Synaxarion (or Eclogadion); and the Table of the +Lessons of immovable Festivals and Saints' days was styled +Menologion<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a>.]</p> + +<p>Liturgical use has proved a fruitful source of textual +perturbation. Nothing less was to have been expected,—as +every one must admit who has examined ancient Evangelia +with any degree of attention. For a period before +the custom arose of writing out the Ecclesiastical Lections +in the 'Evangelistaries,' and 'Apostolos,' it may be regarded +as certain that the practice generally prevailed of +accommodating an ordinary copy, whether of the Gospels +or of the Epistles, to the requirements of the Church. This +continued to the last to be a favourite method with the +ancients<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a>. Not only was it the invariable liturgical practice +to introduce an ecclesiastical lection with an ever-varying +formula,—by which means the holy Name is often found in +MSS. where it has no proper place,—but notes of time, &c., +['like the unique and indubitably genuine word δευτεροπρωτωι<a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a>,' +are omitted as carrying no moral lesson, as well as longer +passages like the case of the two verses recounting the +ministering Angel with the Agony and the Bloody Sweat<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span></p><p>That Lessons from the New Testament were probably +read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite +scheme, and on an established system, at least as early as +the fourth century, has been shewn to follow from plain +historical fact in the tenth chapter of the Twelve Last +Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, to which the reader is referred +for more detailed information. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—and +by implication, his namesake at Alexandria,—Chrysostom, +at Antioch and at Constantinople,—Augustine, in Africa,—all +four expressly witness to the circumstance. In other +words, there is found to have been at least at that time +fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom +a Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and +the same in the West and in the East. That it must have +been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferred from +several considerations<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a>. For example, Marcion, in <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 140, +would hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and +Apostolicon of his own, as we learn from Epiphanius<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a>, if he +had not been induced by the Lectionary System prevailing +around him to form a counterplan of teaching upon the +same model.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>Indeed, the high antiquity of the Church's Lectionary +System is inferred with certainty from many a textual +phenomenon with which students of Textual Science are +familiar.</p> + +<p>It may be helpful to a beginner if I introduce to his +notice the class of readings to be discussed in the present +chapter, by inviting his attention to the first words of the +Gospel for St. Philip and St. James' Day in our own English +Book of Common Prayer,—'And <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> said unto His<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> +disciples.' Those words he sees at a glance are undeniably +nothing else but an Ecclesiastical accretion to the Gospel,—words +which breed offence in no quarter, and occasion error +to none. They have nevertheless stood prefixed to St. John +xiv. 1 from an exceedingly remote period; for, besides +establishing themselves in every Lectionary of the ancient +Church<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a>, they are found in Cod. D<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a>,—in copies of the Old +Latin<a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> as the Vercellensis, Corbeiensis, Aureus, Bezae,—and +in copies of the Vulgate. They may be of the second +or third, they must be as old as the fourth century. It +is evident that it wants but a very little for those words +to have established their claim to a permanent place in +the Text. Readings just as slenderly supported have been +actually adopted before now<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a>.</p> + +<p>I proceed to cite another instance; and here the success +of an ordinary case of Lectionary licence will be perceived +to have been complete: for besides recommending itself to +Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, +the blunder in question has established itself in the pages +of the Revised Version. Reference is made to an alteration +of the Text occurring in certain copies of Acts iii. 1, which +will be further discussed below<a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a>. When it has been stated +that these copies are [Symbol: Aleph]ABCG,—the Vulgate,—the two +Egyptian versions,—besides the Armenian,—and the +Ethiopic,—it will be admitted that the Ecclesiastical practice +which has resulted in so widespread a reading, must +be primitive indeed. To some persons such a formidable<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> +array of evidence may seem conclusive in favour of any +reading: but it can only seem so to those who do not +realize the weight of counter-testimony.</p> + +<p>But by far the most considerable injury which has +resulted to the Gospel from this cause is the suspicion +which has alighted in certain quarters on the last twelve +verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark. [Those verses +made up by themselves a complete Lection. The preceding +Lection, which was used on the Second Sunday after +Easter, was closed with the Liturgical note 'The End,' or +ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ, occurring after the eighth verse. What more +probable, nay, more certain result could there be, than that +some scribe should mistake the end of the Lection for the +end of St. Mark's Gospel, if the last leaf should chance to +have been torn off, and should then transcribe no more<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a>? +How natural that St. Mark should express himself in a more +condensed and abrupt style than usual. This of course is +only put forward as an explanation, which leaves the +notion of another writer and a later date unnecessary. If +it can be improved upon, so much the better. Candid +critics ought to study Dean Burgon's elaborate chapter +already referred to before rejecting it.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>And there probably does not exist, in the whole compass +of the Gospel, a more interesting instance of this than is +furnished by the words ειπε δε 'ο Κυριος, in St. Luke vii. 31. +This is certainly derived from the Lectionaries; being +nothing else but the formula with which it was customary +to introduce the lection that begins at this place. Accordingly, +only one out of forty copies which have been +consulted for the purpose contains them. But the circumstance +of interest remains to be stated. When these four<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> +unauthorized words have been thus got rid of, the important +discovery is made that the two preceding verses (verses 28 +and 29) must needs form a part of our <span class="smcap">Lord</span>'s discourse,—which +it is perceived flows on unbroken from v. 24 to v. 35. +This has been seen already by some<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a>, though denied by +others. But the fact does not admit of rational doubt; +though it is certainly not as yet generally known. It is +not generally known, I mean, that the Church has recovered +a piece of knowledge with which she was once familiar<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a>, +but which for many centuries she has forgotten, viz. that +thirty-two words which she supposed to be those of the +Evangelist are in reality those of her <span class="smcap">Lord</span>.</p> + +<p>Indeed, when the expressions are considered, it is perceived +that this account of them must needs be the true +one. Thus, we learn from the 24th verse that our +<span class="smcap">Saviour</span> was at this time addressing 'the crowds' or +'multitudes.' But the four classes specified in verses 29, 30, +cannot reasonably be thought to be the Evangelist's analysis +of those crowds. In fact what is said of 'the Pharisees and +Lawyers' in ver. 30 is clearly not a remark made by the +Evangelist on the reception which our <span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> words +were receiving at the hands of his auditory; but our +<span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> own statement of the reception which His +Forerunner's preaching had met with at the hands of the +common people and the publicans on the one hand,—the +Pharisees and the Scribes on the other. Hence the inferential +particle ουν in the 31st verse; and the use in +ver. 35 of the same verb (εδικαιωθη) which the Divine +Speaker had employed in ver. 29: whereby He takes up +His previous statement while He applies and enforces it.</p> + +<p>Another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating +in the same way is found a little farther on. In St. Luke<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> +ix. 1 ('And having called together His twelve Disciples'), the +words μαθητας αυτου are confessedly spurious: being condemned +by nearly every known cursive and uncial. Their +presence in the meantime is fully accounted for by the +adjacent rubrical direction how the lesson is to be introduced: +viz. 'At that time <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> having called together +His twelve Disciples.' Accordingly we are not surprised to +find the words 'ο Ιησους also thrust into a few of the MSS.: +though we are hardly prepared to discover that the words of +the Peshitto, besides the Latin and Cureton's Syriac, are +disfigured in the same way. The admirers of 'the old +uncials' will learn with interest that, instead of μαθητας +αυτου, [Symbol: Aleph]C with LXΛΞ and a choice assortment of cursives +exhibit αποστολους,—being supported in this manifestly +spurious reading by the best copies of the Old Latin, the +Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, Bohairic, and a few other +translations.</p> + +<p>Indeed, it is surprising what a fertile source of corruption +Liturgical usage has proved. Every careful student of the +Gospels remembers that St. Matthew describes our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> +first and second missionary journey in very nearly the same +words. The former place (iv. 23) ending και πασαν μαλακιαν +εν τω λαω used to conclude the lesson for the second Sunday +after Pentecost,—the latter (ix. 35) ending και πασαν μαλακιαν +occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventh +Sunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers +the matter, that εν τω λαω has in consequence not only +found its way into ix. 35, but has established itself there +very firmly: and that from a very early time. The spurious +words are first met with in the Codex Sinaiticus<a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a>.</p> + +<p>But sometimes corruptions of this class are really perplexing. +Thus [Symbol: Aleph] testifies to the existence of a short +additional clause (και πολλοι ηκολουθησαν αυτω) at the end,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> +as some critics say, of the same 35th verse. Are we not +rather to regard the words as the beginning of ver. 36, and +as being nothing else but the liturgical introduction to the +lection for the Twelve Apostles, which follows (ix. 36-x. 8), +and whose Festival falls on the 30th June? Whatever its +origin, this confessedly spurious accretion to the Text, +which exists besides only in L and six cursive copies, must +needs be of extraordinary antiquity, being found in the two +oldest copies of the Old Latin:—a sufficient indication, by +the way, of the utter insufficiency of such an amount of +evidence for the genuineness of any reading.</p> + +<p>This is the reason why, in certain of the oldest documents +accessible, such a strange amount of discrepancy is discoverable +in the text of the first words of St. Luke x. 25 +(και ιδου νομικος τις ανεστη, εκπειραζων αιτον, και λεγων). +Many of the Latin copies preface this with <i>et haec eo dicente</i>. +Now, the established formula of the lectionaries here is,—νομικος +τις προσηθεν τω Ι., which explains why the Curetonian, +the Lewis, with 33, 'the queen of the cursives,' as +their usual leader in aberrant readings is absurdly styled, so +read the place: while D, with one copy of the Old Latin, +stands alone in exhibiting,—ανεστη δε τις νομικος. Four +Codexes ([Symbol: Aleph]BLΞ) with the Curetonian omit the second και +which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place in its +purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy.</p> + + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>Take another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been +hitherto read in all Churches as follows:—'And the Scripture +was fulfilled, which saith, "And He was numbered +with the transgressors."' In these last days however the +discovery is announced that every word of this is an unauthorized +addition to the inspired text. Griesbach indeed +only marks the verse as probably spurious; while Tregelles +is content to enclose it in brackets. But Alford, Tischendorf,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> +Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers eject the +words και επληρωθη 'η γραφη 'η λεγουσα, και μετα ανομων +ελογισθη from the text altogether. What can be the reason +for so extraordinary a proceeding?</p> + +<p>Let us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach's latest editor) +that 'the quotation is not in Mark's manner; that the +formula which introduces it is John's: and that it seems to +be a gloss taken from Luke xxii. 37.' This is not criticism +but dictation,—imagination, not argument. Men who so +write forget that they are assuming the very point which +they are called upon to prove.</p> + +<p>Now it happens that all the Uncials but six and an +immense majority of the Cursive copies contain the words +before us:—that besides these, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the +Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur +in exhibiting them:—that the same words are expressly +recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius;—having +a section (σις / η +i.e. 216/8) to themselves—which is the weightiest +sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words of +Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac +sectional system (260/8), which is diverse from that of Eusebius +and independent of it. What then is to be set against such +a weight of ancient evidence? The fact that the following +six Codexes are without this 28th verse, [Symbol: Aleph]ABCDX, +together with the Sahidic and Lewis. The notorious +Codex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony +producible; to which Tischendorf adds 'about forty-five +cursive copies.' Will it be seriously pretended that this +evidence for omitting ver. 28 from St. Mark's Gospel can +compete with the evidence for retaining it?</p> + +<p>Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers +before antiquity. Codex D is of the sixth century; Cod. X +not older than the ninth: and not one of the four Codexes +which remain is so old, within perhaps two centuries, as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> +either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We have +Eusebius and Jerome's Vulgate as witnesses on the same +side, besides the Gothic version, which represents a Codex +probably as old as either. To these witnesses must be +added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St. Mark's +Gospel before either A or C were written<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a>.</p> + +<p>It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have +learned to regard whatever is found in B or [Symbol: Aleph] as oracular,—'But +is it credible that on a point like this such authorities +as [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD should all be in error?'</p> + +<p>It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of +which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it +ceases to be even a matter of surprise. On the other hand, +what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like +this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic) should +have conspired to mislead mankind? And further, on what +intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, +and the whole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this +verse of Scripture be indeed spurious?</p> + +<p>I know that the rejoinder will be as follows:—'Yes, but +if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired +verity, how is their absence from the earliest Codexes to be +accounted for?' Now it happens that for once I am able +to assign the reason. But I do so under protest, for I insist +that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest +Codexes is no part of a critic's business. It would not only +prove an endless, but also a hopeless task. This time, +however, I am able to explain.</p> + +<p>If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the +Bibliothèque at Paris for a Greek Codex numbered '71,' an +Evangelium will be put into his hands which differs from +any that I ever met with in giving singularly minute and +full rubrical directions. At the end of St. Mark xv. 27, he +will read as follows:—'When thou readest the sixth Gospel<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> +of the Passion,—also when thou readest the second Gospel +of the Vigil of Good Friday,—stop here: skip verse 28: +then go on at verse 29.' The inference from this is so +obvious, that it would be to abuse the reader's patience if +I were to enlarge upon it, or even to draw it out in detail. +Very ancient indeed must the Lectionary practice in this +particular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of +its operation in our four oldest Codexes: but <i>it has left it</i><a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a>. +The explanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, +and the Codexes which leave it out are corrupt.</p> + +<p>One word about the evidence of the cursive copies on +this occasion. Tischendorf says that 'about forty-five' of +them are without this precious verse of Scripture. I venture +to say that the learned critic would be puzzled to produce +forty-five copies of the Gospels in which this verse has no +place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. that about +half of these are Lectionaries),—satisfactorily explains the +matter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world, +for the reason already assigned, these words are away; as +well as in every MS. which, like B and [Symbol: Aleph], has been depraved +by the influence of the Lectionary practice.</p> + +<p>And now I venture to ask,—What is to be thought of +that Revision of our Authorized Version which omits +ver. 28 altogether; with a marginal intimation that 'many +ancient authorities insert it'? Would it not have been the +course of ordinary reverence,—I was going to say of truth +and fairness,—to leave the text unmolested: with a marginal +memorandum that just 'a very few ancient authorities +leave it out'?</p> + + +<h3>§ 5.</h3> + +<p>A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this +cause, which nevertheless has imposed on several critics,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> +as has been already said, is furnished by the first words of +Acts iii. The most ancient witness accessible, namely the +Peshitto, confirms the usual reading of the place, which is +also the text of the cursives: viz. Επι το αυτο δε Πετρος και +Ιωαννης κ.τ.λ. So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E.</p> + +<p>The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire +however in representing the words which immediately +precede in the following unintelligible fashion:—'ο δε Κυριος +προσετιθει τους σωζομενους καθ' 'ημεραν επι το αυτο. Πετρος δε +κ.τ.λ. How is it to be thought that this strange and vapid +presentment of the passage had its beginning? It results, +I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice of beginning +a fresh lection at the name of 'Peter,' prefaced by the usual +formula 'In those days.' It is accordingly usual to find +the liturgical word αρχη—indicative of the beginning of +a lection,—thrust in between επι το αυτο δε and Πετρος. At +a yet earlier period I suppose some more effectual severance +of the text was made in that place, which unhappily misled +some early scribe<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a>. And so it came to pass that in the first +instance the place stood thus: 'ο δε Κυριος προσετιθει τους +σωζομενους καθ' 'ημεραν τη εκκλησια επι το αυτο,—which was +plainly intolerable.</p> + +<p>What I am saying will commend itself to any unprejudiced +reader when it has been stated that Cod. D in this +place actually reads as follows:—καθημεραν επι το αυτο εν τη +εκκλησια. Εν δε ταις 'ημεραις ταυταις Πετρος κ.τ.λ.: the scribe +with simplicity both giving us the liturgical formula with +which it was usual to introduce the Gospel for the Friday +after Easter, and permitting us to witness the perplexity +with which the evident surplusage of τη εκκλησια επι το αυτο +occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and +thrusts in a preposition. How obvious it now was to solve +the difficulty by getting rid of τη εκκλησια.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span></p> + +<p>It does not help the adverse case to shew that the +Vulgate as well as the copy of Cyril of Alexandria are +disfigured with the same corrupt reading as [Symbol: Aleph]ABC. It +does but prove how early and how widespread is this +depravation of the Text. But the indirect proof thus +afforded that the actual Lectionary System must needs +date from a period long anterior to our oldest Codexes is +a far more important as well as a more interesting inference. +In the meantime I suspect that it was in Western Christendom +that this corruption of the text had its beginning: for +proof is not wanting that the expression επι το αυτο seemed +hard to the Latins<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a>.</p> + +<p>Hence too the omission of παλιν from [Symbol: Aleph]BD (St. Matt, +xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> will +explain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of +writing:—</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">ακουετω. τελος<br/><br /></span> +<span class="i0">παλιν. αρχη. ειπεν ο Κυριος την παραβολην ταυτην.<br/><br /></span> +<span class="i0">Ομοια εστιν κ.τ.λ.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>The word παλιν, because it stands between the end (τελος) +of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning +(αρχη) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out +[though every one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows +that αρχη and τελος were often inserted in the text]. The +second of these two lessons begins with 'ομοια [because +παλιν at the beginning of a lesson is not wanted]. Here +then is a singular token of the antiquity of the Lectionary +System in the Churches of the East: as well as a proof of +the untrustworthy character of Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BD. The discovery +that they are supported this time by copies of the Old +Latin (a c e ff<sup>1.2</sup> g<sup>1.2</sup> k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, +Ethiopic, does but further shew that such an amount of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> +evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine +the text of Scripture.</p> + +<p>When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately +preceding verse (xiii. 43) on the sole authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B and +a few Latin copies, omitting the word ακουειν,—and again +in the present verse on very similar authority (viz. [Symbol: Aleph]D, +Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic, +together with five cursives of aberrant character) transposing +the order of the words παντα 'οσα εχει πωλει,—I can +but reflect on the utterly insecure basis on which the +Revisers and the school which they follow would remodel +the inspired Text.</p> + +<p>It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, +that the clause και ελυπηθησαν σφοδρα (St. Matt. xvii. 23) +comes to be omitted in K and several other copies. The +previous lesson ends at εγερθησεται,—the next lesson begins +at προσηλθον.</p> + + +<h3>§ 6.</h3> + +<p>Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently +exercised a corrupting influence on the text of Scripture. +Having elsewhere considered St. Luke's version of the +Lord's Prayer<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a>, I will in this place discuss the genuineness +of the doxology with which the Lord's Prayer concludes +in St. Matt. vi. 13<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a>,—'οτι σου εστιν 'η βασιλεια και 'η δυναμις +και 'η δοξα εις τους αιωνας. αμην,—words which for 360 years +have been rejected by critical writers as spurious, notwithstanding +St. Paul's unmistakable recognition of them in +2 Tim. iv. 18,—which alone, one would have thought, +should have sufficed to preserve them from molestation.</p> + +<p>The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events +these fifteen words enjoy in perfection, being met with in +all copies of the Peshitto:—and this is a far weightier +consideration than the fact that they are absent from most +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span>of the Latin copies. Even of these however four (k f g<sup>1</sup> q) +recognize the doxology, which is also found in Cureton's +Syriac and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic, +Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian, +Erpenius' Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos; as well as in +the Διδαχη (with variations); Apostolical Constitutions +(iii. 18-vii. 25 with variations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr. +vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i. 29). Chrysostom comments +on the words without suspicion, and often quotes them +(In Orat. Dom., also see Hom. in Matt. xiv. 13): as does +Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24). See also Opus Imperfectum +(Hom. in Matt. xiv), Theophylact on this place, +and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt. vi. 13 and C. Massal. +Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be accepted as +inspired is of course based on the consideration that they +are found in ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek +copies, including Φ and Σ of the end of the fifth and beginning +of the sixth centuries. What then is the nature of +the adverse evidence with which they have to contend and +which is supposed to be fatal to their claims?</p> + +<p>Four uncial MSS. ([Symbol: Aleph]BDZ), supported by five cursives of +bad character (1, 17 which gives αμην, 118, 130, 209), and, +as we have seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these +words; which, it is accordingly assumed, must have found +their way surreptitiously into the text of all the other +copies in existence. But let me ask,—Is it at all likely, or +rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this, +all the MSS. in the world but nine should have become +corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for one +more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a mutilated +text in every page. But how will men pretend to +explain an interpolation universal as the present; which +may be traced as far back as the second century; which has +established itself without appreciable variety of reading in +all the MSS.; which has therefore found its way from the +earliest time into every part of Christendom; is met with<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> +in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek Liturgies; and +has so effectually won the Church's confidence that to this +hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of +the faithful all over the world?</p> + +<p>One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry +ever since the days of Erasmus. A note in the Complutensian +Polyglott (1514) expresses it with sufficient accuracy. +'In the Greek copies, after <i>And deliver us from evil</i>, +follows <i>For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the +glory, for ever</i>. But it is to be noted that in the Greek +liturgy, after the choir has said <i>And deliver us from evil</i>, it +is the Priest who responds as above: and those words, +according to the Greeks, the priest alone may pronounce. +This makes it probable that the words in question are no +integral part of the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Prayer: but that certain +copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use +in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.' In other +words, they represent that men's ears had grown so fatally +familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the +liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel of +the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Prayer. The same statement has been repeated +ad nauseam by ten generations of critics for 360 years. +The words with which our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> closed His pattern +prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting +from the liturgical practice of the primitive Church. And +this slipshod account of the matter is universally acquiesced +in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the +present day.</p> + +<p>From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental +liturgies, it is found then that though the utmost variety +prevails among them, yet that <i>not one</i> of them exhibits the +evangelical formula as it stands in St. Matt. vi. 13; while in +some instances the divergences of expression are even extraordinary. +Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the +typical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> +passes as Chrysostom's. Precisely the same form recurs in +the office which is called after the name of Basil: and it is +essentially reproduced by Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of +Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius; while something very +like it is found to have been in use in more of the Churches +of the East.</p> + +<p>'<i>For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory</i>, +Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and always and <i>for ever</i> +and ever. <i>Amen</i>.'</p> + +<p>But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the +foregoing,—with its ever-varying terminology of praise,—its +constant reference to the blessed Trinity,—its habitual νυν +και αει,—and its invariable εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων, (which +must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned +by Irenaeus<a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a>, and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself;)—the +doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church's +liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by +possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found +in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,—'<i>For thine is the kingdom, +and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.</i>'</p> + +<p>On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey +of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal +prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the +<span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Prayer; the general prefix 'for thine'; the prevailing +mention therein of 'the kingdom and the power +and the glory'; the invariable reference to Eternity:—all +this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness +of the form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of +faith in the Trinity, and otherwise amplified as piety or +zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula +of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in +St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other +hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> +practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is +simply impossible.</p> + +<p>What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's +peculiar method of reciting the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Prayer in the public +liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and sufficient +explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case? +It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the +Choir to break off at the words 'But deliver us from evil.' +They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology +must for that reason have been omitted by the critical +owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which +nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version +originally derived their text. This is the sum of the +matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged +difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize +no more of the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Prayer than they found in their +Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would +have been if they did.</p> + +<p>Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the +Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they +wrote expressly on the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Prayer; as Origen, Gregory +of Nyssa<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a>, Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have +attended most to such subjects will however bear me most +ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of +the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What +if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly +a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however +their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain +that the reason of it is not because their copies of St. +Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any +one seriously imagine that in <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 650, when Maximus +wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state +from what they are at present?</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span></p> +<p>The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly +stated:—The textual perturbation observable at St. Matt. +vi. 13 is indeed due to a liturgical cause, as the critics +suppose. But then it is found that not the great bulk of +the Evangelia, but only Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, +have been victims of the corrupting influence. As usual, +I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been +led astray. Let the doxology at the end of the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> +Prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text +without further molestation. Let no profane hands be any +more laid on these fifteen precious words of the <span class="smcap">Lord Jesus +Christ</span>.</p> + +<p>There yet remains something to be said on the same +subject for the edification of studious readers; to whom +the succeeding words are specially commended. They are +requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have +read what immediately follows.</p> + +<p>The history of the rejection of these words is in a high +degree instructive. It dates from 1514, when the Complutensian +editors, whilst admitting that the words were +found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text +solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal +annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology +is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible, +seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom? +'We presume,' they say, 'that this corruption of the +original text must date from an antecedent period.' The +same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, +was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; +but in his edition of the N.T. he suffered the doxology to +stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZ[Symbol: Aleph] +have successively come to light, critics have waxed +bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, +Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, +Wetstein, Griesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> +Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have +denounced the precious words as spurious.</p> + +<p>But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened +the case against the doxology? Since 1514, scholars have +become acquainted with the Peshitto version; which by its +emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne +by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The Διδαχη of the +first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third +century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the same +side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, +Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that +Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton's Syriac. The Harkleian, +Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom +(2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius +(2), bring up the rear<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a>. Does any one really suppose +that two Codexes of the fourth century (B[Symbol: Aleph]), which +are even notorious for their many omissions and general +accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount +of ancient evidence? L and 33, generally the firm allies +of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St. Matt. vi. 13: +and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and +Z, which are also balanced by Φ and Σ. But at this +juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down: +and when it is discovered that every other uncial and +every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its +support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to +be a myth,—what must be the verdict of an impartial mind +on a survey of the entire evidence?</p> + +<p>The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:—Liturgical +use has indeed been the cause of a depravation +of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13; but it proves on inquiry to +be the very few MSS.,—not the very many,—which have +been depraved.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span></p> + +<p>Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier +period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence; +and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest +may have been the same with that which is found in the +ordinary text of St. Matthew's Gospel. This may have +been the case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, +which fell to the ground when the statement on which it +rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on +a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be ascertained,—and +I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is +possible,—I should regard it only as confirmatory of the +genuineness of the doxology. For why should the liturgical +employment of the last fifteen words of the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> +Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness? +In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an indefinitely +remote period the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Prayer was not publicly recited +by the people further than 'But deliver us from evil,'—a +doxology of some sort being invariably added, but pronounced +by the priest alone,—this clearly ascertained fact +is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary +[found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say +nothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not +to require particular explanation, viz. the omission of the +last half of St. Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> [I have retained this passage notwithstanding the objections made in some +quarters against similar passages in the companion volume, because I think +them neither valid, nor creditable to high intelligence, or to due reverence.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> [The Textual student will remember that besides the Lectionaries of the +Gospels mentioned here, of which about 1000 are known, there are some 300 +more of the Acts and Epistles, called by the name Apostolos.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> ['It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday +succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week +takes its name—<i>not</i> from the Sunday with which it commences, but—from the +Saturday-and-Sunday with which it concludes.' Twelve Verses, p. 194, where +more particulars are given.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th +edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> See Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 56-65.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> In the absence of materials supplied by the Dean upon what was his own +special subject, I have thought best to extract the above sentences from the +Twelve Last Verses, p. 207. The next illustration is his own, though in my +words.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> i. 311.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> ειπεν 'ο Κυριος τοις 'εαυτου μαθηταις; μη ταρασσεσθω.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> και ειπεν τοις μαθηταις αυτου. The same Codex (D) also prefixes to +St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula—ειπεν δε και ετεραν παραβολην.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> '<i>Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur</i>.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> +E.g. the words και λεγει αυτοις; ειρηνη 'υμιν have been omitted by Tisch, +and rejected by W.-Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 <i>on the sole authority</i> of D and +five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on the same sorry evidence, the words +προσκυνησαντες αυτον have been omitted or rejected by the same critics from +St. Luke xxiv. 52. In both instances the expressions are also branded with +doubt in the R. V.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> Pp. 78-80.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> See Traditional Text, Appendix VII.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Westcott and Hort, doubt it.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> +Thus Codex Ξ actually interpolates at this place the +words—ουκετι εκεινοις +ελεγετο, αλλα τοις μαθηταις. Tisch. <i>ad loc</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> Cyril Alex, (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and a few other +copies, even append the same familiar words to +και πασαν μαλακιαν in St. Matt. x. 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in the last year of +his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See his Comment. Crit. +Part ii. p. 190. 'Nec ulla ... debuerint.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> τους σωζομενους καθημεραν εν τη εκκλησια. επι το αυτο δε +(ΤΗ Σ' ΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΚΙΝΗΣΙΜΟΥ) +Πετρος και Ιωαννης, κ.τ.λ. Addit. 16,184, fol. 152 <i>b</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> +Bede, Retr. 111. D (add. 'οι εν τ. εκκλ.). Brit. Mus. Addit. 16, 184. fol. +152 <i>b.</i> Vulgate.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed in a +smaller type, for distinction.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> The Revision Revised, 34-6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> See The Traditional Text, p. 104.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> +αλλα και 'ημας επι της Ευχαριστιας λεγοντας, 'εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων,' +κ.τ.λ. Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener, Introduction, +ii. p. 325, note 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I have +increased the Dean's list with a few additional authorities.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_vii" id="chapter_vii"></a>CHAPTER VII.</h2> + +<h3>CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.</h3> + +<h3>I. Harmonistic Influence.</h3> + + +<p>[It must not be imagined that all the causes of the +depravation of the text of Holy Scripture were instinctive, +and that mistakes arose solely because scribes were +overcome by personal infirmity, or were unconsciously the +victims of surrounding circumstances. There was often +more design and method in their error. They, or those who +directed them, wished sometimes to correct and improve +the copy or copies before them. And indeed occasionally +they desired to make the Holy Scriptures witness to their +own peculiar belief. Or they had their ideas of taste, and +did not scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied +was their enlightened judgement.</p> + +<p>Thus we can trace a tendency to bring the Four Records +into one harmonious narrative, or at least to excise or vary +statements in one Gospel which appeared to conflict with +parallel statements in another. Or else, some Evangelical +Diatessaron, or Harmony, or combined narrative now +forgotten, exercised an influence over them, and whether +consciously or not,—since it is difficult always to keep +designed and unintentional mistakes apart, and we must +not be supposed to aim at scientific exactness in the +arrangement adopted in this analysis,—induced them to +adopt alterations of the pure Text.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span></p> + +<p>We now advance to some instances which will severally +and conjointly explain themselves.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + +<p>Nothing can be more exquisitely precise than St. +John's way of describing an incident to which St. Mark +(xvi. 9) only refers; viz. our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> appearance to Mary +Magdalene,—the first of His appearances after His Resurrection. +The reason is discoverable for every word the +Evangelist uses:—its form and collocation. Both St. Luke +(xxiv. 3) and previously St. Mark (xvi. 5) expressly stated +that the women who visited the Sepulchre on the first +Easter morning, 'after they had entered in' (εισελθουσαι), +saw the Angels. St John explains that at that time Mary +was not with them. She had separated herself from their +company;—had gone in quest of Simon Peter and 'the +other disciple.' When the women, their visit ended, had +in turn departed from the Sepulchre, she was left in the +garden alone. 'Mary was standing [with her face] <i>towards +the sepulchre</i> weeping,—<i>outside</i><a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a>.'</p> + +<p>All this, singular to relate, was completely misunderstood +by the critics of the two first centuries. Not only +did they identify the incident recorded in St. John xx. 11, +12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St. Luke xxiv. 3, 4, from +which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelist is careful +to distinguish it;—not only did they further identify both +places with St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a>, from which they are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> +clearly separate;—but they considered themselves at liberty +to tamper with the inspired text in order to bring it into +harmony with their own convictions. Some of them +accordingly altered προς το μνημειον into προς τω μνημειω +(which is just as ambiguous in Greek as '<i>at</i> the sepulchre' +in English<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a>), and εξω they boldly erased. It is thus that +Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact this depravation +must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed +to an extraordinary extent: for it disfigures the best copies +of the Old Latin, (the Syriac being doubtful): a memorable +circumstance truly, and in a high degree suggestive. Codex +B, to be sure, reads 'ειστηκει προς τω μνημειω, εξω κλαιουσα,—merely +transposing (with many other authorities) the last +two words. But then Codex B substitutes ελθουσαι for +εισελθουσαι in St. Mark xvi. 5, in order that the second +Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt, xxviii. +2, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the +Angelic appearance was outside the sepulchre<a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a>. Codex [Symbol: Aleph], +on the contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting +εξω,—(as in the next verse it leaves out δυο, in order to +prevent St. John xx. 12 from seeming to contradict St. +Matt. xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark xvi. 5),—it stands alone in +reading ΕΝ τω μνημειω. (C and D are lost here.) When +will men learn that these 'old uncials' are <i>ignes fatui</i>,—not +beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they +exhibit are not only inconsistent but corrupt?</p> + +<p>There is no reason for distrusting the received reading of +the present place in any particular. True, that most of the +uncials and many of the cursives read προς τω μνημειω: but +so did neither Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> nor Cyril<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> read the place. +And if the Evangelist himself had so written, is it credible<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> +that a majority of the copies would have forsaken the +easier and more obvious, in order to exhibit the less usual +and even slightly difficult expression? Many, by writing +προς τω μνημειω, betray themselves; for they retain a sure +token that the accusative ought to end the sentence. I am +not concerned however just now to discuss these matters +of detail. I am only bent on illustrating how fatal to the +purity of the Text of the Gospels has been the desire of +critics, who did not understand those divine compositions, +to bring them into enforced agreement with one another. +The sectional system of Eusebius, I suspect, is not so much +the cause as the consequence of the ancient and inveterate +misapprehensions which prevailed in respect of the history +of the Resurrection. It is time however to proceed.</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>Those writers who overlook the corruptions which the +text has actually experienced through a mistaken solicitude +on the part of ancient critics to reconcile what seemed to +them the conflicting statements of different Evangelists, +are frequently observed to attribute to this kind of officiousness +expressions which are unquestionably portions of the +genuine text. Thus, there is a general consensus amongst +critics of the destructive school to omit the words και τινες +συν αυταις from St. Luke xxiv. 1. Their only plea is the +testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BCL and certain of the Latin copies,—a +conjunction of authorities which, when they stand alone, +we have already observed to bear invariably false witness. +Indeed, before we proceed to examine the evidence, we +discover that those four words of St. Luke are even required +in this place. For St. Matthew (xxvii. 61), and St. Mark +after him (xv. 47), had distinctly specified two women as +witnesses of how and where our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> body was laid. +Now they were the same women apparently who prepared +the spices and ointment and hastened therewith at break of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> +day to the sepulchre. Had we therefore only St. Matthew's +Gospel we should have assumed that 'the ointment-bearers,' +for so the ancients called them, were but two (St. Matt. +xxviii. 1). That they were at least three, even St. Mark +shews by adding to their number Salome (xvi. 1). But in +fact their company consisted of more than four; as St. Luke +explains when he states that it was the same little band +of holy women who had accompanied our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> out +of Galilee (xxiii. 55, cf. viii. 2). In anticipation therefore of +what he will have to relate in ver. 10, he says in ver. 1, +'and certain with them.'</p> + +<p>But how, I shall be asked, would you explain the omission +of these words which to yourself seem necessary? +And after insisting that one is never bound to explain how +the text of any particular passage came to be corrupted, +I answer, that these words were originally ejected from the +text in order to bring St. Luke's statement into harmony +with that of the first Evangelist, who mentions none but +Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses. +The proof is that four of the same Latin copies which are +for the omission of και τινες συν αυταις are observed to begin +St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows,—κατακολουθησασαι δε ΔΥΟ +γυναικες. The same fabricated reading is found in D. It +exists also in the Codex which Eusebius employed when he +wrote his Demonstratio Evangelica. Instead therefore of +wearying the reader with the evidence, which is simply +overwhelming, for letting the text alone, I shall content +myself with inviting him to notice that the tables have +been unexpectedly turned on our opponents. There is +indeed found to have been a corruption of the text hereabouts, +and of the words just now under discussion; but it +belongs to an exceedingly remote age; and happily the +record of it survives at this day only in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL and certain +of the Old Latin copies. Calamitous however it is, that +what the Church has long since deliberately refused to part<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> +with should, at the end of so many centuries, by Lachmann +and Tregelles and Tischendorf, by Alford and Westcott +and Hort, be resolutely thrust out of place; and indeed +excluded from the Sacred Text by a majority of the +Revisers.</p> + +<p>[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic Influence +may be found in the substitution of 'wine' (οινον) +for vinegar (οξος), respecting which the details are given in +the second Appendix to the Traditional Text.]</p> + +<p>[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propensities +in the Ancient Church.]</p> + +<p>In St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of +the Old Latin versions (b c f g<sup>1</sup> l q) besides Ambrose (Com. +St. Luke, 1340), are observed to transpose the second and +third temptations; introducing verses 9-12 between verses +4 and 5; in order to make the history of the Temptation +as given by St. Luke correspond with the account given by +St. Matthew.</p> + +<p>The scribe of the Vercelli Codex (a) was about to do the +same thing; but he checked himself when he had got as far +as 'the pinnacle of the temple,'—which he seems to have +thought as good a scene for the third temptation as 'a high +mountain,' and so left it.</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>A favourite, and certainly a plausible, method of accounting +for the presence of unauthorized matter in MSS. is to +suggest that, in the first instance, it probably existed only +in the shape of a marginal gloss, which through the inadvertence +of the scribes, in process of time, found its way +into the sacred text. That in this way some depravations +of Scripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I presume +be doubted. But I suspect that the hypothesis is +generally a wholly mistaken one; having been imported +into this subject-matter (like many other notions which are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> +quite out of place here), from the region of the Classics,—where +(as we know) the phenomenon is even common. +Especially is this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order +to explain those instances of assimilation which are so +frequently to be met with in Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph].</p> + +<p>Another favourite way of accounting for instances of +assimilation, is by taking for granted that the scribe was +thinking of the parallel or the cognate place. And certainly +(as before) there is no denying that just as the familiar +language of a parallel place in another Gospel presents +itself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have +struck a copyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade +him to write, not the words which he saw before him, but +the words which he remembered. All this is certainly +possible.</p> + +<p>But I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by +any means the right way to explain the phenomena under +discussion. I am of opinion that such depravations of the +text were in the first instance intentional. I do not mean +that they were introduced with any sinister motive. My +meaning is that [there was a desire to remove obscurities, +or to reconcile incongruous passages, or generally to +improve the style of the authors, and thus to add to the +merits of the sacred writings, instead of detracting from +them. Such a mode of dealing with the holy deposit +evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted +it to understand the nature of the trust committed to the +Church, just as similar action at the present day does in +the case of such as load the New Testament with 'various +readings,' and illustrate it as they imagine with what are +really insinuations of doubt, in the way that they prepare +an edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and +sharpening the minds of youthful students. There was +intention, and the intention was good: but it was none the +less productive of corruption.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span></p> + +<p>I suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of +those connected Gospel narratives called Diatessarons, +which are known to have existed anciently in the Church, +we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem which at +present is shrouded in obscurity,—and concerning the +solution of which, with such instruments of criticism as we +at present possess, we can do little else but conjecture. +I allude to those many occasions on which the oldest documents +extant, in narrating some incident which really +presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge into +hopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing +referred to will best explain my meaning. Take then the +incident of our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> paying tribute,—set down in St. +Matt. xvii. 25, 26.</p> + +<p>The received text exhibits,—'And when he [Peter] had +entered ('οτε εισηλθεν) into the house, <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> was beforehand +with him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom +do earthly kings take toll or tribute? of their sons or of +strangers?' Here, for 'οτε εισηλθεν, Codex B (but no other +uncial) substitutes ελθοντα: Codex [Symbol: Aleph] (but no other) εισελθοντα: +Codex D (but no other) εισελθοντι: Codex C (but +no other) 'οτε ηλθον: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained +εισελθοντων; and a sixth, ελθοντων αυτων. A very +fair specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the <i>concordia +discors</i> which prevails in the most ancient uncial +copies<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a>. How is all this discrepancy to be accounted for?</p> + +<p>The Evangelist proceeds,—'Peter saith unto Him (Λεγει +αυτω 'ο Πετρος), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, +but continues—'Now when he had said, Of strangers' +(Ειποντος δε αυτου, απο των αλλοτριων);—which unauthorized +clause, all but the word αυτου, is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no +other uncial. On the other hand, for Λεγει αυτω 'ο Πετρος, +[Symbol: Aleph] (alone of uncials) substitutes 'ο δε εφη: and B (also alone<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> +of uncials) substitutes Ειποντος δε,—and then proceeds exactly +like the received text: while D merely omits 'ο Πετρος. +Again I ask,—How is all this discrepancy to be explained<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a>?</p> + +<p>As already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in +the first instance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel +narratives. In no more loyal way can I account for the +perplexing phenomenon already described, which is of +perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]D, +Cureton's Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version. It +is well known that at a very remote period some eminent +persons occupied themselves in constructing such exhibitions +of the Evangelical history: and further, that these +productions enjoyed great favour, and were in general use. +As for their contents,—the notion we form to ourselves of +a Diatessaron, is that it aspired to be a weaving of the +fourfold Gospel into one continuous narrative: and we +suspect that in accomplishing this object, the writer was by +no means scrupulous about retaining the precise words of +the inspired original. He held himself at liberty, on the +contrary, (<i>a</i>) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous +clauses: (<i>b</i>) to introduce new incidents: (<i>c</i>) to supply picturesque +details: (<i>d</i>) to give a new turn to the expression: +(<i>e</i>) to vary the construction at pleasure: (<i>f</i>) even slightly +to paraphrase. Compiled after some such fashion as I have +been describing, at a time too when the preciousness of the +inspired documents seems to have been but imperfectly +apprehended,—the works I speak of, recommended by +their graphic interest, and sanctioned by a mighty name, +must have imposed upon ordinary readers. Incautious<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> +owners of Codexes must have transferred without scruple +certain unauthorized readings to the margins of their own +copies. A calamitous partiality for the fabricated document +may have prevailed with some for whom copies were +executed. Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious +and rash Editors of Scripture,—among whom Origen may +be regarded as a prime offender,—must have deliberately +introduced into their recensions many an unauthorized +gloss, and so given it an extended circulation.</p> + +<p>Not that we would imply that permanent mischief has +resulted to the Deposit from the vagaries of individuals in +the earliest age. The Divine Author of Scripture hath +abundantly provided for the safety of His Word written. +In the multitude of copies,—in Lectionaries,—in Versions,—in +citations by the Fathers, a sufficient safeguard against +error hath been erected. But then, of these multitudinous +sources of protection we must not be slow to avail ourselves +impartially. The prejudice which would erect Codexes B +and [Symbol: Aleph] into an authority for the text of the New Testament +from which there shall be no appeal:—the superstitious +reverence which has grown up for one little cluster of +authorities, to the disparagement of all other evidence +wheresoever found; this, which is for ever landing critics in +results which are simply irrational and untenable, must +be unconditionally abandoned, if any real progress is to be +made in this department of inquiry. But when this has +been done, men will begin to open their eyes to the fact +that the little handful of documents recently so much in +favour, are, on the contrary, the only surviving witnesses to +corruptions of the Text which the Church in her corporate +capacity has long since deliberately rejected. But to +proceed.</p> + +<p>[From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to +harmonize the Gospels, corruption of a serious nature has +ensued in some well-known places, such as the transference<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> +of the piercing of the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> side from St. John xix. 34 to +St. Matt. xxvii. 49<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a>, and the omission of the words 'and of +an honeycomb' (και απο του μελισσιου κηριου<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a>).]</p> + +<p>Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a>, the <i>patch-work</i> supplement +to St. Matt. xxi. 9: viz.:—πολλοι δε (St. Mark xi. 8) +εξηλθον εις 'υπαντησιν αυτου. και (St. John xii. 13) ηρξαντο ... +χαιροντες αινειν τον Θεον ... περι πασων 'ων ειδον (St. Luke +xix. 37). This self-evident fabrication, 'if it be not a part +of the original Aramaic of St. Matthew,' remarks Dr. Cureton, +'would appear to have been supplied from the parallel +passages of Luke and John conjointly.' How is it that +even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent +scholar from hazarding the conjecture, that such a self-evident +deflection of his corrupt Syriac Codex from the +course all but universally pursued is a recovery of one more +genuine utterance of the <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span>?</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span></p> +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> +Μαρια δε 'ειστηκει προς το μνημειον κλαιουσα εξω (St. John xx. 11). Comp. +the expression προς το φως in St. Luke xxii. 56. Note, that the above is not +offered as a revised translation; but only to shew unlearned readers what the +words of the original exactly mean.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> +Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius <i>according to the Greek</i>, the +following places are brought together:— +</p> +<p> +St. Matt. xxviii: 1-4.<br/> +St. Mark xvi: 2-5<br/> +St. Luke xxiv: 1-4<br/> +St. John xx: 1, 11, 12 +</p><p> +<i>According to the Syriac</i>: +</p><p> +St. Matt. xxviii: 3, 4<br/> +St. Mark xvi: 5<br/> +St. Luke xxiv: 3, 4, 5(1/2)<br/> +St. John xx: 11, 12</p> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> Consider +'ο δε Πετρος 'ειστηκει προς τη θυρα εξω (St. John xviii. 16). Has not +this place, by the way, exerted an assimilating influence over St. John xx. 11?</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> +Hesychius, <i>qu.</i> 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43), explains St. Mark's +phrase εν τοις δεξιοις as follows:—δηλονοτι του εξωτερου σπηλαιου.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> viii. 513.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> iv. 1079.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> Traditional Text, pp. 81-8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> I am tempted to inquire,—By virtue of what verifying faculty do Lachmann +and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]; Tischendorf, +Alford, W. and Hort, the reading of B? On the second occasion, I venture to +ask,—What enabled the Revisers, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott +and Hort, to recognize in a reading, which is the peculiar property of B, +the genuine language of the <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span>? Is not a superstitious reverence for +B and [Symbol: Aleph] betraying for ever people into error?</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> Revision Revised, p. 33.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> The Lewis MS. is defective here.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_viii" id="chapter_viii"></a>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> + +<h3>CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.</h3> + +<h3>II. Assimilation.</h3> + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + + +<p>There results inevitably from the fourfold structure of +the Gospel,—from the very fact that the story of Redemption +is set forth in four narratives, three of which often ran +parallel,—this practical inconvenience: namely, that sometimes +the expressions of one Evangelist get improperly +transferred to another. This is a large and important +subject which calls for great attention, and requires to be +separately handled. The phenomena alluded to, which are +similar to some of those which have been treated in the +last chapter, may be comprised under the special head of +Assimilation.</p> + +<p>It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion +if we determine to consider separately those instances of +Assimilation which may rather be regarded as deliberate +attempts to reconcile one Gospel with another: indications +of a fixed determination to establish harmony between place +and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of +Assimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary +instances where <i>per fas et nefas</i> an enforced Harmony has +been established,—which abound indeed, but are by no +means common,—I am disposed to draw a line.</p> + +<p>This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> +matter is in itself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, +in the absence of any evidence direct or indirect on the +subject,—at all events I am not aware—that at any time +has there been one definite authoritative attempt made by +the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to remodel +or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of +the phenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that +the several corruptions of the text were effected at different +times, and took their beginning in widely different ways. +I suspect that Accident was the parent of many; and well +meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for the Truth is +accountable for not a few depravations: and the Church's +Liturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have +produced others. Systematic villainy I am persuaded has +had no part or lot in the matter. The decrees of such +an one as Origen, if there ever was another like him, will +account for a strange number of aberrations from the +Truth: and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a>, +I suspect that we should behold there the germs at least +of as many more. But, I repeat my conviction that, however +they may have originated, the causes [are not to be +found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or influences +which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of +understanding as to what is the Church's duty in the +transmission from generation to generation of the sacred +deposit committed to her enlightened care.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>1. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that +a writer while engaged in transcribing one Gospel was so +completely beguiled and overmastered by his recollections +of the parallel place in another Gospel,—that, forsaking +the expressions proper to the passage before him, he unconsciously<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> +adopted the language which properly belongs to +a different Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this +may have occasionally taken place, I am not concerned to +deny: but it would argue incredible inattention to what +he was professing to copy, on the one hand,—astonishing +familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the +other,—that a scribe should have been capable of offending +largely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance +with the subject is enough to convince any thoughtful +person that the corruptions in MSS. which have resulted +from accidental Assimilation must needs be inconsiderable +in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the +phenomenon referred to, when we speak of 'Assimilation,' +is not to be so accounted for: it must needs be explained +in some entirely different way. Let me make my meaning +plain:</p> + +<p>(<i>a</i>) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of +Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], in place of βασανισαι 'ημας (in St. Matt. viii. 29), +writes 'ημας απολεσαι,—it may have been his memory which +misled him. He may have been merely thinking of St. +Mark i. 24, or of St. Luke iv. 34.</p> + +<p>(<i>b</i>) Again, when in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B we find τασσομενος thrust +without warrant into St. Matt. viii. 9, we see that the word +has lost its way from St. Luke vii. 8; and we are prone to +suspect that only by accident has it crept into the parallel +narrative of the earlier Evangelist.</p> + +<p>(<i>c</i>) In the same way I make no doubt that ποταμω (St. +Matt. iii. 6) is indebted for its place in [Symbol: Aleph]BC, &c., to the +influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel (i. 5); +and I am only astonished that critics should have been +beguiled into adopting so clear a corruption of the text as +part of the genuine Gospel.</p> + +<p>(<i>d</i>) To be brief:—the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of αδελφε (in St. +Matt. vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel passage +in St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> +have written τω ανεμω instead of τοις ανεμοις in St. Matt. +viii. 26, only because he was so familiar with τω ανεμω in +St. Luke viii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39.—The author of +the prototype of [Symbol: Aleph]BD (with whom by the way are some +of the Latin versions) may have written εχετε in St. Matt, +xvi. 8, only because he was thinking of the parallel place in +St. Mark viii. 17.—Ηρξαντο αγανακτειν (St. Matt. xx. 24) +can only have been introduced into [Symbol: Aleph] from the parallel place +in St. Mark x. 41, and <i>may</i> have been supplied <i>memoriter</i>.—St. +Luke xix. 21 is clearly not parallel to St. Matt. xxv. 24; +yet it evidently furnished the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph] with the epithet +αυστηρος in place of σκληρος.—The substitution by [Symbol: Aleph] of +'ον +παρητουντο in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for 'ον ηθελον may seem to be +the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place +in St. Mark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a>, instead of +'ονπερ ηιτουντο, Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit +'ον παρητουντο, which +Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the +genuine Gospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when +[Symbol: Aleph]L exhibit in St. Matt. xix. 16,—instead of the words +ποιησω 'ινα εχω ζωην αιωνιον,—the formula which is found in +the parallel place of St. Luke xviii. 18, viz. ποιησας ζωην +αιωνιον κληρονομησω,—those unauthorized words must have +been derived from this latter place? Every ordinary +reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe who +first inserted them into St. Matthew's Gospel did so because, +for whatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter +formula than with the former.</p> + +<p>(<i>e</i>) But I should have been willing to go further. I might +have been disposed to admit that when [Symbol: Aleph]DL introduce +into St. Matt. x. 12 the clause λεγοντες, ειρηνη τω οικω τουτω +(which last four words confessedly belong exclusively to +St. Luke x. 5), the author of the depraved original from +which [Symbol: Aleph]DL were derived may have been only yielding to +the suggestions of an inconveniently good memory:—may<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> +have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows +in verse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, 'Peace +be to this house;' though he found no such words in +St. Matthew's text. And so, with the best intentions, he +may most probably have inserted them.</p> + +<p>(<i>f</i>) Again. When [Symbol: Aleph] and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. +ix. 34 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the +clause ειδοτες 'οτι απεθανεν, it is of course conceivable that +the authors of those copies were merely the victims of +excessive familiarity with the third Gospel. But then,—although +we are ready to make every allowance that we +possibly can for memories so singularly constituted, and to +imagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to +recollect or imagine instead of copying, and possessed of an +inconvenient familiarity with one particular Gospel,—it is +clear that our complaisance must stop somewhere. Instances +of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion. Systematic +'assimilation' cannot be the effect of accident. Considerable +interpolations must of course be intentional. The +discovery that Cod. D, for example, introduces at the end +of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two words from St. Mark's Gospel +(i. 45—ii. 1, 'ο δε εξελθων down to Καφαρναουμ), opens our +eyes. This wholesale importation suggests the inquiry,—How +did it come about? We look further, and we find +that Cod. D abounds in instances of 'Assimilation' so +unmistakably intentional, that this speedily becomes the +only question, How may all these depravations of the +sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted for? [And +the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme +licentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex +D, being the product of ignorance and carelessness combined +with such looseness of principle, as permitted the +exercise of direct attempts to improve the sacred Text by +the introduction of passages from the three remaining +Gospels and by other alterations.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span></p> + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, +as may be seen in the next example.</p> + +<p>The little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, +with a few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian +Versions<a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a>), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the +clause 'οτι εγω 'υπαγω προς τον Πατερα: for which reason +Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit +those six words, and Lachmann puts them into brackets. +And yet, let the context be considered. Our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> had +said (ver. 16),—'A little while, and ye shall not see Me: +and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go +to the <span class="smcap">Father</span>.' It follows (ver. 17),—'Then said some of +His disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith +unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, +a little while, and ye shall see Me: and, <i>Because I go to the</i> +<span class="smcap">Father</span>?'—Now, the context here,—the general sequence +of words and ideas—in and by itself, creates a high degree +of probability that the clause is genuine. It must at all +events be permitted to retain its place in the Gospel, unless +there is found to exist an overwhelming amount of authority +for its exclusion. What then are the facts? All the other +uncials, headed by A and I<sup>b</sup> (<i>both</i> of the fourth century),—every +known Cursive—all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac, +Gothic, Coptic, &c.)—are for retaining the clause. Add, +that Nonnus<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 400) recognizes it: that the texts of +Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> and of Cyril<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> do the same; and that both +those Fathers (to say nothing of Euthymius and Theophylact) +in their Commentaries expressly bear witness to its +genuineness:—and, With what shew of reason can it any<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> +longer be pretended that some Critics, including the +Revisers, are warranted in leaving out the words?... It +were to trifle with the reader to pursue this subject further. +But how did the words ever come to be omitted? Some +early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the exquisite +proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable to +bring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> +seems at first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all!</p> + +<p>Let it be observed—and then I will dismiss the matter—that +the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse +but one (ver. 18), as Tischendorf candidly acknowledges. +The τουτο τι 'εστιν of the Evangelist has been tastelessly +assimilated by BDLY to the τι εστιν τουτο which went +immediately before.</p> + + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>Were I invited to point to a beautifully described +incident in the Gospel, I should find it difficult to lay my +finger on anything more apt for my purpose than the +transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25. It belongs +to the closing scene of our <span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> Ministry. 'Verily, +verily, I say unto you,' (the words were spoken at the Last +Supper), 'one of you will betray Me. The disciples therefore +looked one at another, wondering of whom He spake. +Now there was reclining in the bosom of <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> (ην δε +ανακειμενος εν τω κολπω του 'Ι.) one of His disciples whom +<span class="smcap">Jesus</span> loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motioneth to +inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh. +He then, just sinking on the breast of Jesus (επιπεσων δε +εκεινος 'ουτως επι το στηθος του 'Ι.) [i.e. otherwise keeping his +position, see above, p. <a href="#Page_60">60</a>], saith unto Him, <span class="smcap">Lord</span>, who +is it?'</p> + +<p>The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been +simply 'reclining (ανακειμενος) in the bosom' of his Divine +Master: that is, his place at the Supper is the next adjoining<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> +His,—for the phrase really means little more. But the +proximity is of course excessive, as the sequel shews. +Understanding from St. Peter's gesture what is required of +him, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his +head fall (επιπεσων) on (or close to) His Master's chest (επι +το στηθος), he says softly,—'<span class="smcap">Lord</span>, who is it?' ... The +moment is perhaps the most memorable in the Evangelist's +life: the position, one of unutterable privilege. Time, +place, posture, action,—all settle so deep into his soul, that +when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he describes +himself as 'the disciple whom <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> loved; who also at +the Supper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay (ανεπεσεν<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a>) on +<span class="smcap">Jesus</span>' breast,' (literally, 'upon His chest,'—επι το στηθος +αυτου), and said, '<span class="smcap">Lord</span>, who is it that is to betray Thee?' +(ch. xxi. 20).... Yes, and the Church was not slow to +take the beautiful hint. His language so kindled her +imagination that the early Fathers learned to speak of +St. John the Divine, as 'ο επιστηθιος,—'the (recliner) on +the chest<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a>.'</p> + +<p>Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime +picture is faithfully retained throughout by the cursive +copies in the proportion of about eighty to one. The +great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and cursive alike, +establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is here +the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS., +with [Symbol: Aleph]AD at their head, read επιπεσων in St. John xiii. 25. +Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> and probably Cyril<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> confirm the same reading.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> +So also Nonnus<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a>. Not so B and C with four other uncials +and about twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at +their head), besides Origen<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> in two places and apparently +Theodorus of Mopsuestia<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a>. These by mischievously +assimilating the place in ch. xiii to the later place in ch. xxi +in which such affecting reference is made to it, hopelessly +obscure the Evangelist's meaning. For they substitute +αναπεσων ουν εκεινος κ.τ.λ. It is exactly as when children, +by way of improving the sketch of a great Master, +go over his matchless outlines with a clumsy pencil of +their own.</p> + +<p>That this is the true history of the substitution of +αναπεσων in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious επιπεσων is +certain. Origen, who was probably the author of all the +mischief, twice sets the two places side by side and +elaborately compares them; in the course of which operation, +by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the text +which he himself employed. But what further helps to +explain how easily αναπεσων might usurp the place of +επιπεσων<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a>, is the discovery just noticed, that the ancients +from the earliest period were in the habit of identifying +St. John, as St. John had identified himself, by calling him +'<i>the one that lay</i> ('ο αναπεσων) <i>upon the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> chest</i>.' The +expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is employed by +Irenaeus<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 178) and by Polycrates<a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> (Bp. of Ephesus +<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 196); by Origen<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> and by Ephraim Syrus<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a>: by<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> +Epiphanius<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> and by Palladius<a name="FNanchor_203_203" id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a>: by Gregory of Nazianzus<a name="FNanchor_204_204" id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> +and by his namesake of Nyssa<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a>: by pseudo-Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_206_206" id="FNanchor_206_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a>, +by pseudo-Caesarius<a name="FNanchor_207_207" id="FNanchor_207_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a>, and by pseudo-Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_208_208" id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a>. The +only wonder is, that in spite of such influences all the +MSS. in the world except about twenty-six have retained +the true reading.</p> + +<p>Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which +this word has experienced at the hands of some Critics. +Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and +Hort, have all in turn bowed to the authority of Cod. B +and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates<a name="FNanchor_209_209" id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> and contends +on the same side. Alford informs us that επιπεσων has +surreptitiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why +should it? how could it?) 'αναπεσων not seeming appropriate.' +Whereas, on the contrary, αναπεσων is the +invariable and obvious expression,—επιπεσων the unusual, +and, till it has been explained, the unintelligible word. +Tischendorf,—who had read επιπεσων in 1848 and αναπεσων +in 1859,—in 1869 reverts to his first opinion; advocating +with parental partiality what he had since met with in +Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. Is then the truth of Scripture aptly represented<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span> +by that fitful beacon-light somewhere on the French coast,—now +visible, now eclipsed, now visible again,—which +benighted travellers amuse themselves by watching from +the deck of the Calais packet?</p> + +<p>It would be time to pass on. But because in this +department of study men are observed never to abandon +a position until they are fairly shelled out and left without +a pretext for remaining, I proceed to shew that αναπεσων +(for επιπεσων) is only one corrupt reading out of many +others hereabouts. The proof of this statement follows. +Might it not have been expected that the old uncials' +([Symbol: Aleph]ABCD) would exhibit the entire context of such a +passage as the present with tolerable accuracy? The +reader is invited to attend to the results of collation:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>xiii. 21.-ο [Symbol: Aleph]B: υμιν λεγω <i>tr.</i> B.</p> + +<p>xiii. 22.-ουν BC: + οι Ιουδαιοι [Symbol: Aleph]: απορουντει D.</p> + +<p>xiii. 23.-δε B: + εκ [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD:-ο B: + και D.</p> + +<p>xiii. 24. (<i>for</i> πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη + ουτος D) και λεγει αυτω, ειπε τις +εστιν BC: (<i>for</i> λεγει) ελεγεν [Symbol: Aleph]: + και λεγει αυτω ειπε +τις εστιν περι ου λεγει [Symbol: Aleph].</p> + +<p>xiii. 25. (<i>for</i> επιπεσων) αναπεσων BC:-δε BC: (<i>for</i> δε) ουν [Symbol: Aleph]D; +-ουτος [Symbol: Aleph]AD.</p> + +<p>xiii. 26. + ουν BC: + αυτω D:—ο B: ++ και λεγει [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + αν D: +(<i>for</i> βαψας) εμβαψας AD: +βαψω ... και δωσω αυτω BC: ++ ψωμου (<i>after</i> ψωμιον) C: +(<i>for</i> εμβαψας) βαψας D: +(<i>for</i> και εμβαψας) βαψας ουν [Symbol: Aleph]BC: +-το B: + λαμβανει και BC: +Ισκαριωτου [Symbol: Aleph]BC: απο Καρυωτου D.</p> + +<p>xiii. 27.-τοτε [Symbol: Aleph]:-μετα το ψωμιον τοτε D: +(<i>for</i> λεγει ουν) και λεγει D:-ο B.</p></div> + +<p>In these seven verses therefore, (which present no special +difficulty to a transcriber,) the Codexes in question are +found to exhibit at least thirty-five varieties,—for twenty-eight +of which (jointly or singly) B is responsible: [Symbol: Aleph] for +twenty-two: C for twenty-one: D for nineteen: A for +three. It is found that twenty-three words have been +added to the text: fifteen substituted: fourteen taken<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> +away; and the construction has been four times changed. +One case there has been of senseless transposition. Simon, +the father of Judas, (not Judas the traitor), is declared by +[Symbol: Aleph]BCD to have been called 'Iscariot.' Even this is not all. +What St. John relates concerning himself is hopelessly +obscured; and a speech is put into St. Peter's mouth +which he certainly never uttered. It is not too much to +say that every delicate lineament has vanished from the +picture. What are we to think of guides like [Symbol: Aleph]BCD, which +are proved to be utterly untrustworthy?</p> + + +<h3>§ 5.</h3> + +<p>The first two verses of St. Mark's Gospel have fared +badly. Easy of transcription and presenting no special +difficulty, they ought to have come down to us undisfigured +by any serious variety of reading. On the contrary. +Owing to entirely different causes, either verse has experienced +calamitous treatment. I have elsewhere<a name="FNanchor_210_210" id="FNanchor_210_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> proved +that the clause 'υιου του Θεου in verse 1 is beyond suspicion. +Its removal from certain copies of the Gospel was originally +due to heretical influence. But because Origen gave +currency to the text so mutilated, it re-appears mechanically +in several Fathers who are intent only on reproducing a +certain argument of Origen's against the Manichees in +which the mutilated text occurs. The same Origen is +responsible to some extent, and in the same way, for the +frequent introduction of 'Isaiah's' name into verse 21—whereas +'in the prophets' is what St. Mark certainly +wrote; but the appearance of 'Isaiah' there in the first +instance was due to quite a different cause. In the meantime, +it is witnessed to by the Latin, Syriac<a name="FNanchor_211_211" id="FNanchor_211_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a>, Gothic, and +Egyptian versions, as well as by [Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ, and (according<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> +to Tischendorf) by nearly twenty-five cursives; besides +the following ancient writers: Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry, +Titus, Basil, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severianus, Victor, +Eusebius, Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine. I proceed to +shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading +εν τω Ησαια τω προφητη instead of εν τοις προφηταις in +St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every +recent editor and critic<a name="FNanchor_212_212" id="FNanchor_212_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a>,—has been either overestimated +or else misunderstood.</p> + +<p>1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention +is paid to their contents, is discovered to be of inferior +moment in minuter matters of this nature. Thus, copies +of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah's name into St. Matt. +i. 22, and Zechariah's name into xxi. 4: as well as thrust +out Jeremiah's name from xxvii. 9:—the first, with Curetonian, +Lewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D,—the second, +with Chrysostom and Hilary,—the third, with the Peshitto. +The Latin and the Syriac further substitute του προφητου +for των προφητων in St. Matt. ii. 23,—through misapprehension +of the Evangelist's meaning. What is to be +thought of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] for introducing the name of 'Isaiah' +into St. Matt. xiii. 35,—where it clearly cannot stand, the +quotation being confessedly from Ps. lxxviii. 2; but where +nevertheless Porphyry<a name="FNanchor_213_213" id="FNanchor_213_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a>, Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_214_214" id="FNanchor_214_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a>, and pseudo-Jerome<a name="FNanchor_215_215" id="FNanchor_215_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> +certainly found it in many ancient copies?</p> + +<p>2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes +[Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ:—If any one will be at the pains to tabulate +the 900<a name="FNanchor_216_216" id="FNanchor_216_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> new 'readings' adopted by Tischendorf in editing +St. Mark's Gospel, he will discover that for 450, or just +half of them,—all the 450, as I believe, being corruptions +of the text,—[Symbol: Aleph]BL are responsible: and further, that their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> +responsibility is shared on about 200 occasions by D: on +about 265 by C: on about 350 by [Delta]<a name="FNanchor_217_217" id="FNanchor_217_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a>. At some very +remote period therefore there must have grown up a +vicious general reading of this Gospel which remains in +the few bad copies: but of which the largest traces (and +very discreditable traces they are) at present survive in +[Symbol: Aleph]BCDLΔ. After this discovery the avowal will not be +thought extraordinary that I regard with unmingled suspicion +readings which are exclusively vouched for by five +of the same Codexes: e.g. by [Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ.</p> + +<p>3. The cursive copies which exhibit 'Isaiah' in place +of 'the prophet.' reckoned by Tischendorf at 'nearly +twenty-five,' are probably less than fifteen<a name="FNanchor_218_218" id="FNanchor_218_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a>, and those, +almost all of suspicious character. High time it is that +the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence +were better understood.</p> + +<p>4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious +deductions have to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of +Antioch are clearly with the Textus Receptus. Serapion, +Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, with his +argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. +The last-named Father however saves his reputation by +leaving out the quotation from Malachi; so, passing +directly from the mention of Isaiah to the actual words +of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one +occasion<a name="FNanchor_219_219" id="FNanchor_219_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a>) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augustine, +being Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version +('sicut scriptum est in Isaiâ propheta'), which is without +variety of reading. There remain Origen (the faulty +character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> +already), Porphyry<a name="FNanchor_220_220" id="FNanchor_220_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> the heretic (who wrote a book to +convict the Evangelists of mis-statements<a name="FNanchor_221_221" id="FNanchor_221_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a>, and who is +therefore scarcely a trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome +and Severianus. Of these, Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_222_222" id="FNanchor_222_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> and Jerome<a name="FNanchor_223_223" id="FNanchor_223_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> deliver +it as their opinion that the name of 'Isaiah' had obtained +admission into the text through the inadvertency of +copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of +evidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah +words confessedly written by Malachi? 'The fact,' writes +a recent editor in the true spirit of modern criticism, +'will not fail to be observed by the careful and honest +student of the Gospels.' But what if 'the fact' should +prove to be 'a fiction' only? And (I venture to ask) +would not 'carefulness' be better employed in scrutinizing +the adverse testimony? 'honesty' in admitting that on +grounds precarious as the present no indictment against +an Evangelist can be seriously maintained? This proposal +to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate +capacity has from the first refused to sanction (for the +Evangelistaria know nothing of it) carries in fact on its front +its own sufficient condemnation. Why, in the face of all +the copies in the world (except a little handful of suspicious +character), will men insist on imputing to an inspired +writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting +that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little +handful of copies through the officiousness of incompetent +criticism?</p> + +<p>And do any inquire,—How then did this perversion +of the truth arise? In the easiest way possible, I answer.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> +Refer to the Eusebian tables, and note that the foremost +of his sectional parallels is as follows:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>St. Matt. η (i.e. iii. 3).<br/> +St. Mark. β (i.e. i. 3).<br/> +St. Luke. ζ (i.e. iii. 3-6).<br/> +St. John. ι (i.e. i. 23)<a name="FNanchor_224_224" id="FNanchor_224_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a>.</p></div> + +<p>Now, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the +third and the fourth of these places in connexion with +the quotation from Is. xl. 3, <i>what</i> more obvious than that +some critic with harmonistic proclivities should have +insisted on supplying <i>the second also</i>, i.e. the parallel +place in St. Mark's Gospel, with the name of the evangelical +prophet, elsewhere so familiarly connected with the +passage quoted? This is nothing else in short but an +ordinary instance of Assimilation, so unskilfully effected +however as to betray itself. It might have been passed +by with fewer words, for the fraud is indeed transparent, +but that it has so largely imposed upon learned men, +and established itself so firmly in books. Let me hope +that we shall not hear it advocated any more.</p> + +<p>Regarded as an instrument of criticism, Assimilation +requires to be very delicately as well as very skilfully +handled. If it is to be applied to determining the text +of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave to say, +in a very different spirit from what is met with in +Dr. Tischendorf's notes, or it will only mislead. Is +a word—a clause—a sentence—omitted by his favourite +authorities [Symbol: Aleph]BDL? It is enough if that learned critic +finds nearly the same word,—a very similar clause,—a +sentence of the same general import,—in an account +of the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him +straightway to insist that the sentence, the clause, the +word, has been imported into the commonly received +Text from such parallel place; and to reject it accordingly.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span></p> + +<p>But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable, +except under peculiar circumstances. For first, +whatever <i>a priori</i> improbability might be supposed to +attach to the existence of identical expressions in two +Evangelical records of the same transaction, is effectually +disposed of by the discovery that very often identity of +expression actually does occur. And (2), the only condition +which could warrant the belief that there has been +assimilation, is observed to be invariably away from +Dr. Tischendorf's instances.—viz. a sufficient number of +respectable attesting witnesses: it being a fundamental +principle in the law of Evidence, that the very few are +rather to be suspected than the many. But further (3), if +there be some marked diversity of expression discoverable +in the two parallel places; and if that diversity has +been carefully maintained all down the ages in either +place;—then it may be regarded as certain, on the +contrary, that there has not been assimilation; but that +this is only one more instance of two Evangelists saying +similar things or the same thing in slightly different +language. Take for example the following case:—Whereas +St. Matt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of 'the abomination +of desolation το 'ρηθεν ΔΙΑ Δανιηλ του προφητου, standing +('εστως) in the holy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it +as 'το 'ρηθεν ΥΠΟ Δανιηλ του προφητου standing ('εστος) +where it ought not.' Now, because [Symbol: Aleph]BDL with copies +of the Italic, the Vulgate, and the Egyptian versions omit +from St. Mark's Gospel the six words written above in +Greek, Tischendorf and his school are for expunging those +six words from St. Mark's text, on the plea that they are +probably an importation from St. Matthew. But the little +note of variety which the <span class="smcap">Holy Spirit</span> has set on the +place in the second Gospel (indicated above in capital +letters) suggests that these learned men are mistaken. +Accordingly, the other fourteen uncials and all the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> +cursives,—besides the Peshitto, Harkleian, and copies of the +Old Latin—a much more weighty body of evidence—are +certainly right in retaining the words in St. Mark xiii. 14.</p> + +<p>Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of +Assimilation.</p> + +<p>St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place +of his Gospel (xiv. 3), describe our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> as asking,—'Is +it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?' Tischendorf +finding that his favourite authorities in this latter place +continue the sentence with the words 'or <i>not</i>?' assumes +that those two words must have fallen out of the great +bulk of the copies of St. Luke, which, according to him, +have here assimilated their phraseology to that of St. +Matthew. But the hypothesis is clearly inadmissible,—though +it is admitted by most modern critics. Do not +these learned persons see that the supposition is just as +lawful, and the probability infinitely greater, that it is +on the contrary the few copies which have here undergone +the process of assimilation; and that the type to +which they have been conformed, is to be found in +St. Matt. xxii. 17; St. Mark xii. 14; St. Luke xx. 22?</p> + +<p>It is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of +Scripture has exerted this kind of assimilating influence +over a little handful of copies. Thus, some critics are +happily agreed in rejecting the proposal of [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR, +(backed scantily by their usual retinue of evidence) to +substitute for γεμισαι την κοιλιαν αυτου απο, in St. Luke xv. 16, +the words χορτασθηναι εκ. But editors have omitted to +point out that the words επεθυμει χορτασθηναι, introduced +in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of +Lazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither +out of the parable of the prodigal son.</p> + +<p>The reader has now been presented with several examples +of Assimilation. Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks +the phenomenon where it seems to be sufficiently conspicuous,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> +is observed constantly to discover cases of +Assimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual +way of accounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. +And because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, +it becomes the more necessary to set the reader on his +guard against receiving such statements without a thorough +examination of the evidence on which they rest.</p> + + +<h3>§ 6.</h3> + +<p>The value—may I not say, the use?—of these delicate +differences of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness +of the text is called in question. Take an example. +The following fifteen words are deliberately excluded from +St. Mark's Gospel (vi. 11) by some critics on the authority +of [Symbol: Aleph]BCDLΔ,—a most suspicious company, and three +cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin, including +the Vulgate:—αμην λεγω 'υμιν, ανεκτοτερον εσται Σοδομοις η +Γομορροις εν 'ημεραι κρισεως, 'η τη πολει εκεινη. It is pretended +that this is nothing else but an importation from the +parallel place of St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15). But that +is impossible: for, as the reader sees at a glance, a delicate +but decisive note of discrimination has been set on the two +places. St. Mark writes, ΣοδομΟΙΣ Η ΓομορρΟΙΣ: St. +Matthew, ΓΗ ΣοδομΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΓομορρΩΝ. And this threefold, +or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has existed from +the beginning; for it has been faithfully retained all down +the ages: it exists to this hour in every known copy of +the Gospel,—except of course those nine which omit the +sentence altogether. There can be therefore no doubt about +its genuineness. The critics of the modern school (Lachmann, +Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort) +seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting +those fifteen words. The two places are clearly independent +of each other.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span></p> + +<p>It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of +these fifteen words from the text of St. Mark, has merely +resulted from the influence of the parallel place in St. +Luke's Gospel (ix. 5),—where nothing whatever is found<a name="FNanchor_225_225" id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> +corresponding with St. Matt. x. 5—St. Mark vi. 11. The +process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at +work here, although not in the way which some critics +suppose. It has resulted, not in the insertion of the words +in dispute in the case of the very many copies; but on the +contrary in their omission from the very few. And thus, +one more brand is set on [Symbol: Aleph]BCDLΔ and their Latin allies,—which +will be found <i>never</i> to conspire together exclusively +except to mislead.</p> + + +<h3>§ 7.</h3> + +<p>Because a certain clause (e.g. και 'η λαλια σου 'ομοιαζει in +St. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL, Lachmann, +Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely +eject these five precious words from St. Mark's Gospel, +Griesbach having already voted them 'probably spurious.' +When it has been added that many copies of the Old Latin +also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian versions, +besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer +scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the +words are perfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is +certain however, and the Revisers are to blame for having +surrendered five precious words of genuine Scripture, as +I am going to shew.</p> + +<p>1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before +the reader, although to some there might seem to exist +a <i>prima facie</i> probability that the clause is spurious, yet +even so,—it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful +man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For let the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> +parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side +by side:—</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">St. Matt. xxvi. 73.</span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">(1) Αληθως και συ</span> +<span class="i0">(2) εξ αυτων ει</span> +<span class="i0">(3) και γαρ</span> +<span class="i0">(4) 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε ποιει</span> +</div></div> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">St. Mark xiv. 70.</span> +</div><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">(1) Αληθως</span> +<span class="i0">(2) εξ αυτων ει</span> +<span class="i0">(3) και γαρ Γαλιλαιος ει,</span> +<span class="i0">(4) και 'η λαλια σου 'ομοιαζει.</span> +</div></div> + +<p>What more clear than that the later Evangelist is +explaining what his predecessor meant by 'thy speech +bewrayeth thee' [or else is giving an independent account of +the same transaction derived from the common source]? +To St. Matthew,—a Jew addressing Jews,—it seemed superfluous +to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee +which betrayed Simon Peter. To St. Mark,—or rather +to the readers whom St. Mark specially addressed,—the +point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he +paraphrases,—'for thou art a Galilean and thy speech +correspondeth.' Let me be shewn that all down the ages, +in ninety-nine copies out of every hundred, this peculiar +diversity of expression has been faithfully retained, and +instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St. Mark's +(fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb 'ομοιαζει, +I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent +inquiry,—What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, +in fact, the context? This at least is not a matter of +opinion, but a matter of fact.</p> + +<p>1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with +several copies of the Old Latin (a b c ff<sup>2</sup> h q, &c.), only +removes clause (4) from its proper place in St. Mark's +Gospel, in order to thrust it into the parallel place in +St. Matthew,—where it supplants the 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε +ποιει of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has no +business to be.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span></p> + +<p>Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate +St. Matthew's Gospel to St. Mark,—for D also omits +και συ in clause (1).</p> + +<p>2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimilating +St. Mark to St. Matthew, for it transfers the same +clause (4) as it stands in St. Matthew's Gospel (και 'η λαλια +σου δηλον σε ποιει) to St. Mark.</p> + +<p>3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of +a type like B, has been styled [with grim irony] 'the Queen +of the Cursives') is more brilliant here than usual; exhibiting +St. Mark's clause (4) thus,—και γαρ 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε +'ομοιαζει.</p> + +<p>4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation +is as conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is +imported bodily into St. Matthew's Gospel. C further +omits from St. Mark clause (4).</p> + +<p>5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse +process is conspicuous. St. Mark's Gospel has been assimilated +to St. Matthew's by the unauthorized insertion into +clause (1) of και συ (which by the way is also found in M), +and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann. 73, 131, 142*) +by the entire suppression of clause (3).</p> + +<p>6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of +omission], it further obliterates as well from St. Matthew's +Gospel as from St. Mark's all trace of clause (4).</p> + +<p>7. [Symbol: Aleph] and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with +the Vulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate +the final clause (4) of St. Mark's Gospel. But note, lastly, +that—</p> + +<p>8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, +and the whole body of the cursives, recognizes none of these +irregularities: but exhibits the commonly received text +with entire fidelity.</p> + +<p>On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> +seriously contend that και 'η λαλια σου 'ομιαζει is no part of +the genuine text of St. Mark xiv. 70? The words are found +in what are virtually the most ancient authorities extant: +the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic and Cod. A), the +Old Latin (besides Cod. D)—retain them;—those in their +usual place,—these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in +the face of such evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot +have written the words in question<a name="FNanchor_226_226" id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a>. It is too late to insist +that a man cannot have lost his watch when his watch is +proved to have been in his own pocket at eight in the +morning, and is found in another man's pocket at nine. +As for C and L, their handling of the Text hereabouts +clearly disqualifies them from being cited in evidence. +They are condemned under the note of Context. Adverse +testimony is borne by B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and by them only. They +omit the words in dispute,—the ordinary habit of theirs, +and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual +insertion of the words in every other known copy to be +explained? In the meantime, it remains to be stated,—and +with this I shall take leave of the discussion,—that +hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clear +marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried +out in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], and only partially in Cod. B and some of its +compeers; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative +of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to +suppress the fact, vouched for by St. Mark only, that the +cock crowed twice<a name="FNanchor_227_227" id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a>.' <i>That</i> incident shall be treated of +separately. Can those principles stand, which in the face +of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded +it, justify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70?</p> + +<p>[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of +the text of the New Testament.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep the words +with this caution to the reader.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> Above, p. 32.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> +The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is <i>nil</i>; the sum of it being that +he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between οψεσθε με (in ver. 16), +and τουτο τι εστιν (in ver. 18).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> Nonnus,—'ιξομαι εις γεννητηρα.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> viii. 465 a and c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> iv. 932 and 933 c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> += ανα-κειμενος + επι-πεσων. [Used not to suggest over-familiarity (?).]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> +Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 270 (<i>ap.</i> Galland. iii. 548). +Cf. +Routh, Rell. i. 42.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> Ουκ ανακειται μονον, αλλα και τω στηθει επιπιπτει (Opp. viii. 423 +a).—Τι δε και επιπιπτει τω στηθει (ibid. d). +Note that the passage ascribed to +'Apolinarius' in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which includes the second of these two +references) is in reality part of Chrysostom's Commentary on St. John (ubi +supra, c d).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> +Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the κειμενον (or text) that the verb is +found,—Opp. iv. 735.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> +'ο δε θρασυς οξει παλμω | στηθεσιν αχραντοισι πεσων περιλημενος ανηρ.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> iv. 437 c: 440 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> Ibid. p. 342.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is observed twice +to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. xiii. 423, line 13 from the bottom, +and p. 424, line 18 from the top.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> 'ο επι το στηθος αυτου αναπεσων (iii. 1, § 1).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> 'ο επι το στηθος του Κυριου αναπεσων (<i>ap.</i> +Euseb. iii. 31).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> Τι δει περι του αναπεσοντος επι το στηθος λεγειν +του 'Ιησου (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> 'ο επι τω στηθει του φλογος αναπεσων (Opp. ii. +49 a. Cf. 133 c).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_202_202" id="Footnote_202_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_203_203" id="Footnote_203_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> του εις το της σοφιας στηθος πιστως +επαναπεσοντος (<i>ap.</i> Chrys, xiii. 55).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_204_204" id="Footnote_204_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> 'ο επι το στηθος του Ιησου αναπαυεται (Opp. i. 591).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_205_205" id="Footnote_205_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_206_206" id="Footnote_206_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from +the Syriac, p. 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207_207" id="Footnote_207_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> (Fourth or fifth century) <i>ap.</i> Galland. vi. 132.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208_208" id="Footnote_208_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Chrys. viii. 296.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_209_209" id="Footnote_209_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> +On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.—'Αναπιπτειν, (which occurs eleven times in +the N.T.), when said of guests (ανακειμενοι) +at a repast, denotes nothing whatever +but the preliminary act of each in taking his place at the table; being the +Greek equivalent for our "<i>sitting down</i>" to dinner. So far only does it signify +"change of posture." The notion of "falling <i>backward</i>" quite disappears in the +notion of "reclining" or "lying down."'—In St. John xxi. 20, the language of +the Evangelist is the very mirror of his thought; which evidently passed directly +from the moment when he assumed his place at the table (ανεπεσεν), to that +later moment when (επι το στηθος αυτου) he interrogated his Divine Master +concerning Judas. It is a <i>general</i> description of an incident,—for the details of +which we have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which +went before.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_210_210" id="Footnote_210_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> Traditional Text, Appendix IV.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_211_211" id="Footnote_211_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> Pesh. and Harkl.: Cur. and Lew. are defective.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_212_212" id="Footnote_212_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, +Green, Scrivener, M<sup>c</sup>Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_213_213" id="Footnote_213_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_214_214" id="Footnote_214_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> Mont. i. 462.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_215_215" id="Footnote_215_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> Ubi supra.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216_216" id="Footnote_216_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> Omitting trifling variants.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_217_217" id="Footnote_217_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> +[Symbol: Aleph]BL are <i>exclusively</i> responsible on 45 occasions: +C (i.e. +[Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: ++D, on 35: +Δ, on 73: +CD, on 19: +CΔ, on 118: ++DΔ (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ), +on 42: +CDΔ, on 66.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218_218" id="Footnote_218_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> +In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is <i>not</i> found: 205, 206 are +duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain 1, 22, 33, +61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391:—of which the six at +Rome require to be re-examined.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_219_219" id="Footnote_219_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> v. 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_220_220" id="Footnote_220_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Hieron. vii. 17.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221_221" id="Footnote_221_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.' +Hieron. i. 311.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222_222" id="Footnote_222_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> γραφεως τοινυν εστι σφαλμα. +Quoted (from the lost work of Eusebius ad +Marinum) in Victor of Ant.'s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267. (See Simon, iii. 89; +Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei's N.T. ii. 20, &c.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223_223" id="Footnote_223_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus <i>additum Scriptorum +vitio</i>, quod et in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect +he got it from Eusebius).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_224_224" id="Footnote_224_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections and +Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St. Luke +iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225_225" id="Footnote_225_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226_226" id="Footnote_226_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> +Schulz,—'et λαλια et ομοιαζει aliena a Marco.' Tischendorf—'omnino +e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum ομοιαζει glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,—not +criticism.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_227_227" id="Footnote_227_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p. xlvii.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_ix" id="chapter_ix"></a>CHAPTER IX.</h2> + +<h3>CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.</h3> + +<h3>III. Attraction.</h3> + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + + +<p>There exist not a few corrupt Readings,—and they have +imposed largely on many critics,—which, strange to relate, +have arisen from nothing else but the proneness of words +standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into +a likeness of ending,—whether in respect of grammatical +form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to +suffer grievously,—sometimes entirely to disappear. Let +this be called the error of <span class="smcap">Attraction</span>. The phenomena +of 'Assimilation' are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross +instance, which however has imposed on learned critics, is +furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St. John +vi. 71 and xiii. 26.</p> + +<p>'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with +which every Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The +expression Ιουδας Ισκαριωτης is found in St. Matt. x. 4 +and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19 and xiv. 10: in St. Luke +vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the express statement added +that Judas was so 'surnamed.' So far happily we are all +agreed. St. John's invariable practice is to designate the +traitor, whom he names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot, +the son of Simon;'—jealous doubtless for the honour of his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> +brother Apostle, 'Jude (Ιουδας) the brother of James<a name="FNanchor_228_228" id="FNanchor_228_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a>': +and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the +traitor's identity. Who does not at once recall the Evangelist's +striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22,—'Judas (not +Iscariot)'? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers +present us with 'Judas Iscariot, Simon's son': and even +in St. John xii. 4 they are content to read 'Judas Iscariot.'</p> + +<p>But in the two places of St. John's Gospel which remain +to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of 'Judas +Iscariot the son of Simon' the Revisers require us henceforth +to read, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.' And +<i>why</i>? Only, I answer, because—in place of Ιουδαν Σιμωνος +ΙσκαριωΤΗΝ (in vi. 71) and Ιουδα Σιμωνος ΙσκαριωΤΗ (in +xiii. 26)—a little handful of copies substitute on both +occasions ΙσκαριωΤΟΥ. Need I go on? Nothing else has +evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of +some very early scribe, the ΙσκαριωΤΗΝ, ΙσκαριωΤΗ, have +been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding +genitive ΣΙμωΝΟΣ ... So transparent a blunder would have +scarcely deserved a passing remark at our hands had it +been suffered to remain,—where such <i>bêtises</i> are the rule +and not the exception,—viz. in the columns of Codexes B +and [Symbol: Aleph]. But strange to say, not only have the Revisers +adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages already +mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall +that any alteration whatsoever has been made by them in +the inspired Text.</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>Another and a far graver case of 'Attraction' is found +in Acts xx. 24. St. Paul, in his address to the elders of +Ephesus, refers to the discouragements he has had to encounter. +'But none of these things move me,' he grandly +exclaims, 'neither count I my life dear unto myself, so<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> +that I might finish my course with joy.' The Greek for +this begins αλλ' ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι: where some second +or third century copyist (misled by the preceding genitive) +in place of λογοΝ writes λογοΥ; with what calamitous consequence, +has been found largely explained elsewhere<a name="FNanchor_229_229" id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a>. +Happily, the error survives only in Codd. B and C: and +their character is already known by the readers of this +book and the Companion Volume. So much has been +elsewhere offered on this subject that I shall say no more +about it here: but proceed to present my reader with +another and more famous instance of attraction.</p> + +<p>St. Paul in a certain place (2 Cor. iii. 3) tells the Corinthians, +in allusion to the language of Exodus xxxi. 12, +xxxiv. 1, that they are an epistle not written on '<i>stony +tables</i> (εν πλαξι λιθιναις),' but on '<i>fleshy tables</i> of the heart +(εν πλαξι καρδιας σαρκιναις).' The one proper proof that this +is what St. Paul actually wrote, is not only (1) That the +Copies largely preponderate in favour of so exhibiting +the place: but (2) That the Versions, with the single exception +of 'that abject slave of manuscripts the Philoxenian +[or Harkleian] Syriac,' are all on the same side: and lastly +(3) That the Fathers are as nearly as possible unanimous. +Let the evidence for καρδιας (unknown to Tischendorf and +the rest) be produced in detail:—</p> + +<p>In the second century, Irenaeus<a name="FNanchor_230_230" id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a>,—the Old Latin,—the +Peshitto.</p> + +<p>In the third century, Origen seven times<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a>,—the Coptic +version.</p> + +<p>In the fourth century, the Dialogus<a name="FNanchor_232_232" id="FNanchor_232_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a>,—Didymus<a name="FNanchor_233_233" id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a>,—Basil<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a>,—Gregory +Nyss.<a name="FNanchor_235_235" id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a>,—Marcus the Monk<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a>,—Chrysostom<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> +in two places<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a>,—Nilus<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a>,—the Vulgate,—and the +Gothic versions.</p> + +<p>In the fifth century, Cyril<a name="FNanchor_239_239" id="FNanchor_239_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a>,—Isidorus<a name="FNanchor_240_240" id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a>,—Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_241_241" id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a>,—the +Armenian—and the Ethiopic versions.</p> + +<p>In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing +Theodorus P.<a name="FNanchor_242_242" id="FNanchor_242_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a></p> + +<p>In the eighth century, J. Damascene<a name="FNanchor_243_243" id="FNanchor_243_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> ... Besides, of the +Latins, Hilary<a name="FNanchor_244_244" id="FNanchor_244_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a>,—Ambrose<a name="FNanchor_245_245" id="FNanchor_245_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a>,—Optatus<a name="FNanchor_246_246" id="FNanchor_246_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a>,—Jerome<a name="FNanchor_247_247" id="FNanchor_247_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a>,—Tichonius<a name="FNanchor_248_248" id="FNanchor_248_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a>,—Augustine +thirteen times<a name="FNanchor_249_249" id="FNanchor_249_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a>,—Fulgentius<a name="FNanchor_250_250" id="FNanchor_250_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a>, +and others<a name="FNanchor_251_251" id="FNanchor_251_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> ... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may +I be told what <i>is</i><a name="FNanchor_252_252" id="FNanchor_252_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a>?</p> + +<p>But then it so happens that—attracted by the two +datives between which καρδιας stands, and tempted by the +consequent jingle, a surprising number of copies are found +to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd' and 'wholly unnatural +reading<a name="FNanchor_253_253" id="FNanchor_253_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a>,' πλαξι καρδιΑΙΣ σαρκινΑΙΣ. And because (as +might have been expected from their character) A<a name="FNanchor_254_254" id="FNanchor_254_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a>B[Symbol: Aleph]CD<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span><a name="FNanchor_255_255" id="FNanchor_255_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> +are all five of the number,—Lachmann, Tischendorf, +Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt +and advocate the awkward blunder<a name="FNanchor_256_256" id="FNanchor_256_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a>. Καρδιαις is also +adopted by the Revisers of 1881 without so much as a +hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelmingly +against themselves and in favour of the traditional +Text of the Authorized Version<a name="FNanchor_257_257" id="FNanchor_257_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span></p><p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228_228" id="Footnote_228_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229_229" id="Footnote_229_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> Above, pp. 28-31.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230_230" id="Footnote_230_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> 753 <i>int</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231_231" id="Footnote_231_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> ii. 843 c. Also <i>int</i> ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_232_232" id="Footnote_232_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> <i>Ap</i>. Orig. i. 866 a,—interesting and emphatic testimony.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_233_233" id="Footnote_233_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_234_234" id="Footnote_234_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235_235" id="Footnote_235_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> i. 682 (ουκ εν πλαξι λιθιναις ... αλλ' εν τω της καρδιας πυξιω).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236_236" id="Footnote_236_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> Galland. viii. 40 b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_237_237" id="Footnote_237_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> vii. 2: x. 475.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_238_238" id="Footnote_238_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> i. 29.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239_239" id="Footnote_239_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> i. 8: ii. 504: v<sup>2</sup>. 65. (Aubert prints καρδιας +σαρκινης. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits καρδιας +σαρκιναις. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. αλλ' εν πλαξι +καρδιας λιθιναις (sic), prints καρδιας σαρκιναις.) <i>Ap</i>. +Mai, iii. 89, 90.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240_240" id="Footnote_240_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> 299.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241_241" id="Footnote_241_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> iii. 302.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242_242" id="Footnote_242_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> Concil. vi. 154.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_243_243" id="Footnote_243_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> ii. 129.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244_244" id="Footnote_244_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244_244"><span class="label">[244]</span></a> 344.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245_245" id="Footnote_245_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245_245"><span class="label">[245]</span></a> i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_246_246" id="Footnote_246_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246_246"><span class="label">[246]</span></a> Galland. v. 505.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247_247" id="Footnote_247_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247_247"><span class="label">[247]</span></a> vi. 609.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248_248" id="Footnote_248_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248_248"><span class="label">[248]</span></a> Galland. viii. 742 dis.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_249_249" id="Footnote_249_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249_249"><span class="label">[249]</span></a> i. 672: ii. 49: iii<sup>1</sup>. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: +viii. 311: x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250_250" id="Footnote_250_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250_250"><span class="label">[250]</span></a> Galland. xi. 248.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_251_251" id="Footnote_251_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251_251"><span class="label">[251]</span></a> Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252_252" id="Footnote_252_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252_252"><span class="label">[252]</span></a> Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of +Didymus and Theodoret for καρδιαις, on the ground that in the +course of their expository remarks they contrast καρδιαι +σαρκιναι (or λογικαι) with πλακες λιθιναι: as if it +were not the word πλαξι which alone occasions difficulty. +Again, Tischendorf enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had +he then forgotten that E is '<i>nothing better than a transcript of Cod. +D</i> (Claromontanus), made by some ignorant person'? that 'the Greek +<i>is manifestly worthless</i>, and that it should long since have been +removed from the list of authorities'? [Scrivener's Introd., 4th edit., +i. 177. See also Traditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is +frequently inaccurate in his references to the fathers.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_253_253" id="Footnote_253_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253_253"><span class="label">[253]</span></a> Scrivener's Introd. ii. 254.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_254_254" id="Footnote_254_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254_254"><span class="label">[254]</span></a> A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_255_255" id="Footnote_255_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255_255"><span class="label">[255]</span></a> Besides GLP and the following cursives,—29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, +74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 262, 277.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_256_256" id="Footnote_256_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256_256"><span class="label">[256]</span></a> That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said +on the other side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse +evidence (besides the testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian +version:—the doubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads +καρδιας, the MSS. largely preponderate which read καρδιαις +in H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. § 6. See Burton's ed. p. +637):—Cyril in one place, as explained above:—and lastly, a quotation +from Chrysostom on the Maccabees, given in Cramer's Catena, vii. 595 +(εν πλαξι καρδιαις σαρκιναις), which reappears at the end of +eight lines without the word πλαξι.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257_257" id="Footnote_257_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257_257"><span class="label">[257]</span></a> [The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the Dean in the +same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had lived to +complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials +under that head were scanty.—For 2 Cor. iii. 3, see also a note of my own to +p. 65 of The Traditional Text.]</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_x" id="chapter_x"></a>CHAPTER X.</h2> + +<h3>CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.</h3> + +<h3>IV. Omission.</h3> + + +<p>[We have now to consider the largest of all classes of +corrupt variations from the genuine Text<a name="FNanchor_258_258" id="FNanchor_258_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a>—the omission +of words and clauses and sentences,—a truly fertile province +of inquiry. Omissions are much in favour with a particular +school of critics; though a habit of admitting them whether +in ancient or modern times cannot but be symptomatic of +a tendency to scepticism.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + +<p>Omissions are often treated as 'Various Readings.' Yet +only by an Hibernian licence can words omitted be so +reckoned: for in truth the very essence of the matter is +that on such occasions nothing is read. It is to the case of +words omitted however that this chapter is to be exclusively +devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now +of those words alone where the words are observed to exist +in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred, so to speak;—being +away only from that hundredth copy.</p> + +<p>Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been +called to the circumstance, that such a phenomenon +requires separate treatment. Words so omitted labour +<i>prima facie</i> under a disadvantage which is all their own.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> +My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to +adduce and briefly discuss a few examples. And I will +begin with a crucial case;—the most conspicuous doubtless +within the whole compass of the New Testament. I mean +the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel; which verses +are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the +rest of the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and +others.</p> + +<p>The warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously +with a portion of the sacred deposit is the fact +that whereas Eusebius, for the statement rests solely with +him, declares that anciently many copies were without the +verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire in +omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does +not conduct to the inference that those verses are spurious. +It only proves that the statement of Eusebius was correct. +The Father cited did not, as is evident from his words<a name="FNanchor_259_259" id="FNanchor_259_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a>, +himself doubt the genuineness of the verses in question; +but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two opinions;—the +opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness, +and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers +the better of the two, since he rests upon the latter and +casts a slur upon the former as being an off-hand expedient; +besides that he quotes several words out of the +twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second +hypothesis.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the +two MSS. witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its +error by leaving a vacant space where the omitted verses +should have come in; whilst the other was apparently +copied from an exemplar containing the verses<a name="FNanchor_260_260" id="FNanchor_260_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a>. And all +the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> +which propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the +verses,—together with all the versions, except one Old +Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two Armenian MSS. and an +Arabic Lectionary,—besides more than ninety testimonies in +their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancient witnesses<a name="FNanchor_261_261" id="FNanchor_261_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a>;—such +is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting +testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, +the cause of the error is patent. Some scribe mistook the +Τελος occurring at the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at +the close of chapter xvi. 8 for the 'End' of St. Mark's +Gospel<a name="FNanchor_262_262" id="FNanchor_262_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a>.</p> + +<p>That is the simple truth: and the question will now be +asked by an intelligent reader, 'If such is the balance of +evidence, how is it that learned critics still doubt the +genuineness of those verses?'</p> + +<p>To this question there can be but one answer, viz. +'Because those critics are blinded by invincible prejudice +in favour of two unsafe guides, and on behalf of Omission.'</p> + +<p>We have already seen enough of the character of those +guides, and are now anxious to learn what there can be in +omissions which render them so acceptable to minds of +the present day. And we can imagine nothing except the +halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious +passages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed +detection of passages which in fact are not spurious. Some +people appear to feel delight if they can prove any charge +against people who claim to be orthodox; others without +any such feeling delight in superior criticism; and the +flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste +of many. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span> +passages which they style 'interpolations,' offer temptingly +spacious hunting-fields.</p> + +<p>Yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that +Omission is the besetting fault of transcribers. It is so +easy under the influence of the desire of accomplishing +a task, or at least of anxiety for making progress, to pass +over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As has +been explained before, the eye readily moves from one +ending to a similar ending with a surprising tendency to +pursue the course which would lighten labour instead of +increasing it. The cumulative result of such abridgement +by omission on the part of successive scribes may be easily +imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B<a name="FNanchor_263_263" id="FNanchor_263_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a>. +Besides these considerations, the passages which are omitted, +and which we claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the +character belonging to the rest of the Gospels, indeed—in +Dr. Hort's expressive phrase—'have the true ring of +genuineness.' They are not like some which some critics +of the same school would fain force upon us<a name="FNanchor_264_264" id="FNanchor_264_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a>. But beyond +all,—and this is the real source and ground of attestation,—they +enjoy superior evidence from copies, generally +beyond comparison with the opposing testimony, from +Versions, and from Fathers.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much +larger amount of proof than usual is required at the hands +of those who would persuade us to cancel words which have<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> +been hitherto by all persons,—in all ages,—in all countries,—regarded +as inspired Scripture. They have (1) to account +for the fact of those words' existence: and next (2), to +demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the +sacred page. The discovery that from a few copies they +are away, clearly has very little to do with the question. +We may be able to account for the omission from those +few copies: and the instant we have done this, the negative +evidence—the argument <i>e silentio</i>—has been effectually +disposed of. A very different task—a far graver responsibility—is +imposed upon the adverse party, as may be +easily shewn. [They must establish many modes of accounting +for many classes and groups of evidence. Broad +and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden +of proof lies with them.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>The force of what I am saying will be best understood +if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced, and +individually considered. And first, let us take the case of +an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1 δευτεροπρωτω is omitted +from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers +accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows:—Εγενετο +δε εν σαββατω διαπορευεσθαι αυτον δια σποριμων.</p> + +<p>Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so +very difficult and peculiar a word as this,—for indeed the +expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,—should +have found its way into every known Evangelium +except [Symbol: Aleph]BL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it +came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough. +(<i>a</i>) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph],</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">ΤΟ ΕΝ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΩΤΩ<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>in order to see that the like ending (ΤΩ) in the superior +line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. +(<i>b</i>) A proper lesson begins at this place; which by itself +would explain the phenomenon. (<i>c</i>) Words which the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span> +copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed +to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the Gospels +than δευτεροπρωτος. But I repeat,—will you tell us how +it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and +known to be a <i>crux</i> to commentators and others, should +have crept into all the copies except a small handful?]</p> + +<p>In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really +I must yield to what is after all the weight of external +evidence: that Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BL are not ordinary MSS. but +first-class authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh +any number of the later cursive MSS.</p> + +<p>My rejoinder is plain:—Not only am I of course +willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely +'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining +δευτεροπρωτο—απο μελισσιου κηριου—'αρας τον σταυρον—και +ανεφερετο εις τον ουρανον—'οταν εκλιπητε—the 14th verse of +St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter—and the last twelve verses +of St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny +the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already +established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be +the daysman between us? We are driven back on first +principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to +meet on some common ground, and by the application of +ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view. +[As to these we must refer the reader to the first +volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been +just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere. +Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this +large class of corruptions at the length which it would +otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required, +in order that the reader may see in this connexion that +many passages at least which the opposing school designate +as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students +may be placed upon their guard against the source of +error that we are discussing.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span></p> + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.</p> + +<p>The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen +words printed at foot<a name="FNanchor_265_265" id="FNanchor_265_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a>, is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, +Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers:—by Tischendorf it +is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, +it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the antiquity, the +variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the +general unanimity of its attestation.</p> + +<p>For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,—in +the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,—besides +in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. +It is found also in Origen<a name="FNanchor_266_266" id="FNanchor_266_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a>,—ps.-Tatian<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a>—Aphraates<a name="FNanchor_268_268" id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a>,—Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_269_269" id="FNanchor_269_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a>,—Cyril +Alex.<a name="FNanchor_270_270" id="FNanchor_270_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a>,—the Opus Imperfectum<a name="FNanchor_271_271" id="FNanchor_271_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a>,—Jerome<a name="FNanchor_272_272" id="FNanchor_272_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_272_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a>,—Augustine<a name="FNanchor_273_273" id="FNanchor_273_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a>:—in +Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]CΘΣXZΔΠEFG +HKLMSUV,—in short, it is attested by every known +Codex except two of bad character, viz.—D, 33; together +with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.—a b e ff<sup>1</sup> ff<sup>2</sup>. There +have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at +least five witnesses of the second or third century:—at +least eight of the fourth:—at least seven if not eight +of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> +this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in +opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary +evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. +c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and +a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even +although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]</p> + +<p>But, says Tischendorf,—the verse is omitted by Origen +and by Eusebius,—by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,—as +well as by Cyril of Alexandria. I answer, this most +insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text +is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion. The critic +refers to the fact that Irenaeus<a name="FNanchor_274_274" id="FNanchor_274_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_274_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a>, Origen<a name="FNanchor_275_275" id="FNanchor_275_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a>, Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_276_276" id="FNanchor_276_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> and +Cyril<a name="FNanchor_277_277" id="FNanchor_277_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_277_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a> having quoted 'the parable of the wicked husbandmen' +<i>in extenso</i> (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), <i>leave off at +verse</i> 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable +leaves off? Why should they quote any further? Verse +44 is nothing to their purpose. And since the Gospel for +Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every +known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,—why +should not their quotation of it end at the same verse? +But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we +have seen,—the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote +the verse in dispute. And how can Tischendorf maintain +that Lucifer yields adverse testimony<a name="FNanchor_278_278" id="FNanchor_278_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a>? That Father +quotes <i>nothing but</i> verse 43, which is all he requires for +his purpose<a name="FNanchor_279_279" id="FNanchor_279_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a>. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, +which he does not require? As well might it be maintained +that Macarius Egyptius<a name="FNanchor_280_280" id="FNanchor_280_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> and Philo of Carpasus<a name="FNanchor_281_281" id="FNanchor_281_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_281_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> +omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote +verse 43.</p> + +<p>I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned +the omission of St. Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> +copies of the Gospels<a name="FNanchor_282_282" id="FNanchor_282_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a>. Tischendorf's opinion that this +verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in +St. Luke's Gospel<a name="FNanchor_283_283" id="FNanchor_283_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_283_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> (xx. 18) is clearly untenable. Either +place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained +all down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 +in the Peshitto version has a sectional number to itself<a name="FNanchor_284_284" id="FNanchor_284_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a> is +far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than +suspicion. If a verse so elaborately attested as the present +be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever attaining +to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture.</p> + +<p>In the meantime there emerges from the treatment +which St. Matt. xxi. 44 has experienced at the hands +of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the estimation of +Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importance +as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other +copies of all ages and countries in Christendom.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 5.</h3> + +<p>I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of +St. Matt. xv. 8, by the choice deliberately made of that +place by Dr. Tregelles in order to establish the peculiar +theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so +strenuously; and which, ever since the days of Griesbach, +has it must be confessed enjoyed the absolute +confidence of most of the illustrious editors of the New<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> +Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on +Tregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point +out that that learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his +readers by not setting before them in full the problem +which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly to understand +this matter, the student should be reminded that there is +found in St. Matt. xv. 8,—and parallel to it in St. Mark +vii. 6,—</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">St. Matt.</span></p> + +<p>'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah +prophesy of you saying, "This +people draweth nigh unto Me +with their mouth and honoureth +me with their lips (εγγιζει μοι +'ο λαος 'ουτος τω στοματι αυτων, και +τοις χειλεσι με τιμα), but their +heart is far from Me."'</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">St. Mark.</span></p> + +<p>'Well did Isaiah prophesy of +you, hypocrites, as it is written, +"This people honoureth Me +with their lips ('ουτος 'ο λαος τοις +χειλεσι με τιμα), but their heart +is far from Me."'</p> + +<p>The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads +as follows in the ordinary editions of the LXX:—και ειπε +Κυριος, εγγιζει μοι 'ο λαος 'ουτος εν τω στοματι αυτου, και εν τοις +χειλεσιν αυτων τιμωσι με.</p> + +<p>Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no +question is raised. Neither is there any various reading +worth speaking of in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred +in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when reference +is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and [Symbol: Aleph], we +are presented with what, but for the parallel place in +St. Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated +reading. Both MSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt. +xv. 8, as follows:—'ο λαος 'ουτος τοις χειλεσι με τιμα. So that +six words (εγγιζει μοι and τω στοματι αυτων, και) are not +recognized by them: in which peculiarity they are countenanced +by DLT<sup>c</sup>, two cursive copies, and the following +versions:—Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian, +Lewis, Peshitto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and +Gothic versions, being imperfect here.) To this evidence,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> +Tischendorf adds a phalanx of Fathers:—Clemens Romanus +(<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 150), Clemens +Alexandrinus (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 190), Origen in three places (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 210), +Eusebius (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: +and Alford supplies also Justin Martyr (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 150). +The testimony of Didymus (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 350), which has been +hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, +are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a weight +of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles +with an exceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he +declares 'that this one passage might be relied upon as an +important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many +which accord with ancient testimony.' Availing himself +of Dr. Scrivener's admission of 'the possibility that the +disputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted +from the Septuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13<a name="FNanchor_285_285" id="FNanchor_285_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_285_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a>,' Dr. Tregelles +insists 'that on every true principle of textual criticism, the +words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from +the Prophet. This naturally explains their introduction,' +(he adds); 'and when once they had gained a footing in +the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by +copyists, who almost always preferred to make passages +as full and complete as possible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles +therefore relies upon this one passage,—not so much as +a 'proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which +accord with ancient testimony';—for one instance cannot +possibly prove that; and that is after all beside the real +question;—but, as a proof that we are to regard the text +of Codd. B[Symbol: Aleph] in this place as genuine, and the text of all the +other Codexes in the world as corrupt.</p> + +<p>The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by +which from the days of Griesbach it has been proposed +to account for the discrepancy between 'the few copies' on<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> +the one hand, and the whole torrent of manuscript evidence +on the other.</p> + +<p>Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual +Criticism, I must be allowed to set my reader on his guard +against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding, though +enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly +respected name. I venture to think that the exact reverse +will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz. that +undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one +time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in +MSS., and to some extent may be observed even to have +propagated themselves, are yet discovered to die out +speedily; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number +of descendants. There has always in fact been a process +of elimination going on, as well as of self-propagation: +a corrective force at work, as well as one of deterioration. +How else are we to account for the utter disappearance +of the many <i>monstra potius quam variae lectiones</i> which +the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their +times? It is enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, +in illustration of what I have been saying<a name="FNanchor_286_286" id="FNanchor_286_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_286_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a>. To return +however from this digression.</p> + +<p>We are invited then to believe,—for it is well to know +at the outset exactly what is required of us,—that from the +fifth century downwards every <i>extant copy of the Gospels +except five</i> (DLT<sup>c</sup>, 33, 124) exhibits a text arbitrarily interpolated +in order to bring it into conformity with the Greek +version of Isa. xxix. 13. On this wild hypothesis I have +the following observations to make:—</p> + +<p>1. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true +account of the matter, how it has come to pass that in +no single MS. in the world, so far as I am aware, has this +conformity been successfully achieved: for whereas the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> +Septuagintal reading is εγγιζει μοι 'ο λαος ουτος ΕΝ τω +στοματι ΑΥΤΟΥ, και ΕΝ τοις χειλεσιν ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΙΜΩΣΙ με,—the +Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no +less than six particulars.</p> + +<p>2. Further,—If there really did exist this strange determination +on the part of the ancients in general to assimilate +the text of St. Matthew to the text of Isaiah, how does +it happen that not one of them ever conceived the like +design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark?</p> + +<p>3. It naturally follows to inquire,—Why are we to suspect +the mass of MSS. of having experienced such wholesale +depravation in respect of the text of St. Matthew in this +place, while yet we recognize in them such a marked +constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as +already explained, is <i>not</i> the text of Isaiah?</p> + +<p>4. Further,—I discover in this place a minute illustration +of the general fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas +in St. Matthew it is invariably 'ο λαος ουτος, I observe that +in the copies of St. Mark,—except to be sure in (<i>a</i>) Codd. +B and D, (<i>b</i>) copies of the Old Latin, (<i>c</i>) the Vulgate, and +(<i>d</i>) the Peshitto (all of which are confessedly corrupt in +this particular,)—it is invariably ουτος 'ο λαος. But now,—Is +it reasonable that the very copies which have been in +this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St. Mark +vii. 6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great +heap of copies in respect of their exhibition of St. Matt. +xv. 8?</p> + +<p>And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph] and +the great bulk of the copies in this place did not originate +in the way insisted on by the critics, how is it to be +accounted for? Now, on ordinary occasions, we do not +feel ourselves called upon to institute any such inquiry,—as +indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do. +Unbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness, +arbitrary interpolations, omissions without number, disfigure<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> +those two ancient MSS. in every page. We seldom trouble +ourselves to inquire into the history of their obliquities. +But the case is of course materially changed when so +many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldest +Versions seem to be at one with Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. Let +then the student favour me with his undivided attention +for a few moments, and I will explain to him how the +misapprehension of Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles and +the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. and the Versions +these critics are sufficiently accurate: but they have fatally +misapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence; as +I proceed to explain.</p> + +<p>The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 +in the Apostolic age proves to have been this,—Εγγιζει μοι +'ο λαος ουτος τοις χειλεσιν αυτων τιμωσι με: the words εν τω +στοματι αυτων, και εν being omitted. This is certain. +Justin Martyr<a name="FNanchor_287_287" id="FNanchor_287_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_287_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a> and Cyril of Alexandria in two places<a name="FNanchor_288_288" id="FNanchor_288_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_288_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> +so quote the passage. Procopius Gazaeus in his Commentary +on Origen's Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that +the six words in question were introduced into the text of +the Septuagint by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. +Accordingly they are often observed to be absent from +MSS.<a name="FNanchor_289_289" id="FNanchor_289_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> They are not found, for example, in the Codex +Alexandrinus.</p> + +<p>But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of +these words was felt to be intolerable. In fact, without +a colon point between ουτος and τοις, the result is without +meaning. When once the complementary words have +been withdrawn, εγγιζει μοι at the beginning of the +sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatally encumbers +the sense. To drop those two words, after the example +of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, became thus<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> +an obvious proceeding. Accordingly the author of the +(so-called) second Epistle of Clemens Romanus (§ 3), +professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah, +exhibits it thus,—'ο λαος ουτος τοις χειλεσι με τιμα. Clemens +Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two +occasions<a name="FNanchor_290_290" id="FNanchor_290_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_290_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a>. So does Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_291_291" id="FNanchor_291_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_291_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a>. So does Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_292_292" id="FNanchor_292_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a>.</p> + +<p>Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the +aspect of the problem: the first, (<i>a</i>) That the words εν τω +στοματι αυτων, και εν were anciently absent from the Septuagintal +rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13: the second, (<i>b</i>) that +the place of Isaiah was freely quoted by the ancients +without the initial words εγγιζει μοι.</p> + +<p>And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as +to deny that on the contrary it must needs be Codexes +B and [Symbol: Aleph], and not the great bulk of the MSS., which +exhibit a text corrupted by the influence of the Septuagint +rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent to which +the assimilating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's +Gospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to +determine. The essential point is that the omission from +St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words Τω στοματι αυτων, και, is +certainly due in the first instance to the ascertained +Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah xxix. 13.</p> + +<p>But that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an +assimilating influence on the quotation from Isaiah is +demonstrable. For there can be no doubt that Isaiah's +phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is 'ο λαος ουτος,—St. Mark's +ουτος 'ο λαος. And yet, when Clemens Romanus quotes Isaiah, +he begins—ουτος 'ο λαος<a name="FNanchor_293_293" id="FNanchor_293_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a>; and so twice does Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_294_294" id="FNanchor_294_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a>.</p> + +<p>The reader is now in a position to judge how much<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> +attention is due to Dr. Tregelles' dictum 'that this one +passage may be relied upon' in support of the peculiar +views he advocates: as well as to his confident claim that +the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. out of +a hundred 'must be regarded as an amplification borrowed +from the prophet.' It has been shewn in answer to the +learned critic that in the ancient Greek text of the prophet +the 'amplification' he speaks of did not exist: it was the +abbreviated text which was found there. So that the very +converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place. +Freely accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process +of assimilation, occasioned by the Septuagintal text of +Isaiah, we differ from him only as to the direction in +which that process has manifested itself. He assumes +that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the +generally received reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has +been shewn that, on the contrary, it is the two oldest MSS. +which have experienced assimilation. Their prototypes were +depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote period.</p> + +<p>To state this matter somewhat differently.—In all the +extant uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive +copy of the Gospels, the words τω στοματι αυτων, και are +found to belong to St. Matt. xv. 8. How is the presence of +those words to be accounted for? The reply is obvious:—By +the fact that they must have existed in the original +autograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the +reply of Griesbach and his followers. They insist that +beyond all doubt those words must have been imported +into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn that +this is impossible; because, at the time spoken of, the +words in question had no place in the Greek text of the +prophet. And this discovery exactly reverses the problem, +and brings out the directly opposite result. For now we +discover that we have rather to inquire how is the absence +of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> +mass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are +convicted of exhibiting a text which has been corrupted +by the influence of the oldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah +xxix. 13.</p> + +<p>I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that +five ancient Versions, and all the following early writers,—Ptolemaeus<a name="FNanchor_295_295" id="FNanchor_295_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a>, +Clemens Alexandrinus<a name="FNanchor_296_296" id="FNanchor_296_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a>, Origen<a name="FNanchor_297_297" id="FNanchor_297_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_297_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a>, Didymus<a name="FNanchor_298_298" id="FNanchor_298_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a>, +Cyril<a name="FNanchor_299_299" id="FNanchor_299_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_299_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a>, Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_300_300" id="FNanchor_300_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a>, and possibly three others of like +antiquity<a name="FNanchor_301_301" id="FNanchor_301_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_301_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a>,—should all quote St. Matthew in this place +from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how +extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. +It probably dates from the first century. Especially does +it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest +authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with +the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed +no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, +such as are not commonly encountered.</p> + + +<h3>§ 6.</h3> + +<p>What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place +in our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Sermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; +which in almost every MS. in existence stands as follows:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">(1) αγαπατε τους εχθρους 'υμων,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">(2) ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους 'υμας,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">(3) καλως ποιειτε τοις μισουσιν<a name="FNanchor_302_302" id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> 'υμας,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">(4) και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των επηρεαζοντων 'υμας,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">(5) και διωκοντων 'υμασ<a name="FNanchor_303_303" id="FNanchor_303_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a>.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span></p><p>On the other hand, it is not to be denied that there +exists an appreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the +passage in a shorter form. The fact that Origen six times<a name="FNanchor_304_304" id="FNanchor_304_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_304_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> +reads the place thus:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">αγαπατε τους εχθρους 'υμων,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των διωκοντων 'υμας.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and +fourth clauses;)—and that he is supported therein by B[Symbol: Aleph], +(besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old +Latin MSS., and the Bohairic<a name="FNanchor_305_305" id="FNanchor_305_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a>, seems to critics of a certain +school a circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. +They are aware that Cyprian<a name="FNanchor_306_306" id="FNanchor_306_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_306_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a>, and they are welcome to +the information that Tertullian<a name="FNanchor_307_307" id="FNanchor_307_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a> once and Theodoret once<a name="FNanchor_308_308" id="FNanchor_308_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> +[besides Irenaeus<a name="FNanchor_309_309" id="FNanchor_309_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a>, Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_310_310" id="FNanchor_310_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_310_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a>, and Gregory of Nyssa<a name="FNanchor_311_311" id="FNanchor_311_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_311_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a>] +exhibit the place in the same way. So does the author of +the Dialogus contra Marcionitas<a name="FNanchor_312_312" id="FNanchor_312_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_312_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a>,—whom however I take +to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was +for obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tregelles, +Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. +I am persuaded that they are grievously mistaken in +so doing, and that the received text represents what +St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the +uncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven; and +this alone ought to be decisive. But it is besides the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span> +reading of the Peshitto, the Harkleian, and the Gothic; +as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.</p> + +<p>Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence +of Versions and Fathers on this subject; remembering +that the point in dispute is nothing else but the genuineness +of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at starting, we make +the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was +relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth +clauses,—himself twice<a name="FNanchor_313_313" id="FNanchor_313_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a> quotes the first clause in connexion +with the fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions<a name="FNanchor_314_314" id="FNanchor_314_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_314_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a>, connects +with clause 1 what he evidently means for clause 2; +and Tertullian once if not twice connects closely clauses +1, 2; and once, clauses 1, 2, 5<a name="FNanchor_315_315" id="FNanchor_315_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a>. From which it is plain +that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all Tertullian, +can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They +recognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal +circumstance, and effectively disposes of their supposed +hostile evidence.</p> + +<p>But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering +testimony. Besides the three copies of the Old Latin +which exhibit all the five clauses, the Vulgate retains the +first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine<a name="FNanchor_316_316" id="FNanchor_316_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> quotes consecutively +clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose<a name="FNanchor_317_317" id="FNanchor_317_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_317_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> clauses 1, 3, 4, 5—1, 4, 5: +Hilary<a name="FNanchor_318_318" id="FNanchor_318_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_318_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a>, clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5: Lucifer<a name="FNanchor_319_319" id="FNanchor_319_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a>, +clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius<a name="FNanchor_320_320" id="FNanchor_320_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_320_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a> connects +clauses 1, 3,—1, 3, 5: and Pacian<a name="FNanchor_321_321" id="FNanchor_321_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_321_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a>, clauses 5, 2. +Next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the +Greek Fathers.</p> + +<p>And first we turn to Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_322_322" id="FNanchor_322_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_322_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a> who (besides quoting<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> +the fourth clause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five +times) quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3—iii. 167; 1, 4—iv. +619; 2, 4—v. 436; 4, 3—ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5—ii. +258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4—iv. 267; 1, 3, 4, 5—xii. 425; thus +recognizing them <i>all.</i></p> + +<p>Gregory Nyss.<a name="FNanchor_323_323" id="FNanchor_323_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_323_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a> quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.</p> + +<p>Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_324_324" id="FNanchor_324_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_324_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a>, clauses 4, 5—2, 4, 5—1, 3, 4, 5.</p> + +<p>The Apostolic Constitutions<a name="FNanchor_325_325" id="FNanchor_325_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_325_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a> (third century), clauses 1, +3, 4, 5 (having immediately before quoted clause 2,)—also +clauses 2, 4, 1.</p> + +<p>Clemens Alex.<a name="FNanchor_326_326" id="FNanchor_326_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_326_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 192), clauses 1, 2, 4.</p> + +<p>Athenagoras<a name="FNanchor_327_327" id="FNanchor_327_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_327_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 177), clauses 1, 2, 5.</p> + +<p>Theophilus<a name="FNanchor_328_328" id="FNanchor_328_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_328_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 168), clauses 1, 4.</p> + +<p>While Justin M.<a name="FNanchor_329_329" id="FNanchor_329_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_329_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 140) having paraphrased clause 1, +connects therewith clauses 2 and 4.</p> + +<p>And Polycarp<a name="FNanchor_330_330" id="FNanchor_330_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_330_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 108) apparently connects clauses +4 and 5.</p> + +<p>Didache<a name="FNanchor_331_331" id="FNanchor_331_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_331_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 +(pp. 5, 6).</p> + +<p>In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed +will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the +generally received reading in St. Matt. v. 44. All must +see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately +after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt +thing which the critics imagine, viz.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">αγαπατε τους εχθρους 'υμων,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των διωκοντων 'υμας,—<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to +St. Matt. v. 44 have freely mentioned 'blessing those who +curse,—doing good to those who hate,—and praying for +those who despitefully use.' Since there are but two<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> +alternative readings of the passage,—one longer, one +briefer,—every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed +clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all +the rest.</p> + +<p>This result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfully +recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be +not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of +primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials +and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no +Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must +be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing +deserving of the name of 'proof' will ever be attainable in +this department of investigation.</p> + +<p>But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of +St. Matt. v. 44 has been clearly established, then let the +legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally +recognized. The unique value of Manuscripts in declaring +the exact text of Scripture—the conspicuous inadequacy +of Patristic evidence by themselves,—have been made +apparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations +are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,—which +is, to enable us to decide between conflicting readings. +One more indication has been obtained of the corruptness +of the text which Origen employed,—concerning which he +is so strangely communicative,—and of which B[Symbol: Aleph] are the +chief surviving examples; and the probability has been +strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the +principal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading +will prove to be corrupt.</p> + +<p>Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds +favour with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that +these three clauses have been imported hither from +St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is mere unsupported +conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the +order of the second and third clauses in St. Matthew's<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> +Gospel is the reverse of the order in St. Luke's? No. +I believe that there has been excision here: for I hold +with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of +accident<a name="FNanchor_332_332" id="FNanchor_332_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_332_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span>.</p> + +<p>[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the +<i>Guardian</i> newspaper, who thought that he had reduced +the authorities quoted from before <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 400 on page 103 +of The Traditional Text to two on our side against +seven, or rather six<a name="FNanchor_333_333" id="FNanchor_333_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_333_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a>, on the other. Let me first say that +on this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged +to re-judge or withdraw some authorities. I admit that in +the middle of a long catena of passages, I did not lay<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> +sufficient stress, as I now find, upon the parallel passage +in St. Luke vi. 27, 28. After fresh examination, I withdraw +entirely Clemens Alex., Paed. i. 8,—Philo of Carpasus, +I. 7,—Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. cxviii. 12. 51, +and the two referred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote +Origen, Cels. viii. 41,—Eusebius in Ps. iii.,—Apost. Const. +vii. 4,—Greg. Nyss., In S. Stephanum, because they may +be regarded as doubtful, although for reasons which I proceed +to give they appear to witness in favour of our +contention. It is necessary to add some remarks before +dealing with the rest of the passages.]</p> + +<p>[1. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question +both negative and positive:—negative on the side of +our opponents, with all the difficulties involved in establishing +a negative conclusion as to the non-existence in +St. Matthew's Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5,—and positive +for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of +the genuine text in the passage which we are considering. +If we can so establish the clauses, or indeed any one of +them, the case against us fails: but unless we can establish +all, we have not proved everything that we seek to demonstrate. +Our first object is to make the adverse position +untenable: when we have done that, we fortify our own. +Therefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention +to the fact that our authorities are summoned as witnesses +to the early existence in each case of 'some of the clauses,' +if they do not depose to all of them. We are quite aware +of the reply: but we have with us the advantage of +positive as against negative evidence. This advantage +especially rules in such an instance as the present, because +alien circumstances govern the quotation, and regulate +particularly the length of it. Such quotation is always +liable to shortening, whether by leaving out intermediate +clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the +passage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> +being undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable +than omission arising from what cause soever.]</p> + +<p>[2. The reviewer says that 'all four clauses are read by +both texts,' i.e. in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears +to have been unaware as regards the present purpose of +the existence of the fifth clause, or half-clause, in St. +Matthew. Yet the words—'υπερ ... των διωκοντων 'υμας +are a very label, telling incontestibly the origin of many +of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St. +Matthew's label cannot have come from St. Luke's Gospel. +The reviewer has often gone wrong here. The 'υπερ—instead +of the περι after [Symbol: Aleph]BLΞ in St. Luke—should be to +our opponents a sign betraying the origin, though when it +stands by itself—as in Eusebius, In Ps. iii.—I do not press +the passage.]</p> + +<p>[3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the +effects of the context in shewing to which source a quotation +is to be referred. It is a common custom for Fathers +to quote v. 45 in St. Matthew, which is hardly conceivable +if they had St. Luke vi. 27, 28 before them, or even if they +were quoting from memory. Other points in the context +of greater or less importance are often found in the sentence +or sentences preceding or following the words quoted, and +are decisive of the reference.]</p> + +<p>[The references as corrected are given in the note<a name="FNanchor_334_334" id="FNanchor_334_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_334_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a>. It<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> +will be seen by any one who compares the verifications +with the reviewer's list, how his failure to observe the +points just explained has led him astray. The effect +upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be +that before the era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testimonies +are given in favour of the Traditional Text of +St. Matt. v. 44, and adding Tertullian from the Dean nine +against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will +be 522 and 171 respectively.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 7.</h3> + +<p>Especially have we need to be on our guard against +conniving at the ejection of short clauses consisting of +from twelve to fourteen letters,—which proves to have +been the exact length of a line in the earliest copies. +When such omissions leave the sense manifestly imperfect, +no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take no +notice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing +that the omission has been the result of accident. In +this way, ['οι πατερες αυτων, though it is omitted by +Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, is retained by all the Editors: +and the strange reading of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] in St. John vi. 55, +omitting two lines, was corrected on the manuscript in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> +the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern +times].</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">ΗΓΑΡ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΣΑΡΞΜΟΥΑΛΗΘΩΣ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">[ΕΣΤΙΒΡΩΣΙΣΚΑΙ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΤΟΑΙΜΑΜΟΥΑΛΗΘΩΣ]<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΣΤΙΠΟΣΙΣ<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three +words, the sense of the context remains unimpaired,—the +clause being of independent signification,—then great +danger arises lest an attempt should be made through the +officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of +a part of her inheritance. Thus [και 'οι συν αυτω (St. Luke +viii. 45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in +the margin by the Revisers and included in brackets by +Tregelles as if the words were of doubtful authority, solely +because some scribe omitted a line and was followed by B, +a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, and Jerusalem +Versions].</p> + +<p>When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly +remote period; took place, I mean, in the third, or more +likely still in the second century; then the fate of such +omitted words may be predicted with certainty. Their +doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective +original of necessity reproduced the defects of its prototype: +and if (as often happens) some of those copies have +descended to our times, they become quoted henceforward +as if they were independent witnesses<a name="FNanchor_335_335" id="FNanchor_335_335"></a><a href="#Footnote_335_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a>. Nor is this all. +Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies +of the Old Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with +formidable because very venerable foes. And according +to the recently approved method of editing the New +Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is declared<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span> +without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to +the Text. Take, as an instance of this, the following +passage in St. Luke xii. 39. 'If' (says our <span class="smcap">Lord</span>) 'the +master of the house had known in what hour</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">ΟΚΛΕΠΤΗΣ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΕΡΧΕΤΑΙ [ΕΓΡΗΓΟΡ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΗΣΕΝΚΑΙ] ΟΥΚΑΝΑ<br /></span> +<span class="i0">ΦΗΚΕΝ<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>his house to be broken through.' Here, the clause within +brackets, which has fallen out for an obvious reason, does +not appear in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph] and D. But the omission did not +begin with [Symbol: Aleph]. Two copies of the Old Latin are also +without the words εγρηγορησεν και,—which are wanting +besides in Cureton's Syriac. Tischendorf accordingly +omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount +of evidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the +ejection of the clause as spurious? What is the 'Science' +worth which cannot preserve to the body a healthy limb +like this?</p> + +<p>[The instances of omission which have now been examined +at some length must by no means be regarded as the only +specimens of this class of corrupt passages<a name="FNanchor_336_336" id="FNanchor_336_336"></a><a href="#Footnote_336_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a>. Many more +will occur to the minds of the readers of the present +volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact, +omissions are much more common than Additions, or +Transpositions, or Substitutions: and this fact, that omissions, +or what seem to be omissions, are apparently so +common,—to say nothing of the very strong evidence wherewith +they are attested—when taken in conjunction with the +natural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages, +cannot but confirm the general soundness of the position.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> +How indeed can it possibly be more true to the infirmities +of copyists, to the verdict of evidence on the several +passages, and to the origin of the New Testament in the +infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were +not literary, to suppose that a terse production was first +produced and afterwards was amplified in a later age with +a view to 'lucidity and completeness<a name="FNanchor_337_337" id="FNanchor_337_337"></a><a href="#Footnote_337_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a>,' rather than that +words and clauses and sentences were omitted upon +definitely understood principles in a small class of documents +by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The +reply to this question must now be left for candid and +thoughtful students to determine.]</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span></p><p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_258_258" id="Footnote_258_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258_258"><span class="label">[258]</span></a> It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical, +classes. Omissions are found in many of the rest.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_259_259" id="Footnote_259_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259_259"><span class="label">[259]</span></a> Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, chapter v. and +Appendix B.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_260_260" id="Footnote_260_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260_260"><span class="label">[260]</span></a> See Dr. Gwynn's remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text, +pp. 298-301.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_261_261" id="Footnote_261_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261_261"><span class="label">[261]</span></a> The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p. 109, where +thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 <span class="smcap">A.D.</span></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_262_262" id="Footnote_262_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262_262"><span class="label">[262]</span></a> The expression of Jerome, that almost all the Greek MSS. omit this +passage, is only a translation of Eusebius. It cannot express his own opinion, +for he admitted the twelve verses into the Vulgate, and quoted parts of them +twice, i.e. ver. 9, ii. 744-5, ver. 14, i. 327 c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_263_263" id="Footnote_263_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263_263"><span class="label">[263]</span></a> Dr. Dobbin has calculated 330 omissions in St. Matthew, 365 in St. Mark, +439 in St Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the Epistles—3,556 +in all as far as Heb. ix. 14, where it terminates. Dublin University +Magazine, 1859, p. 620.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_264_264" id="Footnote_264_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264_264"><span class="label">[264]</span></a> Such as in Cod. D after St. Luke vi. 4. 'On the same day He beheld +a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, "Man, blessed art +thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed +and a transgressor of the law"' (Scrivener's translation, Introduction, p. 8). So +also a longer interpolation from the Curetonian after St. Matt. xx. 28. These +are condemned by internal evidence as well as external.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_265_265" id="Footnote_265_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265_265"><span class="label">[265]</span></a> +και 'ο πεσων επι τον λιθον τουτον συνθλασθησεται; εφ' ον δ' αν πεση, +λικμησει +αυτον.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_266_266" id="Footnote_266_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266_266"><span class="label">[266]</span></a> iv. 25 d, 343 d.—What proves these two quotations to be from St. Matt. +xxi. 44, and not from St. Luke xx. 18, is, that they alike exhibit expressions +which are peculiar to the earlier Gospel. The first is introduced by the formula +ουδεποτε ανεγνωτε (ver. 42: comp. Orig. ii. 794 c), +and both exhibit the expression +επι τον λιθον τουτον (ver. 44), not επ' εκεινον τον λιθον. +Vainly is it urged +on the opposite side, that πας 'ο πεσων belongs to St. Luke,—whereas +και 'ο πεσων is the phrase found in St. Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) +writes πας 'ο πιπτων while professing to quote from St. Matthew; and the author +of Cureton's Syriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_267_267" id="Footnote_267_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267_267"><span class="label">[267]</span></a> P. 193.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_268_268" id="Footnote_268_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268_268"><span class="label">[268]</span></a> P. 11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_269_269" id="Footnote_269_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269_269"><span class="label">[269]</span></a> vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas, p. 669] +xii. 27 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_270_270" id="Footnote_270_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270_270"><span class="label">[270]</span></a> <i>Ap</i>. Mai, ii. 401 dis.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_271_271" id="Footnote_271_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271_271"><span class="label">[271]</span></a> <i>Ap</i>. Chrys. vi. 171 c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_272_272" id="Footnote_272_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272_272"><span class="label">[272]</span></a> vii. 171 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_273_273" id="Footnote_273_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273_273"><span class="label">[273]</span></a> iii<sup>2</sup>. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_274_274" id="Footnote_274_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274_274"><span class="label">[274]</span></a> 682-3 (Massuet 277).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_275_275" id="Footnote_275_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275_275"><span class="label">[275]</span></a> iii. 786.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_276_276" id="Footnote_276_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276_276"><span class="label">[276]</span></a> Theoph. 235-6 (= Mai, iv. 122).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_277_277" id="Footnote_277_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277_277"><span class="label">[277]</span></a> ii. 660 a, b, c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_278_278" id="Footnote_278_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278_278"><span class="label">[278]</span></a> 'Praeterit et Lucifer.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279_279" id="Footnote_279_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279_279"><span class="label">[279]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Galland. vi. 191 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_280_280" id="Footnote_280_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280_280"><span class="label">[280]</span></a> Ibid. vii. 20 c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_281_281" id="Footnote_281_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281_281"><span class="label">[281]</span></a> Ibid. ix. 768 a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_282_282" id="Footnote_282_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282_282"><span class="label">[282]</span></a> [I am unable to find any place in the Dean's writings where he has made +this explanation. The following note, however, is appended here]:— +</p><p> +With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43) +comes to an end. +</p><p> +Verse 44 has a number all to itself (in other words, is sect. 265) in the fifth +of the Syrian Canons,—which contains whatever is found exclusively in +St. Matthew and St. Luke.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_283_283" id="Footnote_283_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283_283"><span class="label">[283]</span></a> 'Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_284_284" id="Footnote_284_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284_284"><span class="label">[284]</span></a> The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265,—in St. Luke, 274: both being +referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke are exclusively compared.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_285_285" id="Footnote_285_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285_285"><span class="label">[285]</span></a> Vol. i. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_286_286" id="Footnote_286_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286_286"><span class="label">[286]</span></a> Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_287_287" id="Footnote_287_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287_287"><span class="label">[287]</span></a> Dial. § 78, <i>ad fin.</i> (p. 272).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_288_288" id="Footnote_288_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288_288"><span class="label">[288]</span></a> Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_289_289" id="Footnote_289_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289_289"><span class="label">[289]</span></a> See Holmes and Parsons' ed. of the LXX,—vol. iv. <i>in loc.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290_290" id="Footnote_290_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290_290"><span class="label">[290]</span></a> Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_291_291" id="Footnote_291_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291_291"><span class="label">[291]</span></a> Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_292_292" id="Footnote_292_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292_292"><span class="label">[292]</span></a> Opp. ii. 1345: iii. 763-4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_293_293" id="Footnote_293_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293_293"><span class="label">[293]</span></a> +§ xv:—on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently remarks,—'Hunc +locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo laudatam, S. Marc. +vii. 6, si pro απεστιν dedisset απεχει.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_294_294" id="Footnote_294_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294_294"><span class="label">[294]</span></a> Opp. i. 1502: iii. 1114.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295_295" id="Footnote_295_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295_295"><span class="label">[295]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296_296" id="Footnote_296_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296_296"><span class="label">[296]</span></a> Opp. p. 461.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_297_297" id="Footnote_297_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297_297"><span class="label">[297]</span></a> Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_298_298" id="Footnote_298_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298_298"><span class="label">[298]</span></a> De Trinitate, p. 242.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_299_299" id="Footnote_299_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299_299"><span class="label">[299]</span></a> Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to Alexandria.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_300_300" id="Footnote_300_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300_300"><span class="label">[300]</span></a> Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_301_301" id="Footnote_301_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301_301"><span class="label">[301]</span></a> It is uncertain whether Eusebius and Basil quote St. Matthew or Isaiah: +but a contemporary of Chrysostom certainly quotes the Gospel,—Chrys. Opp. +vi. 425 d (cf. p. 417, line 10).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302_302" id="Footnote_302_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302_302"><span class="label">[302]</span></a> But Eus.<sup>Es 589</sup> τους μ.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_303_303" id="Footnote_303_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303_303"><span class="label">[303]</span></a> I have numbered the clauses for convenience.—It will perhaps facilitate +the study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I subjoin a representation of +the same words in Latin:— +</p> +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">(1) Diligite inimicos vestros,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">(2) benedicite maledicentes vos,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">(3) benefacite odientibus vos,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">(4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">(5) et persequentibus vos.<br /></span> +</div></div> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_304_304" id="Footnote_304_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304_304"><span class="label">[304]</span></a> Opp. iv. 324 <i>bis</i>, 329 <i>bis</i>, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_305_305" id="Footnote_305_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305_305"><span class="label">[305]</span></a> 'A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the margin.' +Traditional Text, p. 149.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_306_306" id="Footnote_306_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306_306"><span class="label">[306]</span></a> Opp. p. 79, cf. 146.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307_307" id="Footnote_307_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307_307"><span class="label">[307]</span></a> Scap. c. 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308_308" id="Footnote_308_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308_308"><span class="label">[308]</span></a> Opp. iv. 946.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_309_309" id="Footnote_309_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309_309"><span class="label">[309]</span></a> Haer. III. xviii. 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_310_310" id="Footnote_310_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_310"><span class="label">[310]</span></a> Dem. Evan. xiii. 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_311_311" id="Footnote_311_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311_311"><span class="label">[311]</span></a> In Bapt. Christ.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_312_312" id="Footnote_312_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312_312"><span class="label">[312]</span></a> Orig. Opp. i. 812.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_313_313" id="Footnote_313_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313_313"><span class="label">[313]</span></a> Opp. i. 768: iv. 353.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_314_314" id="Footnote_314_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314_314"><span class="label">[314]</span></a> Opp. i. 827: ii. 399.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_315_315" id="Footnote_315_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315_315"><span class="label">[315]</span></a> Spect. c. 16: (Anim. c. 35): Pat. c. 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316_316" id="Footnote_316_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316_316"><span class="label">[316]</span></a> [In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract, ix. 3 (1, 3 (ver. 45 &c.)); In Ps. cxxxviii. 37 +(1, 3); +Serm. XV. 8 (1, 3, 5); Serm. LXII. <i>in loc.</i> (1, 3, 4, 5).]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_317_317" id="Footnote_317_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317_317"><span class="label">[317]</span></a> In Ps. xxxviii. 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318_318" id="Footnote_318_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318_318"><span class="label">[318]</span></a> Opp. pp. 303, 297.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_319_319" id="Footnote_319_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319_319"><span class="label">[319]</span></a> Pro S. Athanas. ii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_320_320" id="Footnote_320_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320_320"><span class="label">[320]</span></a> Ps. cxviii. 10. 16; 9. 9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_321_321" id="Footnote_321_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321_321"><span class="label">[321]</span></a> Ep. ii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_322_322" id="Footnote_322_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322_322"><span class="label">[322]</span></a> Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:—ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:—ii. 258: iii. +41:—iv. 267: xii. 425.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_323_323" id="Footnote_323_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323_323"><span class="label">[323]</span></a> Opp. iii. 379.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_324_324" id="Footnote_324_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324_324"><span class="label">[324]</span></a> Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_325_325" id="Footnote_325_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325_325"><span class="label">[325]</span></a> Pp. 3. 198.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326_326" id="Footnote_326_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326_326"><span class="label">[326]</span></a> Opp. p. 605 and 307.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327_327" id="Footnote_327_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327_327"><span class="label">[327]</span></a> Leg. pro Christian. 11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328_328" id="Footnote_328_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328_328"><span class="label">[328]</span></a> Ad Autolycum, iii. 14.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329_329" id="Footnote_329_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329_329"><span class="label">[329]</span></a> Opp. i. 40.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_330_330" id="Footnote_330_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330_330"><span class="label">[330]</span></a> Ad Philipp. c. 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_331_331" id="Footnote_331_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331_331"><span class="label">[331]</span></a> § 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_332_332" id="Footnote_332_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332_332"><span class="label">[332]</span></a> Theodoret once (iv. 946) gives the verse as Tischendorf gives it: but on +two other occasions (i. 827: ii. 399) the same Theodoret exhibits the second +member of the sentence thus,—ευλογειτε τους διωκοντας 'υμας (so pseud.-Athan. +ii. 95), which shews how little stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-named +place furnishes. +</p><p> +Origen also (iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place as Tischendorf +gives it—but on one occasion, which it will be observed is <i>fatal</i> to his evidence +(i. 768), he gives the second member thus,—iv. 353: +</p><p> +και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των επηρεαζοντων 'υμας..·. 1. 4. +</p><p> +Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:— +</p><p> +αγαπατε τους εχθρους 'υμων, ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους 'υμας, και προσευχεσθε +'υπερ των επηρεαζυντων 'υμιν, και τα 'ομοια..·. 1, 2, 4.—3, 5. +</p><p> +Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding +licence), yet is observed to recognize in part <i>both</i> the clauses which labour +under suspicion:.·. 1, 2, 4.—3, 5. +</p><p> +ευχεσθε 'υπερ των εχθρων 'υμων και αγαπατε τους μισουντας 'υμας, +which roughly represents και ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους 'υμιν και ευχεσθε +'υπερ των επηρεαζοντων 'υμας. +</p><p> +The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards τους μισουντας +'υμας. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i. 521), who (loosely +enough) quotes the place thus,— +</p><p> +<i>Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt.</i> +.·. 1 (made up of 3, 4).—2, 5. +</p><p> +And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who writes:—ad +Philipp. c. 12:— +</p><p> +<i>Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos.</i>.·. 4, 5.—1, 2, 3. +</p><p> +I have examined [Didaché] <i>Justin</i>, <i>Irenaeus</i>, <i>Eusebius</i>, +<i>Hippolytus</i>, <i>Cyril Al.</i>, +<i>Greg. Naz.</i>, <i>Basil</i>, <i>Athan.</i>, <i>Didymus</i>, <i>Cyril Hier.</i>, +<i>Chrys.</i>, <i>Greg. Nyss.</i>, <i>Epiph.</i>, +<i>Theod.</i>, <i>Clemens.</i> +</p><p> +And the following are the results:— +</p><p> +Didaché. Ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους 'υμιν, και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των εχθρων +'υμων, νηστευετε 'υπερ των διωκοντων 'υμας ... 'υμεις δε αγαπατε τους μισουντας +'υμας..·. 2, 3, 4, 5. +</p><p> +Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs:—Diligite inimicos vestros, +benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt et persequuntur. +</p><p> +Eusebius Prae 654..·. 2, 4, 5, omitting 1, 3. +</p><p> +Eusebius Ps 699..·. 4, 5, omitting 1, 2, 3. +</p><p> +Eusebius Es 589..·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2. +</p><p> +Clemens Al. 605..·. 1, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5. +</p><p> +Greg. Nyss. iii. 379..·. 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2. +</p><p> +Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro +persequentibus et calumniantibus vos..·. 1, 3, 5, 4, omitting 2. +</p><p> +Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus +vos ac persequentibus vos..·. 2, 4, 5, omitting the <i>first and third</i>. +</p><p> +Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac +persequentibus vos..·. 1, 4, 5, omitting the <i>second and third</i>. Cf. 128. +</p><p> +Cyprian, 79 (cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui vos +persequuntur..·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4. +</p><p> +Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et orate pro maledicentibus +vos—which apparently is meant for a quotation of 1, 2. +.·. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5. +</p><p> +Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et maledicentibus benedicite, +et orate pro persecutoribus vestris—which is a quotation of 1, 2, 5. +.·. 1, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4. +</p><p> +Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur. +.·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4. +</p><p> +Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici..·. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5. +</p><p> +Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: orate +pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos..·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2. +</p><p> +Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus et persequentibus +vos..·. 1, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3. +</p><p> +Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt: et orate +pro eis qui vos persequuntur..·. 1, 3, 5, omitting 2, 4. +</p><p> +'Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus +vos.' Hilary, 297. +</p><p> +Cyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus,— +</p><p> +ευ ποιειτε τους εχθρους 'υμων, +και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των επηρεαζοντων 'υμας. +</p><p> +Chrys. (iii. 355) says +</p><p> +αυτος γαρ ειπεν, ευχεσθε 'υπερ των εχθρων ['υμων]</p> + +<p>and repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453.</p> +<p>So Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et <i>persecutoribus</i> nostris +bone precari..·. 1, 5.</p> +<p>If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should probably find</p> +<p>αγαπατε τους εχθρους 'υμων, +και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των μισουντων 'υμας:</p> +<p>and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 12),</p> +<p>προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των διωκοντων και μισουντων 'υμας.</p> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_333_333" id="Footnote_333_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333_333"><span class="label">[333]</span></a> <i>Dialogus Adamantii</i> is not adducible within my +limits, because 'it is in all probability the production of a later +age.' My number was eight.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_334_334" id="Footnote_334_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334_334"><span class="label">[334]</span></a> Observe that 5 = 'υπερ ... των διωκοντων. +</p><p> +For— +</p><p> +Didache (§ 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5. +</p><p> +Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5. +</p><p> +Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), +4 (4), 5? 'υπερ των εχθρων (=διωκοντων?), +but the passage more like St. Luke, the context more like St. +Matt., ver. 45. +</p><p> +Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11), 1, 2 (3). 5. ver. 45. +</p><p> +Tertullian (De Patient, vi), 1, 2 (3), 5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol. c. 31. 1, 5. +</p><p> +Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 14), 1, 4 (4), 'υπερ and ver. 46. +</p><p> +Clemens Alex. (Strom, iv. 14), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom, +vii. 14), favours St. Matt. +</p><p> +Origen (De Orat. i), 1, 4 (4), 'υπερ and in the middle of two quotations +from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), 1, 4 (4) 'υπερ and all ver. 45. +</p><p> +Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xiii. 7), 2 (3), +4 (4), 5, all ver. 45; (Comment, in +Is. 66), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, also ver. +45; (In Ps. cviii), 4, 5. +</p><p> +Apost. Const, (i. 2), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), +5, 'υπερ and ver. 45. +</p><p> +Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 +(4), 5, 'υπερευχεσθαι. +</p><p> +Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), +4 (4), 5, 'υπερ, ver. 45. +</p><p> +Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), +but quotes ver. 44 ... end of chapter. +</p><p> +Pacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5. +</p><p> +Hilary (Tract, in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9), 2 +(3), 4 (4), 5; (ibid. 10. 16), 1, 4 +(4), 5. (The reviewer omits 'ac +persequentibus vos' in both cases.) +</p><p> +Ambrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), 1, 3, 4, 5; +(In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1, 4 (4), 5. +</p><p> +Aphraates (Dem. ii), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), +5, εθνικοι. +</p><p> +Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles +(p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45. +</p><p> +Number = 25.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_335_335" id="Footnote_335_335"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335_335"><span class="label">[335]</span></a> See Traditional Text, p. 55.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_336_336" id="Footnote_336_336"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336_336"><span class="label">[336]</span></a> For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament, viz. +the <i>Pericope de Adultera</i>, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337_337" id="Footnote_337_337"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337_337"><span class="label">[337]</span></a> Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_xi" id="chapter_xi"></a>CHAPTER XI.</h2> + +<h3>CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.</h3> + +<h3>V. Transposition, VI. Substitution, +and VII. Addition.</h3> + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + + +<p>One of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, +is <span class="smcap">Transposition</span>, or the arbitrary inversion of the order +of the sacred words,—generally in the subordinate clauses +of a sentence. The extent to which this prevails in +Codexes of the type of B[Symbol: Aleph]CD passes belief. It is not +merely the occasional writing of ταυτα παντα for παντα +ταυτα,—or 'ο λαος ουτος for ουτος 'ο λαος, to which allusion +is now made: for if that were all, the phenomenon would +admit of loyal explanation and excuse. But what I speak +of is a systematic putting to wrong of the inspired words +throughout the entire Codex; an operation which was +evidently regarded in certain quarters as a lawful exercise +of critical ingenuity,—perhaps was looked upon as an +elegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style +of the original without materially interfering with the +sense.</p> + +<p>Let me before going further lay before the reader a few +specimens of Transposition.</p> + +<p>Take for example St. Mark i. 5,—και εβαπτιζοντο παντες,—is +unreasonably turned into παντες και εβαπτιζοντο; +whereby the meaning of the Evangelical record becomes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> +changed, for παντες is now made to agree with 'Ιεροσολυμιται, +and the Evangelist is represented as making the +very strong assertion that <i>all</i> the people of Jerusalem +came to St. John and were baptized. This is the private +property of BDLΔ.</p> + +<p>And sometimes I find short clauses added which I prefer +to ascribe to the misplaced critical assiduity of ancient +Critics. Confessedly spurious, these accretions to the +genuine text often bear traces of pious intelligence, and +occasionally of considerable ability. I do not suppose +that they 'crept in' from the margin: but that they +were inserted by men who entirely failed to realize the +wrongness of what they did,—the mischievous consequences +which might possibly ensue from their well-meant +endeavours to improve the work of the <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span>.</p> + +<p>[Take again St. Mark ii. 3, in which the order in προς +αυτον παραλυτικον φεροντες,—is changed by [Symbol: Aleph]BL into +φεροντες προς αυτον παραλυτικον. A few words are needed +to explain to those who have not carefully examined +the passage the effect of this apparently slight alteration. +Our Lord was in a house at Capernaum with a thick +crowd of people around Him: there was no room even +at the door. Whilst He was there teaching, a company +of people come to Him (ερχονται προς αυτον), four of the +party carrying a paralytic on a bed. When they arrive +at the house, a few of the company, enough to represent +the whole, force their way in and reach Him: but on +looking back they see that the rest are unable to bring +the paralytic near to Him (προσεγγισαι αυτω<a name="FNanchor_338_338" id="FNanchor_338_338"></a><a href="#Footnote_338_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a>). Upon +which they all go out and uncover the roof, take up the +sick man on his bed, and the rest of the familiar story +unfolds itself. Some officious scribe wished to remove +all antiquity arising from the separation of παραλυτικον<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> +from αιρομενον which agrees with it, and transposed +φεροντες to the verb it is attached to, thus clumsily +excluding the exquisite hint, clear enough to those who +can read between the lines, that in the ineffectual attempt +to bring in the paralytic only some of the company +reached our Lord's Presence. Of course the scribe in +question found followers in [Symbol: Aleph]BL.]</p> + +<p>It will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition +are of a kind which is without excuse and inadmissible. +Such transposition consists in drawing back a word which +occurs further on, but is thus introduced into a new +context, and gives a new sense. It seems to be assumed +that since the words are all there, so long as they be +preserved, their exact collocation is of no moment. Transpositions +of that kind, to speak plainly, are important only +as affording conclusive proof that such copies as B[Symbol: Aleph]D +preserve a text which has undergone a sort of critical +treatment which is so obviously indefensible that the +Codexes themselves, however interesting as monuments +of a primitive age,—however valuable commercially and +to be prized by learned and unlearned alike for their +unique importance,—are yet to be prized chiefly as +beacon-lights preserved by a watchful Providence to warn +every voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore +already strewn with wrecks<a name="FNanchor_339_339" id="FNanchor_339_339"></a><a href="#Footnote_339_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a>.</p> + +<p>Transposition may sometimes be as conveniently illustrated +in English as in Greek. St. Luke relates (Acts ii. +45, 46) that the first believers sold their goods 'and parted +them to all men, as every man had need. And they, +continuing daily,' &c. For this, Cod. D reads, 'and parted +them daily to all men as every man had need. And they +continued in the temple.'<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span></p> + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>It is difficult to divine for what possible reason most +of these transpositions were made. On countless occasions +they do not in the least affect the sense. Often, they are +incapable of being idiomatically represented, in English. +Generally speaking, they are of no manner of importance, +except as tokens of the licence which was claimed +by disciples, as I suspect, of the Alexandrian school +[or exercised unintentionally by careless or ignorant +Western copyists]. But there arise occasions when we +cannot afford to be so trifled with. An important change +in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected by +transposing its clauses; and on one occasion, as I venture +to think, the prophetic intention of the Speaker is obscured +in consequence. I allude to St. Luke xiii. 9, where under +the figure of a barren fig-tree, our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> hints at what +is to befall the Jewish people, because in the fourth year +of His Ministry it remained unfruitful. 'Lo, these three +years,' (saith He to the dresser of His Vineyard), 'come +I seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none; cut it down; +why cumbereth it the ground?' 'Spare it for this year +also' (is the rejoinder), 'and if it bear fruit,—well: but if +not, next year thou shalt cut it down.' But on the +strength of [Symbol: Aleph]BLT<sup>w</sup>, some recent Critics would have us +read,—'And if it bear fruit next year,—well: but if not, +thou shalt cut it down':—which clearly would add a year +to the season of the probation of the Jewish race. The +limit assigned in the genuine text is the fourth year: in +the corrupt text of [Symbol: Aleph]BLT<sup>w</sup>, two bad Cursives, and the two +chief Egyptian versions, this period becomes extended to +the fifth.</p> + +<p>To reason about such transpositions of words, a wearisome +proceeding at best, soon degenerates into the veriest +trifling. Sometimes, the order of the words is really<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> +immaterial to the sense. Even when a different shade +of meaning is the result of a different collocation, that +will seem the better order to one man which seems not +to be so to another. The best order of course is that +which most accurately exhibits the Author's precise shade +of meaning: but of this the Author is probably the only +competent judge. On our side, an appeal to actual +evidence is obviously the only resource: since in no +other way can we reasonably expect to ascertain what +was the order of the words in the original document. +And surely such an appeal can be attended with only +one result: viz. the unconditional rejection of the peculiar +and often varying order advocated by the very few +Codexes,—a cordial acceptance of the order exhibited by +every document in the world besides.</p> + +<p>I will content myself with inviting attention to one or +two samples of my meaning. It has been made a question +whether St. Luke (xxiv. 7) wrote,—λεγων, 'Οτι δει τον 'υιον +του ανθρωπου παραδοθηναι, as all the MSS. in the world +but four, all the Versions, and all the available Fathers'<a name="FNanchor_340_340" id="FNanchor_340_340"></a><a href="#Footnote_340_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a> +evidence from <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 150 downwards attest: or whether +he wrote,—λεγων τον 'υιον του ανθρωπου 'οτι δει παραδοθηναι, +as [Symbol: Aleph]BCL,—and those four documents only—would have +us believe? [The point which first strikes a scholar is that +there is in this reading a familiar classicism which is alien +to the style of the Gospels, and which may be a symptom +of an attempt on the part of some early critic who was +seeking to bring them into agreement with ancient Greek +models.] But surely also it is even obvious that the correspondence +of those four Codexes in such a particular as +this must needs be the result of their having derived the +reading from one and the same original. On the contrary,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> +the agreement of all the rest in a trifling matter of +detail like the present can be accounted for in only one +way, viz., by presuming that they also have all been +derived through various lines of descent from a single +document: but <i>that</i> document the autograph of the +Evangelist. [For the great number and variety of them +necessitates their having been derived through various lines +of descent. Indeed, they must have the notes of number, +variety, as well as continuity, and weight also.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult—perhaps +impossible—to determine, apart from external +evidence, which collocation of two or more words is the +true one, whether e.g. εχει ζωην for instance or +ζωην εχει<a name="FNanchor_341_341" id="FNanchor_341_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_341_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a>,—ηγερθη ευθεως or +ευθεως ηγερθη<a name="FNanchor_342_342" id="FNanchor_342_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_342_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a>,—χωλους, τυφλους—or +τυφλους, χωλους<a name="FNanchor_343_343" id="FNanchor_343_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_343_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a>,—shall be preferred. The burden of proof +rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use.</p> + +<p>Obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man +sits down before the Gospel with the deliberate intention +of improving the style of the Evangelists by transposing +their words on an average of seven (B), eight ([Symbol: Aleph]), or +twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe to convict +himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he has +reached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of +[Symbol: Aleph], in place of εξουσιαν εδωκεν αυτω και κρισιν ποιειν<a name="FNanchor_344_344" id="FNanchor_344_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_344_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a>, +presents us with και κρισιν εδωκεν αυτω εξουσιαν ποιειν, we +hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense<a name="FNanchor_345_345" id="FNanchor_345_345"></a><a href="#Footnote_345_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a>. And +when BD instead of εισι τινες των ωδε 'εστηκοτων exhibit +εισε των ωδε των 'εστηκοτων, we cannot but conclude that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> +the credit of those two MSS. must be so far lowered in the +eyes of every one who with true appreciation of the niceties +of Greek scholarship observes what has been done.</p> + +<p>[This characteristic of the old uncials is now commended +to the attention of students, who will find in the folios +of those documents plenty of instances for examination. +Most of the cases of Transposition are petty enough, whilst +some, as the specimens already presented to the reader +indicate, constitute blots not favourable to the general +reputation of the copies on which they are found. Indeed, +they are so frequent that they have grown to be a very +habit, and must have propagated themselves. For it is +in this secondary character rather than in any first intention, +so to speak, that Transpositions, together with +Omissions and Substitutions and Additions, have become +to some extent independent causes of corruption. Originally +produced by other forces, they have acquired a power +of extension in themselves.</p> + +<p>It is hoped that the passages already quoted may be +found sufficient to exhibit the character of the large class +of instances in which the pure Text of the original +Autographs has been corrupted by Transposition. That +it has been so corrupted, is proved by the evidence +which is generally overpowering in each case. There +has clearly been much intentional perversion: carelessness +also and ignorance of Greek combined with inveterate +inaccuracy, characteristics especially of Western corruption +as may be seen in Codex D and the Old Latin versions, +must have had their due share in the evil work. The +result has been found in constant slurs upon the sacred +pages, lessening the beauty and often perverting the sense,—a +source of sorrow to the keen scholar and reverent +Christian, and reiterated indignity done in wantonness or +heedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the Holy Books.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span></p> + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>[All the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed +under four heads, viz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution, +and Addition. We are entirely aware that, in the arrangement +adopted in this Volume for purposes of convenience, +Scientific Method has been neglected. The inevitable +result must be that passages are capable of being classed +under more heads than one. But Logical exactness is +of less practical value than a complete and suitable +treatment of the corrupted passages that actually occur +in the four Gospels.</p> + +<p>It seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulousness +that might bore our readers a disquisition upon +Substitution which has not forced itself into a place +amongst Dean Burgon's papers, although it is found in +a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted +forms or words or phrases, such as ΟΣ ('ος) for ΘΣ +(Θεος)<a name="FNanchor_346_346" id="FNanchor_346_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_346_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a> +ηπορει for εποιει (St. Mark vi. 20), or ουκ οιδατε δοκιμαζειν +for δοκιμαζετε (St. Luke xii. 56), have their own special +causes of substitution, and are naturally and best considered +under the cause which in each case gave them +birth.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span></p> +<p>Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifications, +as they well may be, are added to it<a name="FNanchor_347_347" id="FNanchor_347_347"></a><a href="#Footnote_347_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a>. It will be +readily concluded that some substitutions are serious, some +of less importance, and many trivial. Of the more important +class, the reading of 'αμαρτηματος for κρισεως (St. Mark iii. 29) +which the Revisers have adopted in compliance with [Symbol: Aleph]BLΔ +and three Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads +'αμαρτιας supported by the first corrector of C, and three +of the Ferrar group (13, 69, 346): and that the change +adopted is supported by the Old Latin versions except +f, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian, Gothic, Lewis, and +Saxon. But the opposition which favours κρισεως is made +up of A, C under the first reading and the second correction, +ΦΣ and eleven other Uncials, the great bulk of the Cursives, +f, Peshitto, and Harkleian, and is superior in strength. +The internal evidence is also in favour of the Traditional +reading, both as regards the usage of ενοχος, and the natural +meaning given by κρισεως. 'αμαρτηματος has clearly crept +in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be +found in the well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 (του 'ηλιου +εκλιποντος), St. Matt. xi. 27 (βουληται αποκαλυψαι), St. Matt. +xxvii. 34 (οινον for οξος), St. Mark i. 2 ('ησαια for +τοις προφηταις), +St. John i. 18 ('ο Μονογενης Θεος being a substitution +made by heretics for 'ο Μονογενης 'υιος), St. Mark vii. 31 +(δια Σιδωνος for και Σιδωνος). These instances may perhaps +suffice: many more may suggest themselves to intelligent +readers. Though most are trivial, their cumulative force +is extremely formidable. Many of these changes arose +from various causes which are described in many other +places in this book.]</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span></p> +<h3>§ 5.</h3> + +<p>[The smallest of the four Classes, which upon a pure +survey of the outward form divide among themselves +the surface of the entire field of Corruption, is that of +Additions<a name="FNanchor_348_348" id="FNanchor_348_348"></a><a href="#Footnote_348_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a>. And the reason of their smallness of number +is discoverable at once. Whilst it is but too easy for +scribes or those who have a love of criticism to omit +words and passages under all circumstances, or even to +vary the order, or to use another word or form instead +of the right one, to insert anything into the sacred Text +which does not proclaim too glaringly its own unfitness—in +a word, to invent happily—is plainly a matter of much +greater difficulty. Therefore to increase the Class of +Insertions or Additions or Interpolations, so that it should +exceed the Class of Omissions, is to go counter to the +natural action of human forces. There is no difficulty in +leaving out large numbers of the Sacred Words: but there +is much difficulty in placing in the midst of them human +words, possessed of such a character and clothed in such +an uniform, as not to betray to keen observation their +earthly origin.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span></p> +<p>A few examples will set this truth in clearer light. It +is remarkable that efforts at interpolation occur most +copiously amongst the books of those who are least fitted +to make them. We naturally look amongst the representatives +of the Western school where Greek was less +understood than in the East where Greek acumen was +imperfectly represented by Latin activity, and where +translation into Latin and retranslation into Greek was +a prolific cause of corruption. Take then the following +passage from the Codex D (St. Luke vi. 4):—</p> + +<p>'On the same day He beheld a certain man working +on the sabbath, and said to him, "Man, blessed art thou +if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest +not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law."'</p> + +<p>And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. xx. +28), which occurs under a worse form in D.</p> + +<p>'But seek ye from little to become greater, and not +from greater to become less. When ye are invited to +supper in a house, sit not down in the best place, lest +some one come who is more honourable than thou, and +the lord of the supper say to thee, "Go down below," +and thou be ashamed in the presence of them that have +sat down. But if thou sit down in the lower place, and +one who is inferior to thee come in, the lord also of the +supper will say to thee, "Come near, and come up, and +sit down," and thou shalt have greater honour in the +presence of them that have sat down.'</p> + +<p>Who does not see that there is in these two passages no +real 'ring of genuineness'?</p> + +<p>Take next some instances of lesser insertions.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 6.</h3> + +<p>Conspicuous beyond all things in the Centurion of +Capernaum (St. Matt. viii. 13) was his faith. It occasioned +wonder even in the Son of Man. Do we not, in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span> +significant statement, that when they who had been sent +returned to the house, 'they found the servant whole +that had been sick<a name="FNanchor_349_349" id="FNanchor_349_349"></a><a href="#Footnote_349_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a>,' recognize by implication the assurance +that the Centurion, because he needed no such +confirmation of his belief, went <i>not</i> with them; but enjoyed +the twofold blessedness of remaining with <span class="smcap">Christ</span>, and +of believing without seeing? I think so. Be this however +as it may, [Symbol: Aleph]CEMUX besides about fifty cursives, append +to St. Matt. viii. 13 the clearly apocryphal statement, +'And the Centurion returning to his house in that same +hour found the servant whole.' It does not improve the +matter to find that Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_350_350" id="FNanchor_350_350"></a><a href="#Footnote_350_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a>, besides the Harkleian and +the Ethiopic versions, recognize the same appendix. We +are thankful, that no one yet has been found to advocate +the adoption of this patent accretion to the inspired text. +Its origin is not far to seek. I presume it was inserted +in order to give a kind of finish to the story<a name="FNanchor_351_351" id="FNanchor_351_351"></a><a href="#Footnote_351_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span></p><p>[Another and that a most remarkable Addition may +be found in St. Matt. xxiv. 36, into which the words +ουδε 'ο 'υιος, 'neither the Son' have been transferred from +St. Mark xiii. 32 in compliance with a wholly insufficient +body of authorities. Lachmann was the leader in this +proceeding, and he has been followed by Tischendorf, +Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers. The latter body +add in their margin, 'Many authorities, some ancient, omit +<i>neither the Son</i>.' How inadequate to the facts of the case +this description is, will be seen when the authorities are +enumerated. But first of those who have been regarded +by the majority of the Revisers as the disposers of their +decision, according to the information supplied by Tischendorf.</p> + +<p>They are (<i>a</i>) of Uncials [Symbol: Aleph] (in the first reading and as +re-corrected in the seventh century) BD; (<i>b</i>) five Cursives +(for a present of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf); +(<i>c</i>) ten Old Latin copies also the Aureus (Words.), some +of the Vulgate (four according to Wordsworth), the Palestinian, +Ethiopic, Armenian; (<i>d</i>) Origen (Lat. iii. 874), +Hilary (733<sup>a</sup>), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca, +481), Ambrose (i. 1478<sup>f</sup>). But Irenaeus (Lat. i. 386), Cyril +(Zach. 800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from +St. Mark. So too, as Tischendorf admits, Amphilochius.</p> + +<p>On the other hand we have, (<i>a</i>) the chief corrector of +[Symbol: Aleph](c<sup>a</sup>)ΦΣ +with thirteen other Uncials and the Greek MSS.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> +of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome<a name="FNanchor_352_352" id="FNanchor_352_352"></a><a href="#Footnote_352_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a>; (<i>b</i>) all +the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed); +(<i>c</i>) the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkletan, Lewis, +Bohairic, and the Sahidic; (<i>d</i>) Jerome (in the place just now +quoted), St. Basil who contrasts the text of St. Matthew +with that of St. Mark, Didymus, who is also express in +declaring that the three words in dispute are not found +in St. Matthew (Trin. 195), St. John Damascene (ii. 346), +Apollonius Philosophus (Galland. ix. 247), Euthymius +Zigabenus (in loc), Paulinus (iii. 12), St. Ambrose (ii. 656<sup>a</sup>), +and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne, lxxxix. 941).</p> + +<p>Theophylact (i. 133), Hesychius Presb. (Migne, lxiii. 142) +Eusebius (Galland. ix. 580), Facundus Herm. (Galland. xi. +782), Athanasius (ii. 660), quote the words as from the +Gospel without reference, and may therefore refer to +St. Mark. Phoebadius (Galland. v. 251), though quoted +against the Addition by Tischendorf, is doubtful.</p> + +<p>On which side the balance of evidence inclines, our +readers will judge. But at least they cannot surely justify +the assertion made by the majority of the Revisers, that +the Addition is opposed only by 'many authorities, some +ancient,' or at any rate that this is a fair and adequate +description of the evidence opposed to their decision.</p> + +<p>An instance occurs in St. Mark iii. 16 which illustrates +the carelessness and tastelessness of the handful of authorities +to which it pleases many critics to attribute ruling authority. +In the fourteenth verse, it had been already stated that our +Lord 'ordained twelve,' και εποιησε δωδεκα; but because +[Symbol: Aleph]BΔ and C (which was corrected in the ninth century with +a MS. of the Ethiopic) reiterate these words two verses<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> +further on, Tischendorf with Westcott and Hort assume +that it is necessary to repeat what has been so recently +told. Meanwhile eighteen other uncials (including AΦΣ +and the third hand of C); nearly all the Cursives; the +Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Lewis, Harkleian, Gothic, +Armenian, and the other MSS. of the Ethiopic omit them. +It is plainly unnecessary to strengthen such an opposition +by researches in the pages of the Fathers.</p> + +<p>Explanation has been already given, how the introductions +to Lections, and other Liturgical formulae, have been +added by insertion to the Text in various places. Thus +'ο Ιησους has often been inserted, and in some places +remains wrongly (in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in the +pages of the Received Text. The three most important +additions to the Received Text occur, as Dean Burgon +thought, in St. Matt. vi. 18, where εν τω φανερω has crept +in from v. 6 against the testimony of a large majority both +of Uncial and of Cursive MSS.: in St. Matt. xxv. 13, where +the clause εν 'η 'ο 'υιος του ανθρωπου ερχεται seemed to him to +be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in +St. Matt. xxvii. 35, where the quotation ('ινα πληρωθη ... +εβαλον κληρον) must be taken for similar reasons to have +been originally a gloss.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_338_338" id="Footnote_338_338"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338_338"><span class="label">[338]</span></a> προσεγγισαι is transitive here, like εγγιζω +in Gen. xlviii. 10, 13: 2 Kings iv. 6: Isaiah xlvi. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_339_339" id="Footnote_339_339"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339_339"><span class="label">[339]</span></a> +The following are the numbers of Transpositions supplied by B, [Symbol: Aleph], and D +in the Gospels:—B, 2,098: [Symbol: Aleph], 2,299: D, 3,471. See Revision Revised, +pp. 12, 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_340_340" id="Footnote_340_340"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340_340"><span class="label">[340]</span></a> Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i. 348): +Cyril (Mai, ii. 438): John Thess. (Gall. xiii. 188).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_341_341" id="Footnote_341_341"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341_341"><span class="label">[341]</span></a> St. John v. 26, in [Symbol: Aleph]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_342_342" id="Footnote_342_342"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342_342"><span class="label">[342]</span></a> St. Mark ii. 12, in D.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_343_343" id="Footnote_343_343"></a><a href="#FNanchor_343_343"><span class="label">[343]</span></a> St. Luke xiv. 13, in [Symbol: Aleph]B.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_344_344" id="Footnote_344_344"></a><a href="#FNanchor_344_344"><span class="label">[344]</span></a> St. John v. 27.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_345_345" id="Footnote_345_345"></a><a href="#FNanchor_345_345"><span class="label">[345]</span></a> 'Nec aliter' (says Tischendorf) 'Tertull.' (Prax. +21),—'<i>et judicium dedit illi facere in potestate</i>.' But +this (begging the learned critic's pardon) is quite a different thing.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_346_346" id="Footnote_346_346"></a><a href="#FNanchor_346_346"><span class="label">[346]</span></a> +See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in The Revision +Revised, pp. 424-501.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_347_347" id="Footnote_347_347"></a><a href="#FNanchor_347_347"><span class="label">[347]</span></a> The numbers are:—</p> +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">B, substitutions, 935; modifications, 1,132; total, 2,067.</span> +<span class="i0">[Symbol: Aleph], " 1,114; " 1,265; " 2,379.</span> +<span class="i0">D, " 2,121; " 1,772; " 3,893.</span> +</div></div> +<p> +Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_348_348" id="Footnote_348_348"></a><a href="#FNanchor_348_348"><span class="label">[348]</span></a> B has 536 words added in the Gospels: [Symbol: Aleph], 839: D, 2,213. +Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. The interpolations of D are notorious.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_349_349" id="Footnote_349_349"></a><a href="#FNanchor_349_349"><span class="label">[349]</span></a> St. Luke vii. 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_350_350" id="Footnote_350_350"></a><a href="#FNanchor_350_350"><span class="label">[350]</span></a> Theoph. p. 212.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_351_351" id="Footnote_351_351"></a><a href="#FNanchor_351_351"><span class="label">[351]</span></a> An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause in the same +narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead of ουδε εν +τω Ισραηλ τοσαυτην πιστιν ευρον (St. Matt. viii. 10), we are invited henceforth +to read παρ' ουδενι τοσαυτην πιστιν εν τω Ισραηλ ευρον;—a tame and +tasteless gloss, witnessed to by only B, and five cursives,—but having no other +effect, if it should chance to be inserted, than to mar and obscure the Divine +utterance. +</p><p> +For when our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> declares 'Not even in Israel have I found so great +faith,' He is clearly contrasting this proficiency of an earnest Gentile against +whatever of a like nature He had experienced in His dealing with the Jewish +people; and declaring the result. He is contrasting Jacob's descendants, the +heirs of so many lofty privileges, with this Gentile soldier: their spiritual +attainments with his; and assigning the palm to him. Substitute 'With no +one in Israel have I found so great faith,' and the contrast disappears. Nothing +else is predicated but a greater measure of faith in one man than in any other. +The author of this feeble attempt to improve upon St. Matthew's Gospel is +found to have also tried his hand on the parallel place in St. Luke, but with +even inferior success: for there his misdirected efforts survive only in certain +copies of the Old Latin. Ambrose notices his officiousness, remarking that it +yields an intelligible sense; but that, 'juxta Graecos,' the place is to be read +differently (i. 1376.) +</p><p> +It is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin (Augustine <i>once</i> (iv. 322), +though he quotes the place nearly twenty times +in the usual way) and the Egyptian versions +exhibit the same depravation. Cyril habitually employed an Evangelium which +was disfigured in the same way (iii. 833, also Opp. v. 544, ed. Pusey.). +But are we out of such materials as these to +set about reconstructing the text of Scripture?</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_352_352" id="Footnote_352_352"></a><a href="#FNanchor_352_352"><span class="label">[352]</span></a> +'In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, <i>neque Filius</i>: quum in Graecis, +et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum. +Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur.' Hier. vii. 199 a. 'Gaudet +Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri gloria discipulorum sit, et +dicunt:—"Non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui ignorat."' Ibid. 6. +</p><p> +In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_xii" id="chapter_xii"></a>CHAPTER XII.</h2> + +<h3>CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.</h3> + +<h3>VIII. Glosses.</h3> + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + + +<p>'Glosses,' properly so called, though they enjoy a conspicuous +place in every enumeration like the present, are +probably by no means so numerous as is commonly +supposed. For certainly <i>every</i> unauthorized accretion to +the text of Scripture is not a 'gloss': but only those +explanatory words or clauses which have surreptitiously +insinuated themselves into the text, and of which no more +reasonable account can be rendered than that they were +probably in the first instance proposed by some ancient +Critic in the way of useful comment, or necessary explanation, +or lawful expansion, or reasonable limitation of +the actual utterance of the <span class="smcap">Spirit</span>. Thus I do not call the +clause νεκρους εγειρετε in St. Matt. x. 8 'a gloss.' It is +a gratuitous and unwarrantable interpolation,—nothing else +but a clumsy encumbrance of the text<a name="FNanchor_353_353" id="FNanchor_353_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_353_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a>.</p> + +<p>[Glosses, or <i>scholia</i>, or comments, or interpretations, are +of various kinds, but are generally confined to Additions +or Substitutions, since of course we do not omit in order +to explain, and transposition of words already placed in +lucid order, such as the sacred Text may be reasonably +supposed to have observed, would confuse rather than +illustrate the meaning. A clause, added in Hebrew +fashion<a name="FNanchor_354_354" id="FNanchor_354_354"></a><a href="#Footnote_354_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a>, which may perhaps appear to modern taste to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span> +be hardly wanted, must not therefore be taken to be +a gloss.]</p> + +<p>Sometimes a 'various reading' is nothing else but +a gratuitous gloss;—the unauthorized substitution of a +common for an uncommon word. This phenomenon is of +frequent occurrence, but only in Codexes of a remarkable +type like B[Symbol: Aleph]CD. A few instances follow:—</p> + +<p>1. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 36), +requested our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> to 'explain' to them (ΦΡΑΣΟΝ 'ημιν, +'they said') the parable of the tares. So every known copy, +except two: so, all the Fathers who quote the place,—viz. +Origen, five times<a name="FNanchor_355_355" id="FNanchor_355_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_355_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a>,—Basil<a name="FNanchor_356_356" id="FNanchor_356_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_356_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a>,—J. Damascene<a name="FNanchor_357_357" id="FNanchor_357_357"></a><a href="#Footnote_357_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a>. And +so <i>all</i> the Versions<a name="FNanchor_358_358" id="FNanchor_358_358"></a><a href="#Footnote_358_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a>. But because B-[Symbol: Aleph], instead of φρασον, +exhibit ΔΙΑΣΑΦΗΣΟΝ ('make clear to us'),—which is also +<i>once</i> the reading of Origen<a name="FNanchor_359_359" id="FNanchor_359_359"></a><a href="#Footnote_359_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a>, who was but too well +acquainted with Codexes of the same depraved character +as the archetype of B and [Symbol: Aleph],—Lachmann, Tregelles (not +Tischendorf), Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers of +1881, assume that διασαφησον (a palpable gloss) stood in +the inspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore +thrust out φρασον and thrust in διασαφησον. I am wholly +unable to discern any connexion between the premisses +of these critics and their conclusions<a name="FNanchor_360_360" id="FNanchor_360_360"></a><a href="#Footnote_360_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span></p><p>2. Take another instance. Πυγμη,—the obscure expression +(Δ leaves it out) which St. Mark employs in vii. 3 +to denote the strenuous frequency of the Pharisees' ceremonial +washings,—is exchanged by Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], but by no other +known copy of the Gospels, for πυκνα, which last word is +of course nothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf +degrades πυγμη and promotes πυκνα to honour,—happily +standing alone in his infatuation. Strange, that the most +industrious of modern accumulators of evidence should not +have been aware that by such extravagances he marred his +pretension to critical discernment! Origen and Epiphanius—the +only Fathers who quote the place—both read πυγμη. +It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere +waste of time that we should argue out a point like this<a name="FNanchor_361_361" id="FNanchor_361_361"></a><a href="#Footnote_361_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a>.</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>A gloss little suspected, which—not without a pang of +regret—I proceed to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the +expression 'daily' (καθ' 'ημεραν) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found +in the Peshitto and in Cureton's Syriac,—but only in some +Copies of the Harkleian version<a name="FNanchor_362_362" id="FNanchor_362_362"></a><a href="#Footnote_362_362" class="fnanchor">[362]</a>: found in most Copies<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> +of the Vulgate,—but largely disallowed by copies of the +Old Latin<a name="FNanchor_363_363" id="FNanchor_363_363"></a><a href="#Footnote_363_363" class="fnanchor">[363]</a>: found also in Ephraem Syrus<a name="FNanchor_364_364" id="FNanchor_364_364"></a><a href="#Footnote_364_364" class="fnanchor">[364]</a>,—but clearly +not recognized by Origen<a name="FNanchor_365_365" id="FNanchor_365_365"></a><a href="#Footnote_365_365" class="fnanchor">[365]</a>: found again in [Symbol: Aleph]AB and six +other uncials,—but not found in CDE and ten others: the +expression referred to cannot, at all events, plead for its +own retention in the text higher antiquity than can be +pleaded for its exclusion. Cyril, (if in such a matter the +Syriac translation of his Commentary on St. Luke may +be trusted,) is clearly an authority for reading καθ' 'ημεραν +in St. Luke ix. 23<a name="FNanchor_366_366" id="FNanchor_366_366"></a><a href="#Footnote_366_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a>; but then he elsewhere twice quotes +St. Luke ix. 23 in Greek without it<a name="FNanchor_367_367" id="FNanchor_367_367"></a><a href="#Footnote_367_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a>. Timotheus of +Antioch, of the fifth century, omits the phrase<a name="FNanchor_368_368" id="FNanchor_368_368"></a><a href="#Footnote_368_368" class="fnanchor">[368]</a>. Jerome +again, although he suffered '<i>quotidie</i>' to stand in the Vulgate, +yet, when for his own purposes he quotes the place in +St. Luke<a name="FNanchor_369_369" id="FNanchor_369_369"></a><a href="#Footnote_369_369" class="fnanchor">[369]</a>,—ignores the word. All this is calculated to +inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, καθ' 'ημεραν +enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions,—of the +Gothic,—of the Armenian,—of the Ethiopic. And this, in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> +the present state of our knowledge, must be allowed to +be a weighty piece of evidence in its favour.</p> + +<p>But the case assumes an entirely different aspect the +instant it is discovered that out of the cursive copies +only eight are found to contain καθ 'ημεραν in St. Luke +ix. 23<a name="FNanchor_370_370" id="FNanchor_370_370"></a><a href="#Footnote_370_370" class="fnanchor">[370]</a>. How is it to be explained that nine manuscripts +out of every ten in existence should have forgotten how to +transmit such a remarkable message, had it ever been +really so committed to writing by the Evangelist? The +omission (says Tischendorf) is explained by the parallel +places<a name="FNanchor_371_371" id="FNanchor_371_371"></a><a href="#Footnote_371_371" class="fnanchor">[371]</a>. Utterly incredible, I reply; as no one ought to +have known better than Tischendorf himself. We now +scrutinize the problem more closely; and discover that +the very <i>locus</i> of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty. +Cyril once makes it part of St. Matt. x. 38<a name="FNanchor_372_372" id="FNanchor_372_372"></a><a href="#Footnote_372_372" class="fnanchor">[372]</a>. Chrysostom +twice connects it with St. Matt. xvi. 24<a name="FNanchor_373_373" id="FNanchor_373_373"></a><a href="#Footnote_373_373" class="fnanchor">[373]</a>. Jerome, +evidently regarding the phrase as a curiosity, informs +us that 'juxta antiqua exemplaria' it was met with in +St. Luke xiv. 27<a name="FNanchor_374_374" id="FNanchor_374_374"></a><a href="#Footnote_374_374" class="fnanchor">[374]</a>. All this is in a high degree unsatisfactory. +We suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slight<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> +familiarity with the 'antiqua exemplaria' referred to by +the Critic; and we freely avow that we have learned to +reckon them among the least reputable of our acquaintance. +Are they not represented by those Evangelia, of which +several copies are extant, that profess to have been +'transcribed from, and collated with, ancient copies at +Jerusalem'? These uniformly exhibit καθ 'ημεραν in +St. Luke ix. 23<a name="FNanchor_375_375" id="FNanchor_375_375"></a><a href="#Footnote_375_375" class="fnanchor">[375]</a>. But then, if the phrase be a gloss,—it +is obvious to inquire,—how is its existence in so many +quarters to be accounted for?</p> + +<p>Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain +place, after quoting our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> saying about taking up +the cross and following Him, remarks that the words +'do not mean that we are actually to bear the wood +upon our shoulders, but to keep the prospect of death +steadily before us, and like St. Paul to "die daily"<a name="FNanchor_376_376" id="FNanchor_376_376"></a><a href="#Footnote_376_376" class="fnanchor">[376]</a>.' The +same Father, in the two other places already quoted from +his writings, is observed similarly to connect the <span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> +mention of 'bearing the Cross' with the Apostle's announcement—'I +die daily.' Add, that Ephraem Syrus<a name="FNanchor_377_377" id="FNanchor_377_377"></a><a href="#Footnote_377_377" class="fnanchor">[377]</a>, and +Jerome quoted already,—persistently connect the same two +places together; the last named Father even citing them in +immediate succession;—and the inference is unavoidable. +The phrase in St. Luke ix. 23 must needs be a very ancient +as well as very interesting expository gloss, imported into +the Gospel from 1 Cor. xv. 31,—as Mill<a name="FNanchor_378_378" id="FNanchor_378_378"></a><a href="#Footnote_378_378" class="fnanchor">[378]</a> and Matthaei<a name="FNanchor_379_379" id="FNanchor_379_379"></a><a href="#Footnote_379_379" class="fnanchor">[379]</a> +long since suggested.</p> + +<p>Sincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an +expression with which one has been so long familiar, we +cannot suffer the sentimental plea to weigh with us when +the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. Certain it is that +but for Erasmus, we should never have known the regret: +for it was he that introduced καθ 'ημεραν into the Received<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span> +Text. The MS. from which he printed is without the +expression: which is also not found in the Complutensian. +It is certainly a spurious accretion to the inspired Text.</p> + +<p>[The attention of the reader is particularly invited to +this last paragraph. The learned Dean has been sneered +at for a supposed sentimental and effeminate attachment +to the Textus Receptus. He was always ready to reject +words and phrases, which have not adequate support; but +he denied the validity of the evidence brought against +many texts by the school of Westcott and Hort, and +therefore he refused to follow them in their surrender of +the passages.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>Indeed, a great many 'various readings,' so called, are +nothing else but very ancient interpretations,—fabricated +readings therefore,—of which the value may be estimated +by the fact that almost every trace of them has long since +disappeared. Such is the substitution of φευγει for ανεχωρησεν +in St. John vi. 15;—which, by the way, Tischendorf +thrusts into his text on the sole authority of [Symbol: Aleph], some Latin +copies including the Vulgate, and Cureton's Syriac<a name="FNanchor_380_380" id="FNanchor_380_380"></a><a href="#Footnote_380_380" class="fnanchor">[380]</a>: though +Tregelles ignores its very existence. That our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> +'withdrawal' to the mountain on that occasion was of the +nature of 'flight,' or 'retreat' is obvious. Hence Chrysostom +and Cyril remark that He '<i>fled</i> to the mountain.' +And yet both Fathers (like Origen and Epiphanius before +them) are found to have read ανεχωρησεν.</p> + +<p>Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse +might Tischendorf (with [Symbol: Aleph]) have substituted αναδεικνυναι +for 'ινα ποιησωσιν αυτον, on the plea that Cyril<a name="FNanchor_381_381" id="FNanchor_381_381"></a><a href="#Footnote_381_381" class="fnanchor">[381]</a> says, ζητειν +αυτον αναδειξαι και βασιλεα. We may on no account suffer +ourselves to be imposed upon by such shallow pretences +for tampering with the text of Scripture: or the deposit<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span> +will never be safe. A patent gloss,—rather an interpretation,—acquires +no claim to be regarded as the genuine +utterance of the <span class="smcap">Holy Spirit</span> by being merely found in +two or three ancient documents. It is the little handful +of documents which loses in reputation,—not the reading +which gains in authority on such occasions.</p> + +<p>In this way we are sometimes presented with what in +effect are new incidents. These are not unfrequently +discovered to be introduced in defiance of the reason of +the case; as where (St. John xiii. 34) Simon Peter is +represented (in the Vulgate) as <i>actually saying</i> to St. John, +'Who is it concerning whom He speaks?' Other copies +of the Latin exhibit, 'Ask Him who it is,' &c.: while [Symbol: Aleph]BC +(for on such occasions we are treated to any amount of +apocryphal matter) would persuade us that St. Peter only +required that the information should be furnished him by +St. John:—'Say who it is of whom He speaks.' Sometimes +a very little licence is sufficient to convert the <i>oratio +obliqua</i> into the recta. Thus, by the change of a single +letter (in [Symbol: Aleph]BX) Mary Magdalene is made to say to the +disciples 'I have seen the <span class="smcap">Lord</span>' (St. John xx. 18). But +then, as might have been anticipated, the new does not +altogether agree with the old. Accordingly D and others +paraphrase the remainder of the sentence thus,—'and she +signified to them what He had said unto her.' How +obvious is it to foresee that on such occasions the spirit +of officiousness will never know when to stop! In the +Vulgate and Sahidic versions the sentence proceeds, 'and +He told these things unto me.'</p> + +<p>Take another example. The Hebraism μετα σαλπιγγος +φωνης μεγαλης (St. Matt. xxiv. 31) presents an uncongenial +ambiguity to Western readers, as our own incorrect A. V. +sufficiently shews. Two methods of escape from the +difficulty suggested themselves to the ancients:—(<i>a</i>) Since +'a trumpet of great sound' means nothing else but 'a loud<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span> +trumpet,' and since this can be as well expressed by +σαλπιγγος μεγαλης, the scribes at a very remote period +are found to have omitted the word φωνης. The Peshitto +and Lewis (interpreting rather than translating) so deal +with the text. Accordingly, φωνης is not found in +[Symbol: Aleph]LΔ +and five cursives. Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_382_382" id="FNanchor_382_382"></a><a href="#Footnote_382_382" class="fnanchor">[382]</a>, Cyril Jerus.<a name="FNanchor_383_383" id="FNanchor_383_383"></a><a href="#Footnote_383_383" class="fnanchor">[383]</a>, Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_384_384" id="FNanchor_384_384"></a><a href="#Footnote_384_384" class="fnanchor">[384]</a>, +Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_385_385" id="FNanchor_385_385"></a><a href="#Footnote_385_385" class="fnanchor">[385]</a>, and even Cyprian<a name="FNanchor_386_386" id="FNanchor_386_386"></a><a href="#Footnote_386_386" class="fnanchor">[386]</a> are also without the word. +(<i>b</i>) A less violent expedient was to interpolate και before +φωνης. This is accordingly the reading of the best Italic +copies, of the Vulgate, and of D. So Hilary<a name="FNanchor_387_387" id="FNanchor_387_387"></a><a href="#Footnote_387_387" class="fnanchor">[387]</a> and Jerome<a name="FNanchor_388_388" id="FNanchor_388_388"></a><a href="#Footnote_388_388" class="fnanchor">[388]</a>, +Severianus<a name="FNanchor_389_389" id="FNanchor_389_389"></a><a href="#Footnote_389_389" class="fnanchor">[389]</a>, Asterius<a name="FNanchor_390_390" id="FNanchor_390_390"></a><a href="#Footnote_390_390" class="fnanchor">[390]</a>, ps.-Caesarius<a name="FNanchor_391_391" id="FNanchor_391_391"></a><a href="#Footnote_391_391" class="fnanchor">[391]</a>, Damascene<a name="FNanchor_392_392" id="FNanchor_392_392"></a><a href="#Footnote_392_392" class="fnanchor">[392]</a> and +at least eleven cursive copies, so read the place.—There +can be no doubt at all that the commonly received text +is right. It is found in thirteen uncials with B at their +head: in Cosmas<a name="FNanchor_393_393" id="FNanchor_393_393"></a><a href="#Footnote_393_393" class="fnanchor">[393]</a>, Hesychius<a name="FNanchor_394_394" id="FNanchor_394_394"></a><a href="#Footnote_394_394" class="fnanchor">[394]</a>, Theophylact<a name="FNanchor_395_395" id="FNanchor_395_395"></a><a href="#Footnote_395_395" class="fnanchor">[395]</a>. But the +decisive consideration is that the great body of the cursives +have faithfully retained the uncongenial Hebraism, and +accordingly imply the transmission of it all down the +ages: a phenomenon which will not escape the unprejudiced +reader. Neither will he overlook the fact that +the three 'old uncials' (for A and C are not available +here) advocate as many different readings: the two wrong +readings being respectively countenanced by our two +most ancient authorities, viz. the Peshitto version and +the Italic. It only remains to point out that Tischendorf +blinded by his partiality for [Symbol: Aleph] contends here for the +mutilated text, and Westcott and Hort are disposed to +do the same.</p> + + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>Recent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read +in St. John xviii. 14 αποθανειν instead of απολεσθαι:—'Now<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span> +Caiaphas was he who counselled the Jews that it was +expedient that one man should <i>die</i>' (instead of '<i>perish</i>') +'for the people.' There is certainly a considerable amount +of ancient testimony in favour of this reading: for besides +[Symbol: Aleph]BC, it is found in the Old Latin copies, the Egyptian, and +Peshitto versions, besides the Lewis MS., the Chronicon, +Cyril, Nonnus, Chrysostom. Yet may it be regarded as +certain that St. John wrote απολεσθαι in this place. The +proper proof of the statement is the consentient voice of all +the copies,—except about nineteen of loose character:—we +know their vagaries but too well, and decline to let +them impose upon us. In real fact, nothing else is αποθανειν +but a critical assimilation of St. John xviii. 14 to xi. 50,—somewhat +as 'die' in our A. V. has been retained by +King James' translators, though they certainly had απολεσθαι +before them.</p> + +<p>Many of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such +is the substitution (St. Mark vi. 11) of 'ος αν τοπος μη δεξηται +'υμας by [Symbol: Aleph]BLΔ for 'οσοι αν μη δεξωνται 'υμας,—which latter +is the reading of the Old Latin and Peshitto, as well as +of the whole body of uncials and cursives alike. Some +Critic evidently considered that the words which follow, +'when you go out <i>thence</i>,' imply that <i>place</i>, not <i>persons</i>, +should have gone before. Accordingly, he substituted +'whatsoever place' for '<i>whosoever</i><a name="FNanchor_396_396" id="FNanchor_396_396"></a><a href="#Footnote_396_396" class="fnanchor">[396]</a>': another has bequeathed +to us in four uncial MSS. a lasting record of +his rashness and incompetency. Since however he left +behind the words μηδε ακουσωσιν 'υμων, which immediately +follow, who sees not that the fabricator has betrayed himself? +I am astonished that so patent a fraud should have +imposed upon Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Lachmann, +and Alford, and Westcott and Hort. But in fact it does +not stand alone. From the same copies [Symbol: Aleph]BLΔ (with two<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span> +others, CD) we find the woe denounced in the same verse +on the unbelieving city erased (αμην λεγω 'υμιν, ανεκτοτερον +εσται Σοδομοις η Γομορροις εν 'ημεραι κρισεως, η τη πολει +εκεινη). Quite idle is it to pretend (with Tischendorf) +that these words are an importation from the parallel +place in St. Matthew. A memorable note of diversity +has been set on the two places, which in <i>all</i> the copies +is religiously maintained, viz. Σοδομοις η Γομορροις, in +St. Mark: γη Σοδομων και Γομορρων, in St. Matt. It is +simply incredible that this could have been done if the +received text in this place had been of spurious origin.</p> + + +<h3>§ 5.</h3> + +<p>The word απεχει in St. Mark xiv. 41 has proved +a stumbling-block. The most obvious explanation is +probably the truest. After a brief pause<a name="FNanchor_397_397" id="FNanchor_397_397"></a><a href="#Footnote_397_397" class="fnanchor">[397]</a>, during which +the <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> has been content to survey in silence His +sleeping disciples;—or perhaps, after telling them that +they will have time and opportunity enough for sleep +and rest when He shall have been taken from them;—He +announces the arrival of 'the hour,' by exclaiming, +Απεχει,—'It is enough;' or, 'It is sufficient;' i.e. <i>The +season for repose is over.</i></p> + +<p>But the 'Revisers' of the second century did not perceive +that απεχει is here used impersonally<a name="FNanchor_398_398" id="FNanchor_398_398"></a><a href="#Footnote_398_398" class="fnanchor">[398]</a>. They understood<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span> +the word to mean 'is fully come'; and supplied the +supposed nominative, viz. το τελοσ<a name="FNanchor_399_399" id="FNanchor_399_399"></a><a href="#Footnote_399_399" class="fnanchor">[399]</a>. Other critics who +rightly understood απεχει to signify 'sufficit,' still subjoined +'finis.' The Old Latin and the Syriac versions must have +been executed from Greek copies which exhibited,—απεχει το τελος. +This is abundantly proved by the +renderings <i>adest finis</i> (f),—<i>consummatus est finis</i> (a); from +which the change to απεχει το τελος ΚΑΙ 'η 'ωρα (the +reading of D) was obvious: <i>sufficit finis et hora</i> (d q); +<i>adest enim consummatio; et</i> (ff<sup>2</sup> <i>venit</i>) <i>hora</i> (c); or, (as the +Peshitto more fully gives it), <i>appropinquavit finis, et venit +hora</i><a name="FNanchor_400_400" id="FNanchor_400_400"></a><a href="#Footnote_400_400" class="fnanchor">[400]</a>. Jerome put this matter straight by simply writing +<i>sufficit</i>. But it is a suggestive circumstance, and an +interesting proof how largely the reading απεχει το τελος +must once have prevailed, that it is frequently met with +in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour<a name="FNanchor_401_401" id="FNanchor_401_401"></a><a href="#Footnote_401_401" class="fnanchor">[401]</a>. Happily +it is an 'old reading' which finds no favour at the present +day. It need not therefore occupy us any longer.</p> + +<p>As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help +out the sense, the reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly +'ινα εαν τις αυτον 'ομολογησηι Χριστον. So all the MSS. but one, +and so the Old Latin. So indeed all the ancient versions +except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds ειναι: but ειναι +must once have been a familiar gloss: for Jerome retains<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span> +it in the Vulgate: and indeed Cyril, whenever he quotes +the place<a name="FNanchor_402_402" id="FNanchor_402_402"></a><a href="#Footnote_402_402" class="fnanchor">[402]</a>, exhibits τον Χριστον ειναι. Not so however +Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_403_403" id="FNanchor_403_403"></a><a href="#Footnote_403_403" class="fnanchor">[403]</a> and Gregory of Nyssa<a name="FNanchor_404_404" id="FNanchor_404_404"></a><a href="#Footnote_404_404" class="fnanchor">[404]</a>.</p> + + +<h3>§ 6.</h3> + +<p>There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents +immediately preceding our <span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> Passion, one more +affecting or more exquisite than the anointing of His +feet at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, which +received its unexpected interpretation from the lips of +<span class="smcap">Christ</span> Himself. 'Let her alone. Against the day +of My embalming hath she kept it.' (St. John xii. 7.) +He assigns to her act a mysterious meaning of which +the holy woman little dreamt. She had treasured up +that precious unguent against the day,—(with the presentiment +of true Love, she knew that it could not be +very far distant),—when His dead limbs would require +embalming. But lo, she beholds Him reclining at supper +in her sister's house: and yielding to a Divine impulse she +brings forth her reserved costly offering and bestows it +on Him at once. Ah, she little knew,—she could not in +fact have known,—that it was the only anointing those +sacred feet were destined ever to enjoy!... In the meantime +through a desire, as I suspect, to bring this incident +into an impossible harmony with what is recorded in +St. Mark xvi. 1, with which obviously it has no manner +of connexion, a scribe is found at some exceedingly remote +period to have improved our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> expression into this:—'Let +her alone in order that against the day of My embalming +she may keep it.' Such an exhibition of the Sacred +Text is its own sufficient condemnation. What that critic +exactly meant, I fail to discover: but I am sure he has +spoilt what he did not understand: and though it is quite<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span> +true that [Symbol: Aleph]BD with five other Uncial MSS. and Nonnus, +besides the Latin and Bohairic, Jerusalem, Armenian, +and Ethiopic versions, besides four errant cursives so +exhibit the place, this instead of commending the reading +to our favour, only proves damaging to the witnesses +by which it is upheld. We learn that no reliance is to +be placed even in such a combination of authorities. This +is one of the places which the Fathers pass by almost +in silence. Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_405_405" id="FNanchor_405_405"></a><a href="#Footnote_405_405" class="fnanchor">[405]</a> however, and evidently Cyril +Alex.<a name="FNanchor_406_406" id="FNanchor_406_406"></a><a href="#Footnote_406_406" class="fnanchor">[406]</a>, as well as Ammonius<a name="FNanchor_407_407" id="FNanchor_407_407"></a><a href="#Footnote_407_407" class="fnanchor">[407]</a> convey though roughly +a better sense by quoting the verse with εποιησε for +τετηρηκεν. Antiochus<a name="FNanchor_408_408" id="FNanchor_408_408"></a><a href="#Footnote_408_408" class="fnanchor">[408]</a> is express. [A and eleven other +uncials, and the cursives (with the petty exception already +noted), together with the Peshitto, Harkleian (which only +notes the other reading in the margin), Lewis, Sahidic, +and Gothic versions, form a body of authority against the +palpable emasculation of the passage, which for number, +variety, weight, and internal evidence is greatly superior +to the opposing body. Also, with reference to continuity +and antiquity it preponderates plainly, if not so decisively; +and the context of D is full of blunders, besides that it +omits the next verse, and B and [Symbol: Aleph] are also inaccurate +hereabouts<a name="FNanchor_409_409" id="FNanchor_409_409"></a><a href="#Footnote_409_409" class="fnanchor">[409]</a>. So that the Traditional text enjoys in this +passage the support of all the Notes of Truth.]</p> + +<p>In accordance with what has been said above, for Αφες +αυτην; εις την 'ημεραν του ενταφιασμου μου τετηρηκεν αυτο +(St. John xii. 7), the copies which it has recently become +the fashion to adore, read αφες αυτην 'ινα ... τηρηση αυτο. +This startling innovation,—which destroys the sense of our<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span> +<span class="smcap">Saviour's</span> words, and furnishes a sorry substitute which +no one is able to explain<a name="FNanchor_410_410" id="FNanchor_410_410"></a><a href="#Footnote_410_410" class="fnanchor">[410]</a>,—is accepted by recent Editors +and some Critics: yet is it clearly nothing else but +a stupid correction of the text,—introduced by some one +who did not understand the intention of the Divine +Speaker. Our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> is here discovering to us an +exquisite circumstance,—revealing what until now had +been a profound and tender secret: viz. that Mary, convinced +by many a sad token that the Day of His departure +could not be very far distant, had some time before provided +herself with this costly ointment, and 'kept it' by +her,—intending to reserve it against the dark day when +it would be needed for the 'embalming' of the lifeless +body of her <span class="smcap">Lord.</span> And now it wants only a week to +Easter. She beholds Him (with Lazarus at His side) +reclining in her sister's house at supper, amid circumstances +of mystery which fill her soul with awful anticipation. She +divines, with love's true instinct, that this may prove her +only opportunity. Accordingly, she '<i>anticipates</i> to anoint' +(προελαβε μυρισαι, St. Mark xiv. 8) His Body: and, yielding +to an overwhelming impulse, bestows upon Him all +her costly offering at once!... How does it happen that +some professed critics have overlooked all this? Any one +who has really studied the subject ought to know, from +a mere survey of the evidence, on which side the truth +in respect of the text of this passage must needs lie.</p> + + +<h3>§ 7.</h3> + +<p>Our <span class="smcap">Lord,</span> in His great Eucharistic address to the +eternal <span class="smcap">Father</span>, thus speaks:—'I have glorified Thee +on the earth. I have perfected the work which Thou<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span> +gavest Me to do' (St. John xvii. 4). Two things are +stated: first, that the result of His Ministry had been +the exhibition upon earth of the <span class="smcap">Father's</span> 'glory<a name="FNanchor_411_411" id="FNanchor_411_411"></a><a href="#Footnote_411_411" class="fnanchor">[411]</a>': next, +that the work which the <span class="smcap">Father</span> had given the <span class="smcap">Son</span> to +do<a name="FNanchor_412_412" id="FNanchor_412_412"></a><a href="#Footnote_412_412" class="fnanchor">[412]</a> was at last finished<a name="FNanchor_413_413" id="FNanchor_413_413"></a><a href="#Footnote_413_413" class="fnanchor">[413]</a>. And that this is what St. John +actually wrote is certain: not only because it is found in +all the copies, except twelve of suspicious character (headed +by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCL); but because it is vouched for by the Peshitto<a name="FNanchor_414_414" id="FNanchor_414_414"></a><a href="#Footnote_414_414" class="fnanchor">[414]</a> +and the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions<a name="FNanchor_415_415" id="FNanchor_415_415"></a><a href="#Footnote_415_415" class="fnanchor">[415]</a>: +besides a whole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus<a name="FNanchor_416_416" id="FNanchor_416_416"></a><a href="#Footnote_416_416" class="fnanchor">[416]</a>, +Didymus<a name="FNanchor_417_417" id="FNanchor_417_417"></a><a href="#Footnote_417_417" class="fnanchor">[417]</a>, Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_418_418" id="FNanchor_418_418"></a><a href="#Footnote_418_418" class="fnanchor">[418]</a>, Athanasius<a name="FNanchor_419_419" id="FNanchor_419_419"></a><a href="#Footnote_419_419" class="fnanchor">[419]</a>, Basil<a name="FNanchor_420_420" id="FNanchor_420_420"></a><a href="#Footnote_420_420" class="fnanchor">[420]</a>, Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_421_421" id="FNanchor_421_421"></a><a href="#Footnote_421_421" class="fnanchor">[421]</a>, +Cyril<a name="FNanchor_422_422" id="FNanchor_422_422"></a><a href="#Footnote_422_422" class="fnanchor">[422]</a>, ps.-Polycarp<a name="FNanchor_423_423" id="FNanchor_423_423"></a><a href="#Footnote_423_423" class="fnanchor">[423]</a>, the interpolator of Ignatius<a name="FNanchor_424_424" id="FNanchor_424_424"></a><a href="#Footnote_424_424" class="fnanchor">[424]</a>, and +the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions<a name="FNanchor_425_425" id="FNanchor_425_425"></a><a href="#Footnote_425_425" class="fnanchor">[425]</a>: together with +the following among the Latins:—Cyprian<a name="FNanchor_426_426" id="FNanchor_426_426"></a><a href="#Footnote_426_426" class="fnanchor">[426]</a>, Ambrose<a name="FNanchor_427_427" id="FNanchor_427_427"></a><a href="#Footnote_427_427" class="fnanchor">[427]</a>, +Hilary<a name="FNanchor_428_428" id="FNanchor_428_428"></a><a href="#Footnote_428_428" class="fnanchor">[428]</a>, Zeno<a name="FNanchor_429_429" id="FNanchor_429_429"></a><a href="#Footnote_429_429" class="fnanchor">[429]</a>, Cassian<a name="FNanchor_430_430" id="FNanchor_430_430"></a><a href="#Footnote_430_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a>, Novatian<a name="FNanchor_431_431" id="FNanchor_431_431"></a><a href="#Footnote_431_431" class="fnanchor">[431]</a>, certain Arians<a name="FNanchor_432_432" id="FNanchor_432_432"></a><a href="#Footnote_432_432" class="fnanchor">[432]</a>, +Augustine<a name="FNanchor_433_433" id="FNanchor_433_433"></a><a href="#Footnote_433_433" class="fnanchor">[433]</a>.</p> + +<p>But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth +Gospel) proving uncongenial to certain of old time, D +inserted και. A more popular device was to substitute +the participle (τελειωσας) for ετελειωσα: whereby our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> +is made to say that He had glorified His <span class="smcap">Father's</span> Name +'by perfecting' or 'completing'—'in that He had finished'—the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span> +work which the <span class="smcap">Father</span> had given Him to do; +which damages the sense by limiting it, and indeed +introduces a new idea. A more patent gloss it would +be hard to find. Yet has it been adopted as the genuine +text by all the Editors and all the Critics. So general +is the delusion in favour of any reading supported by the +combined evidence of [Symbol: Aleph]ABCL, that the Revisers here +translate—'I glorified Thee on the earth, <i>having accomplished</i> +(τελειωσας) the work which Thou hast given Me +to do:' without so much as vouchsafing a hint to the +English reader that they have altered the text.</p> + +<p>When some came with the message 'Thy daughter is +dead: why troublest thou the Master further?' the +Evangelist relates that <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> '<i>as soon as He heard</i> +(ευθεως ακουσας) what was being spoken, said to the ruler +of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe.' (St. Mark +v. 36.) For this, [Symbol: Aleph]BLΔ substitute 'disregarding +(παρακουσας) +what was being spoken': which is nothing else +but a sorry gloss, disowned by every other copy, including +ACD, and all the versions. Yet does παρακουσας find +favour with Teschendorf, Tregelles, and others.</p> + + +<h3>§ 8.</h3> + +<p>In this way it happened that in the earliest age the +construction of St. Luke i. 66 became misapprehended. +Some Western scribe evidently imagined that the popular +saying concerning John Baptist,—τι απα το παιδιον τουτο +εσται, extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's +record,—και χειρ Κυριου ην μετ' αυτου. To support this +strange view, και was altered into και γαρ, and εστι was +substituted for ην. It is thus that the place stands in +the Verona copy of the Old Latin (b). In other quarters +the verb was omitted altogether: and that is how D, +Evan. 59 with the Vercelli (a) and two other copies of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span> +Old Latin exhibit the place. Augustine<a name="FNanchor_434_434" id="FNanchor_434_434"></a><a href="#Footnote_434_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a> is found to have +read indifferently—'manus enim Domini cum illo,' and +'cum illo est': but he insists that the combined clauses +represent the popular utterance concerning the Baptist<a name="FNanchor_435_435" id="FNanchor_435_435"></a><a href="#Footnote_435_435" class="fnanchor">[435]</a>. +Unhappily, there survives a notable trace of the same +misapprehension in [Symbol: Aleph]-BCL which, alone of MSS., read +και γαρ ... ην<a name="FNanchor_436_436" id="FNanchor_436_436"></a><a href="#Footnote_436_436" class="fnanchor">[436]</a>. The consequence might have been +anticipated. All recent Editors adopt this reading, which +however is clearly inadmissible. The received text, witnessed +to by the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian +versions, is obviously correct. Accordingly, A and all +the uncials not already named, together with the whole +body of the cursives, so read the place. With fatal infelicity +the Revisers exhibit 'For indeed the hand of +the <span class="smcap">Lord</span> was with him.' They clearly are to blame: +for indeed the MS. evidence admits of no uncertainty. It +is much to be regretted that not a single very ancient +Greek Father (so far as I can discover) quotes the place.</p> + + +<h3>§ 9.</h3> + +<p>It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with +the first miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke's +statement (v. 7) that the ships were so full that 'they +were sinking' ('ωστε βυθιζεσθαι αυτα) requires some qualification. +Accordingly C inserts ηδη (were 'just' sinking); +and D, παρα τι ('within a little'): while the Peshitto the +Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of the Old +Latin, exhibit 'ita ut <i>pene</i>.' These attempts to improve +upon Scripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable +zeal for the truthfulness of the Evangelist; but they betray +an utterly mistaken view of the critic's office. The truth +is, βυθιζεσθαι, as the Bohairic translators perceived and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span> +as most of us are aware, means 'were beginning to sink.' +There is no need of further qualifying the expression +by the insertion with Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_437_437" id="FNanchor_437_437"></a><a href="#Footnote_437_437" class="fnanchor">[437]</a> of any additional word.</p> + +<p>I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of +'Pyrrhus' into Acts xx. 4 as the patronymic of 'Sopater +of Beraea,' is to be accounted for in this way. A very +early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in the Old +Latin: yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the +Harkleian rejects it from the text, though not from the +margin. Origen and the Bohairic recognize it, but not +Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect that some foolish +critic of the primitive age invented Πυρου (or Πυρρου) out +of Βεροιαιος (or Βερροιαιος) which follows. The Latin form of +this was 'Pyrus<a name="FNanchor_438_438" id="FNanchor_438_438"></a><a href="#Footnote_438_438" class="fnanchor">[438]</a>,' 'Pyrrhus,' or 'Pirrus<a name="FNanchor_439_439" id="FNanchor_439_439"></a><a href="#Footnote_439_439" class="fnanchor">[439]</a>.' In the Sahidic +version he is called the 'son of Berus' ('υιος Βερου),—which +confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with +some <i>Beraean</i> that the gloss originated,—and what more +likely?—it becomes an interesting circumstance that the +inhabitants of that part of Macedonia are known to have +confused the <i>p</i> and <i>b</i> sounds<a name="FNanchor_440_440" id="FNanchor_440_440"></a><a href="#Footnote_440_440" class="fnanchor">[440]</a>.... This entire matter is +unimportant in itself, but the letter of Scripture cannot +be too carefully guarded: and let me invite the reader +to consider,—If St. Luke actually wrote +Σωπατρος Πυρρου Βεροιαιος, +why at the present day should five copies out +of six record nothing of that second word?</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span></p><p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_353_353" id="Footnote_353_353"></a><a href="#FNanchor_353_353"><span class="label">[353]</span></a> See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_354_354" id="Footnote_354_354"></a><a href="#FNanchor_354_354"><span class="label">[354]</span></a> St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_355_355" id="Footnote_355_355"></a><a href="#FNanchor_355_355"><span class="label">[355]</span></a> +iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the ρ'ησις in which the first +three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from +a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large +portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to 'I. Geometra +in Proverbia' in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_356_356" id="Footnote_356_356"></a><a href="#FNanchor_356_356"><span class="label">[356]</span></a> ii. 345.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_357_357" id="Footnote_357_357"></a><a href="#FNanchor_357_357"><span class="label">[357]</span></a> ii. 242.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_358_358" id="Footnote_358_358"></a><a href="#FNanchor_358_358"><span class="label">[358]</span></a> +The Latin is <i>edissere</i> or <i>dissere</i>, <i>enarra</i> or <i>narra</i>, +both here and in xv. 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_359_359" id="Footnote_359_359"></a><a href="#FNanchor_359_359"><span class="label">[359]</span></a> iv. 254 a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_360_360" id="Footnote_360_360"></a><a href="#FNanchor_360_360"><span class="label">[360]</span></a> In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has [Syriac letters] +'declare to us' +and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there being <i>no</i> various +reading in either of these two passages. +</p><p> +The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, +especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. +36, v. 1., διασαφειν occurs, viz. St. Matt. xviii. 31, they render +διεσαφησαν by [Syriac letters]—they made known. +</p><p> +Since φραζειν only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot +generalize +about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, [Syriac letters] is used as the +rendering of other Greek words besides φραζειν, e.g. +</p> +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">of επιλυειν, St. Mark iv. 34;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">of διερμηνευειν, St. Luke xxiv. 27;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">of διανοιγειν, St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.<br /></span> +</div></div> +<p> +On the whole I have <i>no doubt</i> (though it is not susceptible of <i>proof</i>) that +the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, φρασον.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_361_361" id="Footnote_361_361"></a><a href="#FNanchor_361_361"><span class="label">[361]</span></a> In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto render whatever Greek +they had before them by [Syriac letters], which means 'eagerly,' 'sedulously'; cf. +use of the word for σπουδαιως, St. Luke vii. 4; επιμελως, St Luke xv. 8. +</p><p> +The Root means 'to cease'; thence 'to have leisure for a thing': it has +nothing to do with 'Fist.' [Rev. G.H. Gwilliam.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_362_362" id="Footnote_362_362"></a><a href="#FNanchor_362_362"><span class="label">[362]</span></a> Harkl. Marg. <i>in loc.</i>, and Adler, p. 115.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_363_363" id="Footnote_363_363"></a><a href="#FNanchor_363_363"><span class="label">[363]</span></a> Viz. a b c e ff<sup>2</sup> l q.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_364_364" id="Footnote_364_364"></a><a href="#FNanchor_364_364"><span class="label">[364]</span></a> +'Οφειλει ψυχη, εν τω λογω του Κυριου κατακολουθουσα, τον σταυρον αυτου +καθ' 'ημεραν αιρειν, 'ως γεγραπται; τουτ' εστιν, 'ετοιμως εχουσα 'υπομενειν δια +Χριστον πασαν θλιψιν και πειρασμον, κ.τ.λ. (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, +further on, he exhorts to constancy and patience,—τον επι του Κυριου θανατον +εν επιθυμιαι παντοτε προ οφθαλμων εχοντες, και (καθως ειρηται 'υπο του Κυριου) +καθ' 'ημεραν τον σταυρον αιροντες, 'ο εστι θανατος (ii. 332 e). It is fair to assume +that Ephraem's reference is to St. Luke ix. 23, seeing that he wrote not in Greek +but in Syriac, and that in the Peshitto the clause is found only in that place.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_365_365" id="Footnote_365_365"></a><a href="#FNanchor_365_365"><span class="label">[365]</span></a> Ακουε Λουκα λεγοντος,—i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_366_366" id="Footnote_366_366"></a><a href="#FNanchor_366_366"><span class="label">[366]</span></a> Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_367_367" id="Footnote_367_367"></a><a href="#FNanchor_367_367"><span class="label">[367]</span></a> ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)—the proof that these quotations are from St. Luke; +that Cyril exhibits αρνησασθω instead of απαρν. +(see Tischendorf's note on +St. Luke ix. 23). The quotation in i. 40 (Glaph.) <i>may</i> be from St. Matt. +xvi. 24.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_368_368" id="Footnote_368_368"></a><a href="#FNanchor_368_368"><span class="label">[368]</span></a> Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_369_369" id="Footnote_369_369"></a><a href="#FNanchor_369_369"><span class="label">[369]</span></a> After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,—'aut juxta Lucam, <i>dicebat ad cunctos: Si +quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat crucem suam, et sequetur +me</i>.'—i. 852 c. +</p><p> +This is found in his solution of <i>XI Quaestiones</i>, 'ad Algasiam,'—free +translations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines lower +down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), +Jerome proceeds:—'<i>Quotidie</i> +credens in Christum <i>tollit crucem suam</i>, et negat seipsum.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_370_370" id="Footnote_370_370"></a><a href="#FNanchor_370_370"><span class="label">[370]</span></a> This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346 +(Ferrar's four); and survives in certain other Evangelia which enjoy a similar +repute,—as 1, 33, 72 (with a marginal note of distrust), 131.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_371_371" id="Footnote_371_371"></a><a href="#FNanchor_371_371"><span class="label">[371]</span></a> They are St. Matt. xvi. 24; St. Mark viii. 34.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_372_372" id="Footnote_372_372"></a><a href="#FNanchor_372_372"><span class="label">[372]</span></a> i. 597 c (Adorat.)—elsewhere (viz. i. 21 d; 528 c; 580 b; iv. 1058 a; +v^(2). 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that the quotation found in +Mai, iii. 126, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Ep. ad Hebr., is nothing else but an +excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. i. 528 c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_373_373" id="Footnote_373_373"></a><a href="#FNanchor_373_373"><span class="label">[373]</span></a> In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24:—Δια παντος του βιου τουτο δει +ποιειν. Διηνεκως γαρ, φησι, περιφερε τον θανατον τουτον, και καθ 'ημεραν 'ετοιμος +εσο προς σφαγην (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. xix. +21,—Δει προηγουμενως +ακολουθειν τω Χριστω τουτεστι, παντα τα παρ αυτου κελευομενα ποιειν, +προς σφγας ειναι 'ετοιμον, και θανατον καθημερινιν (p. 629 e):—words which +Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_374_374" id="Footnote_374_374"></a><a href="#FNanchor_374_374"><span class="label">[374]</span></a> i. 949 b,—'<i>Quotidie</i> (inquit Apostolus) +<i>morior propter vestram salutem</i>. +Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, <i>Nisi quis tulerit crucem suam quotidie, +et sequntus fuerit me, non potest meus esse discipulus</i>'—Commenting on St. Matt. +x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome remarks,—'in alio Evangelio scribitur,—<i>Qui +non accipit crucem suam quotidie</i>': but the corresponding place to St. Matt. +x. 38, in the sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke +xiv. 27.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_375_375" id="Footnote_375_375"></a><a href="#FNanchor_375_375"><span class="label">[375]</span></a> Viz. Evan. 473 (2<sup>pe</sup>).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_376_376" id="Footnote_376_376"></a><a href="#FNanchor_376_376"><span class="label">[376]</span></a> ii. 66 c, d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_377_377" id="Footnote_377_377"></a><a href="#FNanchor_377_377"><span class="label">[377]</span></a> See above, p. <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Footnote_364_364">note 2</a>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_378_378" id="Footnote_378_378"></a><a href="#FNanchor_378_378"><span class="label">[378]</span></a> Proleg. p. cxlvi.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_379_379" id="Footnote_379_379"></a><a href="#FNanchor_379_379"><span class="label">[379]</span></a> N.T. (1803), i. 368.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_380_380" id="Footnote_380_380"></a><a href="#FNanchor_380_380"><span class="label">[380]</span></a> Lewis here agrees with Peshitto.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_381_381" id="Footnote_381_381"></a><a href="#FNanchor_381_381"><span class="label">[381]</span></a> iv. 745.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_382_382" id="Footnote_382_382"></a><a href="#FNanchor_382_382"><span class="label">[382]</span></a> In Ps. 501.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_383_383" id="Footnote_383_383"></a><a href="#FNanchor_383_383"><span class="label">[383]</span></a> 229 and 236.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_384_384" id="Footnote_384_384"></a><a href="#FNanchor_384_384"><span class="label">[384]</span></a> vii. 736: xi. 478.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_385_385" id="Footnote_385_385"></a><a href="#FNanchor_385_385"><span class="label">[385]</span></a> ii. 1209.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_386_386" id="Footnote_386_386"></a><a href="#FNanchor_386_386"><span class="label">[386]</span></a> 269.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_387_387" id="Footnote_387_387"></a><a href="#FNanchor_387_387"><span class="label">[387]</span></a> 577.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_388_388" id="Footnote_388_388"></a><a href="#FNanchor_388_388"><span class="label">[388]</span></a> i. 881.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_389_389" id="Footnote_389_389"></a><a href="#FNanchor_389_389"><span class="label">[389]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Chrys. vi. 460.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_390_390" id="Footnote_390_390"></a><a href="#FNanchor_390_390"><span class="label">[390]</span></a> <i>Ap</i>. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_391_391" id="Footnote_391_391"></a><a href="#FNanchor_391_391"><span class="label">[391]</span></a> Galland. vi. 53.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_392_392" id="Footnote_392_392"></a><a href="#FNanchor_392_392"><span class="label">[392]</span></a> ii. 346.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_393_393" id="Footnote_393_393"></a><a href="#FNanchor_393_393"><span class="label">[393]</span></a> ii. 261, 324.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_394_394" id="Footnote_394_394"></a><a href="#FNanchor_394_394"><span class="label">[394]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Greg. Nyss. iii. 429.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_395_395" id="Footnote_395_395"></a><a href="#FNanchor_395_395"><span class="label">[395]</span></a> i. 132.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_396_396" id="Footnote_396_396"></a><a href="#FNanchor_396_396"><span class="label">[396]</span></a> +The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest how gracefully +the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this difficulty.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_397_397" id="Footnote_397_397"></a><a href="#FNanchor_397_397"><span class="label">[397]</span></a> Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark's +narrative shews that after the words of 'Sleep on now and take your rest,' +our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> must have been silent for a brief space in order to allow His +disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already +permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to say,—'It is enough'—(that +is, 'Ye have now slept and rested enough'); and adds, 'The hour is come. +Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.' 'Sed quia commemorata +non est ipsa interpositio silentii Domini, propterea coartat intellectum, +ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur.'—iii<sup>2</sup>. 106 a, b. The +passage in question runs thus:—Καθειδετε το λοιπον και αναπαυεσθε. απεχει; +ηλθεν 'η 'ωρα; ιδου, κ.τ.λ.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_398_398" id="Footnote_398_398"></a><a href="#FNanchor_398_398"><span class="label">[398]</span></a> Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion (Anon. +Vat.) in Possinus, p. +321:—απεχει, τουτεστι, πεπληρωται, τελος εχει το κατ' εμε. +Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_399_399" id="Footnote_399_399"></a><a href="#FNanchor_399_399"><span class="label">[399]</span></a> I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former work (Last +Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who seldom indeed +misleads,—the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (<i>in loco</i>).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_400_400" id="Footnote_400_400"></a><a href="#FNanchor_400_400"><span class="label">[400]</span></a> +So Peshitto. Lewis, <i>venit hora, appropinquat finis</i>. Harkleian, <i>adest +consummatio, venit hora.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_401_401" id="Footnote_401_401"></a><a href="#FNanchor_401_401"><span class="label">[401]</span></a> απεχει. Vg. <i>sufficit</i>. + το τελος, +13, 69, 124, 2<sup>pe</sup>, c<sup>scr</sup>, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q, +<i>sufficit finis et hora</i>. f, <i>adest finis, venit hora</i>. c, +ff<sup>2</sup>, <i>adest enim consummatio, et</i> (ff<sup>2</sup> venit) <i>hora</i>. a, +<i>consummatus est finis, advenit hora</i>. It is certain that one +formidable source of danger to the sacred text has been its occasional +obscurity. This has resulted,—(1) sometimes in the omission of words: +Δευτεροπρωτον. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as πυγμηι. +(3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, +το τελος, as above.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_402_402" id="Footnote_402_402"></a><a href="#FNanchor_402_402"><span class="label">[402]</span></a> iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_403_403" id="Footnote_403_403"></a><a href="#FNanchor_403_403"><span class="label">[403]</span></a> vi. 283.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_404_404" id="Footnote_404_404"></a><a href="#FNanchor_404_404"><span class="label">[404]</span></a> i. 307.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_405_405" id="Footnote_405_405"></a><a href="#FNanchor_405_405"><span class="label">[405]</span></a> viii. 392.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_406_406" id="Footnote_406_406"></a><a href="#FNanchor_406_406"><span class="label">[406]</span></a> iv. 696.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_407_407" id="Footnote_407_407"></a><a href="#FNanchor_407_407"><span class="label">[407]</span></a> Cramer's Cat. <i>in loc.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_408_408" id="Footnote_408_408"></a><a href="#FNanchor_408_408"><span class="label">[408]</span></a> 1063.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_409_409" id="Footnote_409_409"></a><a href="#FNanchor_409_409"><span class="label">[409]</span></a> E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert +'ο Ιησους, in order to prevent +people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead; ver. 4, +D gives the gloss, απο Καρυωτου for Ισκαριωτης; +ver. 13, spells thus,—'ωσσανα; +besides constant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. [Symbol: Aleph] +omits nineteen +words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter, besides adding eight and +making other alterations. B is far from being accurate.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_410_410" id="Footnote_410_410"></a><a href="#FNanchor_410_410"><span class="label">[410]</span></a> 'Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burying' (Alford). +But how <i>could</i> she keep it after she had poured it all out?—'Suffer her to have +kept it against the day of My preparation unto burial' (M<sup>c</sup>Clellan). But 'ινα +τηρηση could hardly mean that: and the day of His ενταφιασμος had not yet +arrived.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_411_411" id="Footnote_411_411"></a><a href="#FNanchor_411_411"><span class="label">[411]</span></a> Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. i. 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_412_412" id="Footnote_412_412"></a><a href="#FNanchor_412_412"><span class="label">[412]</span></a> Consider v. 36 and iv. 34.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_413_413" id="Footnote_413_413"></a><a href="#FNanchor_413_413"><span class="label">[413]</span></a> Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_414_414" id="Footnote_414_414"></a><a href="#FNanchor_414_414"><span class="label">[414]</span></a> Lewis, 'and the work I have perfected': Harkleian, 'because the work,' +&c., 'because' being obelized.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_415_415" id="Footnote_415_415"></a><a href="#FNanchor_415_415"><span class="label">[415]</span></a> The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_416_416" id="Footnote_416_416"></a><a href="#FNanchor_416_416"><span class="label">[416]</span></a> i. 245 (= Constt. App. viii. 1; <i>ap.</i> Galland. iii. 199).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_417_417" id="Footnote_417_417"></a><a href="#FNanchor_417_417"><span class="label">[417]</span></a> P. 419.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_418_418" id="Footnote_418_418"></a><a href="#FNanchor_418_418"><span class="label">[418]</span></a> Mcell p. 157.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_419_419" id="Footnote_419_419"></a><a href="#FNanchor_419_419"><span class="label">[419]</span></a> i. 534.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_420_420" id="Footnote_420_420"></a><a href="#FNanchor_420_420"><span class="label">[420]</span></a> ii. 196, 238: iii. 39.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_421_421" id="Footnote_421_421"></a><a href="#FNanchor_421_421"><span class="label">[421]</span></a> v. 256: viii. 475 <i>bis</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_422_422" id="Footnote_422_422"></a><a href="#FNanchor_422_422"><span class="label">[422]</span></a> iii. 542: iv. 954: v<sup>1</sup>. 599, 601, 614: v<sup>2</sup>. 152.—In the following places Cyril +shews himself acquainted with the other reading,—iv. 879: v<sup>1</sup>. 167, 366: +vi. 124.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_423_423" id="Footnote_423_423"></a><a href="#FNanchor_423_423"><span class="label">[423]</span></a> Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_424_424" id="Footnote_424_424"></a><a href="#FNanchor_424_424"><span class="label">[424]</span></a> Ps.-Ignat. 328.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_425_425" id="Footnote_425_425"></a><a href="#FNanchor_425_425"><span class="label">[425]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Gall. iii. 215.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_426_426" id="Footnote_426_426"></a><a href="#FNanchor_426_426"><span class="label">[426]</span></a> P. 285.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_427_427" id="Footnote_427_427"></a><a href="#FNanchor_427_427"><span class="label">[427]</span></a> ii. 545.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_428_428" id="Footnote_428_428"></a><a href="#FNanchor_428_428"><span class="label">[428]</span></a> Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But <i>opere constummato</i>, pp. 812, +815.—Jerome also once (iv. 563) has <i>opere completo.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_429_429" id="Footnote_429_429"></a><a href="#FNanchor_429_429"><span class="label">[429]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Gall. v. 135.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_430_430" id="Footnote_430_430"></a><a href="#FNanchor_430_430"><span class="label">[430]</span></a> P. 367.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_431_431" id="Footnote_431_431"></a><a href="#FNanchor_431_431"><span class="label">[431]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Gall. iii. 308.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_432_432" id="Footnote_432_432"></a><a href="#FNanchor_432_432"><span class="label">[432]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Aug. viii. 622.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_433_433" id="Footnote_433_433"></a><a href="#FNanchor_433_433"><span class="label">[433]</span></a> iii<sup>2</sup>. 761: viii. 640.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_434_434" id="Footnote_434_434"></a><a href="#FNanchor_434_434"><span class="label">[434]</span></a> v. 1166.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_435_435" id="Footnote_435_435"></a><a href="#FNanchor_435_435"><span class="label">[435]</span></a> Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_436_436" id="Footnote_436_436"></a><a href="#FNanchor_436_436"><span class="label">[436]</span></a> Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions +are disfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads 'is.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_437_437" id="Footnote_437_437"></a><a href="#FNanchor_437_437"><span class="label">[437]</span></a> Theoph. 216 note: 'ως κινδυνευειν αυτα βυθισθηναι.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_438_438" id="Footnote_438_438"></a><a href="#FNanchor_438_438"><span class="label">[438]</span></a> Cod. Amiat.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_439_439" id="Footnote_439_439"></a><a href="#FNanchor_439_439"><span class="label">[439]</span></a> g,—at Stockholm.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_440_440" id="Footnote_440_440"></a><a href="#FNanchor_440_440"><span class="label">[440]</span></a> Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. Βεροια.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_xiii" id="chapter_xiii"></a>CHAPTER XIII.</h2> + +<h3>CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.</h3> + +<h3>IX. Corruption by Heretics.</h3> + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + + +<p>The Corruptions of the Sacred Text which we have +been hitherto considering, however diverse the causes +from which they may have resulted, have yet all agreed +in this: viz. that they have all been of a lawful nature. +My meaning is, that apparently, at no stage of the +business has there been <i>mala fides</i> in any quarter. We +are prepared to make the utmost allowance for careless, +even for licentious transcription; and we can invent +excuses for the mistaken zeal, the officiousness if men +prefer to call it so, which has occasionally not scrupled +to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. To be +brief, so long as an honest reason is discoverable for +a corrupt reading, we gladly adopt the plea. It has +been shewn with sufficient clearness, I trust, in the course +of the foregoing chapters, that the number of distinct +causes to which various readings may reasonably be +attributed is even extraordinary.</p> + +<p>But there remains after all an alarmingly large assortment +of textual perturbations which absolutely refuse to +fall under any of the heads of classification already +enumerated. They are not to be accounted for on any +ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span> +which occasions our present embarrassment. They are +in truth so exceedingly numerous; they are often so +very considerable; they are, as a rule, so very licentious; +they transgress to such an extent all regulations; they +usurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness, +that we really know not what to think about them. +Sometimes we are presented with gross interpolations,—apocryphal +stories: more often with systematic lacerations +of the text, or transformations as from an angel of +light.</p> + +<p>We are constrained to inquire, How all this can possibly +have come about? Have there even been persons who +made it their business of set purpose to corrupt the [sacred +deposit of Holy Scripture entrusted to the Church for the +perpetual illumination of all ages till the Lord should +come?]</p> + +<p>At this stage of the inquiry, we are reminded that it +is even notorious that in the earliest age of all, the New +Testament Scriptures were subjected to such influences. +In the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic +there were heretical teachers not a few, who finding their +tenets refuted by the plain Word of <span class="smcap">God</span> bent themselves +against the written Word with all their power. From +seeking to evacuate its teaching, it was but a single step +to seeking to falsify its testimony. Profane literature has +never been exposed to such hostility. I make the remark +in order also to remind the reader of one more point of +[dissimilarity between the two classes of writings. The +inestimable value of the New Testament entailed greater +dangers, as well as secured superior safeguards. Strange, +that a later age should try to discard the latter].</p> + +<p>It is found therefore that Satan could not even wait +for the grave to close over St. John. 'Many' there were +already who taught that <span class="smcap">Christ</span> had not come in the +flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Paul<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span> +denounces it by name<a name="FNanchor_441_441" id="FNanchor_441_441"></a><a href="#Footnote_441_441" class="fnanchor">[441]</a>, and significantly condemns the +wild fancies of its professors, their dangerous speculations +as well as their absurd figments. Thus he predicts and +condemns<a name="FNanchor_442_442" id="FNanchor_442_442"></a><a href="#Footnote_442_442" class="fnanchor">[442]</a> their pestilential teaching in respect of meats +and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle to +Timothy<a name="FNanchor_443_443" id="FNanchor_443_443"></a><a href="#Footnote_443_443" class="fnanchor">[443]</a> he relates that Hymeneus and Philetus taught +that the Resurrection was past already. What wonder +if a flood of impious teaching broke loose on the Church +when the last of the Apostles had been gathered in, and +another generation of men had arisen, and the age of +Miracles was found to be departing if it had not already +departed, and the loftiest boast which any could make +was that they had known those who had [seen and heard +the Apostles of the Lord].</p> + +<p>The 'grievous wolves' whose assaults St. Paul predicted +as imminent, and against which he warned the heads of the +Ephesian Church<a name="FNanchor_444_444" id="FNanchor_444_444"></a><a href="#Footnote_444_444" class="fnanchor">[444]</a>, did not long 'spare the flock.' Already, +while St. John was yet alive, had the Nicolaitans developed +their teaching at Ephesus<a name="FNanchor_445_445" id="FNanchor_445_445"></a><a href="#Footnote_445_445" class="fnanchor">[445]</a> and in the neighbouring Church +of Pergamos<a name="FNanchor_446_446" id="FNanchor_446_446"></a><a href="#Footnote_446_446" class="fnanchor">[446]</a>. Our risen <span class="smcap">Lord</span> in glory announced to His +servant John that in the latter city Satan had established +his dwelling-place<a name="FNanchor_447_447" id="FNanchor_447_447"></a><a href="#Footnote_447_447" class="fnanchor">[447]</a>. Nay, while those awful words were +being spoken to the Seer of Patmos, the men were already +born who first dared to lay their impious hands on the +Gospel of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>.</p> + +<p>No sooner do we find ourselves out of Apostolic times +and among monuments of the primitive age than we are +made aware that the sacred text must have been exposed +at that very early period to disturbing influences which, on +no ordinary principles, can be explained. Justin Martyr, +Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,—among the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span> +Fathers: some Old Latin MSS.<a name="FNanchor_448_448" id="FNanchor_448_448"></a><a href="#Footnote_448_448" class="fnanchor">[448]</a> the Bohairic and Sahidic, +and coming later on, the Curetonian and Lewis,—among the +Versions: of the copies Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and above all, +coming later down still, Cod. D:—these venerable monuments +of a primitive age occasionally present us with +deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate,—quite +impossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes,—tasteless +and stupid amplifications,—plain perversions of +the meaning of the Evangelists,—wholly gratuitous assimilations +of one Gospel to another,—the unprovoked omission +of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of +high doctrinal import:—How are such phenomena as +these to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we +light upon a systematic mutilation of the text so extraordinary +that it is as if some one had amused himself by +running his pen through every clause which was not +absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what remained. +In another quarter we encounter the thrusting +in of fabulous stories and apocryphal sayings which +disfigure as well as encumber the text.—How will any +one explain all this?</p> + +<p>Let me however at the risk of repeating what has been +already said dispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which +is pretty sure to suggest itself to a person of intelligence +after reading what goes before. If the most primitive +witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear false +witness to the text of Scripture,—whither are we to betake +ourselves for the Truth? And what security can we hope +ever to enjoy that any given exhibition of the text of +Scripture is the true one? Are we then to be told that +in this subject-matter the maxim '<i>id verius quod prius</i>' +does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer +as we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows +more and more corrupt?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span></p> + +<p>Nothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the +case. Our appeal is always made to antiquity; and it is +nothing else but a truism to assert that the oldest reading +is also the best. A very few words will make this matter +clear; because a very few words will suffice to explain +a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to +keep always before the eyes of the reader.</p> + +<p>The characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature, +of all the monstrous and palpable perversions of the text +of Scripture just now under consideration is this:—that +they are never vouched for by the oldest documents +generally, but only by a few of them,—two, three, or more +of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield +conflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in +fact contradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly +always refute one another, and indeed dispose of one +another's evidence almost as often as that evidence is +untrustworthy. And now I may resume and proceed.</p> + +<p>I say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly +satisfactory explanation of the greater part of those gross +depravations of Scripture which admit of no legitimate +excuse, to attribute them, however remotely, to those +licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared by +their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, interpolated, +and in whatever other way to have corrupted +the Gospel; whose blasphemous productions of necessity +must once have obtained a very wide circulation: and +indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold +them. What with those who like Basilides and his +followers invented a Gospel of their own:—what with +those who with the Ebionites and the Valentinians interpolated +and otherwise perverted one of the four Gospels +until it suited their own purposes:—what with those +who like Marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the +inspired text:—there must have been a large mass of corruption<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span> +festering in the Church throughout the immediate +post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There +were those who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or +attempts to weave the fourfold narrative into one,—'Lives +of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>,' so to speak;—and productions of this class +were multiplied to an extraordinary extent, and as we +certainly know, not only found their way into the +remotest corners of the Church, but established themselves +there. And will any one affect surprise if occasionally +a curious scholar of those days was imposed upon +by the confident assurance that by no means were those +many sources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but +that there must be some truth in what they advanced? +In a singularly uncritical age, the seductive simplicity +of one reading,—the interesting fullness of another,—the +plausibility of a thirds—was quite sure to recommend its +acceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which +were constructed by long since forgotten Critics, from +which the most depraved and worthless of our existing +texts and versions have been derived. Emphatically +condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly +outvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried +under fifteen centuries, the corruptions I speak of survive +at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies +which, calamitous to relate, the school of Lachmann and +Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular: and in +conformity with which many scholars are for refashioning +the Evangelical text under the mistaken title of 'Old +Readings.' And now to proceed with my argument.</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three +centuries of the Christian era, they almost all agreed in +this;—that they involved a denial of the eternal Godhead<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span> +of the <span class="smcap">Son</span> of Man: denied that He is essentially very +and eternal <span class="smcap">God</span>. This fundamental heresy found itself +hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, +which nevertheless it assailed with restless ingenuity: and +many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice +which have survived to our own times. It is a memorable +circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which +relate either to the eternal generation of the <span class="smcap">Son</span>,—to +His Incarnation,—or to the circumstances of His Nativity,—which +have suffered most severely, and retain to this +hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with. +I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here. +I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much +to blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at +least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with +the Deposit. They did but imitate the example set them +by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitous consequence +of extravagances in one direction that they are +observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. +Accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think +it wrong to fortify the Truth by the insertion, suppression, +or substitution of a few words in any place from which +danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, +many an unwarrantable 'reading' is to be explained. I do +not mean that 'marginal glosses have frequently found +their way into the text':—that points to a wholly improbable +account of the matter. I mean, that expressions +which seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least +which had been made a bad use of by evil men, were +deliberately falsified. But I must not further anticipate +the substance of the next chapter.</p> + +<p>The men who first systematically depraved the text +of Scripture, were as we now must know the heresiarchs +Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl. 140), and Marcion (fl. +150): three names which Origen is observed almost<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> +invariably to enumerate together. Basilides<a name="FNanchor_449_449" id="FNanchor_449_449"></a><a href="#Footnote_449_449" class="fnanchor">[449]</a> and Valentinus<a name="FNanchor_450_450" id="FNanchor_450_450"></a><a href="#Footnote_450_450" class="fnanchor">[450]</a> +are even said to have written Gospels of their +own. Such a statement is not to be severely pressed: +but the general fact is established by the notices, and +those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against +Heresies have cited and left on record. All that is +intended by such statements is that these old heretics +retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased +of the fourfold Gospel: and further, that they imported +whatever additional matter they saw fit:—not that they +rejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted something +of their own invention in its place<a name="FNanchor_451_451" id="FNanchor_451_451"></a><a href="#Footnote_451_451" class="fnanchor">[451]</a>. And though, in +the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently +with reason, that he probably did not individually go to +the same length as Basilides,—who, as well in respect of +St. Paul's Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently +a grievous offender<a name="FNanchor_452_452" id="FNanchor_452_452"></a><a href="#Footnote_452_452" class="fnanchor">[452]</a>,—yet, since it is clear that his principal +followers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth +a composition which they were pleased to style the 'Gospel +of Truth<a name="FNanchor_453_453" id="FNanchor_453_453"></a><a href="#Footnote_453_453" class="fnanchor">[453]</a>,' it is idle to dispute as to the limit of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span> +rashness and impiety of the individual author of the heresy. +Let it be further stated, as no slight confirmation of the +view already hazarded as to the probable contents of +the (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that +one particular Gospel is related to have been preferred +before the rest and specially adopted by certain schools +of ancient Heretics. Thus, a strangely mutilated and depraved +text of St. Matthew's Gospel is related to have +found especial favour with the Ebionites<a name="FNanchor_454_454" id="FNanchor_454_454"></a><a href="#Footnote_454_454" class="fnanchor">[454]</a>, with whom the +Corinthians are associated by Epiphanius: though Irenaeus +seems to say that it was St. Mark's Gospel which was +adopted by the heretical followers of Cerinthus. Marcion's +deliberate choice of St. Luke's Gospel is sufficiently well +known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselves +St. John<a name="FNanchor_455_455" id="FNanchor_455_455"></a><a href="#Footnote_455_455" class="fnanchor">[455]</a>. Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of +this school, is deliberately censured by Origen for having +corrupted the text of the fourth Evangelist in many +places<a name="FNanchor_456_456" id="FNanchor_456_456"></a><a href="#Footnote_456_456" class="fnanchor">[456]</a>. A considerable portion of his Commentary on +St. John has been preserved to us: and a very strange +production it is found to have been.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span></p><p>Concerning Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous +personage, it will be necessary to speak more particularly. +He has left a mark on the text of Scripture of which traces +are distinctly recognizable at the present day<a name="FNanchor_457_457" id="FNanchor_457_457"></a><a href="#Footnote_457_457" class="fnanchor">[457]</a>. A great +deal more is known about him than about any other +individual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote +against him: besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria, +Tertullian in the West<a name="FNanchor_458_458" id="FNanchor_458_458"></a><a href="#Footnote_458_458" class="fnanchor">[458]</a>, and Epiphanius in the East, elaborately +refuted his teaching, and give us large information as +to his method of handling Scripture.</p> + +<p>Another writer of this remote time who, as I am prone +to think, must have exercised sensible influence on the text +of Scripture was Ammonius of Alexandria.</p> + +<p>But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity +[appears to me to have caused alterations in the Sacred +Text.]</p> + +<p>It is obviously no answer to anything that has gone +before to insist that the Evangelium of Marcion (for +instance), so far as it is recognizable by the notices of +it given by Epiphanius, can very rarely indeed be shewn +to have resembled any extant MS. of the Gospels. Let it +be even freely granted that many of the charges brought +against it by Epiphanius with so much warmth, collapse +when closely examined and severely sifted. It is to be +remembered that Marcion's Gospel was known to be an +heretical production: one of the many creations of the +Gnostic age,—it must have been universally execrated +and abhorred by faithful men. Besides this lacerated text +of St. Luke's Gospel, there was an Ebionite recension of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span> +St. Matthew: a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark: a +Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but insisting +that the effect of so many corruptions of the Truth, +industriously propagated within far less than 100 years of +the date of the inspired verities themselves, must needs +have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notorious fact, +that in the second and third centuries after the Christian +era the text of the Gospels is found to have been grossly +corrupted even in orthodox quarters,—and that traces of +these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles +to the present hour,—and it seems impossible not to +connect the two phenomena together. The wonder rather +is that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able +distinctly to recognize any evidence whatever.</p> + +<p>The proneness of these early Heretics severally to adopt +one of the four Gospels for their own, explains why there +is no consistency observable in the corruptions they introduced +into the text. It also explains the bringing into one +Gospel of things which of right clearly belong to another—as +in St. Mark iii. 14 ους και αποστολους ωνομασεν.</p> + +<p>I do not propose (as will presently appear) in this +way to explain any considerable number of the actual corruptions +of the text: but in no other way is it possible +to account for such systematic mutilations as are found +in Cod. B,—such monstrous additions as are found in +Cod. D,—such gross perturbations as are continually met +with in one or more, but never in all, of the earliest +Codexes extant, as well as in the oldest Versions and +Fathers.</p> + +<p>The plan of Tatian's Diatessaron will account for a great +deal. He indulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine +at the feast of Cana in Galilee he reads that the servants +knew 'because they had drawn the water'; or in tasteless +and stupid amplifications, as in the going back of the +Centurion to his house. I suspect that the τι με ερωτας +περι του αγαθου,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span> +'Why do you ask me about that which is +good?' is to be referred to some of these tamperers with +the Divine Word.</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>These professors of 'Gnosticism' held no consistent +theory. The two leading problems on which they exercised +their perverse ingenuity are found to have been (1) the +origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil.</p> + +<p>(1) They taught that the world's artificer ('the Word') +was Himself a creature of 'the Father<a name="FNanchor_459_459" id="FNanchor_459_459"></a><a href="#Footnote_459_459" class="fnanchor">[459]</a>.' Encountered on +the threshold of the Gospel by the plain declaration that, +'In the beginning was the <span class="smcap">Word</span>: and the <span class="smcap">Word</span> was +with <span class="smcap">God</span>: and the <span class="smcap">Word</span> was <span class="smcap">God</span>': and presently, 'All +things were made by Him';—they were much exercised. +The expedients to which they had recourse were certainly +extraordinary. That 'Beginning' (said Valentinus) was +the first thing which 'the <span class="smcap">Father</span>' created: which He +called 'Only begotten <span class="smcap">Son</span>,' and also '<span class="smcap">God</span>': and in +whom he implanted the germ of all things. Seminally, +that is, whatsoever subsequently came into being was in +Him. 'The Word' (he said) was a product of this first-created +thing. And 'All things were made by Him,' +because in 'the Word' was the entire essence of all the +subsequent worlds (Aeons), to which he assigned forms<a name="FNanchor_460_460" id="FNanchor_460_460"></a><a href="#Footnote_460_460" class="fnanchor">[460]</a>. +From which it is plain that, according to Valentinus, 'the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span> +<span class="smcap">Word</span>' was distinct from 'the <span class="smcap">Son</span>'; who was not the +world's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged +to be '<span class="smcap">God</span><a name="FNanchor_461_461" id="FNanchor_461_461"></a><a href="#Footnote_461_461" class="fnanchor">[461]</a>': but only, as we have seen already, using +the term in an inferior sense.</p> + +<p>Heracleon, commenting on St. John i. 3, insists that +'all things' can but signify this perishable world and the +things that are therein: not essences of a loftier nature. +Accordingly, after the words 'and without Him was not +anything made,' he ventures to interpolate this clause,—'of +the things that are in the world and in the creation<a name="FNanchor_462_462" id="FNanchor_462_462"></a><a href="#Footnote_462_462" class="fnanchor">[462]</a>.' +True, that the Evangelist had declared with unmistakable +emphasis, 'and without Him was not anything' (literally, +'was not even one thing') 'made that was made.' +But instead of 'not even one thing,' the Valentinian +Gnostics appear to have written 'nothing<a name="FNanchor_463_463" id="FNanchor_463_463"></a><a href="#Footnote_463_463" class="fnanchor">[463]</a>'; and the +concluding clause 'that was made,' because he found it +simply unmanageable, Valentinus boldly severed from its +context, making it the beginning of a fresh sentence. +With the Gnostics, ver. 4 is found to have begun thus,—'What +was made in Him was life.'</p> + +<p>Of the change of ουδε 'εν into ουδεν<a name="FNanchor_464_464" id="FNanchor_464_464"></a><a href="#Footnote_464_464" class="fnanchor">[464]</a> traces survive in many +of the Fathers<a name="FNanchor_465_465" id="FNanchor_465_465"></a><a href="#Footnote_465_465" class="fnanchor">[465]</a>: but [Symbol: Aleph] and D are the only Uncial MSS. which +are known to retain that corrupt reading.—The uncouth +sentence which follows ('ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην), singular<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> +to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in +many quarters, and meets us still at every step. It was +evidently put forward so perseveringly by the Gnostics, +with whom it was a kind of article of the faith, that the +orthodox at last became too familiar with it. Epiphanius, +though he condemns it, once employs it<a name="FNanchor_466_466" id="FNanchor_466_466"></a><a href="#Footnote_466_466" class="fnanchor">[466]</a>. Occurring first +in a fragment of Valentinus<a name="FNanchor_467_467" id="FNanchor_467_467"></a><a href="#Footnote_467_467" class="fnanchor">[467]</a>: next, in the Commentary +of Heracleon<a name="FNanchor_468_468" id="FNanchor_468_468"></a><a href="#Footnote_468_468" class="fnanchor">[468]</a>: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the +Gnostic (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 192)<a name="FNanchor_469_469" id="FNanchor_469_469"></a><a href="#Footnote_469_469" class="fnanchor">[469]</a>: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus +of the tenets of the Naäseni<a name="FNanchor_470_470" id="FNanchor_470_470"></a><a href="#Footnote_470_470" class="fnanchor">[470]</a>, (a subsection of the same +school);—the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable. +But inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal +interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3 +was endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens +Alex, is observed thrice to adopt it<a name="FNanchor_471_471" id="FNanchor_471_471"></a><a href="#Footnote_471_471" class="fnanchor">[471]</a>: Origen<a name="FNanchor_472_472" id="FNanchor_472_472"></a><a href="#Footnote_472_472" class="fnanchor">[472]</a> and Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_473_473" id="FNanchor_473_473"></a><a href="#Footnote_473_473" class="fnanchor">[473]</a> +fall into it repeatedly. It is found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]CD: +apparently in Cod. A, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril +comments largely on it<a name="FNanchor_474_474" id="FNanchor_474_474"></a><a href="#Footnote_474_474" class="fnanchor">[474]</a>. But as fresh heresies arose +which the depraved text seemed to favour, the Church +bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians +and the Macedonians<a name="FNanchor_475_475" id="FNanchor_475_475"></a><a href="#Footnote_475_475" class="fnanchor">[475]</a>, who insisted that the <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span></span> +is a creature. The former were refuted by Epiphanius, +who points out that the sense is not complete until you +have read the words 'ο γεγονεν. A fresh sentence (he says) +begins at Εν αυτω ζωη ην<a name="FNanchor_476_476" id="FNanchor_476_476"></a><a href="#Footnote_476_476" class="fnanchor">[476]</a>. Chrysostom deals with the +latter. 'Let us beware of putting the full stop' (he says) +'at the words ουδε 'εν,—as do the heretics. In order to +make out that the <span class="smcap">Spirit</span> is a creature, they read 'ο γεγονεν +εν αυτω ζωη ην: by which means the Evangelist's meaning +becomes unintelligible<a name="FNanchor_477_477" id="FNanchor_477_477"></a><a href="#Footnote_477_477" class="fnanchor">[477]</a>.'</p> + +<p>But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was +followed by Theodotus and by at least two of the Gnostic +sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further. +The better to conceal St. John's purpose, the heresiarch +falsified the inspired text. In the place of, 'What was +made in Him, was life,' he substituted 'What was made +in Him, <i>is</i> life.' Origen had seen copies so depraved, and +judged the reading not altogether improbable. Clement, +on a single occasion, even adopted it. It was the approved +reading of the Old Latin versions,—a memorable indication, +by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived +their texts,—which explains why it is found in Cyprian, +Hilary, and Augustine; and why Ambrose has so elaborately +vindicated its sufficiency. It also appears in the +Sahidic and in Cureton's Syriac; but not in the Peshitto, +nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic] In the meantime, +the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular +trace of the Gnostic period at the present day, are Codexes +[Symbol: Aleph] and D.</p> + + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>[We may now take some more instances to shew the +effects of the operations of Heretics.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span></p> + +<p>The good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15) +says concerning Himself—'I know My sheep and am known +of Mine, even as the <span class="smcap">Father</span> knoweth Me and I know the +<span class="smcap">Father</span>': by which words He hints at a mysterious +knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that +are His. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He +describes the knowledge which subsists between the <span class="smcap">Father</span> +and the <span class="smcap">Son</span> in language which implies that it is strictly +identical on either side, He is careful to distinguish +between the knowledge which subsists between the creature +and the <span class="smcap">Creator</span> by slightly varying the expression,—thus +leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed +can be, on either side the same. <span class="smcap">God</span> knoweth us with +a perfect knowledge. Our so-called 'knowledge' of <span class="smcap">God</span> +is a thing different not only in degree, but in kind<a name="FNanchor_478_478" id="FNanchor_478_478"></a><a href="#Footnote_478_478" class="fnanchor">[478]</a>. +Hence the peculiar form which the sentence assumes<a name="FNanchor_479_479" id="FNanchor_479_479"></a><a href="#Footnote_479_479" class="fnanchor">[479]</a>:—γινωσκω +τα εμα, και γινωσκομαι 'υπο των εμων. And this +delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained all +down the ages, being witnessed to at this hour by every +MS. in existence except four now well known to us: viz. +[Symbol: Aleph]BDL. The Syriac also retains it,—as does Macarius<a name="FNanchor_480_480" id="FNanchor_480_480"></a><a href="#Footnote_480_480" class="fnanchor">[480]</a>, +Gregory Naz.<a name="FNanchor_481_481" id="FNanchor_481_481"></a><a href="#Footnote_481_481" class="fnanchor">[481]</a>, Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_482_482" id="FNanchor_482_482"></a><a href="#Footnote_482_482" class="fnanchor">[482]</a>, Cyril<a name="FNanchor_483_483" id="FNanchor_483_483"></a><a href="#Footnote_483_483" class="fnanchor">[483]</a>, Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_484_484" id="FNanchor_484_484"></a><a href="#Footnote_484_484" class="fnanchor">[484]</a>, Maximus<a name="FNanchor_485_485" id="FNanchor_485_485"></a><a href="#Footnote_485_485" class="fnanchor">[485]</a>. +It is a point which really admits of no rational doubt: for +does any one suppose that if St. John had written 'Mine +own know Me,' 996 MSS. out of 1000 at the end of 1,800 +years would exhibit, 'I am known of Mine'?</p> + +<p>But in fact it is discovered that these words of our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> +experienced depravation at the hands of the Manichaean<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> +heretics. Besides inverting the clauses, (and so making it +appear that such knowledge begins on the side of Man.) +Manes (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 261) obliterated the peculiarity above indicated. +Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us +with the form in which these words were exhibited in that +mischievous production: viz. γινωσκει με τα εμα, και γινωσκω +τα εμα. This we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil<a name="FNanchor_486_486" id="FNanchor_486_486"></a><a href="#Footnote_486_486" class="fnanchor">[486]</a>. +Cyril, in a paper where he makes clear reference to the +same heretical Gospel, insists that the order of knowledge +must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended<a name="FNanchor_487_487" id="FNanchor_487_487"></a><a href="#Footnote_487_487" class="fnanchor">[487]</a>.—But +then, it is found that certain of the orthodox contented +themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and +so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed—regardless +of the exquisite refinement of expression to +which attention was called at the outset. Copies must +once have abounded which represented our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> as saying, +'I know My own and My own know Me, even as the +<span class="smcap">Father</span> knoweth Me and I know the <span class="smcap">Father</span>'; for it is +the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, +Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of the +Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius<a name="FNanchor_488_488" id="FNanchor_488_488"></a><a href="#Footnote_488_488" class="fnanchor">[488]</a>, Nonnus, +and even Basil<a name="FNanchor_489_489" id="FNanchor_489_489"></a><a href="#Footnote_489_489" class="fnanchor">[489]</a> so read the place. But no token of this +clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span> +Gospels,—except [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. Will it be believed that nevertheless +all the recent Editors of Scripture since Lachmann +insist on obliterating this refinement of language, and going +back to the reading which the Church has long since +deliberately rejected,—to the manifest injury of the deposit? +'Many words about a trifle,'—some will be found +to say. Yes, to deny <span class="smcap">God's</span> truth is a very facile proceeding. +Its rehabilitation always requires many words. +I request only that the affinity between [Symbol: Aleph]BDL and the +Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement<a name="FNanchor_490_490" id="FNanchor_490_490"></a><a href="#Footnote_490_490" class="fnanchor">[490]</a>, +may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading +receives no notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers<a name="FNanchor_491_491" id="FNanchor_491_491"></a><a href="#Footnote_491_491" class="fnanchor">[491]</a>].</p> + + +<h3>§ 5.</h3> + +<h3>Doctrinal.</h3> + +<p>The question of Matrimony was one of those on which +the early heretics freely dogmatized. Saturninus<a name="FNanchor_492_492" id="FNanchor_492_492"></a><a href="#Footnote_492_492" class="fnanchor">[492]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 120) +and his followers taught that marriage was a production of +Hell.</p> + +<p>We are not surprised after this to find that those places +in the Gospel which bear on the relation between man and +wife exhibit traces of perturbation. I am not asserting +that the heretics themselves depraved the text. I do but +state two plain facts: viz. (1) That whereas in the second +century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage +prevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those +who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for +their proofs: (2) It is accordingly found that not only does +the phenomenon of 'various readings' prevail in those<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span> +places of the Gospel which bear most nearly on the +disputed points, but the 'readings' are exactly of that +suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tampering +with the text by men who had to maintain, or else to +combat, opinions of a certain class. I proceed to establish +what I have been saying by some actual examples<a name="FNanchor_493_493" id="FNanchor_493_493"></a><a href="#Footnote_493_493" class="fnanchor">[493]</a>.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">St. Matt. xix. 29.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">η γυναικα,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">—BD abc Orig.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">St. Mark x. 29.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">η γυναικα,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">—[Symbol: Aleph]BDΔ, abc, &c.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">St. Luke xviii. 29.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">η γυναικα,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">all allow it.<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>'οταν δε λεγη; 'οτι "πας 'οστις αφηκε γυναικα," ου τουτο φησιν, +'ωστε απλως διασπασθαι τους γαμους, κ.τ.λ. Chrys. vii. 636 E.</p> + +<p>Παραδειγματισαι (in St. Matt. i. 19) is another of the +expressions which have been disturbed by the same controversy. +I suspect that Origen is the author (see the +heading of the Scholion in Cramer's Catenae) of a certain +uncritical note which Eusebius reproduces in his 'quaestiones +ad Stephanum<a name="FNanchor_494_494" id="FNanchor_494_494"></a><a href="#Footnote_494_494" class="fnanchor">[494]</a>' on the difference between δειγματισαι +and παραδειγματισαι; and that with him originated the substitution +of the uncompounded for the compounded verb +in this place. Be that as it may, Eusebius certainly read +παραδειγματισαι (Dem. 320), with all the uncials but two +(BZ): all the cursives but one (I). Will it be believed +that Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott +and Hort, on such slender evidence as that are prepared to +reconstruct the text of St. Matthew's Gospel?</p> + +<p>It sounds so like trifling with a reader's patience to +invite his attention to an elaborate discussion of most of +the changes introduced into the text by Tischendorf and +his colleagues, that I knowingly pass over many hundreds +of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly well aware<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span> +of my own strength,—my opponent's weakness. Such +discussions in fact become unbearable when the points in +dispute are confessedly trivial. No one however will deny +that when three consecutive words of our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> are +challenged they are worth contending for. We are invited +then to believe (St. Luke xxii. 67-8) that He did not utter +the bracketed words in the following sentence,—'If I tell you, +ye will not believe; and if I ask you, ye will not answer (Me, +nor let Me go).' Now, I invite the reader to inquire for the +grounds of this assertion. Fifteen of the uncials (including +AD), and every known cursive, besides all the Latin +and all the Syriac copies recognize the bracketed words. +They are only missing in [Symbol: Aleph]BLT and their ally the Bohairic. +Are we nevertheless to be assured that the words are to be +regarded as spurious? Let the reader then be informed +that Marcion left out seven words more (viz. all from, 'And +if I ask you' to the end), and will he doubt either that the +words are genuine or that their disappearance from four +copies of bad character, as proved by their constant evidence, +and from one version is sufficiently explained?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_441_441" id="Footnote_441_441"></a><a href="#FNanchor_441_441"><span class="label">[441]</span></a> ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως 1 Tim. vi. 20.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_442_442" id="Footnote_442_442"></a><a href="#FNanchor_442_442"><span class="label">[442]</span></a> 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_443_443" id="Footnote_443_443"></a><a href="#FNanchor_443_443"><span class="label">[443]</span></a> ii. 17.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_444_444" id="Footnote_444_444"></a><a href="#FNanchor_444_444"><span class="label">[444]</span></a> Acts xx. 29.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_445_445" id="Footnote_445_445"></a><a href="#FNanchor_445_445"><span class="label">[445]</span></a> Rev. ii. 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_446_446" id="Footnote_446_446"></a><a href="#FNanchor_446_446"><span class="label">[446]</span></a> Rev. ii. 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_447_447" id="Footnote_447_447"></a><a href="#FNanchor_447_447"><span class="label">[447]</span></a> Rev. ii. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_448_448" id="Footnote_448_448"></a><a href="#FNanchor_448_448"><span class="label">[448]</span></a> Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. chap. +vii. p. 137.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_449_449" id="Footnote_449_449"></a><a href="#FNanchor_449_449"><span class="label">[449]</span></a> 'Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud +nomine titulare.'—Orig. Opp. iii. 933 c: Iren. i. 23: Clem. Al. 409, +426, 506, 509, 540, 545: Tertull. c. 46: Epiph. 24: Theodor. i. 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_450_450" id="Footnote_450_450"></a><a href="#FNanchor_450_450"><span class="label">[450]</span></a> 'Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra' (De +Praescript., ad calcem).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_451_451" id="Footnote_451_451"></a><a href="#FNanchor_451_451"><span class="label">[451]</span></a> Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) +says,—ταυτα δε ειρηται πρως τοις απο Ουαλεντινου, και Βασιλιδου, και τους απο +Μαρκιωνος. εχουσι γαρ και αυτοι τας λεξεις εν τωι καθ' 'εαυτους +ευανγελιωι. Opp. iii. 981 A.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_452_452" id="Footnote_452_452"></a><a href="#FNanchor_452_452"><span class="label">[452]</span></a> 'Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem +loquor et Basilidem et omnes Haereticos qui vetus laniant Testamentum: tamen +eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si saltem in novo continerent manus suas; et non +auderent Christi (ut ipsi iactitant) boni Dei Filii, vel Evangelistas violare, vel +Apostolos. Nunc vero, quum et Evangelia eius dissipaverint; et Apostolorum +epistolas, non Apostolorum Christi fecerunt esse, sed proprias; miror quomodo +sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de caeteris Epistolis +taceam, (de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant, evaserunt, nonnullas +integras repudiandas crediderunt); ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, +ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere.' Hieron. Praef. ad +Titum.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_453_453" id="Footnote_453_453"></a><a href="#FNanchor_453_453"><span class="label">[453]</span></a> 'Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas +conscriptiones praeferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa Evangelia. +Siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum +est, Veritatis Evangelium titulent.' Iren. iii. xi. 9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_454_454" id="Footnote_454_454"></a><a href="#FNanchor_454_454"><span class="label">[454]</span></a> See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. xiii; also c. iii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_455_455" id="Footnote_455_455"></a><a href="#FNanchor_455_455"><span class="label">[455]</span></a> 'Tanta est circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium +reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare +doctrinam. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod est secundum <span class="smcap">Matthaeum</span>, +solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte praesumentes de Domino. +Marcion autem id quod est secundum <span class="smcap">Lucam</span> circumcidens, ex his quae adhuc +servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur. Qui +autem Iesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum +vero Iesum dicunt, id quod secundum <span class="smcap">Marcum</span> est praeferentes Evangelium; +cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino +sunt, eo quod est secundum <span class="smcap">Joannem</span> plenissime utentes,' &c. Iren. iii. xi. 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_456_456" id="Footnote_456_456"></a><a href="#FNanchor_456_456"><span class="label">[456]</span></a> 'ηρακλεων, 'ο της Ουαλεντινου σχολης δοκιμωτατος. +Clem. Al. p. 595. Of +Heracleon it is expressly related by Origen that he depraved the text of the +Gospel. Origen says (iv. 66) that Heracleon (regardless of the warning in +Prov. xxx. 6) added to the text of St. John i. 3 (vii. after the words +εγενετο ουδε εν) the words των εν τω κοσμωι, και τη κτισει. +Heracleon clearly read +'ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for +εν τρισι, he +wrote εν τριτη. He also read (St. John iv. 18) (for πεντε), +εξ ανδρας εσχες.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_457_457" id="Footnote_457_457"></a><a href="#FNanchor_457_457"><span class="label">[457]</span></a> Celsus having objected that believers had again and again falsified the +text of the Gospel, refashioning it, in order to meet the objections of assailants, +Origen replies: Μεταχαραξαντας δε το ευαγγελιον αλλους ουκ οιδα, 'η τους απο +Μαρκιωνος, και τους απο Ουαλεντινου, οιμαι δε και τους απο Λουκανου. τουτο δε +λεγομενον ου του λογου εστιν εγκλημα, αλλα των τολμησαντων 'ραδιουργησαι τα +ευαγγελια. Opp. i. 411 B.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_458_458" id="Footnote_458_458"></a><a href="#FNanchor_458_458"><span class="label">[458]</span></a> De Praesc. Haer. c. 51.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_459_459" id="Footnote_459_459"></a><a href="#FNanchor_459_459"><span class="label">[459]</span></a> +Ουτος δε δημιουργος και ποιητης τουδε του παντος κοσμου και των εν αυτω ... +εσται μεν καταδεεστερος του τελειου Θεου ... ατε δη και γεννητος ων, και ουκ +αγεννητος. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. p. 217. Heracleon saw in the nobleman +of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who, βασιλικος ωνομασθη 'οιονει μικρος +τις βασιλευς, 'υπο καθολικου βασιλεως τεταγμενος επι μικρας βασιλειας, p. 373.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_460_460" id="Footnote_460_460"></a><a href="#FNanchor_460_460"><span class="label">[460]</span></a> +Ο Ιωαννης ... βουλομενος ειπειν την των 'ολων γενεσιν, καθ' ην τα παντα +προεβαλεν 'ο Πατηρ, αρχην τινα 'υποτιθεται, το πρωτον γεννηθεν 'υπο του θεου, 'ον +δη και 'υιον Μονογενη και Θεον κεκληκεν, εν 'ω τα παντα 'ο Πατηρ προεβαλε +σπερματικως. 'υπο δε τουτου φησι τον Λογον προβεβλησθαι, και εν αυτω την +'ολην των Αιωνων ουσιαν, ην αυτος 'υστερον εμορφωσεν 'ο Λογος.... Παντα δι' +αυτου εγενετο, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε 'εν; πασι γαρ τοις μετ' αυτον Αιωσι +μορφης και γενεσεως αιτιος 'ο Λογος εγενετο.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_461_461" id="Footnote_461_461"></a><a href="#FNanchor_461_461"><span class="label">[461]</span></a> +Εν τω Πατρι και εκ του Πατρος 'η αρχη, και εκ της αρχης 'ο Λογος. Καλως +ουν ειπεν; εν αρχη ην 'ο Λογος; ην γαρ εν τω 'υιω. Και 'ο Λογος ην προς τον +Θεον; και γαρ 'η 'Αρχη; και Θεος ην 'ο Λογος, ακολουθως. Το γαρ εκ Θεου γεννηθεν +Θεος εστιν.—Ibid. p. 102. Compare the Excerpt. Theod. <i>ap</i>. Clem. Al. c. vi. +p. 968.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_462_462" id="Footnote_462_462"></a><a href="#FNanchor_462_462"><span class="label">[462]</span></a> <i>Ap</i>. Orig. 938. 9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_463_463" id="Footnote_463_463"></a><a href="#FNanchor_463_463"><span class="label">[463]</span></a> So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (<i>ap.</i> Epiph. i. 217), and so +Heracleon (<i>ap.</i> Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian (<i>ap.</i> Epiph. +i. 882).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_464_464" id="Footnote_464_464"></a><a href="#FNanchor_464_464"><span class="label">[464]</span></a> See The Traditional Text, p. 113.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_465_465" id="Footnote_465_465"></a><a href="#FNanchor_465_465"><span class="label">[465]</span></a> +Clem. Al. always has ουδε 'εν (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273, 769, 787, 803, 812, +815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838) he has ουδεν. Cyril, +while writing his treatise De Trinitate, read ουδεν in his copy. Eusebius, +for example, has ουδε 'εν, fifteen times; ουδεν +only twice, viz. Praep. 322: Esai. 529.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_466_466" id="Footnote_466_466"></a><a href="#FNanchor_466_466"><span class="label">[466]</span></a> Opp. ii. 74.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_467_467" id="Footnote_467_467"></a><a href="#FNanchor_467_467"><span class="label">[467]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Iren. 102.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_468_468" id="Footnote_468_468"></a><a href="#FNanchor_468_468"><span class="label">[468]</span></a> Ibid. 940.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_469_469" id="Footnote_469_469"></a><a href="#FNanchor_469_469"><span class="label">[469]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Clem. Al. 968, 973.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_470_470" id="Footnote_470_470"></a><a href="#FNanchor_470_470"><span class="label">[470]</span></a> Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the Peratae: +ουδε 'εν, 'ο γεγονεν. εν αυτω ζωη εστιν. εν αυτω δε, φησιν, 'η Ευα γεγονεν, +'η Ευα ζωη. Ibid. p. 134.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_471_471" id="Footnote_471_471"></a><a href="#FNanchor_471_471"><span class="label">[471]</span></a> Opp. 114, 218, 1009.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_472_472" id="Footnote_472_472"></a><a href="#FNanchor_472_472"><span class="label">[472]</span></a> Cels. vi. 5: Princip. II. ix. 4: IV. i. 30: In Joh. i. 22, +34: ii. 6, 10, 12, 13 <i>bis</i>: In Rom. iii. 10, 15: Haer. v. 151.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_473_473" id="Footnote_473_473"></a><a href="#FNanchor_473_473"><span class="label">[473]</span></a> Psalm. 146, 235, 245: Marcell. 237. Not so in Ecl. 100: Praep. 322, +540.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_474_474" id="Footnote_474_474"></a><a href="#FNanchor_474_474"><span class="label">[474]</span></a> +Αναγκαιως φησιν, "'ο γεγονεν, ενι αυτω ζωη ην." ου μονον φησι, "δι αυτου +τα παντα εγενετο," αλλα και ει τι γεγονεν ην εν αυτω 'η ζωη. τουτ' εστιν, 'ο +μονογενης του Θεο λογος, 'η παντων αρχη, και συστασις 'ορατων τε και αορατων ... αυτος +γαρ 'υπαρχων 'η κατα φυσιν ζωη, το ειναι και ζην και κινεισθαι πολυτροπως +τοις ουσι χαρισεται. Opp. iv. 49 e. +</p><p> +He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the Λογος, that, παντα +δι' αυτου εγενετο, και ην εν τοις γενομενοις 'ως ζωη. Ibid. 60 c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_475_475" id="Footnote_475_475"></a><a href="#FNanchor_475_475"><span class="label">[475]</span></a> +Ουτοι δε βουλονται αυτο ειναι κτισμα κτισματος. φασι γαρ, 'οτι παντο δι' +αυτου γεγονε, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε 'εν. αρα, φασι, και το Πνευμα εκ των +ποιηματων 'υπαρχει, επειδη παντα δι' αυτου γεγονε. Opp. i. 741. Which is the +teaching of Eusebius, Marcell. 333-4. The Macedonians were an offshoot of +the Arians.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_476_476" id="Footnote_476_476"></a><a href="#FNanchor_476_476"><span class="label">[476]</span></a> i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_477_477" id="Footnote_477_477"></a><a href="#FNanchor_477_477"><span class="label">[477]</span></a> Opp. viii. 40.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_478_478" id="Footnote_478_478"></a><a href="#FNanchor_478_478"><span class="label">[478]</span></a> Consider 1 John ii. 3, 4: and read Basil ii. 188 b, c. See p. 207, note 4. +Consider also Gal. iv. 9. So Cyril Al. [iv. 655 a], και προεγνω μαλλον 'η +εγνωσθη παρ' 'ημων.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_479_479" id="Footnote_479_479"></a><a href="#FNanchor_479_479"><span class="label">[479]</span></a> Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed +this:—'ινα μη της γνωσεως ισον τον +μετρον νομισηις, ακουσον πως διορθουται αυτο τηι επαγωγηι; γινωσκω τα εμα, +φησι, και γινωσκομαι 'υπο των εμων. αλλ' ουκ ιση 'η γνωσις, κ.τ.λ. viii. 353 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_480_480" id="Footnote_480_480"></a><a href="#FNanchor_480_480"><span class="label">[480]</span></a> P. 38. (Gall. vii. 26.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_481_481" id="Footnote_481_481"></a><a href="#FNanchor_481_481"><span class="label">[481]</span></a> i. 298, 613.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_482_482" id="Footnote_482_482"></a><a href="#FNanchor_482_482"><span class="label">[482]</span></a> viii. 351, 353 d and e.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_483_483" id="Footnote_483_483"></a><a href="#FNanchor_483_483"><span class="label">[483]</span></a> iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_484_484" id="Footnote_484_484"></a><a href="#FNanchor_484_484"><span class="label">[484]</span></a> i. 748: iv. 374, 550.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_485_485" id="Footnote_485_485"></a><a href="#FNanchor_485_485"><span class="label">[485]</span></a> In Dionys. Ar. ii. 192.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_486_486" id="Footnote_486_486"></a><a href="#FNanchor_486_486"><span class="label">[486]</span></a> Φησι δε 'ο αυτος Μανης ... τα εμα προβατα γινωσκει με, και γινωσκω +τα εμα προβατα. (Epiphan. i. +697.)—Again,—'ηρπασεν 'ο 'αιρετικος προς την ιδιαν κατασκευην +της βλασφημιας. ιδου, φησιν, ειρηται; 'οτι γινωασουσι (lower down, +γινωσκει) με τα εμα, και γινωσκω τα εμα. (Basil ii. 188 a, b.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_487_487" id="Footnote_487_487"></a><a href="#FNanchor_487_487"><span class="label">[487]</span></a> +Εν ταξει τη οικεια και πρεπωδεστατη των πραγματων εκαστα τιθεις. ου γαρ +εφη, γινωσκει με τα εμα, και γινωσκω τα εμα, αλλ' 'εαυτον εγνωκατα προτερον +εισφερει τα ιδια προβατα, ειθ' ουτως γνωσθησεσθαι φησι παρ αυτων ... ουχ 'ημεις +αυτον επεγνωκαμεν πρωτοι, επεγνω δε 'ημας πρωτον αυτος ... ουχ 'ημεις ηρξαμεθα +του πραγματος, αλλ' 'ο εκ Θεου Θεος μονογενης.—iv. 654 d, 655 a. (Note, that +this passage appears in a mutilated form, viz. 121 words are omitted, in the +Catena of Corderius, p. 267,—where it is wrongly assigned to Chrysostom: +an instructive instance.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_488_488" id="Footnote_488_488"></a><a href="#FNanchor_488_488"><span class="label">[488]</span></a> In Ps. 489: in Es. 509: Theoph. 185, 258, 260.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_489_489" id="Footnote_489_489"></a><a href="#FNanchor_489_489"><span class="label">[489]</span></a> ii. 188 a:—which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds exquisitely +to shew (1886) that man's 'knowledge' of <span class="smcap">God</span> consists in his +keeping of <span class="smcap">God's</span> Commandments. (1 John ii. 3, 4.) See p. 206, note 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_490_490" id="Footnote_490_490"></a><a href="#FNanchor_490_490"><span class="label">[490]</span></a> So Jerome, iv. 484: vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor +Augustine should quote the place.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_491_491" id="Footnote_491_491"></a><a href="#FNanchor_491_491"><span class="label">[491]</span></a> See Revision Revised, p. 220.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_492_492" id="Footnote_492_492"></a><a href="#FNanchor_492_492"><span class="label">[492]</span></a> Or +Saturnilus—το δε γαμειν και γενναν απο του Σατανα φησιν ειναι. p. 245, +l. 38. So Marcion, 253.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_493_493" id="Footnote_493_493"></a><a href="#FNanchor_493_493"><span class="label">[493]</span></a> [The MS. breaks off here, with references to St. Mark x. 7, Eph. v. 31-2 +(on which the Dean had accumulated a large array of references), St. Mark x. +29-30, with a few references, but no more. I have not had yet time or +strength to work out the subject.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_494_494" id="Footnote_494_494"></a><a href="#FNanchor_494_494"><span class="label">[494]</span></a> Mai, iv. 221.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="chapter_xiv" id="chapter_xiv"></a>CHAPTER XIV.</h2> + +<h3>CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.</h3> + +<h3>X. Corruption by the Orthodox.</h3> + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + + +<p>Another cause why, in very early times, the Text of +the Gospels underwent serious depravation, was mistaken +solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the +purity of the Catholic faith. These persons, like certain +of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did not think +it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any +expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, +they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily +from the sacred page. About the uncritical nature of +what they did, they entertained no suspicion: about the +immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not +trouble themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the +motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient +excuse for any amount of licence. The copies which had +undergone this process of castigation were even styled +'corrected,'—and doubtless were popularly looked upon +as 'the correct copies' [like our 'critical texts']. An +illustration of this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned +by Epiphanius.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span></p> + +<p>He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for +the <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the +record that our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> 'wept.' We will not pause to +inquire what this statement may be worth. But when the +same Father adds,—'In the uncorrected copies (εν τοις +αδιορθωτοις αντιγραφοις) is found "He wept,"' Epiphanius is +instructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is +genuine, he goes on to state that 'Irenaeus quoted it in +his work against Heresies, when he had to confute the +error of the Docetae<a name="FNanchor_495_495" id="FNanchor_495_495"></a><a href="#Footnote_495_495" class="fnanchor">[495]</a>.' 'Nevertheless,' Epiphanius adds, +'the orthodox through fear erased the record.'</p> + +<p>So then, the process of 'correction' was a critical process +conducted on utterly erroneous principles by men who +knew nothing whatever about Textual Criticism. Such +recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to the Deposit. +To 'correct' was in this and such like cases simply to +'corrupt.'</p> + +<p>Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]D may be regarded as specimens of Codexes +which have once and again passed through the hands of +such a corrector or διορθωτης.</p> + +<p>St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> +that 'the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit.' By +repeating the selfsame expression which already,—viz. in +chap. i. 80,—had been applied to the Childhood of the +Forerunner<a name="FNanchor_496_496" id="FNanchor_496_496"></a><a href="#Footnote_496_496" class="fnanchor">[496]</a>, it was clearly the design of the Author of +Scripture to teach that <span class="smcap">the Word</span> 'made flesh' submitted +to the same laws of growth and increase as every other +Son of Adam. The body 'grew,'—the spiritual part +'waxed strong.' This statement was nevertheless laid hold +of by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pretended +(they asked) that He was 'perfect <span class="smcap">God</span>' (τελειος +Θεος), of whom it is related in respect of His spirit that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> +he 'waxed strong<a name="FNanchor_497_497" id="FNanchor_497_497"></a><a href="#Footnote_497_497" class="fnanchor">[497]</a>'? The consequence might have been +foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were ill-advised enough +to erase the word πνευματι from the copies of St. Luke +ii. 40; and lo, at the end of 1,500 years, four 'corrected' +copies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear +witness to the ancient fraud. No need to inquire which, +what, and who these be.</p> + +<p>But because it is [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, Origen<a name="FNanchor_498_498" id="FNanchor_498_498"></a><a href="#Footnote_498_498" class="fnanchor">[498]</a>, and the Latin, the +Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word πνευματι, +Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump +to the conclusion that πνευματι is a spurious accretion to +the Text. They ought to reverse their proceeding; and +recognize in the evidence one more indication of the untrustworthiness +of the witnesses. For,—how then is it +supposed that the word (πνευματι) ever obtained its footing +in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has +been imported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin, +How does the existence of the phrase εκραταιουτο πνευματι +in i. 80 explain its existence in ii. 40, in every known +copy of the Gospels except four, if in these 996 places, +suppose, it be an interpolation? This is what has to be +explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials, +and every known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries, +should have been corrupted in this way: and that the truth +should survive exclusively at this time only in the remaining +four; viz. in B[Symbol: Aleph],—the sixth century Cod. D,—and +the eighth century Cod. L?</p> + +<p>When then, and where did the work of depravation take +place? It must have been before the sixth century, because +Leontius of Cyprus<a name="FNanchor_499_499" id="FNanchor_499_499"></a><a href="#Footnote_499_499" class="fnanchor">[499]</a> quotes it three times and discusses +the expression at length:—before the fifth, because, besides<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> +Cod. A, Cyril<a name="FNanchor_500_500" id="FNanchor_500_500"></a><a href="#Footnote_500_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a> Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_501_501" id="FNanchor_501_501"></a><a href="#Footnote_501_501" class="fnanchor">[501]</a> and ps.-Caesarius<a name="FNanchor_502_502" id="FNanchor_502_502"></a><a href="#Footnote_502_502" class="fnanchor">[502]</a> recognize the +word:—before the fourth, because Epiphanius<a name="FNanchor_503_503" id="FNanchor_503_503"></a><a href="#Footnote_503_503" class="fnanchor">[503]</a>, Theodore +of Mopsuestia<a name="FNanchor_504_504" id="FNanchor_504_504"></a><a href="#Footnote_504_504" class="fnanchor">[504]</a>, and the Gothic version have it:—before the +third, before nearly all of the second century, because it +is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we +have before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of +the orthodox? one more sample of the infelicity of modern +criticism?</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<p>Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part +of St. John viii. 40, when they pretended to shew from +Scripture that <span class="smcap">Christ</span> is mere Man<a name="FNanchor_505_505" id="FNanchor_505_505"></a><a href="#Footnote_505_505" class="fnanchor">[505]</a>. I am persuaded +that the reading 'of My Father<a name="FNanchor_506_506" id="FNanchor_506_506"></a><a href="#Footnote_506_506" class="fnanchor">[506]</a>,'—with which Origen<a name="FNanchor_507_507" id="FNanchor_507_507"></a><a href="#Footnote_507_507" class="fnanchor">[507]</a>, +Epiphanius<a name="FNanchor_508_508" id="FNanchor_508_508"></a><a href="#Footnote_508_508" class="fnanchor">[508]</a>, Athanasius<a name="FNanchor_509_509" id="FNanchor_509_509"></a><a href="#Footnote_509_509" class="fnanchor">[509]</a>, Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_510_510" id="FNanchor_510_510"></a><a href="#Footnote_510_510" class="fnanchor">[510]</a>, Cyril Alex.<a name="FNanchor_511_511" id="FNanchor_511_511"></a><a href="#Footnote_511_511" class="fnanchor">[511]</a>,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> +and Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_512_512" id="FNanchor_512_512"></a><a href="#Footnote_512_512" class="fnanchor">[512]</a> prove to have been acquainted,—was substituted +by some of the orthodox in this place, with the +pious intention of providing a remedy for the heretical +teaching of their opponents. At the present day only six +cursive copies are known to retain this trace of a corruption +of Scripture which must date from the second century.</p> + +<p>We now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be +remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise +to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the +eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that 'the Word was +made flesh,' &c.; a statement which Valentinus was willing +to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch and his +followers denied that 'the Word' is also 'the Son' of <span class="smcap">God</span>. +As if in order to bar the door against this pretence, +St. John announces (ver. 18) that 'the only begotten Son, +which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared +him': thus establishing the identity of the Word and the +Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do +with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it? Accordingly, +the very first time St. John i. 18 is quoted by +any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the statement +that the Valentinians in order to prove that the 'only +begotten' is 'the Beginning,' and is '<span class="smcap">God</span>,' appeal to the +words,—'the only begotten <span class="smcap">God</span> who is in the bosom of +the Father<a name="FNanchor_513_513" id="FNanchor_513_513"></a><a href="#Footnote_513_513" class="fnanchor">[513]</a>,' &c. Inasmuch, said they, as the Father +willed to become known to the worlds, the Spirit of Gnosis +produced the 'only begotten' 'Gnosis,' and therefore gave +birth to 'Gnosis,' that is to 'the Son': in order that by +'the Son' 'the Father' might be made known. While +then that 'only begotten Son' abode 'in the bosom of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span> +Father,' He caused that here upon earth should be seen, +alluding to ver. 14, one 'as the only begotten Son.' In +which, by the way, the reader is requested to note that +the author of the Excerpta Theodoti (a production of the +second century) reads St. John i. 18 as we do.</p> + +<p>I have gone into all these strange details,—derived, let it +be remembered, from documents which carry us back to +the former half of the second century,—because in no other +way is the singular phenomenon which attends the text +of St. John i. 18 to be explained and accounted for. +Sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is, this +verse of Scripture is observed to exhibit perturbations +which are even extraordinary. Irenaeus once writes 'ο [?] +μονογενης υιος: once, 'ο [?] μονογενης υιος Θεος: +once, 'ο μονογενης υιος Θεου<a name="FNanchor_514_514" id="FNanchor_514_514"></a><a href="#Footnote_514_514" class="fnanchor">[514]</a>: +Clemens Alex., 'ο μονογενης υιος Θεος μονος<a name="FNanchor_515_515" id="FNanchor_515_515"></a><a href="#Footnote_515_515" class="fnanchor">[515]</a>; +which must be very nearly the reading of the Codex from +which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin was +derived<a name="FNanchor_516_516" id="FNanchor_516_516"></a><a href="#Footnote_516_516" class="fnanchor">[516]</a>. Eusebius four times writes 'ο μονογενης υιος<a name="FNanchor_517_517" id="FNanchor_517_517"></a><a href="#Footnote_517_517" class="fnanchor">[517]</a>: +twice, μονογενης Θεος<a name="FNanchor_518_518" id="FNanchor_518_518"></a><a href="#Footnote_518_518" class="fnanchor">[518]</a>: and on one occasion gives his reader +the choice of either expression, explaining why both may +stand<a name="FNanchor_519_519" id="FNanchor_519_519"></a><a href="#Footnote_519_519" class="fnanchor">[519]</a>. Gregory Nyss.<a name="FNanchor_520_520" id="FNanchor_520_520"></a><a href="#Footnote_520_520" class="fnanchor">[520]</a> and Basil<a name="FNanchor_521_521" id="FNanchor_521_521"></a><a href="#Footnote_521_521" class="fnanchor">[521]</a>, though they recognize +the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more +familiar with the reading 'ο μονογενης Θεος<a name="FNanchor_522_522" id="FNanchor_522_522"></a><a href="#Footnote_522_522" class="fnanchor">[522]</a>: for Basil<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span> +adopts the expression thrice<a name="FNanchor_523_523" id="FNanchor_523_523"></a><a href="#Footnote_523_523" class="fnanchor">[523]</a>, and Gregory nearly thirty-three +times as often<a name="FNanchor_524_524" id="FNanchor_524_524"></a><a href="#Footnote_524_524" class="fnanchor">[524]</a>. This was also the reading of Cyril +Alex.<a name="FNanchor_525_525" id="FNanchor_525_525"></a><a href="#Footnote_525_525" class="fnanchor">[525]</a>, whose usual phrase however is 'ο μονογενης του Θεου +λογος<a name="FNanchor_526_526" id="FNanchor_526_526"></a><a href="#Footnote_526_526" class="fnanchor">[526]</a>. Didymus has only [? cp. context] 'ο μονογενης Θεος,—for +which he once writes 'ο μονογενης Θεος λογος<a name="FNanchor_527_527" id="FNanchor_527_527"></a><a href="#Footnote_527_527" class="fnanchor">[527]</a>. Cyril +of Jer. seems to have read 'ο μονογενης μονοσ<a name="FNanchor_528_528" id="FNanchor_528_528"></a><a href="#Footnote_528_528" class="fnanchor">[528]</a>.</p> + +<p>[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in +the form in which the Dean left it. It evidently has not +the perfection that attends some of his papers, and would +have been amplified and improved if his life had been +spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited +to the ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the +companion volume<a name="FNanchor_529_529" id="FNanchor_529_529"></a><a href="#Footnote_529_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a>. The portentous number of mentions +by Gregory of Nyssa escaped me, though I knew that +there were several. Such repetitions of a phrase could +only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and +representative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on +our side less than the real number of such reiterations +occurring in one passage, because in course of repetition +they came to assume for such a purpose a parrot-like value.</p> + +<p>But the most important part of the Dean's paper is +found in his account of the origin of the expression. This +inference is strongly confirmed by the employment of it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span> +in the Arian controversy. Arius reads Θεος (<i>ap.</i> Epiph. +73—Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read 'υιος. So +Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and +Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus<a name="FNanchor_530_530" id="FNanchor_530_530"></a><a href="#Footnote_530_530" class="fnanchor">[530]</a>. +Also Athanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four +times each, and Ambrose eight (add Epp. I. xxii. 5). It +is curious that with this history admirers of B and [Symbol: Aleph] +should extol their reading over the Traditional reading +on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retains +associations which cannot be ignored: in this instance some +of the orthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics<a name="FNanchor_531_531" id="FNanchor_531_531"></a><a href="#Footnote_531_531" class="fnanchor">[531]</a>. +None may read Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes +them.]</p> + + +<h3>§ 3.</h3> + +<p>All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. +47:—'ο πρωτος ανθρωπος εκ γης χοικος; 'ο δευτερος ανθρωπος 'ο +Κυριος εξ ουρανου. That this place was so read in the first +age is certain: for so it stands in the Syriac. These early +heretics however of whom St. John speaks, who denied +that '<span class="smcap">Jesus Christ</span> had come in the flesh<a name="FNanchor_532_532" id="FNanchor_532_532"></a><a href="#Footnote_532_532" class="fnanchor">[532]</a>' and who are +known to have freely 'taken away from the words' of +Scripture<a name="FNanchor_533_533" id="FNanchor_533_533"></a><a href="#Footnote_533_533" class="fnanchor">[533]</a>, are found to have made themselves busy here. +If (they argued) 'the second man' was indeed 'the Lord-from-Heaven,' +how can it be pretended that <span class="smcap">Christ</span> took +upon Himself human flesh<a name="FNanchor_534_534" id="FNanchor_534_534"></a><a href="#Footnote_534_534" class="fnanchor">[534]</a>? And to bring out this +contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate +to remove as superfluous the word 'man' in the second<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span> +clause of the sentence. There resulted,—'The first man +[was] of the earth, earthy: 'ο δευτερος Κυριος εξ ουρανου<a name="FNanchor_535_535" id="FNanchor_535_535"></a><a href="#Footnote_535_535" class="fnanchor">[535]</a>.' +It is thus that Marcion<a name="FNanchor_536_536" id="FNanchor_536_536"></a><a href="#Footnote_536_536" class="fnanchor">[536]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 130) and his followers<a name="FNanchor_537_537" id="FNanchor_537_537"></a><a href="#Footnote_537_537" class="fnanchor">[537]</a> read +the place. But in this subject-matter extravagance in one +direction is ever observed to beget extravagance in another. +I suspect that it was in order to counteract the ejection +by the heretics of ανθρωπος in ver. 47, that, early in +the second century, the orthodox retaining ανθρωπος, +judged it expedient to leave out the expression 'ο Κυριος, +which had been so unfairly pressed against them; and +were contented to read,—'the second man [was] from +heaven.' A calamitous exchange, truly. For first, (I), +The text thus maimed afforded countenance to another +form of misbelief. And next, (II), It necessitated a further +change in 1 Cor. xv. 47.</p> + +<p>(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained +that <span class="smcap">Christ</span> was 'Man' <i>before</i> He came into the +World. This heresy came to a head in the persons of +Apolinarius<a name="FNanchor_538_538" id="FNanchor_538_538"></a><a href="#Footnote_538_538" class="fnanchor">[538]</a> and Photinus; in contending with whom, +Greg. Naz.<a name="FNanchor_539_539" id="FNanchor_539_539"></a><a href="#Footnote_539_539" class="fnanchor">[539]</a> and Epiphanius<a name="FNanchor_540_540" id="FNanchor_540_540"></a><a href="#Footnote_540_540" class="fnanchor">[540]</a> are observed to argue with +disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian<a name="FNanchor_541_541" id="FNanchor_541_541"></a><a href="#Footnote_541_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a>, and +Cyprian<a name="FNanchor_542_542" id="FNanchor_542_542"></a><a href="#Footnote_542_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a> after him, knew no other reading but 'secundus<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span> +homo de Caelo,'—which is in fact the way this place stands +in the Old Latin. And thus, from the second century +downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text was +speedily forgotten) became current in the Church:—(1) +The inspired language of the Apostle, cited at the outset,—which +is retained by all the known copies, <i>except nine</i>; and +is vouched for by Basil<a name="FNanchor_543_543" id="FNanchor_543_543"></a><a href="#Footnote_543_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a>, Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_544_544" id="FNanchor_544_544"></a><a href="#Footnote_544_544" class="fnanchor">[544]</a>, Theodotus<a name="FNanchor_545_545" id="FNanchor_545_545"></a><a href="#Footnote_545_545" class="fnanchor">[545]</a>, +Eutherius<a name="FNanchor_546_546" id="FNanchor_546_546"></a><a href="#Footnote_546_546" class="fnanchor">[546]</a>, Theodorus Mops.<a name="FNanchor_547_547" id="FNanchor_547_547"></a><a href="#Footnote_547_547" class="fnanchor">[547]</a>, Damascene<a name="FNanchor_548_548" id="FNanchor_548_548"></a><a href="#Footnote_548_548" class="fnanchor">[548]</a>, Petrus +Siculus<a name="FNanchor_549_549" id="FNanchor_549_549"></a><a href="#Footnote_549_549" class="fnanchor">[549]</a>, and Theophylact<a name="FNanchor_550_550" id="FNanchor_550_550"></a><a href="#Footnote_550_550" class="fnanchor">[550]</a>: and (2) The corrected (i.e. +the maimed) text of the orthodox;—'ο δευτερος; ανθρωπος +εξ ουρανου: with which, besides the two Gregories<a name="FNanchor_551_551" id="FNanchor_551_551"></a><a href="#Footnote_551_551" class="fnanchor">[551]</a>, +Photinus<a name="FNanchor_552_552" id="FNanchor_552_552"></a><a href="#Footnote_552_552" class="fnanchor">[552]</a> and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted; +but which at this day is only known to survive in +[Symbol: Aleph]*BCD*EFG and two cursive copies. Origen<a name="FNanchor_553_553" id="FNanchor_553_553"></a><a href="#Footnote_553_553" class="fnanchor">[553]</a>, and +(long after him) Cyril, employed <i>both</i> readings<a name="FNanchor_554_554" id="FNanchor_554_554"></a><a href="#Footnote_554_554" class="fnanchor">[554]</a>.</p> + +<p>(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition +of the text was intolerable. The balance of the sentence had +been destroyed. Against 'ο πρωτος ανθρωπος, St. Paul had +set 'ο δευτερος ανθρωπος: against εκ γης—εξ ουρανου: against +χοικος—'ο Κυριος. Remove 'ο Κυριος, and some substitute for it +must be invented as a counterpoise to χοικος. Taking a hint +from what is found in ver. 48, some one (plausibly enough,) +suggested επουρανιος: and this gloss so effectually recommended<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span> +itself to Western Christendom, that having been +adopted by Ambrose<a name="FNanchor_555_555" id="FNanchor_555_555"></a><a href="#Footnote_555_555" class="fnanchor">[555]</a>, by Jerome<a name="FNanchor_556_556" id="FNanchor_556_556"></a><a href="#Footnote_556_556" class="fnanchor">[556]</a> (and later by Augustine<a name="FNanchor_557_557" id="FNanchor_557_557"></a><a href="#Footnote_557_557" class="fnanchor">[557]</a>,) +it established itself in the Vulgate<a name="FNanchor_558_558" id="FNanchor_558_558"></a><a href="#Footnote_558_558" class="fnanchor">[558]</a>, and is found +in all the later Latin writers<a name="FNanchor_559_559" id="FNanchor_559_559"></a><a href="#Footnote_559_559" class="fnanchor">[559]</a>. Thus then, <i>a third</i> rival +reading enters the field,—which because it has well-nigh +disappeared from Greek MSS., no longer finds an +advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two +former:—viz. (a) the received, which is the only well-attested +reading of the place: and (b) the maimed text +of the Old Latin, which Jerome deliberately rejected (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> +380), and for which he substituted another even worse +attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabrications +effectually dispose of one another.) It should be +added that Athanasius<a name="FNanchor_560_560" id="FNanchor_560_560"></a><a href="#Footnote_560_560" class="fnanchor">[560]</a> lends his countenance to all the +three readings.</p> + +<p>But now, let me ask,—Will any one be disposed, after +a careful survey of the premisses, to accept the verdict of +Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, who are for bringing the +Church back to the maimed text of which I began by giving +the history and explaining the origin? Let it be noted +that the one question is,—shall 'ο Κυριος be retained in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span> +second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty +years of the death of St. John: and there it stands, at the +end of eighteen centuries in every extant copy (including +AKLP) except nine. It has been excellently witnessed to +all down the ages,—viz. By Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, +Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodore +Mops., Damascene and others. On what principle would +you now reject it?... With critics who assume that a +reading found in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDEFG must needs be genuine,—it +is vain to argue. And yet the most robust faith ought to +be effectually shaken by the discovery that four, if not five +([Symbol: Aleph]ACFG) of these same MSS., by reading 'we shall all +sleep; but we shall not all be changed,' contradict St. Paul's +solemn announcement in ver. 51: while a sixth (D) stands +alone in substituting 'we shall all rise; but we shall not +all be changed.'—In this very verse, C is for introducing +Αδαμ into the first clause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining +'ο ουρανιος. When will men believe that guides like +these are to be entertained with habitual distrust? to +be listened to with the greatest caution? to be followed, +for their own sakes,—never?</p> + +<p>I have been the fuller on this place, because it affords +an instructive example of what has occasionally befallen +the words of Scripture. Very seldom indeed are we able to +handle a text in this way. Only when the heretics assailed, +did the orthodox defend: whereby it came to pass that +a record was preserved of how the text was read by the +ancient Father. The attentive reader will note (<i>a</i>) That +all the changes which we have been considering belong to +the earliest age of all:—(<i>b</i>) That the corrupt reading is +retained by [Symbol: Aleph]BC and their following: the genuine text, +in the great bulk of the copies:—(<i>c</i>) That the first mention +of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:—(<i>d</i>) +That [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, +as they fancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span> +of the nature and authority of the Word of +God:—and (<i>e</i>) that under the Divine Providence that +change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive witness +is found on the other side].</p> + + +<h3>§ 4.</h3> + +<p>Closely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred +to in connexion with it by those Fathers who undertook +to refute the heresy of Apolinarius, is our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> declaration +to Nicodemus,—'No man hath ascended up to heaven, +but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man +which is in heaven' (St. John iii. 13). <span class="smcap">Christ</span> 'came +down from heaven' when He became incarnate: and +having become incarnate, is said to have 'ascended up to +Heaven,' and 'to be in Heaven,' because 'the Son of Man,' +who was not in heaven before, by virtue of the hypostatical +union was thenceforward evermore 'in heaven.' But the +Evangelist's language was very differently taken by those +heretics who systematically 'maimed and misinterpreted +that which belongeth to the human nature of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>.' +Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found +to have read it without the final clause ('ο ων εν τω ουρανω); +and certain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyssa, +Epiphanius, while contending with him,) shew themselves +not unwilling to argue from the text so mutilated. +Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebius +twice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off +at the words 'even the Son of Man': from which it is +insecurely gathered that those Fathers disallowed the +clause which follows. On the other hand, thirty-eight +Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of the +words 'ο ων εν τω ουρανω<a name="FNanchor_561_561" id="FNanchor_561_561"></a><a href="#Footnote_561_561" class="fnanchor">[561]</a>. But the decisive circumstance +is that,—besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span> +all witness to the existence of the clause,—the whole body +of the uncials, four only excepted ([Symbol: Aleph]BLT<sup>b</sup>), and every +known cursive but one (33)—are for retaining it.</p> + +<p>No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the +foregoing without inferring from the facts which have +emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of +depravations of the inspired verity. For let me not be +supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was +the work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably +older by at least 150 years. Apolinarius, in whose person +the heresy which bears his name came to a head, did but +inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; and these +had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of +the deposit.</p> + + +<h3>§ 5<a name="FNanchor_562_562" id="FNanchor_562_562"></a><a href="#Footnote_562_562" class="fnanchor">[562]</a>.</h3> + +<p>The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by +inviting the reader's attention to another famous place. +There is a singular consent among the Critics for eliminating +from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four words which embody +two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire +context is as follows:—'Lord, wilt thou that we command +fire to come down from heaven and consume them, (as +Elias did)? But he turned, and rebuked them, (and said, +Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.) (For the +Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save +them.) And they went to another village.' The three +bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in +dispute.</p> + +<p>The first of these clauses ('ως και 'ηλιας εποιησε), which +claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, +Mill rejected as an obvious interpolation. 'Res ipsa clamat.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span> +Quis enim sanus tam insignia deleverit<a name="FNanchor_563_563" id="FNanchor_563_563"></a><a href="#Footnote_563_563" class="fnanchor">[563]</a>?' Griesbach +retained it as probably genuine.—The second clause (και +ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε 'οιου πνευματος εστε 'υμεις) he obelized as +probably not genuine:—the third ('ο γαρ 'υιος του ανθρωπου +ουκ ηλθε ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι, αλλα σωσαι) he rejected +entirely. Lachmann also retains the first clause, but +rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving, +does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any misgiving +about the third clause, are 'morally certain' that +the first and second clauses are a Western interpolation. +Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They agree, and +the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the +three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.—Κυριε, +θελεις ειπωμεν πυρ καταβηναι απο του ουρανου, και +αναλωσαι αυτους; στραφεις δε επετιμησεν αυτοις. και επορευθησαν +δησαν εις 'ετεραν κωμην.</p> + +<p>Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. +[Symbol: Aleph]BLΞ l g<sup>1</sup> Cyr<sup>luc</sup><a name="FNanchor_564_564" id="FNanchor_564_564"></a><a href="#Footnote_564_564" class="fnanchor">[564]</a>, two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the +Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only +authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text +[in all its bare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed +the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including +ACD; every known lectionary; all the Latin, the Syriac +(Cur. om. Clause 1), and indeed every other known +version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span> +with Clemens Alex. (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 190), and five Latin Fathers +beginning with Tertullian (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 190): Cyprian's testimony +being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of +Carthage, <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 253. If on a survey of this body of evidence +any one will gravely tell me that the preponderance of +authority still seems to him to be in favour of the shorter +reason, I can but suggest that the sooner he communicates +to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better.</p> + +<p>(1) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider +the disputed clauses separately, because ancient authorities, +rivalling modern critics, are unable to agree as to +which they will reject, which they will retain. I begin with +the second. What persuades so many critics to omit the +precious words και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε 'οιου πνευματος εστε +'υμεις, is the discovery that these words are absent from +many uncial MSS.,—[Symbol: Aleph]ABC and nine others; besides, as +might have been confidently anticipated from that fact, +also from a fair proportion of the cursive copies. It is +impossible to deny that <i>prima facie</i> such an amount of +evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedingly +weighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the +passage in the same curt way. Cyril, on the other hand, +seems to have read it differently.</p> + +<p>And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed +the instant it is perceived that this disputed clause is recognized +by Clemens<a name="FNanchor_565_565" id="FNanchor_565_565"></a><a href="#Footnote_565_565" class="fnanchor">[565]</a> (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 190); as well as by the Old Latin, +by the Peshitto, and by the Curetonian Syriac: for the fact +is thus established that as well in Eastern as in Western +Christendom the words under discussion were actually +recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before +the oldest of the extant uncials came into existence. +When it is further found that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, +Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old Egyptian, the Harkleian<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> +Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the words in +question; and especially that Chrysostom in four places, +Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides +Antiochus, familiarly quote them, it is evident that the +testimony of antiquity in their favour is even overwhelming. +Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginning with D) the +words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and +that they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive +copies,—(only six out of the twenty which Scrivener has +collated being without them,)—and it is plain that at least +five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied.</p> + +<p>(2) The third clause ('ο γαρ 'υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθε +ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι, αλλα σωσαι) rests on precisely the +same solid evidence as the second; except that the testimony +of Clemens is no longer available,—but only because +his quotation does not extend so far. Cod. D also omits +this third clause; which on the other hand is upheld by +Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf suggests +that it has surreptitiously found its way into the text from +St. Luke xix. 10, or St. Matt, xviii. 11. But this is impossible; +simply because what is found in those two places is +essentially different: namely,—ηλθε γαρ 'ο 'υιος του ανθρωπου +ζητησαι και<a name="FNanchor_566_566" id="FNanchor_566_566"></a><a href="#Footnote_566_566" class="fnanchor">[566]</a> σωσαι το απολωλος.</p> + +<p>(3) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt +an illustration is here afforded of the amount of consensus +which subsists between documents of the oldest class. This +divergence becomes most conspicuous when we direct our +attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost clause +of the three, 'ως και Ηλιας εποιησεν: for here we make the +notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty, +but also different. Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] are now forsaken by +all their former allies except LΞ and a single cursive copy. +True, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the +Vulgate and two copies of the Old Latin. But this time<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span> +they find themselves confronted by Codexes ACD with +thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the cursives; +the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions; by +Clemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In +respect of antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, they +are therefore hopelessly outvoted.</p> + +<p>Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and +depravation of Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]ABC(D) come about? I answer +as follows:—</p> + +<p>It was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that +the Law and the Gospel are at variance. In order to +establish this, Marcion (in a work called Antitheses) set +passages of the New Testament against passages of the +Old; from the seeming disagreement between which his +followers were taught to infer that the Law and the Gospel +cannot have proceeded from one and the same author<a name="FNanchor_567_567" id="FNanchor_567_567"></a><a href="#Footnote_567_567" class="fnanchor">[567]</a>. +Now here was a place exactly suited to his purpose. The +God of the Old Testament had twice sent down fire from +heaven to consume fifty men. But 'the Son of Man,' said +our Saviour, when invited to do the like, 'came not to +destroy men's lives but to save them.' Accordingly, +Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion, refuting +this teaching, acquaints us that one of Marcion's 'Contrasts' +was Elijah's severity in calling down fire from +Heaven,—and the gentleness of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>. 'I acknowledge +the seventy of the judge,' Tertullian replies; 'but I recognize +the same severity on the part of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> towards His +Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar +calamity on a Samaritan village<a name="FNanchor_568_568" id="FNanchor_568_568"></a><a href="#Footnote_568_568" class="fnanchor">[568]</a>.' From all of which it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span> +is plain that within seventy years of the time when the +Gospel was published, the text of St. Luke ix. 54-6 stood +very much as at present.</p> + +<p>But then it is further discovered that at the same remote +period (about <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 130) this place of Scripture was much +fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel. The Manichaean +heretics pressed believers with it<a name="FNanchor_569_569" id="FNanchor_569_569"></a><a href="#Footnote_569_569" class="fnanchor">[569]</a>. The disciples' appeal +to the example of Elijah, and the reproof they incurred, +became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be +foreseen. With commendable solicitude for <span class="smcap">God's</span> honour, +but through mistaken piety, certain of the orthodox (without +suspicion of the evil they were committing) were so +ill-advised as to erase from their copies the twenty-four +words which had been turned to mischievous account as +well as to cause copies to be made of the books so +mutilated: and behold, at the end of 1,700 years, the +calamitous result!</p> + +<p>Of these three clauses then, which are closely interdependent, +and as Tischendorf admits<a name="FNanchor_570_570" id="FNanchor_570_570"></a><a href="#Footnote_570_570" class="fnanchor">[570]</a> must all three stand +or all three fall together, the first is found with ACD, the Old +Latin, Peshitto, Clement, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,—not +with [Symbol: Aleph]B the Vulgate or Curetonian. The second and third +clauses are found with Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, +six Greek and five Latin Fathers,—not with [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span></p> +<p>While [Symbol: Aleph] and B are alone in refusing to recognize either +first, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of +that 'singular agreement' which is sometimes said to +subsist between 'the lesser group of witnesses.' Is it not +plain on the contrary that at a very remote period there +existed a fierce conflict, and consequent hopeless divergence +of testimony about the present passage; of which 1,700 +years<a name="FNanchor_571_571" id="FNanchor_571_571"></a><a href="#Footnote_571_571" class="fnanchor">[571]</a> have failed to obliterate the traces? Had [Symbol: Aleph]B been +our only ancient guides, it might of course have been contended +that there has been no act of spoliation committed: +but seeing that one half of the missing treasure is found +with their allies, ACD, Clement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril, +Jerome,—the other half with their allies, Old Latin, +Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Didymus, +Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine<a name="FNanchor_572_572" id="FNanchor_572_572"></a><a href="#Footnote_572_572" class="fnanchor">[572]</a>,—it +is clear that no such pretence can any longer be +set up.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span></p><p>The endeavour to establish agreement among the witnesses +by a skilful distribution or rather dislocation of +their evidence, a favourite device with the Critics, involves +a fallacy which in any other subject would be denied a place. +I trust that henceforth St. Luke ix. 54-6 will be left in +undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text,—to +which it has an undoubted right.</p> + +<p>A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be +explained further how it has come to pass that the evidence +for omitting the first clause and the two last is so unequally +divided? I answer, the disparity is due to the influence of +the Lectionaries.</p> + +<p>Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical +Lection which used to begin either at St. Luke ix. 44, or +else at verse 49 and to extend down to the end of verse 56<a name="FNanchor_573_573" id="FNanchor_573_573"></a><a href="#Footnote_573_573" class="fnanchor">[573]</a>, +ended thus,—'ως και Ηλιας εποιησε; στραφεις δε επετιμησεν +αυτοις. και επορευθησαν εις 'ετεπαν κωμην<a name="FNanchor_574_574" id="FNanchor_574_574"></a><a href="#Footnote_574_574" class="fnanchor">[574]</a>. It was the Lection +for Thursday in the fifth week of the new year; and as the +reader sees, it omitted the two last clauses exactly as +Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABC do. Another Ecclesiastical Lection began +at verse 51 and extended down to verse 57, and is found to +have contained the two last clauses<a name="FNanchor_575_575" id="FNanchor_575_575"></a><a href="#Footnote_575_575" class="fnanchor">[575]</a>. I wish therefore +to inquire:—May it not fairly be presumed that it is the +Lectionary practice of the primitive age which has led to +the irregularity in this perturbation of the sacred Text?</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span></p><p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_495_495" id="Footnote_495_495"></a><a href="#FNanchor_495_495"><span class="label">[495]</span></a> Προς τοις δοκησει τον Χριστον πεφηνεναι λεγοντας.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_496_496" id="Footnote_496_496"></a><a href="#FNanchor_496_496"><span class="label">[496]</span></a> Το δε παιδιον ηυξανε, και εκραταιουτο πνευματι.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_497_497" id="Footnote_497_497"></a><a href="#FNanchor_497_497"><span class="label">[497]</span></a> It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first Dialogus of +pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_498_498" id="Footnote_498_498"></a><a href="#FNanchor_498_498"><span class="label">[498]</span></a> Opp. iii. 953, 954,—with suspicious emphasis.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_499_499" id="Footnote_499_499"></a><a href="#FNanchor_499_499"><span class="label">[499]</span></a> Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_500_500" id="Footnote_500_500"></a><a href="#FNanchor_500_500"><span class="label">[500]</span></a> +When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),—"Το δε παιδιον ηυξανε +και εκραταιουτο ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙ, πληρουμενον ΣΟΦΙΑ και ΧΑΡΙΤΙ." καιτοι κατα +φυσιν παντελειος εστιν 'ως Θεος και εξ ιδιον πληρωματος διανεμει τοις αγιοις τα +ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΑ, και αυτος εστιν η ΣΟΦΙΑ, και της ΧΑΡΙΤΟς 'ο δοτηρ,—it is clear +that πνευματι must have stood in Cyril's text. The same is the reading of +Cyril's Treatise, De Incarnatione (Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on +St. Luke (ibid. p. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorf's perverse inference +concerning the last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of +ver. 40 in exact conformity with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the +close of some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer's Catena), Cyril +proceeds as follows, according to the latter:—'ο Ευαγγελιστης εψη "ηυξανε και +εκραταιουτο" ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΕΞΗΣ. Surely this constitutes no ground for supposing +that he did not recognize the word πνευματι, but rather that he did. On the +other hand, it is undeniable that in V. P. ii. 138 and 139 (= Concilia iii. 241 d, +244 a), from Pusey's account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. i. 277-8), +the word πνευματι must be suspected of being an unauthorized addition to the +text of Cyril's treatise, De Rectâ fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_501_501" id="Footnote_501_501"></a><a href="#FNanchor_501_501"><span class="label">[501]</span></a> ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_502_502" id="Footnote_502_502"></a><a href="#FNanchor_502_502"><span class="label">[502]</span></a> Ει τελειος εστι Θεος 'ο Χριστος, πως 'ο ευαγγελιστης λεγει, +το δε παιδιον +Ιησους ηυξανε και εκραταιουτο πνευματι;—S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 +(<i>ap.</i> Galland. vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_503_503" id="Footnote_503_503"></a><a href="#FNanchor_503_503"><span class="label">[503]</span></a> ii. 36 d.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_504_504" id="Footnote_504_504"></a><a href="#FNanchor_504_504"><span class="label">[504]</span></a> Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53.—The only other Greek Fathers who +quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_505_505" id="Footnote_505_505"></a><a href="#FNanchor_505_505"><span class="label">[505]</span></a> 'ην ηκουσα παρα του Θεου. Epiph. i. 463.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_506_506" id="Footnote_506_506"></a><a href="#FNanchor_506_506"><span class="label">[506]</span></a> Instead of παρα του Θεου.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_507_507" id="Footnote_507_507"></a><a href="#FNanchor_507_507"><span class="label">[507]</span></a> i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_508_508" id="Footnote_508_508"></a><a href="#FNanchor_508_508"><span class="label">[508]</span></a> i. 260, 463: ii. 49.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_509_509" id="Footnote_509_509"></a><a href="#FNanchor_509_509"><span class="label">[509]</span></a> i. 705.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_510_510" id="Footnote_510_510"></a><a href="#FNanchor_510_510"><span class="label">[510]</span></a> viii. 365.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_511_511" id="Footnote_511_511"></a><a href="#FNanchor_511_511"><span class="label">[511]</span></a> (Glaph.) i. 18.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_512_512" id="Footnote_512_512"></a><a href="#FNanchor_512_512"><span class="label">[512]</span></a> iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv. 554: +v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549) distinctly says that +the latter is right, and παρα του πατρος wrong.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_513_513" id="Footnote_513_513"></a><a href="#FNanchor_513_513"><span class="label">[513]</span></a> Excerpt. Theod. 968.—Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen with +this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, ον δη και υιον Μονογενη και Θεον +κεκληκεν.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_514_514" id="Footnote_514_514"></a><a href="#FNanchor_514_514"><span class="label">[514]</span></a> Pp. 627, 630, 466.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_515_515" id="Footnote_515_515"></a><a href="#FNanchor_515_515"><span class="label">[515]</span></a> P. 956.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_516_516" id="Footnote_516_516"></a><a href="#FNanchor_516_516"><span class="label">[516]</span></a> 'Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris ipse +enarravit.'—(Comp. Tertullian:—'Solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse +exposuit' (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21): but he elsewhere (ibid. c. 15) exhibits the +passage in the usual way.) Clemens writes,—τοτε εποπτευσεις τον κολπον του +Πατρυς, 'ον 'ο μονοογενης 'υιος Θεος μονος εξηγησατο (956), and in the Excerpt. +Theod. we find ουτος τον κολπον τον Πατρος εξηγησατο 'ο Σωτηρ (969). But +this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> is often spoken +of by the Fathers as 'η δεξια του 'υψιστου ... κολπος δε της δεξιας 'ο Πατηρ. +(Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_517_517" id="Footnote_517_517"></a><a href="#FNanchor_517_517"><span class="label">[517]</span></a> Ps. 440 (—'ο): Marcell. 165, 179, 273.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_518_518" id="Footnote_518_518"></a><a href="#FNanchor_518_518"><span class="label">[518]</span></a> Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_519_519" id="Footnote_519_519"></a><a href="#FNanchor_519_519"><span class="label">[519]</span></a> Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_520_520" id="Footnote_520_520"></a><a href="#FNanchor_520_520"><span class="label">[520]</span></a> Opp. ii. 466.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_521_521" id="Footnote_521_521"></a><a href="#FNanchor_521_521"><span class="label">[521]</span></a> Opp. iii. 23, 358.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_522_522" id="Footnote_522_522"></a><a href="#FNanchor_522_522"><span class="label">[522]</span></a> Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 +(Θεος παντως 'ο μονογενης, 'ο εν τοις κολποις +ων του Πατρος, ουτως ειποντος του Ιωαννου). Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506: +always εν τοις κολποις. Basil, Opp. iii. 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_523_523" id="Footnote_523_523"></a><a href="#FNanchor_523_523"><span class="label">[523]</span></a> Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_524_524" id="Footnote_524_524"></a><a href="#FNanchor_524_524"><span class="label">[524]</span></a> Contra Eunom. <i>I have noted</i> ninety-eight places.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_525_525" id="Footnote_525_525"></a><a href="#FNanchor_525_525"><span class="label">[525]</span></a> +Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:—αυτος γαρ Θεος ων 'ο +μονογενης, εν κολποις ων του θεου και πατρος, ταυτην προς 'ημας εποιησατο την +εξηγησιν. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John και "μονογενη θεον" +αποκαλει τον 'υιον, και "εν κολποισ" ειναι φησι του πατρος. But on p. 107 +he speaks quite plainly: "'ο μονογενης," φησι, "Θεος, 'ο ων εις τον κολπον του +πατρος, εκεινος εξηγησατο." επειδη γαρ εφη "μονογενη" και "Θεον," τιθησιν +ευθυς, "'ο ων εν τοις κολποις του πατρος."—So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads +'υιος in v. 365, 437: vi. 90.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_526_526" id="Footnote_526_526"></a><a href="#FNanchor_526_526"><span class="label">[526]</span></a> He uses it seventeen times in his Comm. on Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122, &c.), +and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. vi. 187). Theodoret +once adopts the phrase (Opp. v. 4).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_527_527" id="Footnote_527_527"></a><a href="#FNanchor_527_527"><span class="label">[527]</span></a> De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:—27.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_528_528" id="Footnote_528_528"></a><a href="#FNanchor_528_528"><span class="label">[528]</span></a> P. 117.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_529_529" id="Footnote_529_529"></a><a href="#FNanchor_529_529"><span class="label">[529]</span></a> Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_530_530" id="Footnote_530_530"></a><a href="#FNanchor_530_530"><span class="label">[530]</span></a> Who quoted Arius' words:—'Subsistit ante tempora et aeones <i>plenus Deus, +unigenitus,</i> et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find Tischendorf's reference.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_531_531" id="Footnote_531_531"></a><a href="#FNanchor_531_531"><span class="label">[531]</span></a> The reading 'υιος is established by unanswerable evidence.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_532_532" id="Footnote_532_532"></a><a href="#FNanchor_532_532"><span class="label">[532]</span></a> The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors of +Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic doctrine of the +Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at work when St. John +wrote his first (iv. 1, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7) Epistles.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_533_533" id="Footnote_533_533"></a><a href="#FNanchor_533_533"><span class="label">[533]</span></a> Rev. xxii. 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_534_534" id="Footnote_534_534"></a><a href="#FNanchor_534_534"><span class="label">[534]</span></a> Επιπηδωσιν 'ημιν 'οι 'αιρετικοι λεγοντες; +ιδου ουκ ανελαβε σαρκα 'ο Χριστος; 'ο +δευτ. γαρ φησιν ανθρ. 'ο κ. εξ ουρανου. Chrys. iii. 114 b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_535_535" id="Footnote_535_535"></a><a href="#FNanchor_535_535"><span class="label">[535]</span></a> Την γαρ κατα σαρκα γηννησιν του Χριστου +ανελειν βουλομενοι, ενηλλαξαν το, +'ο δευτερος ανθρωπος; και εποιησαν, 'ο δευτερος Κυριος. Dial. [<i>ap.</i> Orig.] +i. 868.—Marcion +had in fact already substituted Κυριος for ανθρωπος in ver. 45: +('<i>the +last Lord</i> became a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. ii. 304]—a fabricated reading +which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's +followers:—'ο εσχατος Κυριος εις πν. ζω. Dial. <i>ubi supra</i>. +εδει γαρ αυτους, ει γε τα ευανγελια ετιμων, +μη περιτεμνειν τα ευαγγελια, μη μερη των ευαγγελιων εξυφελειν, μη 'ετερα +προσθηναι, μητε λογω, μητε ιδια γνωμη τα ευαγγελια προσγραφειν.... +προσγεγραφηκασι γουν 'οσα βεβουληνται, και εξυφειλαντο 'οσα κεκρικασι. Titus +of Bostra c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_536_536" id="Footnote_536_536"></a><a href="#FNanchor_536_536"><span class="label">[536]</span></a> Tertull. ii. 304, (<i>Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de +Caelo</i>).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_537_537" id="Footnote_537_537"></a><a href="#FNanchor_537_537"><span class="label">[537]</span></a> Dial [Orig. i.] 868, ('ο δευτερος Κυριος εξ ουρανου).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_538_538" id="Footnote_538_538"></a><a href="#FNanchor_538_538"><span class="label">[538]</span></a> +Το δε παντων χαλεπωτατον εν ταις εκκλησιαστικαις συμφοραις, +'η των 'Απολιναριστων εστι παρρησια. Greg. Naz. ii. 167.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_539_539" id="Footnote_539_539"></a><a href="#FNanchor_539_539"><span class="label">[539]</span></a> ii. 168,—a very interesting place. See also p. 87.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_540_540" id="Footnote_540_540"></a><a href="#FNanchor_540_540"><span class="label">[540]</span></a> i. 831.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_541_541" id="Footnote_541_541"></a><a href="#FNanchor_541_541"><span class="label">[541]</span></a> ii. 443, 531.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_542_542" id="Footnote_542_542"></a><a href="#FNanchor_542_542"><span class="label">[542]</span></a> Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (<i>primus homo de terrae limo</i>, &c.).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_543_543" id="Footnote_543_543"></a><a href="#FNanchor_543_543"><span class="label">[543]</span></a> iii. 40.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_544_544" id="Footnote_544_544"></a><a href="#FNanchor_544_544"><span class="label">[544]</span></a> iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has +'ο δευτ. ανθρ. ουρανιος εξ ουρανου.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_545_545" id="Footnote_545_545"></a><a href="#FNanchor_545_545"><span class="label">[545]</span></a> iv. 1051.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_546_546" id="Footnote_546_546"></a><a href="#FNanchor_546_546"><span class="label">[546]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Thdt. v. 1135.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_547_547" id="Footnote_547_547"></a><a href="#FNanchor_547_547"><span class="label">[547]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Galland. viii. 626, 627.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_548_548" id="Footnote_548_548"></a><a href="#FNanchor_548_548"><span class="label">[548]</span></a> i. 222 (where for ανθρ. he reads Αδαμ), 563. Also ii. 120, 346.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_549_549" id="Footnote_549_549"></a><a href="#FNanchor_549_549"><span class="label">[549]</span></a> 'Adversus Manichaeos,'—<i>ap.</i> Mai, iv. 68, 69.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_550_550" id="Footnote_550_550"></a><a href="#FNanchor_550_550"><span class="label">[550]</span></a> ii. 228:—ουχ 'οτι 'ο ανθρωπος, ητοι το ανθρωπινον προσλημμα, εξ ουρανου ην, +'ως 'ο αφρων Απολιναριος εληρει.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_551_551" id="Footnote_551_551"></a><a href="#FNanchor_551_551"><span class="label">[551]</span></a> Naz. ii. 87 (=Thdt. iv. 62), 168.—Nyss. ii. 11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_552_552" id="Footnote_552_552"></a><a href="#FNanchor_552_552"><span class="label">[552]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Epiphan. i. 830.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_553_553" id="Footnote_553_553"></a><a href="#FNanchor_553_553"><span class="label">[553]</span></a> 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_554_554" id="Footnote_554_554"></a><a href="#FNanchor_554_554"><span class="label">[554]</span></a> Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. ed. +Fabr. ii. 30:—ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:—ed. Galland. ii. 483.)—Neither may the +expression του δευτερου εξ ουρανου ανθρωπου in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. +Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_555_555" id="Footnote_555_555"></a><a href="#FNanchor_555_555"><span class="label">[555]</span></a> <i>Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo +caelestis</i>.—i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, +437.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_556_556" id="Footnote_556_556"></a><a href="#FNanchor_556_556"><span class="label">[556]</span></a> ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_557_557" id="Footnote_557_557"></a><a href="#FNanchor_557_557"><span class="label">[557]</span></a> The places are given by Sabatier <i>in loc</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_558_558" id="Footnote_558_558"></a><a href="#FNanchor_558_558"><span class="label">[558]</span></a> Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, +does this reading appear in Orig. <i>interp</i>. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: +iv. 546.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_559_559" id="Footnote_559_559"></a><a href="#FNanchor_559_559"><span class="label">[559]</span></a> As Philastrius (<i>ap.</i> Galland. vii. 492, +516).—Pacianus (ib. 275).—Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).—Capreolus +(ib. ix. 493). But see the end of the next ensuing note.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_560_560" id="Footnote_560_560"></a><a href="#FNanchor_560_560"><span class="label">[560]</span></a> Vol. i. p. 1275,—'ο δευτερος ανθρ. 'ο Κυριος εξ +ουρανου ουρανιος:—on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), +ιδου γαρ αμφοτερωθεν ουρανιος ανθρωπος ονομαζεται. And lower +down,—Κυριος, δια την μιαν 'υποστασιν; δευτ. μεν ανθρ., κατα +την 'ενωμενην ανθρωποτητα. εξ ουρανου δε, κατα την θεοτητα.—P. +448,—'ο δευτερος ανθρ. εξ ουρανου επουρανιος.—<i>Ap.</i> +Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland. v. 167),—'ο δευτ. ανθρ. εξ +ουρανου.—Note that Maximinus, an Arian bishop, <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 427-8 +(<i>ap.</i> Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have possessed a text +identical with the first of the preceding:—'Ait ipse Paulus, <i>Primus +homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de Caelo +caelestis</i> advenit.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_561_561" id="Footnote_561_561"></a><a href="#FNanchor_561_561"><span class="label">[561]</span></a> See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, +p. 114.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_562_562" id="Footnote_562_562"></a><a href="#FNanchor_562_562"><span class="label">[562]</span></a> This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is +therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_563_563" id="Footnote_563_563"></a><a href="#FNanchor_563_563"><span class="label">[563]</span></a> Proleg. 418.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_564_564" id="Footnote_564_564"></a><a href="#FNanchor_564_564"><span class="label">[564]</span></a> +The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 353) +is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph],—an important testimony to what I suppose may be +regarded as the Alexandrine <i>Textus Receptus</i> of this place in the fifth century. +But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings +of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse; and discover +that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He +has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood +in the original text:—ειδεναι γαρ χρη, 'οτι 'ως μηπω της νεας κεκρατηκοτες +χαριτος, αλλ' ετι της προτερας εχομενοι συνηθειας, τουτο ειπον, προς Ηλιαν +αφορωντες τον πυρι καταφλεξαντα δις τους πεντηκοντα και τους ηγουμενους +αυτων, (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. +N. T. <i>in loc.</i>, pp. 333-4.) Now the man who wrote <i>that</i>, must surely have +read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as we do.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_565_565" id="Footnote_565_565"></a><a href="#FNanchor_565_565"><span class="label">[565]</span></a> See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland. ii. 157. +First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_566_566" id="Footnote_566_566"></a><a href="#FNanchor_566_566"><span class="label">[566]</span></a> In St. Matt. xviii. 11, the words ζητησαι και do not occur.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_567_567" id="Footnote_567_567"></a><a href="#FNanchor_567_567"><span class="label">[567]</span></a> Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 468. 'Agnosco iudicis severitatem. E contrario +Christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos super ilium viculum +Samaritarum.' Marc. iv. 23 (see ii. p. 221). He adds,—'Let Marcion also +confess that by the same terribly severe judge Christ's leniency was foretold;' +and he cites in proof Is. xlii. 2 and 1 Kings xix. 12 ('sed in <i>spiritu</i> miti').</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_568_568" id="Footnote_568_568"></a><a href="#FNanchor_568_568"><span class="label">[568]</span></a> Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And he +discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139. +</p><p> +Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the +same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it,—'ubi de utroque Testamento +velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate, velut inde +ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero.' Cerdon +was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion +his pupil, then Apelles, and then Patricius.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_569_569" id="Footnote_569_569"></a><a href="#FNanchor_569_569"><span class="label">[569]</span></a> +Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (<i>ap.</i> Galland. v. 329 b), leaving others to +note the correspondences between the New and the Old Testament, proposes to +handle the 'Contrasts': προς αυτας τας αντιθεσεις των λογιων χωρησωμεν. At +pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of +fire from heaven.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_570_570" id="Footnote_570_570"></a><a href="#FNanchor_570_570"><span class="label">[570]</span></a> +Verba 'ως και Η. εποιησε cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolatori +debentur quae verba στρ. δε επετι. αυτοις excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod +testium additamentum 'ο γαρ 'υιος, &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per +se solum pro spurio haberi potest; cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctoritate +arctissime cum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_571_571" id="Footnote_571_571"></a><a href="#FNanchor_571_571"><span class="label">[571]</span></a> Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circumferri +consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_572_572" id="Footnote_572_572"></a><a href="#FNanchor_572_572"><span class="label">[572]</span></a> The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or +strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the +last. +</p><p> +Jerome.—Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, <i>et imitari +Eliam</i>, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum <i>venerat</i>, sed <i>ad salvandum</i>, &c. +... increpat eos <i>quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae</i>, +&c. (i. 857 b, c, d.) +</p><p> +Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.—'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum +perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 253. +</p><p> +Tatian.—Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and +Anim. c. 13.) +</p><p> +Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the +words twice,—x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a. +</p><p> +Και 'ο Κυριος προς τους αποστολους ειποντας εν πυρι κολασαι τους μη δεξαμενους +αυτους κατα τον Ηλιαν; Ουκ οιδατε φησι ποιου πνευματος εστε. (p. 1019.) +</p><p> +Theodoret, iii. 1119. (ποιου.) +</p><p> +Epiph. ii. 31. ('οιου.) +</p><p> +Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place. +</p><p> +Augustine.—Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii +essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b. Cp. iii. (2), +194 b. +</p><p> +Cyril Al.—Μηπω της νεας κεκρατηκοτες χαριτος ... τουτο ειπον, τον Ηλιαν +αφορωντες τον πυρι κ.τ.λ. Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017.—By +a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew: +but this is enough to shew that he admits that <i>some</i> reproof finds record in the +Gospel. +</p><p> +Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c. +</p><p> +Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219. +</p><p> +Didymus.—Ουκ οιδατε οιου πνευματος εστιν 'ο 'υιος του ανθρωπου. De Trin. +p. 188.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_573_573" id="Footnote_573_573"></a><a href="#FNanchor_573_573"><span class="label">[573]</span></a> Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_574_574" id="Footnote_574_574"></a><a href="#FNanchor_574_574"><span class="label">[574]</span></a> See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_575_575" id="Footnote_575_575"></a><a href="#FNanchor_575_575"><span class="label">[575]</span></a> [I have been unable to discover this Lection.]</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="appendix_i" id="appendix_i"></a>APPENDIX I.</h2> + +<h3>PERICOPE DE ADULTERA.</h3> + + +<p>I have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult +problem of all: viz. those twelve famous verses of +St. John's Gospel (chap. vii. 53 to viii. 11) which contain +the history of 'the woman taken in adultery,'—the <i>pericope +de adultera</i>, as it is called. Altogether indispensable is it +that the reader should approach this portion of the Gospel +with the greatest amount of experience and the largest +preparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he +could further divest himself of prejudice; but that is +perhaps impossible. Let him at least endeavour to weigh +the evidence which shall now be laid before him in +impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would +judge rightly: for the matter to be discussed is confessedly +very peculiar: in some respects, even unique. Let me +convince him at once of the truth of what has been so far +spoken.</p> + +<p>It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen +centuries two instances, and but two, should exist of a considerable +portion of Scripture left to the mercy, so to +speak, of 'Textual Criticism.' Twelve consecutive Verses +in the second Gospel—as many consecutive Verses in the +fourth—are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, +that the Providence which has watched so marvellously +over the fortunes of the Deposit,—the Divine Wisdom<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span> +which has made such ample provision for its security all +down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that +these two co-extensive problems have survived to our +times to be tests of human sagacity,—trials of human +faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features +of correspondence, but far more of contrast,—as will +presently appear. And yet the most important circumstance +of all cannot be too soon mentioned: viz. that +both alike have experienced the same calamitous treatment +at the hands of some critics. By common consent the +most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can +have formed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the +hands of its inspired author. How mistaken is this +opinion of theirs in respect of the 'Last twelve verses +of the Gospel according to St. Mark,' has been already +demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content +in this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with +the hostile verdict of many critics concerning St. John +vii. 53-viii. 11. That I shall be able to satisfy those +persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was +offered concerning St. Mark's last twelve verses, I am not +so simple as to expect. But I trust that I shall have with +me all candid readers who are capable of weighing evidence +impartially, and understanding the nature of logical proof, +when it is fully drawn out before them,—which indeed is +the very qualification that I require of them.</p> + +<p>And first, the case of the <i>pericope de adultera</i> requires +to be placed before the reader in its true bearings. For +those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have +ignored certain preliminary considerations which, once +clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of the point at +issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the +way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred +narrative from the context in which it stands, which they +seem to have overlooked. I proceed to explain.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span></p> + +<p>Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the +fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof +rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness +of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question +before us is not by any means,—Shall these Twelve Verses +be admitted—or, Must they be refused admission—into the +Sacred Text? That point has been settled long, long ago. +St. John's Twelve verses are in possession. Let those +eject them who can. They are known to have occupied +their present position for full seventeen hundred years. +There never was a time—as far as is known—- when they +were not <i>where</i>,—and to all intents and purposes <i>what</i>—they +now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary +method of proof,—no merely common argument,—will +avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?</p> + +<p>'Twelve such Verses,' I say. For it is the extent of +the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable. +We have here to do with no dubious clause, concerning +which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss, +which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, +and to have crept in as from the margin; no importation +from another Gospel; no verse of Scripture which has lost +its way; no weak amplification of the Evangelical meaning; +no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the narrative and +almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were +some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was +proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed +by a vast amount of ancient evidence, the proceeding +would be intelligible. But I take leave to point out that +a highly complex and very important incident—as related +in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel—cannot be so +dealt with. Squatters on the waste are liable at any +moment to be served with a notice of ejectment: but the +owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his +ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span> +may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary +process. This—to speak without a figure—is a connected +and very striking portion of the sacred narrative:—the +description of a considerable incident, complete in itself, full +of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would have +ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it successfully +must come forward with weapons of a very different +kind from those usually employed in textual warfare.</p> + +<p>It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses +hold their actual place by a more extraordinary right of +tenure than any other twelve verses which can be named +in the Gospel: but it would be premature to enter upon +the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the +reader's attention, next to the actual texture of the <i>pericope +de adultera</i>, by which name (as already explained) the +last verse of St. John vii. together with verses 1-11 of ch. +viii. are familiarly designated. Although external testimony +supplies the sole proof of genuineness, it is nevertheless +reasonable to inquire what the verses in question may have +to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front the +tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so +confidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on +the contrary, unmistakably bear the impress of Truth?</p> + +<p>The first thing which strikes me in them is that the +actual narrative concerning 'the woman taken in adultery' +is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses: being +preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different +character and complexion. Let these be first produced +and studied:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>'and every man went to his own house: but <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> went to the +Mount of Olives.' 'And again, very early in the morning, He +presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto +Him: and He sat down and taught them.'</p></div> + +<p>Now as every one must see, the former of these two +paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> +of a narrative. It purports to be the conclusion of something +which went before, not to introduce something which +comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John's +account of what occurred at the close of the debate between +certain members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his +history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The +verse in question marks the conclusion of the Feast,—implies +in short that all is already finished. Remove it, +and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and +all proceeds methodically; while an affecting contrast is +established, which is recognized to be strictly in the +manner of Scripture<a name="FNanchor_576_576" id="FNanchor_576_576"></a><a href="#Footnote_576_576" class="fnanchor">[576]</a>. Each one had gone to his home: +but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of Olives. +In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found +to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent narrative: +proves to be a fragment of what is universally +admitted to be genuine Scripture. By consequence, itself +must needs be genuine also<a name="FNanchor_577_577" id="FNanchor_577_577"></a><a href="#Footnote_577_577" class="fnanchor">[577]</a>.</p> + +<p>It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses +are in the same predicament as those which follow: are as +ill supported by MS. evidence as the other ten: and must +therefore share the same fate as the rest. The statement +is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be shewn. +But, what is even better deserving of attention, since confessedly +these twelve verses are either to stand or else to +fall together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever +begets a suspicion that certain of them, at all events, must<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span> +needs be genuine, throws real doubt on the justice of the +sentence of condemnation which has been passed in a lump +upon all the rest.</p> + +<p>I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient +circumstance which some Critics in their eagerness have +overlooked.</p> + +<p>The reader will bear in mind that—contending, as I do, +that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine +Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its +lawful context,—I began by examining the upper extremity, +with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any +traces of being a fractured edge. The result is just what +might have been anticipated. The first two of the verses +which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found +to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine +Scripture. How then about the other extremity?</p> + +<p>Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] immediate +transition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth +no prophet,' in ch. vii. 5a, to the words 'Again therefore +<span class="smcap">Jesus</span> spake unto them, saying,' in ch. viii. 12. And we +are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe +that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the +Evangelist.</p> + +<p>But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is +contained between ch. vii. 37 and 5a, and note—(<i>a</i>) That +two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42): +(<i>b</i>) That some were for laying violent hands on our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> +(ver. 44): (<i>c</i>) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in +debate, were reproaching their servants for not having +brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another<a name="FNanchor_578_578" id="FNanchor_578_578"></a><a href="#Footnote_578_578" class="fnanchor">[578]</a> +(ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,—'Again<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span> +therefore <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> spake unto them, saying, I am the +light of the world'? What is it supposed then that +St. John meant when he wrote such words?</p> + +<p>But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary +copy of the New Testament, and his meaning is perfectly +clear. The last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles is +ended. It is the morrow and 'very early in the morning.' +The Holy One has 'again presented Himself in the Temple' +where on the previous night He so narrowly escaped +violence at the hands of His enemies, and He teaches the +people. While thus engaged,—the time, the place, His +own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness +and love,—a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and +Pharisees, enter on the foulest of errands; and we all +remember with how little success. Such an interruption +need not have occupied much time. The Woman's accusers +having departed, our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> resumes His discourse +which had been broken off. 'Again therefore' it is said +in ver. 12, with clear and frequent reference to what had +preceded in ver. 2—'<span class="smcap">Jesus</span> spake unto them, saying, I am +the light of the world.' And had not that saying of His +reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness +which His words, a few moments before, had succeeded in +dispelling, as to the orb of glory which already flooded the +Temple Court with the effulgence of its rising,—His own +visible emblem and image in the Heavens?... I protest +that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery,'—so +introduced, so dismissed,—all is lucid and coherent: +without those connecting links, the story is scarcely intelligible. +These twelve disputed verses, so far from +'fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel, if +retained in the text<a name="FNanchor_579_579" id="FNanchor_579_579"></a><a href="#Footnote_579_579" class="fnanchor">[579]</a>,' prove to be even necessary for the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span> +logical coherency of the entire context in which they +stand.</p> + +<p>But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, +the mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its +'edifying and eminently Christian' character, vindicates +for the <i>Pericope de adultera</i> a right to its place in the +Gospel. Let me endeavour to explain what seems to be +its spiritual significancy: in other words, to interpret the +transaction.</p> + +<p>The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span> +on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an +extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments concerning +one so accused had long since fallen into practical +oblivion. On the present occasion our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> is observed +to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard +of fashion. The trial by the bitter water, or water +of conviction<a name="FNanchor_580_580" id="FNanchor_580_580"></a><a href="#Footnote_580_580" class="fnanchor">[580]</a>, was a species of ordeal, intended for the +vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But +according to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious, +unless the husband was himself innocent of the +crime whereof he accused his wife.</p> + +<p>Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 +to 24, be now considered. The accused Woman having +been brought near, and set before the <span class="smcap">Lord</span>, the priest +took 'holy water in an earthen vessel,' and put 'of the dust +of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.' Then, with +the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he +charged the woman by an oath. Next, he wrote the +curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter +water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that +causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell +under a terrible penalty,—her body testifying visibly to +her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span></p> + +<p>And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with +His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused +parties? Into the presence of incarnate <span class="smcap">Jehovah</span> verily +they had been brought: and perhaps when He stooped +down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence +against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We +have but to assume some connexion between the curse +which He thus traced 'in the dust of the floor of the +tabernacle' and the words which He uttered with His lips, +and He may with truth be declared to have 'taken of the +dust and put in on the water,' and 'caused them to drink +of the bitter water which causeth the curse.' For when, by +His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh +addressed these adulterers,—what did He but present them +with living water<a name="FNanchor_581_581" id="FNanchor_581_581"></a><a href="#Footnote_581_581" class="fnanchor">[581]</a> 'in an earthen vessel<a name="FNanchor_582_582" id="FNanchor_582_582"></a><a href="#Footnote_582_582" class="fnanchor">[582]</a>'? Did He not +further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, 'If ye +have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this +bitter water: but if ye be defiled'—On being presented +with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out +one by one? And what else was this but their own +acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation +they shewed themselves so impatient? Surely it was 'the +water of conviction' (το 'υδωρ του ελεγμου) as it is six times +called, which <i>they</i> had been compelled to drink; whereupon, +'convicted (ελεγχομενοι) by their own conscience,' as +St. John relates, they had pronounced the other's acquittal. +Finally, note that by Himself declining to 'condemn' the +accused woman, our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> also did in effect blot out those +curses which He had already written against her in the +dust,—when He made the floor of the sanctuary His +'book.'</p> + +<p>Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition—and +I am not concerned to defend it in every detail,—on<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span> +turning to the opposite contention, we are struck with the +slender amount of actual proof with which the assailants +of this passage seem to be furnished. Their evidence is +mostly negative—a proceeding which is constantly observed +to attend a bad cause: and they are prone to make up for +the feebleness of their facts by the strength of their assertions. +But my experience, as one who has given a considerable +amount of attention to such subjects, tells me that +the narrative before us carries on its front the impress of +Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for +itself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it +cannot be the work of a fabricator. The more I study +it, the more I am impressed with its Divinity. And in +what goes before I have been trying to make the reader +a partaker of my own conviction.</p> + +<p>To come now to particulars, we may readily see from +its very texture that it must needs have been woven in +a heavenly loom. Only too obvious is the remark that +the very subject-matter of the chief transaction recorded +in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself +to preclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are +a spurious addition to the genuine Gospel. And then we +note how entirely in St. John's manner is the little explanatory +clause in ver. 6,—'This they said, tempting Him, +that they might have to accuse Him<a name="FNanchor_583_583" id="FNanchor_583_583"></a><a href="#Footnote_583_583" class="fnanchor">[583]</a>.' We are struck +besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the +act of writing,—allusions to which, are met with in every +work of the last Evangelist<a name="FNanchor_584_584" id="FNanchor_584_584"></a><a href="#Footnote_584_584" class="fnanchor">[584]</a>. It does not of course escape +us how utterly beyond the reach of a Western interpolator +would have been the insertion of the article so faithfully<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span> +retained to this hour before λιθον in ver. 7. On completing +our survey, as to the assertions that the <i>pericope de +adultera</i> 'has no right to a place in the text of the four +Gospels,'—is 'clearly a Western interpolation, though not +Western of the earliest type<a name="FNanchor_585_585" id="FNanchor_585_585"></a><a href="#Footnote_585_585" class="fnanchor">[585]</a>,' (whatever <i>that</i> may mean), +and so forth,—we can but suspect that the authors very +imperfectly realize the difficulty of the problem with which +they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures us that 'no +accompanying marks would prevent' this portion of Scripture +'from fatally interrupting the course of St. John's +Gospel if retained in the text': and when they relegate +it accordingly to a blank page at the end of the Gospels +within 'double brackets,' in order 'to shew its inferior +authority';—we can but read and wonder at the want of +perception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display. +<i>Quousque tandem?</i></p> + +<p>But it is time to turn from such considerations as the +foregoing, and to inquire for the direct testimony, which is +assumed by recent Editors and Critics to be fatal to these +twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it 'absolutely certain +that this narrative was not written by St. John<a name="FNanchor_586_586" id="FNanchor_586_586"></a><a href="#Footnote_586_586" class="fnanchor">[586]</a>.' One, +vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener) declares +that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the +passage must needs be abandoned<a name="FNanchor_587_587" id="FNanchor_587_587"></a><a href="#Footnote_587_587" class="fnanchor">[587]</a>.' Tregelles is 'fully +satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's +Gospel<a name="FNanchor_588_588" id="FNanchor_588_588"></a><a href="#Footnote_588_588" class="fnanchor">[588]</a>.' Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles +puts it into his footnotes. Westcott and Hort, harsher +than any of their predecessors, will not, as we have seen, +allow it to appear even at the foot of the page. To +reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of +this precious portion of <span class="smcap">God's</span> written Word would be a +joyless and an unprofitable task. According to Green, 'the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span> +genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained<a name="FNanchor_589_589" id="FNanchor_589_589"></a><a href="#Footnote_589_589" class="fnanchor">[589]</a>.' Hammond +is of opinion that 'it would be more satisfactory to +separate it from its present context, and place it by itself +as an appendix to the Gospel<a name="FNanchor_590_590" id="FNanchor_590_590"></a><a href="#Footnote_590_590" class="fnanchor">[590]</a>.' A yet more recent critic +'sums up,' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to +the genuineness of the passage<a name="FNanchor_591_591" id="FNanchor_591_591"></a><a href="#Footnote_591_591" class="fnanchor">[591]</a>.' The opinions of Bishops +Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully +commented upon by-and-by. In the meantime, I venture +to join issue with every one of these learned persons. I contend +that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism the +passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scripture; +and that without a particle of doubt I cannot even +admit that 'it has been transmitted to us under circumstances +widely different from those connected with any +other passage of Scripture whatever<a name="FNanchor_592_592" id="FNanchor_592_592"></a><a href="#Footnote_592_592" class="fnanchor">[592]</a>.' I contend that it +has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the +rest of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes +of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same +Gospel which can be named: but—like countless other +places—it is found for whatever reason to have given +offence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experienced +very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of +the moderns also:—but especially of the latter. In other +words, these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of +genuineness <i>less conspicuously</i> than any other twelve consecutive +verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The +one only question to be decided is the following:—On +a review of the whole of the evidence,—is it more reasonable +to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accretion +to the Gospel? Or to admit that they must needs be +accounted to be genuine?... I shall shew that they are +at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span> +absolutely overwhelming. I read with satisfaction that +my own convictions were shared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, +Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the learned Ceriani on my +side. I should have been just as confident had I stood +alone:—such is the imperative strength of the evidence.</p> + +<p>To begin then. Tischendorf—(who may be taken as +a fair sample of the assailants of this passage)—commences +by stating roundly that the Pericope is omitted +by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCLTXΔ, and about seventy cursives. I will say +at once, that no sincere inquirer after truth could so state +the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A and +C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore +is it to know with certainty what they either did, or did +not, contain. But this is not merely all. I proceed to offer +a few words concerning Cod. A.</p> + +<p>Woide, the learned and accurate<a name="FNanchor_593_593" id="FNanchor_593_593"></a><a href="#Footnote_593_593" class="fnanchor">[593]</a> editor of the Codex +Alexandrinus, remarked (in 1785)—'Historia adulterae +<i>videtur</i> in hoc codice defuisse.' But this modest inference +of his, subsequent Critics have represented as an ascertained +fact, Tischendorf announces it as 'certissimum.' Let me +be allowed to investigate the problem for myself. Woide's +calculation,—(which has passed unchallenged for nearly +a hundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a-days +assumed that Cod. A must have exactly resembled +Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B in <i>omitting</i> the <i>pericope de adultera</i>,)—was far +too roughly made to be of any critical use<a name="FNanchor_594_594" id="FNanchor_594_594"></a><a href="#Footnote_594_594" class="fnanchor">[594]</a>.</p> + +<p>Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the +word καταβαινων in vi. 50 to the word λεγεις in viii. 52: +a <i>lacuna</i> (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span> +the ordinary text) of as nearly as possible 8,805 letters,—allowing +for contractions, and of course not reckoning +St. John vii. 53 to viii. 11. Now, in order to estimate +fairly how many letters the two lost leaves actually contained, +I have inquired for the sums of the letters on the +leaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately +succeeding the hiatus; and I find them to be respectively +4,337 and 4,303: together, 8,640 letters. But this, it will +be seen, is insufficient by 165 letters, or eight lines, for the +assumed contents of these two missing leaves. Are we +then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere a blank +space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer. +There existed, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy +of matter in at least the second of those two lost leaves. +This is proved by the circumstance that the first column +on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the unique phenomenon +of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very long lines +(containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently +no room could be found on the page which immediately +preceded. But why should there have been any redundancy +of matter at all? Something extraordinary must have +produced it. What if the <i>Pericope de adultera</i>, without +being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A? +What if the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word +of St. John viii. 3, and then had suddenly checked himself? +We cannot tell what appearance St. John vii. 53-viii. 11 +presented in Codex A, simply because the entire leaf which +should have contained it is lost. Enough however has +been said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair +to throw [Symbol: Aleph]AB into one and the same category,—with +a 'certissimum,'—as Tischendorf does.</p> + +<p>As for L and Δ, they exhibit a vacant space after +St. John vii. 52,—which testifies to the consciousness of +the copyists that they were leaving out something. These +are therefore witnesses <i>for</i>,—not witnesses <i>against</i>,—the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span> +passage under discussion.—X being a Commentary on +the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the +passage out.—The only uncial MSS. therefore which <i>simply</i> +leave out the pericope, are the three following—[Symbol: Aleph]BT: and +the degree of attention to which such an amount of evidence +is entitled, has been already proved to be wondrous small. +We cannot forget moreover that the two former of these +copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing alone +on a memorable occasion:—they <i>alone</i> exhibit St. Mark's +Gospel mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses.</p> + +<p>But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of +later date are without the <i>pericope de adultera</i>: that the +first Greek Father who quotes the pericope is Euthymius +in the twelfth century: that Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, +Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew nothing of it: +and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic, +or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which +statements I remark over again that no sincere lover of +Truth, supposing him to understand the matter about +which he is disputing, could so exhibit the evidence for +this particular problem. First, because so to state it is to +misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the +articles of indictment are only half true:—in fact are <i>untrue</i>. +But chiefly, because in the foregoing enumeration certain +considerations are actually suppressed which, had they +been fairly stated, would have been found to reverse the +issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry +in my own way.</p> + +<p>The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly +to understand what the problem before him actually is. +Twelve verses then, which, as a matter of fact, are found +dovetailed into a certain context of St. John's Gospel, the +Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the Critics +in question prove that they must? For unless they do, +there is no help for it but the <i>pericope de adultera</i> must be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span> +left where it is. I proceed to shew first, that it is impossible, +on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve +verses from their actual context.—Next, I shall point out +that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the +assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove the +point they are intended to prove; but admit of a sufficient +and satisfactory explanation.—Thirdly, it shall be shewn +that the said explanation carries with it, and implies, a +weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in +dispute, which is absolutely overwhelming.—Lastly, the +positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall +be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, +which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal. +To some people I may seem to express myself with too +much confidence. Let it then be said once for all, that +my confidence is inspired by the strength of the arguments +which are now to be unfolded. When the Author +of Holy Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, +I cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in +them.</p> + +<p>Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition +that,</p> + +<p>(1) <i>These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position +which they now occupy from the earliest period to which +evidence concerning the Gospels reaches.</i></p> + +<p>And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently +established by reference to the ancient Latin version of +St. John's Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second +century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not +reach. The pericope is observed to stand <i>in situ</i> in +Codd. b c e ff<sup>2</sup> g h j. Jerome (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 385), after a careful +survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in +the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by +himself<a name="FNanchor_595_595" id="FNanchor_595_595"></a><a href="#Footnote_595_595" class="fnanchor">[595]</a> in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span> +it at least nine times<a name="FNanchor_596_596" id="FNanchor_596_596"></a><a href="#Footnote_596_596" class="fnanchor">[596]</a>; as well as Augustine in North +Africa (396) about twice as often<a name="FNanchor_597_597" id="FNanchor_597_597"></a><a href="#Footnote_597_597" class="fnanchor">[597]</a>. It is quoted besides +by Pacian<a name="FNanchor_598_598" id="FNanchor_598_598"></a><a href="#Footnote_598_598" class="fnanchor">[598]</a>, in the north of Spain (370),—by Faustus<a name="FNanchor_599_599" id="FNanchor_599_599"></a><a href="#Footnote_599_599" class="fnanchor">[599]</a> the +African (400),—by Rufinus<a name="FNanchor_600_600" id="FNanchor_600_600"></a><a href="#Footnote_600_600" class="fnanchor">[600]</a> at Aquileia (400),—by Chrysologus<a name="FNanchor_601_601" id="FNanchor_601_601"></a><a href="#Footnote_601_601" class="fnanchor">[601]</a> +at Ravenna (433),—by Sedulius<a name="FNanchor_602_602" id="FNanchor_602_602"></a><a href="#Footnote_602_602" class="fnanchor">[602]</a> a Scot (434). +The unknown authors of two famous treatises<a name="FNanchor_603_603" id="FNanchor_603_603"></a><a href="#Footnote_603_603" class="fnanchor">[603]</a> written at +the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. +It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),—by +Vigilius of Tapsus<a name="FNanchor_604_604" id="FNanchor_604_604"></a><a href="#Footnote_604_604" class="fnanchor">[604]</a> (484) in North Africa,—by Gelasius<a name="FNanchor_605_605" id="FNanchor_605_605"></a><a href="#Footnote_605_605" class="fnanchor">[605]</a>, +bp. of Rome (492),—by Cassiodorus<a name="FNanchor_606_606" id="FNanchor_606_606"></a><a href="#Footnote_606_606" class="fnanchor">[606]</a> in Southern Italy,—by +Gregory the Great<a name="FNanchor_607_607" id="FNanchor_607_607"></a><a href="#Footnote_607_607" class="fnanchor">[607]</a>, and by other Fathers of the +Western Church.</p> + +<p>To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all +wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence +is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek,—from +which language no one doubts that they derived<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span> +their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we +are not left to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight +copies of the Bohairic version the <i>pericope de adultera</i> is +read in fifteen, but in three forms which will be printed +in the Oxford edition. In the remaining twenty-three, it is +left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage is thus +found in nearly half the copies—except on the hypothesis +that they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version? +They might have been easily omitted: but how could they +have been inserted?</p> + +<p>Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century),—the +Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century),—the +Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century),—to say +nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which +are of later date,—all contain the portion of narrative in +dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century) +originally contained it; though it survives at present in +only a few copies. Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it +will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this +portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times.</p> + +<p>But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with +Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than +B and [Symbol: Aleph]), expressly relates (380) that the <i>pericope de +adultera</i> 'is found in many copies both Greek and Latin<a name="FNanchor_608_608" id="FNanchor_608_608"></a><a href="#Footnote_608_608" class="fnanchor">[608]</a>.' +He calls attention to the fact that what is rendered 'sine +peccato' is αναμαρτητος in the Greek: and lets fall an +exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with +copies which exhibited (in ver. 8) εγραφαν ενος εκαστου αυτων +τας αμαρτιας,—a reading which survives to this day in one +uncial (U) and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth +Gospel<a name="FNanchor_609_609" id="FNanchor_609_609"></a><a href="#Footnote_609_609" class="fnanchor">[609]</a>. Whence is it—let me ask in passing—that so<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span> +many Critics fail to see that <i>positive</i> testimony like the +foregoing far outweighs the adverse <i>negative</i> testimony of +[Symbol: Aleph]BT,—aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on +this point? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes, +[Symbol: Aleph] and B, have obtained such a mastery—rather exercise +such a tyranny—over the imagination of many Critics as +quite to overpower their practical judgement? We have +at all events established our first proposition: viz. that +from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the +incident of 'the woman taken in adultery' occupied its +present place in St. John's Gospel. The Critics eagerly +remind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the +verses in question are found tacked on to the end of +St. Luke xxi. But have they then forgotten that 'these +four Codexes are derived from a common archetype,' and +therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may +add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that +in the same four Codexes [commonly called the Ferrar +Group] 'the agony and bloody sweat' (St. Luke xxii. 43, +44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel between +ch. xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of +a solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the +proper place of these or of those verses than the superfluous +digits of a certain man of Gath avail to disturb the +induction that to either hand of a human being appertain +but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes.</p> + +<p>It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony +reaches the passage under discussion stood where it now +stands in St. John's Gospel. And this is my first position. +But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one has seriously +called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except +Dr. Hort<a name="FNanchor_610_610" id="FNanchor_610_610"></a><a href="#Footnote_610_610" class="fnanchor">[610]</a>) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest +antiquity. Adverse Critics do but insist that however +ancient, it must needs be of spurious origin: or else that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span> +it is an afterthought of the Evangelist:—concerning both +which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by-and-by.</p> + +<p>It clearly follows,—indeed it may be said with truth that +it only remains,—to inquire what may have led to its so +frequent exclusion from the sacred Text? For really the +difficulty has already resolved itself into that.</p> + +<p>And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In +the earliest age of all,—the age which was familiar with +the universal decay of heathen virtue, but which had not +yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to fashion society +afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and more +enduring basis;—at a time when the greatest laxity of +morals prevailed, and the enemies of the Gospel were +known to be on the look out for grounds of cavil against +Christianity and its Author;—what wonder if some were +found to remove the <i>pericope de adultera</i> from their +copies, lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches +of the seventh commandment? The very subject-matter, +I say, of St. John viii. 3-11 would sufficiently account for +the occasional omission of those nine verses. Moral considerations +abundantly explain what is found to have here +and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere conjecture +of my own. It is the reason assigned by Augustine +for the erasure of these twelve verses from many copies +of the Gospel<a name="FNanchor_611_611" id="FNanchor_611_611"></a><a href="#Footnote_611_611" class="fnanchor">[611]</a>. Ambrose, a quarter of a century earlier, +had clearly intimated that danger was popularly apprehended<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span> +from this quarter<a name="FNanchor_612_612" id="FNanchor_612_612"></a><a href="#Footnote_612_612" class="fnanchor">[612]</a>: while Nicon, five centuries +later, states plainly that the mischievous tendency of +the narrative was the cause why it had been expunged +from the Armenian version<a name="FNanchor_613_613" id="FNanchor_613_613"></a><a href="#Footnote_613_613" class="fnanchor">[613]</a>. Accordingly, just a few +Greek copies are still to be found mutilated in respect +of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications +are not a few that all the twelve verses under discussion +did not by any means labour under the same degree +of disrepute. The first three (as I shewed at the outset) +clearly belong to a different category from the +last nine,—a circumstance which has been too much +overlooked.</p> + +<p>The Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had +made choice of St. John vii. 37-viii. 12—the greater part of +which is clearly descriptive of what happened at the Feast +of Tabernacles—for her Pentecostal lesson: and judged it +expedient, besides omitting as inappropriate to the occasion +the incident of the woman taken in adultery, to ignore also +the three preceding verses;—making the severance begin, +in fact, as far back as the end of ch. vii. 52. The reason +for this is plain. In this way the allusion to a certain +departure at night, and return early next morning (St. John +vii. 53: viii. 1), was avoided, which entirely marred the +effect of the lection as the history of a day of great and +special solemnity,—'the great day of the Feast.' And thus +it happens that the gospel for the day of Pentecost was +made to proceed directly from 'Search and look: for out +of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. vii. 52,—to 'Then +spake <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> unto them, saying, I am the light of the +world,' in ch. viii. 12; with which it ends. In other words, +an omission which owed its beginning to a moral scruple<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span> +was eventually extended for a liturgical consideration; and +resulted in severing twelve verses of St. John's Gospel—ch. +vii. 53 to viii. 11—from their lawful context.</p> + +<p>We may now proceed to the consideration of my second +proposition, which is</p> + +<p>(2) <i>That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the +Church in her corporate capacity and official character has +solemnly recognised the narrative in question as an integral +part of St. John's Gospel, and as standing in its traditional +place, from an exceedingly remote time</i>.</p> + +<p>Take into your hands at random the first MS. copy of +St. John's Gospel which presents itself, and turn to the +place in question. Nay, I will instance <i>all</i> the four Evangelia +which I call mine,—all the seventeen which belong +to Lord Zouch,—all the thirty-nine which Baroness Burdett-Coutts +imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all these +copies—(and nearly each of them represents a different line +of ancestry)—are found to contain the verses in question. +How did the verses ever get there?</p> + +<p>But the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is +behind. Some out of the Evangelia referred to are observed +to have been prepared for ecclesiastical use: in other words, +are so rubricated throughout as to shew where, every separate +lection had its 'beginning' (αρχη), and where its 'end' +(τελος). And some of these lections are made up of disjointed +portions of the Gospel. Thus, the lection for +Whitsunday is found to have extended from St. John +vii. 37 to St. John viii. 12; beginning at the words τη +εσχατη 'ημερα τη μεγαλη, and ending—το φως της ζωης: but +<i>over-leaping</i> the twelve verses now under discussion: viz. +vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, the word 'over-leap' +('υπερβα) is written in <i>all</i> the copies after vii. 52,—whereby +the reader, having read on to the end of that verse, was +directed to skip all that followed down to the words και +μηκετι 'αμαρτανε in ch. viii. 11: after which he found himself<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span> +instructed to 'recommence' (αρξαι). Again I ask (and this +time does not the riddle admit of only one solution?),—When +and how does the reader suppose that the narrative +of 'the woman taken in adultery' first found its way into +the <i>middle of the lesson for Pentecost</i>? I pause for an +answer: I shall perforce be told that it never 'found its +way' into the lection at all: but having once crept into +St. John's Gospel, however that may have been effected, +and established itself there, it left those ancient men who +devised the Church's Lectionary without choice. They +could but direct its omission, and employ for that purpose +the established liturgical formula in all similar cases.</p> + +<p>But first,—How is it that those who would reject the +narrative are not struck by the essential foolishness of +supposing that twelve fabricated verses, purporting to be +an integral part of the fourth Gospel, can have so firmly +established themselves in every part of Christendom from +the second century downwards, that they have long since +become simply ineradicable? Did the Church then, <i>pro +hac vice</i>, abdicate her function of being 'a witness and +a keeper of Holy Writ'? Was she all of a sudden forsaken +by the inspiring <span class="smcap">Spirit</span>, who, as she was promised, should +'guide her into all Truth'? And has she been all down +the ages guided into the grievous error of imputing to the +disciple whom <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> loved a narrative of which he knew +nothing? For, as I remarked at the outset, this is not +merely an assimilated expression, or an unauthorized +nominative, or a weakly-supported clause, or any such +trifling thing. Although be it remarked in passing, I am +not aware of a single such trifling excrescence which we +are not able at once to detect and to remove. In other +words, this is not at all a question, like the rest, about the +genuine text of a passage. Our inquiry is of an essentially +different kind, viz. Are these twelve consecutive verses +Scripture at all, or not? Divine or human? Which?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span> +They claim by their very structure and contents to be an +integral part of the Gospel. And such a serious accession +to the Deposit, I insist, can neither have 'crept into' the +Text, nor have 'crept out' of it. The thing is unexampled,—is +unapproached,—is impossible.</p> + +<p>Above all,—(the reader is entreated to give the subject +his sustained attention),—Is it not perceived that the +admission involved in the hypothesis before us is fatal +to any rational pretence that the passage is of spurious +origin? We have got back in thought at least to the +third or fourth century of our era. We are among the +Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern Church in conference +assembled: and they are determining what shall be the +Gospel for the great Festival of Pentecost. 'It shall +begin' (say they) 'at the thirty-seventh verse of St. John +vii, and conclude with the twelfth verse of St. John viii. +But so much of it as relates to the breaking up of the +Sanhedrin,—to the withdrawal of our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> to the Mount +of Olives,—and to His return next morning to the Temple,—had +better not be read. It disturbs the unity of the +narrative. So also had the incident of the woman taken +in adultery better not be read. It is inappropriate to the +Pentecostal Festival.' The Authors of the great Oriental +Liturgy therefore admit that they find the disputed verses +in their copies: and thus they vouch for their genuineness. +For none will doubt that, had they regarded them as +a spurious accretion to the inspired page, they would have +said so plainly. Nor can it be denied that if in their +corporate capacity they had disallowed these twelve verses, +such an authoritative condemnation would most certainly +have resulted in the perpetual exclusion from the Sacred +Text of the part of these verses which was actually adopted +as a Lection. What stronger testimony on the contrary +can be imagined to the genuineness of any given portion +of the everlasting Gospel than that it should have been<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span> +canonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by +the collective wisdom of the Church in the third or fourth +century?</p> + +<p>And no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance +that the present Pentecostal lection has been thus maimed +and mutilated in respect of twelve of its verses. There is +nothing at all extraordinary in the treatment which St. John +vii. 37-viii. 12 has here experienced. The phenomenon is +even of perpetual recurrence in the Lectionary of the +East,—as will be found explained below<a name="FNanchor_614_614" id="FNanchor_614_614"></a><a href="#Footnote_614_614" class="fnanchor">[614]</a>.</p> + +<p>Permit me to suppose that, between the Treasury and +Whitehall, the remote descendant of some Saxon thane +occupied a small tenement and garden which stood in the +very middle of the ample highway. Suppose further, +the property thereabouts being Government property, that +the road on either side of this estate had been measured +a hundred times, and jealously watched, ever since Westminster +became Westminster. Well, an act of Parliament +might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor of this +singular estate to surrender his patrimony; but I submit +that no government lawyer would ever think of setting +up the plea that the owner of that peculiar strip of land +was an impostor. The man might have no title-deeds to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span> +produce, to be sure; but counsel for the defendant would +plead that neither did he require any. 'This man's title' +(counsel would say) 'is—occupation for a thousand years. +His evidences are—the allowance of the State throughout +that long interval. Every procession to St. Stephen's—every +procession to the Abbey—has swept by defendant's +property—on this side of it and on that,—since the days +of Edward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to +quit the soil, I defy you—except by violence—to get rid +of him.'</p> + +<p>In this way then it is that the testimony borne to these +verses by the Lectionary of the East proves to be of the +most opportune and convincing character. The careful +provision made for passing by the twelve verses in dispute:—the +minute directions which fence those twelve verses off +on this side and on that, directions issued we may be sure +by the highest Ecclesiastical authority, because recognized +in every part of the ancient Church,—not only establish +them effectually in their rightful place, but (what is at least +of equal importance) fully explain the adverse phenomena +which are ostentatiously paraded by adverse critics; and +which, until the clue has been supplied, are calculated to +mislead the judgement.</p> + +<p>For now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain +why Chrysostom and Cyril, in publicly commenting on +St. John's Gospel, pass straight from ch. vii. 52 to ch. viii. +12. Of course they do. Why should they,—how could +they,—comment on what was not publicly read before the +congregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known +'scholium') to have been done by Apolinarius and Theodore +of Mopsuestia. Origen also, for aught I care,—though the +adverse critics have no right to claim him, seeing that his +commentary on all that part of St. John's Gospel is lost;—but +Origen's name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may +be added to those who did the same thing. A triumphant<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span> +refutation of the proposed inference from the silence of +these many Fathers is furnished by the single fact that +Theophylact must also be added to their number. Theophylact, +I say, ignores the <i>pericope de adultera</i>—passes it +by, I mean,—exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But +will any one pretend that Theophylact,—writing in <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> +1077,—did not know of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11? Why, in +nineteen out of every twenty copies within his reach, the +whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found.</p> + +<p>The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the +Fathers is therefore invalid. The argument <i>e silentio</i>—always +an insecure argument,—proves inapplicable in this +particular case. When the antecedent facts have been +once explained, all the subsequent phenomena become +intelligible. But a more effectual and satisfactory reply +to the difficulty occasioned by the general silence of the +Fathers, remains to be offered.</p> + +<p>There underlies the appeal to Patristic authority an +opinion,—not expressed indeed, yet consciously entertained +by us all,—which in fact gives the appeal all its weight +and cogency, and which must now by all means be brought +to the front. The fact that the Fathers of the Church +were not only her Doctors and Teachers, but also the +living voices by which alone her mind could be proclaimed +to the world, and by which her decrees used to be +authoritatively promulgated;—this fact, I say, it is which +makes their words, whenever they deliver themselves, so +very important: their approval, if they approve, so weighty; +their condemnation, if they condemn, so fatal. But then, +in the present instance, they do not condemn. They +neither approve nor condemn. They simply say nothing. +They are silent: and in what precedes, I have explained +the reason why. We wish it had been otherwise. We +would give a great deal to persuade those ancient oracles +to speak on the subject of these twelve verses: but they<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span> +are all but inexorably silent. Nay, I am overstating the +case against myself. Two of the greatest Fathers (Augustine +and Ambrose) actually do utter a few words; and +they are to the effect that the verses are undoubtedly +genuine:—'Be it known to all men' (they say) 'that this +passage <i>is</i> genuine: but the nature of its subject-matter +has at once procured its ejection from MSS., and resulted +in the silence of Commentators.' The most learned of the +Fathers in addition practically endorses the passage; for +Jerome not only leaves it standing in the Vulgate where he +found it in the Old Latin version, but relates that it was +supported by Greek as well as Latin authorities.</p> + +<p>To proceed however with what I was about to say.</p> + +<p>It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on +this difficult subject that we desiderate. We resorted to +the Fathers for that: intending to regard any quotations +of theirs, however brief, as their practical endorsement of +all the twelve verses: to infer from their general recognition +of the passage, that the Church in her collective +capacity accepted it likewise. As I have shewn, the +Fathers decline, almost to a man, to return any answer. +But,—Are we then without the Church's authoritative +guidance on this subject? For this, I repeat, is the only +thing of which we are in search. It was only in order to +get at this that we adopted the laborious expedient of +watching for the casual utterances of any of the giants +of old time. Are we, I say, left without the Church's +opinion?</p> + +<p>Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great +Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of +thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the +written records of her practice reach,—and they reach +back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence we +felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected +nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span> +October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be +impossible to adduce in evidence. Any pretence to fasten +a charge of spuriousness on a portion of Scripture so +singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else +but monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct +issue: viz. to inquire what amount of respect is due to +the Church's authority in determining the authenticity of +Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to <i>a fact</i>: and +that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church for +a very sufficient reason are very nearly silent on the subject +of these twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with +a voice of authority so loud that none can affect not to +hear it: so plain, that it cannot possibly be misunderstood. +And let me not be told that I am hereby setting up the +Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the Text +of the New Testament: still less let me be suspected of +charging on the collective body of the faithful whatever +irregularities are discoverable in the Codexes which were +employed for the public reading of Scripture. Such a +suspicion could only be entertained by one who has +hitherto failed to apprehend the precise point just now +under consideration. We are not examining the text of +St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. We are only discussing whether +those twelve verses <i>en bloc</i> are to be regarded as an integral +part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spurious accretion to it. +And that is a point on which the Church in her corporate +character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in +respect of which her verdict must needs be decisive. She +delivered her verdict in favour of these twelve verses, +remember, at a time when her copies of the Gospels were +of papyrus as well as 'old uncials' on vellum.—Nay, before +'old uncials' on vellum were at least in any general use. +True, that the transcribers of Lectionaries have proved +themselves just as liable to error as the men who transcribed +Evangelia. But then, it is incredible that those<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span> +men forged the Gospel for St. Pelagia's day: impossible, if +it were a forgery, that the Church should have adopted it. +And it is the significancy of the Church having adopted +the <i>pericope de adultera</i> as the lection for October 8, +which has never yet been sufficiently attended to: and +which I defy the Critics to account for on any hypothesis +but one: viz. that the pericope was recognized by the +ancient Eastern Church as an integral part of the Gospel.</p> + +<p>Now when to this has been added what is implied in +the rubrical direction that a ceremonious respect should be +shewn to the Festival of Pentecost by dropping the twelve +verses, I submit that I have fully established my second +position, viz. That by the very construction of her Lectionary +the Church in her corporate capacity and official character +has solemnly recognized the narrative in question, as an +integral part of St. John's Gospel, and as standing in its +traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time.</p> + +<p>For,—(I entreat the candid reader's sustained attention),—the +circumstances of the present problem altogether +refuse to accommodate themselves to any hypothesis of +a spurious original for these verses; as I proceed to shew.</p> + +<p>Repair in thought to any collection of MSS. you please; +suppose to the British Museum. Request to be shewn +their seventy-three copies of St. John's Gospel, and turn +to the close of his seventh chapter. At that particular +place you will find, in sixty-one of these copies, these +twelve verses: and in thirty-five of them you will discover, +after the words Προφητης εκ της Γαλιλαιας ουκ εγ. a rubrical +note to the effect that 'on Whitsunday, these twelve verses +are to be dropped; and the reader is to go on at ch. viii. +12.' What can be the meaning of this respectful treatment +of the Pericope in question? How can it ever have come +to pass that it has been thus ceremoniously handled all +down the ages? Surely on no possible view of the matter +but one can the phenomenon just now described be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span> +accounted for. Else, will any one gravely pretend to tell +me that at some indefinitely remote period, (1) These verses +were fabricated: (2) Were thrust into the place they at +present occupy in the sacred text: (3) Were unsuspectingly +believed to be genuine by the Church; and in consequence +of which they were at once passed over by her direction on +Whitsunday as incongruous, and appointed by the Church +to be read on October 8, as appropriate to the occasion?</p> + +<p>(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why <i>one</i> +of St. John's after-thoughts should have fared so badly at +the Church's hands;—another, so well? I find it suggested +that perhaps the subject-matter may sufficiently account for +all that has happened to the <i>pericope</i> de adultera: And so it +may, no doubt. But then, once admit <i>this</i>, and the hypothesis +under consideration becomes simply nugatory: fails +even to <i>touch</i> the difficulty which it professes to remove. +For if men were capable of thinking scorn of these twelve +verses when they found them in the 'second and improved +edition of St. John's Gospel,' why may they not have been +just as irreverent in respect of the same verses, when they +appeared in the <i>first</i> edition? How is it one whit more +probable that every Greek Father for a thousand years +should have systematically overlooked the twelve verses +in dispute when they appeared in the second edition of +St. John's Gospel, than that the same Fathers should +have done the same thing when they appeared in the +first<a name="FNanchor_615_615" id="FNanchor_615_615"></a><a href="#Footnote_615_615" class="fnanchor">[615]</a>?</p> + +<p>(4) But the hypothesis is gratuitous and nugatory: for +it has been invented in order to account for the phenomenon +that whereas twelve verses of St. John's Gospel +are found in the large majority of the later Copies,—the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span> +same verses are observed to be absent from all but one +of the five oldest Codexes. But how, (I wish to be +informed,) is that hypothesis supposed to square with these +phenomena? It cannot be meant that the 'second edition' +of St. John did not come abroad until after Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABCT +were written? For we know that the old Italic version +(a document of the second century) contains all the three +portions of narrative which are claimed for the second +edition. But if this is not meant, it is plain that some +further hypothesis must be invented in order to explain +why certain Greek MSS. of the fourth and fifth centuries +are without the verses in dispute. And this fresh hypothesis +will render that under consideration (as I said) +nugatory and shew that it was gratuitous.</p> + +<p>What chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary +suggestion is its <i>irreverence</i>. It assumes that the Gospel +according to St. John was composed like any ordinary +modern book: capable therefore of being improved in the +second edition, by recension, addition, omission, retractation, +or what not. For we may not presume to limit the +changes effected in a second edition. And yet the true +Author of the Gospel is confessedly <span class="smcap">God</span> the <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span>: +and I know of no reason for supposing that His works are +imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands.</p> + +<p>The cogency of what precedes has in fact weighed so +powerfully with thoughtful and learned Divines that they +have felt themselves constrained, as their last resource, +to cast about for some hypothesis which shall at once +account for the absence of these verses from so many +copies of St. John's Gospel, and yet retain them for their +rightful owner and author,—St. John. Singular to relate, +the assumption which has best approved itself to their +judgement has been, that there must have existed two +editions of St. John's Gospel,—the earlier edition without, +the later edition with, the incident under discussion. It is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span> +I presume, in order to conciliate favour to this singular +hypothesis, that it has been further proposed to regard +St. John v. 3, 4 and the whole of St. John xxi, (besides +St. John vii. 53-viii. 11), as after-thoughts of the Evangelist.</p> + +<p>1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but <i>the +absence</i> of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11, from so many copies +of the Gospel has constrained the Critics to regard those +verses with suspicion. Whereas, on the contrary, there is +not known to exist a copy in the world which omits so +much as a single verse of chap. xxi. Why then are we +to assume that the whole of that chapter was away from +the original draft of the Gospel? Where is the evidence +for so extravagant an assumption?</p> + +<p>2. So, concerning St. John v. 3, 4: to which there really +attaches no manner of doubt, as I have elsewhere shewn<a name="FNanchor_616_616" id="FNanchor_616_616"></a><a href="#Footnote_616_616" class="fnanchor">[616]</a>. +Thirty-two precious words in that place are indeed omitted +by [Symbol: Aleph]BC: twenty-seven by D. But by this time the +reader knows what degree of importance is to be attached +to such an amount of evidence. On the other hand, they +are found in <i>all other copies</i>: are vouched for by the +Syriac<a name="FNanchor_617_617" id="FNanchor_617_617"></a><a href="#Footnote_617_617" class="fnanchor">[617]</a> and the Latin versions: in the Apostolic Constitutions, +by Chrysostom, Cyril, Didymus, and Ammonius, +among the Greeks,—by Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, +Augustine among the Latins. Why a passage so attested +is to be assumed to be an after-thought of the Evangelist +has never yet been explained: no, nor ever will be.</p> + +<p>(5) Assuming, however, just for a moment the hypothesis +correct for argument's sake, viz. that in the second edition +of St. John's Gospel the history of the woman taken in +adultery appeared for the first time. Invite the authors of +that hypothesis to consider what follows. The discovery that +five out of six of the oldest uncials extant (to reckon here +the fragment T) are without the verses in question; which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span> +yet are contained in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the +despised cursives:—what other inference can be drawn +from such premisses, but that the cursives fortified by other +evidence are by far the more trustworthy witnesses of what +St. John in his old age actually entrusted to the Church's +keeping?</p> + +<p>[The MS. here leaves off, except that a few pencilled +words are added in an incomplete form. I have been +afraid to finish so clever and characteristic an essay.]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_576_576" id="Footnote_576_576"></a><a href="#FNanchor_576_576"><span class="label">[576]</span></a> Compare 1 Sam. xxiv. 22:—'And Saul went home: <i>but David and his +men gat them up into the hold</i>.' 1 Kings xviii. 42:—'So Ahab went up to eat +and to drink: <i>and Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, and he cast himself +down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees</i>.' Esther iii. 15:—'And +the king and Haman sat down to drink; <i>but the city of Shushan was +perplexed</i>.' Such are the idioms of the Bible.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_577_577" id="Footnote_577_577"></a><a href="#FNanchor_577_577"><span class="label">[577]</span></a> Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it, remarks that +our <span class="smcap">Lord's</span> words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a <i>viaticum</i> which all +might take home with them, at the close of this, 'the last, the great day of +the feast.'</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_578_578" id="Footnote_578_578"></a><a href="#FNanchor_578_578"><span class="label">[578]</span></a> +So Eusebius:—- Οτε κατα το αυτο συναχθεντες 'οι των Ιουδαιων εθνους +αρχοντες επι της 'ιερουσαλημ, συνεδριον εποιησαντο και σκεψιν οπως αυτον +απολεσωσιν εν 'ω 'οι μεν θανατον αυτου κατεψηφισαντο; 'ετεροι δε αντελεγον, ως +'ο Νικοδημος, κ.τ.λ. (in Psalmos, p. 230 a).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_579_579" id="Footnote_579_579"></a><a href="#FNanchor_579_579"><span class="label">[579]</span></a> Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text of the +New Testament, p. xxvii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_580_580" id="Footnote_580_580"></a><a href="#FNanchor_580_580"><span class="label">[580]</span></a> So in the LXX. See Num. v. 11-31.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_581_581" id="Footnote_581_581"></a><a href="#FNanchor_581_581"><span class="label">[581]</span></a> Ver. 17. So the LXX.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_582_582" id="Footnote_582_582"></a><a href="#FNanchor_582_582"><span class="label">[582]</span></a> 2 Cor. iv. 7: v. 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_583_583" id="Footnote_583_583"></a><a href="#FNanchor_583_583"><span class="label">[583]</span></a> Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. 11, 28: +xxi. 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_584_584" id="Footnote_584_584"></a><a href="#FNanchor_584_584"><span class="label">[584]</span></a> Consider ch. xix. 19, 20, 21, 22: xx. 30, 31: xxi. 24, 25.—1 John i. 4: +ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13.—2 John 5, 12.—3 John 9, 13.—Rev. +<i>passim</i>, especially i. 11, 19: ii. 1, &c.: x. 4: xiv. 13: xvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12, +15: xxi. 5, 27: xxii. 18, 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_585_585" id="Footnote_585_585"></a><a href="#FNanchor_585_585"><span class="label">[585]</span></a> Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_586_586" id="Footnote_586_586"></a><a href="#FNanchor_586_586"><span class="label">[586]</span></a> Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_587_587" id="Footnote_587_587"></a><a href="#FNanchor_587_587"><span class="label">[587]</span></a> Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_588_588" id="Footnote_588_588"></a><a href="#FNanchor_588_588"><span class="label">[588]</span></a> Printed Texts, 1854, p. 341.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_589_589" id="Footnote_589_589"></a><a href="#FNanchor_589_589"><span class="label">[589]</span></a> Developed Criticism, p. 82.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_590_590" id="Footnote_590_590"></a><a href="#FNanchor_590_590"><span class="label">[590]</span></a> Outlines, &c., p. 103.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_591_591" id="Footnote_591_591"></a><a href="#FNanchor_591_591"><span class="label">[591]</span></a> Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_592_592" id="Footnote_592_592"></a><a href="#FNanchor_592_592"><span class="label">[592]</span></a> Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_593_593" id="Footnote_593_593"></a><a href="#FNanchor_593_593"><span class="label">[593]</span></a> +I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, an intelligent +young American,—himself a very accurate observer and a competent +judge,—collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, and assured me that +he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codex and Woide's reprint. +One instance of <i>italicism</i> was in fact all that had been overlooked in the course +of many pages.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_594_594" id="Footnote_594_594"></a><a href="#FNanchor_594_594"><span class="label">[594]</span></a> It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes. Praefat. +p. xxx, § 86.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_595_595" id="Footnote_595_595"></a><a href="#FNanchor_595_595"><span class="label">[595]</span></a> ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_596_596" id="Footnote_596_596"></a><a href="#FNanchor_596_596"><span class="label">[596]</span></a> i. 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, +896-7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_597_597" id="Footnote_597_597"></a><a href="#FNanchor_597_597"><span class="label">[597]</span></a> i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii<sup>1</sup>. 774: iii<sup>2</sup>. 158, 183, +531-2 (where he quotes the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, +466 (largely quoted), 1120: v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places): +vi. 407, 413: viii. 377, 574.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_598_598" id="Footnote_598_598"></a><a href="#FNanchor_598_598"><span class="label">[598]</span></a> Pacian (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 372) refers the Novations to the +narrative as something which all men knew. 'Nolite in Evangelio legere +quod pepercerit Dominus etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat?' +Pacianus, Op. Epist. iii. Contr. Novat. (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 372). <i>Ap.</i> +Galland. vii. 267.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_599_599" id="Footnote_599_599"></a><a href="#FNanchor_599_599"><span class="label">[599]</span></a> <i>Ap.</i> Augustin. viii. 463.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_600_600" id="Footnote_600_600"></a><a href="#FNanchor_600_600"><span class="label">[600]</span></a> In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_601_601" id="Footnote_601_601"></a><a href="#FNanchor_601_601"><span class="label">[601]</span></a> Chrysologus, <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. +1742. He mystically explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. § 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_602_602" id="Footnote_602_602"></a><a href="#FNanchor_602_602"><span class="label">[602]</span></a> Sedulius (<span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 435) makes it the subject of a +poem, and devotes a whole chapter to it. <i>Ap.</i> Galland. ix. 553 and +590.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_603_603" id="Footnote_603_603"></a><a href="#FNanchor_603_603"><span class="label">[603]</span></a> 'Promiss.' De Promissionibus dimid. temp. (saec. iv). +Quotes viii. 4, 5, 9. P. 2, c. 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct., De +Vocatione omnium Gentium (circa, <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 440), <i>ap.</i> Opp. +Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. p. 460-1:—'Adulteram ex legis constitutione +lapidandam ... liberavit ... cum executores praecepti de conscientiis +territi, trementem ream sub illius iudicio reliquissent.... Et +inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus ... "digito scribebat in terram," +ut legem mandatorum per gratiae decreta vacuaret,' &c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_604_604" id="Footnote_604_604"></a><a href="#FNanchor_604_604"><span class="label">[604]</span></a> Wrongly ascribed to Idacius.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_605_605" id="Footnote_605_605"></a><a href="#FNanchor_605_605"><span class="label">[605]</span></a> Gelasius P. <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 492. Conc. iv. 1235. Quotes +viii. 3, 7, 10, 11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_606_606" id="Footnote_606_606"></a><a href="#FNanchor_606_606"><span class="label">[606]</span></a> Cassiodorus, <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. +11. See ii. p. 96, 3, 5-180.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_607_607" id="Footnote_607_607"></a><a href="#FNanchor_607_607"><span class="label">[607]</span></a> Dialogues, xiv. 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_608_608" id="Footnote_608_608"></a><a href="#FNanchor_608_608"><span class="label">[608]</span></a> ii. 748:—In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis +codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_609_609" id="Footnote_609_609"></a><a href="#FNanchor_609_609"><span class="label">[609]</span></a> 'ενος 'εκαστου αυτων τας 'αμαρτιας. Ev. 95, 40, +48, 64, 73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, +736.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_610_610" id="Footnote_610_610"></a><a href="#FNanchor_610_610"><span class="label">[610]</span></a> Appendix, p. 88.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_611_611" id="Footnote_611_611"></a><a href="#FNanchor_611_611"><span class="label">[611]</span></a> vi. 407:—Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli +modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem +dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus +fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui +dixit, 'Iam deinceps noli peccare;' aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo +illius peccati remissione sanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. adult. ii. +cap. 7. i. 707:—Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit imperitis +Evangelii lectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Christo +oblatam, eamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis en auribus +accipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deus censuerit +adulterium non esse damnandum.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_612_612" id="Footnote_612_612"></a><a href="#FNanchor_612_612"><span class="label">[612]</span></a> Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. xxii. 29-30), +<i>Terra, terra, scribe hos vivos abdicatos</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_613_613" id="Footnote_613_613"></a><a href="#FNanchor_613_613"><span class="label">[613]</span></a> Constt. App. (Gen. in. 49). Nicon (Gen. iii. 250). I am not certain +about these two references.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_614_614" id="Footnote_614_614"></a><a href="#FNanchor_614_614"><span class="label">[614]</span></a> Two precious verses (viz. the forty-third and forty-fourth) used to be +omitted from the lection for Tuesday before Quinquagesima,—viz. St. Luke +xxii. 39-xxiii. 1. +</p><p> +The lection for the preceding Sabbath (viz. St. Luke xxi. 8-36) consisted of +only the following verses,—ver. 8, 9, 25-27, 33-36. All the rest (viz. verses +10-24 and 28-32) was omitted. +</p><p> +On the ensuing Thursday, St. Luke xxiii was handled in a similar style: viz. +ver. 1-31, 33, 44-56 alone were read,—all the other verses being left out. +</p><p> +On the first Sabbath after Pentecost (All Saints'), the lesson consisted of +St. Matt. x. 32, 33, 37-38: xix. 27-30. +</p><p> +On the fifteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv. 1-9, +13 (leaving out verses 10, 11, 12). +</p><p> +On the sixteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv. +34-37, 42-44 (leaving out verses 38-41). +</p><p> +On the sixth Sabbath of St. Luke,—the lesson was ch. viii. 26-35 followed +by verses 38 and 39.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_615_615" id="Footnote_615_615"></a><a href="#FNanchor_615_615"><span class="label">[615]</span></a> 'This celebrated paragraph ... was probably not contained in the first +edition of St. John's Gospel but added at the time when his last chapter was +annexed to what had once been the close of his narrative,—xx. 30, 31.' +Scrivener's Introduction to Cod. D, p. 50.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_616_616" id="Footnote_616_616"></a><a href="#FNanchor_616_616"><span class="label">[616]</span></a> In an unpublished paper.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_617_617" id="Footnote_617_617"></a><a href="#FNanchor_617_617"><span class="label">[617]</span></a> It is omitted in some MSS. of the Peshitto.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="appendix_ii" id="appendix_ii"></a>APPENDIX II.</h2> + +<h3>CONFLATION AND THE SO-CALLED NEUTRAL TEXT.</h3> + + +<p>Some of the most courteous of our critics, in reviewing +the companion volume to this, have expressed regret that +we have not grappled more closely than we have done with +Dr. Hort's theory. I have already expressed our reasons. +Our object has been to describe and establish what we conceive +to be the true principles of Sacred Textual Science. +We are concerned only in a secondary degree with opposing +principles. Where they have come in our way, we have +endeavoured to remove them. But it has not entered +within our design to pursue them into their fastnesses and +domiciles. Nevertheless, in compliance with a request +which is both proper and candid, I will do what I can +to examine with all the equity that I can command an +essential part of Dr. Hort's system, which appears to +exercise great influence with his followers.</p> + + +<h3>§ 1.</h3> + +<h3>CONFLATION.</h3> + +<p>Dr. Hort's theory of 'Conflation' may be discovered on +pp. 93-107. The want of an index to his Introduction, +notwithstanding his ample 'Contents,' makes it difficult to +collect illustrations of his meaning from the rest of his +treatise. Nevertheless, the effect of Conflation appears to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span> +be well described in his words on p. 133:—'Now however +the three great lines were brought together, and made to +contribute to a text different from all.' In other words, +by means of a combination of the Western, Alexandrian, +and 'Neutral' Texts—'the great lines of transmission ... to +all appearance exclusively divergent,'—the 'Syrian' text +was constructed in a form different from any one and all +of the other three. Not that all these three were made +to contribute on every occasion. We find (p. 93) Conflation, +or Conflate Readings, introduced as proving the 'posteriority +of Syrian to Western ... and other ... readings.' And +in the analysis of eight passages, which is added, only in +one case (St. Mark viii. 26) are more than two elements +represented, and in that the third class consists of 'different +conflations' of the first and second<a name="FNanchor_618_618" id="FNanchor_618_618"></a><a href="#Footnote_618_618" class="fnanchor">[618]</a>.</p> + +<p>Our theory is the converse in main features to this. +We utterly repudiate the term 'Syrian' as being a most +inadequate and untrue title for the Text adopted and +maintained by the Catholic Church with all her intelligence +and learning, during nearly fifteen centuries according +to Dr. Hort's admission: and we claim from the evidence +that the Traditional Text of the Gospels, under the true +name, is that which came fresh from the pens of the +Evangelists; and that all variations from it, however they +have been entitled, are nothing else than corrupt forms of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span> +the original readings.</p> + +<p>The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's +or ours?</p> + +<p>The general points that strike us with reference to +Dr. Hort's theory are:—</p> + +<p>(1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. +Given three things, of which X includes what is in Y and +Z, upon the face of the theory either X may have arisen +by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Z may owe their +origin by analysis to X.</p> + +<p>(2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort's arguments +for the posteriority of D are mainly of an internal +character, and are loose and imaginative, depending largely +upon personal or literary predilections.</p> + +<p>(3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church +of the fourth and fifth centuries, which in a most able +period had been occupied with discussions on verbal +accuracy, should have made the gross mistake of adopting +(what was then) a modern concoction from the original<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span> +text of the Gospels, which had been written less than +three or four centuries before; and that their error should +have been acknowledged as truth, and perpetuated by the +ages that succeeded them down to the present time.</p> + +<p>But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument.</p> + +<p>He founds it upon a detailed examination of eight +passages, viz. St. Mark vi. 33; viii. 26; ix. 38; ix. 49; +St. Luke ix. 10; xi. 54; xii. 18; xxiv. 53.</p> + +<p>1. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. +Did the author decide upon it with a view of presenting +two specimens from each Gospel? To be sure, he gives +four from the first two, and four from the two last, only that +he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St. Luke. +Did the strong style of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning +in every word, yield no suitable example for treatment? +Could no passage be found in St. John's Gospel, where not +without parallel, but to a remarkable degree, extreme +simplicity of language, even expressed in alternative clauses, +clothes soaring thought and philosophical acuteness? True, +that he quotes St. John v. 37 as an instance of Conflation +by the Codex Bezae which is anything but an embodiment +of the Traditional or 'Syrian' Text, and xiii. 24 which is +similarly irrelevant. Neither of these instances therefore +fill up the gap, and are accordingly not included in the +selected eight. What can we infer from this presentment, +but that 'Conflation' is probably not of frequent occurrence +as has been imagined, but may indeed be—to admit for +a moment its existence—nothing more than an occasional +incident? For surely, if specimens in St. Matthew and +St. John had abounded to his hand, and accordingly 'Conflation' +had been largely employed throughout the Gospels, +Dr. Hort would not have exercised so restricted, and yet so +round a choice.</p> + +<p>2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon +as we have seen has calculated the differences between<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span> +B and the Received Text at 7,578, and those which divide +[Symbol: Aleph] and the Received Text as reaching 8,972. He divided +these totals respectively under 2,877 and 3,455 omissions, +556 and 839 additions, 2,098 and 2,299 transpositions, and +2,067 and 2,379 substitutions and modifications combined. +Of these classes, it is evident that Conflation has nothing +to do with Additions or Transpositions. Nor indeed with +Substitutions, although one of Dr. Hort's instances appears +to prove that it has. Conflation is the combination of +two (or more) different expressions into one. If therefore +both expressions occur in one of the elements, the Conflation +has been made beforehand, and a substitution then +occurs instead of a conflation. So in St. Luke xii. 18, +B, &c., read τον σιτον και τα αγαθα μου which Dr. Hort<a name="FNanchor_619_619" id="FNanchor_619_619"></a><a href="#Footnote_619_619" class="fnanchor">[619]</a> +considers to be made by Conflation into τα γενηματα μου και +τα αγαθα μου, because τα γενηματα μου is found in Western +documents. The logic is strange, but as Dr. Hort has +claimed it, we must perhaps allow him to have intended +to include with this strange incongruity some though not +many Substitutions in his class of instances, only that we +should like to know definitely what substitutions were to +be comprised in this class. For I shrewdly suspect that +there were actually none. Omissions are now left to us, of +which the greater specimens can hardly have been produced +by Conflation. How, for instance, could you get the last +Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, or the Pericope de +Adultera, or St. Luke xxii. 43-44, or any of the rest of the +forty-five whole verses in the Gospels upon which a slur +is cast by the Neologian school? Consequently, the area +of Conflation is greatly reduced. And I venture to think, +that supposing for a moment the theory to be sound, it +could not account for any large number of variations, but +would at the best only be a sign or symptom found every<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span> +now and then of the derivation attributed to the Received +Text.</p> + +<p>3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. +And first to examine Dr. Hort's eight instances. Unfortunately, +the early patristic evidence on these verses is +scanty. We have little evidence of a direct character to +light up the dark sea of conjecture.</p> + +<p>(1) St. Mark (vi. 22) relates that on a certain occasion +the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and his +disciples on their way in a ship crossing to the other side +of the lake, ran together (συνεδραμον) from all their cities +to the point which He was making for (εκει), and arrived +there before the Lord and His followers (προηλθον αυτους), +and on His approach came in a body to Him (συνηλθον προς +αυτον). And on disembarking (και εξελθων), i.e. (εκ του πλοιου, +ver. 32), &c. It should be observed, that it was only the +Apostles who knew that His ultimate object was 'a desert +place' (ver. 31, 30): the indiscriminate multitude could +only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was +going: and up to what I have described as the disembarkation +(ver. 34), nothing has been said of His movements, +except that He was in the boat upon the lake. The +account is pictorial. We see the little craft toiling on the +lake, the people on the shores running all in one direction, +and on their reaching the heights above the place of +landing watching His approach, and then descending +together to Him to the point where He is going to land. +There is nothing weak or superfluous in the description. +Though condensed (what would a modern history have +made of it?), it is all natural and in due place.</p> + +<p>Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause (και +προηλθον αυτους) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers; +another (και συνηλθον αυτου or ηλθον αυτου, which is very +different from the 'Syrian' συνηλθον προς αυτον) by some +Western documents; and he argues that the entire form<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span> +in the Received Text, και προηλθον αυτους, και συνηλθον +προς αυτον, was formed by Conflation from the other two. +I cannot help observing that it is a suspicious mark, that +even in the case of the most favoured of his chosen examples +he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of his +elements of Conflation as virtually to doctor it in order +to bring it strictly to the prescribed pattern. When we +come to his arguments he candidly admits, that 'it is +evident that either Δ (the Received Text) is conflate from +[Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and β (Western), +or α and β are independent +simplifications of Δ'; and that 'there is nothing in the +sense of Δ that would tempt to alteration,' and that 'accidental' +omission of one or other clause would 'be easy.' +But he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause +that the difference between αυτου and προς αυτον is really +in his favour, chiefly because αυτου would very likely <i>if</i> +it had previously existed been changed into προς αυτον—which +no one can doubt; and that 'συνηλθον προς αυτον +is certainly otiose after συνεδραμον εκει,' which shews that +he did not understand the whole meaning of the passage. +His argument upon what he terms 'Intrinsic Probability' +leads to a similar inference. For simply εξελθων cannot +mean that 'He "came out" of His retirement in some +sequestered nook to meet them,' such a nook being not +mentioned by St. Mark, whereas πλοιον is; nor can εκει +denote 'the desert region.' Indeed the position of that +region or nook was known before it was reached solely +to our Lord and His Apostles: the multitude was guided +only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise.</p> + +<p>Accordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. +'The balance of Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from +Transcriptional and from Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly' +<i>not</i> 'in favour of Δ from α and β,' +<i>but</i> 'of α and β from Δ.' +The reading of the Traditional Text is the superior both +as regards the meaning, and as to the probability of its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span> +pre-existence. The derivation of the two others from that +is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is +termed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is +proved by a largely over-balancing weight of evidence.</p> + +<p>(2) 'To examine other passages equally in detail would +occupy too much space.' So says Dr. Hort: but we must +examine points that require attention.</p> + +<p>St. Mark viii. 26. After curing the blind man outside +Bethsaida, our Lord in that remarkable period of His +career directed him, according to the Traditional reading, +(α) neither to enter into that place, μηδε εις την κωμην +εισελθης, nor (β) to tell what had happened to any inhabitant +of Bethsaida (μηδε ειπης τινι εν τη κωμη). Either some +one who did not understand the Greek, or some matter-of-fact +and officious scholar, or both, thought or maintained +that τινι εν τη κωμη must mean some one who was at the +moment actually in the place. So the second clause got +to be omitted from the text of B[Symbol: Aleph], who are followed only +by one cursive and a half (the first reading of 1 being +afterwards corrected), and the Bohairic version, and the +Lewis MS. The Traditional reading is attested by ACNΣ +and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except eight, of +which six with Φ read a consolidation of both clauses, by +several versions, and by Theophylact (i. 210) who is the +only Father that quotes the place. This evidence ought +amply to ensure the genuineness of this reading.</p> + +<p>But what says Dr. Hort? 'Here α is simple and +vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the +peculiar Μηδε has the terse force of many sayings as given +by St. Mark, but the softening into Μη by [Symbol: Aleph]* shews that +it might trouble scribes.' It is surely not necessary to +controvert this. It may be said however that α is bald as +well as simple, and that the very difficulty in β makes it +probable that that clause was not invented. To take τινι +εν τη κωμη Hebraistically for τινι των εν τη κωμη, like the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span> +τις εν 'υμιν of St. James v. 19<a name="FNanchor_620_620" id="FNanchor_620_620"></a><a href="#Footnote_620_620" class="fnanchor">[620]</a>, need not trouble scholars, +I think. Otherwise they can follow Meyer, according to +Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate the second μηδε +<i>nor even</i>. At all events, this is a poor pillar to support +a great theory.</p> + +<p>(3) St. Mark ix. 38. 'Master, we saw one casting out +devils in Thy name, (β) who doth not follow us, and we +forbad him (α) because he followeth not us.'</p> + +<p>Here the authority for α is [Symbol: Aleph]BCLΔ, +four Cursives, f, +Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis MS. For β +there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but f and the +Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage, +AΦΣN + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but six, the Harkleian +(yet obelizes α) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252), +Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact (i. 219): +and Augustine quotes separately both omissions (α ix. 533, +and β III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so far as I can find, +quote the passage.</p> + +<p>Dr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on +his side, relying apparently upon the obvious repetition. +In the first part of the verse, St. John describes the case +of the man: in the second he reports for our Lord's judgement +the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles +gave him. Is it so certain that the original text of the +passage contained only the description, and omitted the +reason of the prohibition as it was given to the non-follower +of our Lord? To me it seems that the simplicity +of St. Mark's style is best preserved by the inclusion of +both. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man: they +treated him with reasonableness, and in the same spirit +St. John reported to his Master all that occurred. Besides +this, the evidence on the Traditional side is too strong to +admit of it not being the genuine reading.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span></p> + +<p>(4) St. Mark ix. 49. 'For (α) every one shall be salted +with fire, (β) and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.' +The authorities are—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. [Symbol: Aleph]BLΔ, fifteen Cursives, +some MSS. of the Bohairic, +some of the Armenian, and the Lewis.</p> + +<p>β. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of the +Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. ACΦΣN and twelve more Uncials, all +Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate, +Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. of Ethiopic and +Armenian, Gothic, Victor of Antioch (Cramer's Cat. +i. 368), Theophylact (i. 221).</p></div> + +<p>This evidence must surely be conclusive of the +genuineness of the Traditional reading. But now for +Dr. Hort.</p> + +<p>'A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 ... has created β out +of α.' But why should not the reminiscence have been our +Lord's? The passage appears like a quotation, or an +adaptation, of some authoritative saying. He positively +advances no other argument than the one just quoted, +beyond stating two points in which the alteration might be +easily effected.</p> + +<p>(5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and +withdrew privately</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. Into a city called Bethsaida (εις πολιν καλουμενην B.).</p> + +<p>β. Into a desert place (εις τοπον ερημον), or +Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida.</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city +called Bethsaida.'</p></div> + +<p>The evidence for these readings respectively is—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. BLXΞ, with one correction of [Symbol: Aleph] +(C<sup>a</sup>), one Cursive, +the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads κωμην.</p> + +<p>β. The first and later readings (C<sup>b</sup>) of [Symbol: Aleph], four Cursives?, +Curetonian, some variant Old Latin (β<sup>2</sup>), Peshitto also +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span>variant (β<sup>3</sup>).</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. A (with ερημον τοπον) C + twelve Uncials, all +Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits +ερημον), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact +(i. 33).</p></div> + +<p>Remark the curious character of α and β. In Dr. Hort's +Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the original +text of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having +withdrawn in private (κατ' ιδιαν, which the Revisers shirking +the difficulty translate inaccurately 'apart') <i>into the city +called Bethsaida</i>. How could there have been privacy of +life <i>in</i> a city in those days? In fact, κατ' ιδιαν necessitates +the adoption of τοπον ερημον, as to which the Peshitto (β<sup>3</sup>) +is in substantial agreement with the Traditional Text. +Bethsaida is represented as the capital of a district, which +included, at sufficient distance from the city, a desert or +retired spot. The group arranged under β is so weakly +supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, +that it can come into no sort of competition with the +Traditional reading. Dr. Hort confines himself to shewing +<i>how</i> the process he advocates might have arisen, not <i>that</i> +it did actually arise. Indeed, this position can only be +held by assuming the conclusion to be established that it +<i>did</i> so arise.</p> + +<p>(6) St. Luke xi. 54. 'The Scribes and Pharisees began +to urge Him vehemently and to provoke Him to speak of +many things (ενεδρευοντες θηρευσαι),</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His +mouth.</p> + +<p>β. Seeking to get some opportunity (αφορμην τινα) for +finding out how to accuse Him ('ινα ευρωσιν κατηγορησαι); or, +for accusing Him ('ινα κατηγορησωσιν αυτου).</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, <i>and</i> seeking to catch +something (ζητουντες θηρευσαι τι) out of His mouth, that +they might accuse Him.'</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span></p> + +<p>The evidence is—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. +Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not accurately).</p> + +<p>β. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except +five which omit ζητουντες), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission), +Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).</p></div> + +<p>As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading +Α is Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into +the bargain, ενεδρευοντες θηρευσαι being very rough, and +being probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the +Greek language. If α was the original, it is hard to see +how β could have come from it. That the figurative +language of α was replaced in β by a simply descriptive +paraphrase, as Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. +On the other hand, the derivation of either α or β from the +Traditional Text is much easier. A scribe would without +difficulty pass over one of the participles lying contiguously +with no connecting conjunction, and having a kind of +Homoeoteleuton. And as to β, the distinguishing αφορμην +τινα would be a very natural gloss, requiring for completeness +of the phrase the accompanying λαβειν. This is surely +a more probable solution of the question of the mutual +relationship of the readings than the laboured account of +Dr. Hort, which is too long to be produced here.</p> + +<p>(7) St. Luke xii. 18. 'I will pull down my barns, and +build greater, and there will I bestow all</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. My corn and my goods.</p> + +<p>β. My crops (τα γενηματα μου). +My fruits (τους καρπους μου).</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. My crops (τα γενηματα μου) and my goods.'</p></div> + +<p>This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, +as Dr. Hort admitted, in α of the more comprehensive +word γενηματα for σιτον, and a simple omission of και τα +αγαθα μου in β. And the admission of it into the selected<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span> +eight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced +in choosing his examples. The evidence is—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol: Aleph](a^{c}), eight Cursives, +Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic.</p> + +<p>β. [Symbol: Aleph]*D, three Cursives, b ff i q, Curetonian and Lewis, +St. Ambrose (i. 573).</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except +twelve, <i>f</i>, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. +294-5) <i>bis</i>, Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus +(Migne 52, 490-1) <i>bis</i>.</p></div> + +<p>No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are +too common to require justification.</p> + +<p>(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. 'They were continually in the +temple</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. Blessing God (ευλογουντες).</p> + +<p>β. Praising God (αινουντες).</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.'</p></div> + +<p>The evidence is—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>α. [Symbol: Aleph]BC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian, Lewis.</p> + +<p>β. D, seven Old Latin.</p> + +<p>Trad. Text. AC<sup>2</sup> + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q, +Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, +Theophylact (i. 497).</p></div> + +<p>Dr. Hort adds no remarks. He seems to have thought, +that because he had got an instance which outwardly met +all the requirements laid down, therefore it would prove the +conclusion it was intended to prove. Now it is evidently an +instance of the omission of either of two words from the +complete account by different witnesses. The Evangelist +employed both words in order to emphasize the gratitude +of the Apostles. The words are not tautological. Αινος is +the set praise of God, drawn out in more or less length, +properly as offered in addresses to Him<a name="FNanchor_621_621" id="FNanchor_621_621"></a><a href="#Footnote_621_621" class="fnanchor">[621]</a>. Ευλογια includes +all speaking well of Him, especially when uttered before<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span> +other men. Thus the two expressions describe in combination +the life of gratitude exhibited unceasingly by +the expectant and the infant Church. Continually in the +temple they praised Him in devotion, and told the people +of His glorious works.</p> + +<p>4. Such are the eight weak pillars upon which Dr. Hort +built his theory which was to account for the existence of +his Neutral Text, and the relation of it towards other Texts +or classes of readings. If his eight picked examples can +be thus demolished, then surely the theory of Conflation +must be utterly unsound. Or if in the opinion of some of +my readers my contention goes too far, then at any rate +they must admit that it is far from being firm, if it does +not actually reel and totter. The opposite theory of +omission appears to be much more easy and natural.</p> + +<p>But the curious phenomenon that Dr. Hort has rested +his case upon so small an induction as is supplied by only +eight examples—if they are not in fact only seven—has +not yet received due explanation. Why, he ought to have +referred to twenty-five or thirty at least. If Conflation is +so common, he might have produced a large number of +references without working out more than was enough for +illustration as patterns. This question must be investigated +further. And I do not know how to carry out such an +investigation better, than to examine some instances which +come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each +Gospel.</p> + +<p>It must be borne in mind, that for Conflation two differently-attested +phrases or words must be produced which +are found in combination in some passage of the Traditional +Text. If there is only one which is omitted, it is clear +that there can be no Conflation because there must be at +least two elements to conflate: accordingly our instances +must be cases, not of single omission, but of double or +alternative omission. If again there is no Western reading,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span> +it is not a Conflation in Dr. Hort's sense. And finally, if +the remaining reading is not a 'Neutral' one, it is not to +Dr. Hort's liking. I do not say that my instances will +conform with these conditions. Indeed, after making a list +of all the omissions in the Gospels, except those which are +of too petty a character such as leaving out a pronoun, +and having searched the list with all the care that I can +command, I do not think that such instances can be +found. Nevertheless, I shall take eight, starting from the +beginning of St. Matthew, and choosing the most salient +examples, being such also that, if Dr. Hort's theory be +sound, they ought to conform to his requirements. Similarly, +there will come then four from either of St. Mark +and St. Luke, and eight from St. John. This course of +proceeding will extend operations from the eight which +form Dr. Hort's total to thirty-two.</p> + +<p>A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον +and τον 'Υιον; (2) v. 22, εικη and τω αδελφω αυτου; (3) ix. 13, +εις μετανοιαν; (4) x. 3, Λεββαιος and Θαδδαιος; (5) xii. 22, +τυφλον και and κωφον; (6) xv. 5, τον πατερα αυτου and +('η) την μητερα αυτου, +(7) xviii. 35, απο των καρδιων 'υμων and τα παραπτωματα αυτων; +and (8) xxvi. 3, 'οι πρεσβυτεροι (και) 'οι Γραμματεις. +I have had some difficulty in making up the +number. Of those selected as well as I could, seven are +cases of single omission or of one pure omission apiece, +though their structure presents a possibility of two members +for Conflation; whilst the Western element comes in +sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and +the retention; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and +(3), the support is not only Western, but universal. Consequently, +all but (4) are excluded. Of (4) Dr. Hort remarks, +(Notes on Select Readings, p. 11) that it is 'a case of +Conflation of the true and the chief Western Texts,' and +accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle.</p> + +<p>B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, 'Υιου του Θεου and Ιησου Χριστου;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span> +(2) i. 2, εμπροσθεν σου and προ προσωπου σου (cp. ix. +38); (3) iii. 15, θεραπευειν τας νοσους (και) and εκβαλλειν τα +δαιμονια; (4) xiii. 33, αγρυπνειτε and (και) προσευχεσθε. All +these instances turn out to be cases of the omission of only +one of the parallel expressions. The omission in the first is +due mainly to Origen (<i>see</i> Traditional Text, Appendix IV): +in the three last there is Western evidence on both sides.</p> + +<p>C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, γυναικι and μεμνηστευμενη; +(2) iv. 4, επι παντι 'ρηματι Θεου, or επ' αρτω μονω; (3) viii. 54, +εκβαλων εξω παντας (και), or κρατησας της χειρος αυτης; xi. 4, +(αλλα) 'ρυσαι 'ημας απο του πονηρου, or μη εισενενκης 'ημας εις +πειρασμον. In all these cases, examination discloses that +they are examples of pure omission of only one of the +alternatives. The only evidence against this is the solitary +rejection of μεμνηστευμενη by the Lewis Codex.</p> + +<p>D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, μη αποληται, +or εχη ζωην αιωνιον; (2) iv. 14, ου μη διψηση εις τον αιωνα, +or το 'υδωρ 'ο δωσω αυτω γενησεται εν αυτω πηγη 'υδατος, κ.τ.λ.; +(3) iv. 42, 'ο Χριστος, or 'ο σωτηρ του κοσμου; (4) iv. 51, +και απηνγειλαν and λεγοντες; (5) v. 16, +και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι +and εδιωκον αυτον; (6) vi. 51, 'ην εγω δωσω, or +'ου εγω δωσω; (7) ix. 1, 25, και ειπεν or +απεκριθη; (8) xiii. 31, 32, ει 'ο Θεος εδοξασθη εν αυτω, +and και 'ο Θεος εδοξασθη εν αυτω. All +these instances turn out to be single omissions:—a fact which +is the more remarkable, because St. John's style so readily +lends itself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving +the same result in meaning, that we should expect conflations +to shew themselves constantly if the Traditional Text +had so coalesced.</p> + +<p>How surprising a result:—almost too surprising. Does +it not immensely strengthen my contention that Dr. Hort +took wrongly Conflation for the reverse process? That +in the earliest ages, when the Church did not include in +her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, +the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span> +made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness +which involved a temporary chipping of the Sacred Text +all through the Holy Gospels? And, in fact, that Conflation +at least as an extensive process, if not altogether, did not +really exist.</p> + + +<h3>§ 2.</h3> + +<h3>THE NEUTRAL TEXT.</h3> + +<p>Here we are brought face to face with the question +respecting the Neutral Text. What in fact is it, and does +it deserve the name which Dr. Hort and his followers have +attempted to confer permanently upon it? What is the +relation that it bears to other so-called Texts?</p> + +<p>So much has been already advanced upon this subject in +the companion volume and in the present, that great +conciseness is here both possible and expedient. But it +may be useful to bring the sum or substance of those +discussions into one focus.</p> + +<p>1. The so-called Neutral Text, as any reader of Dr. +Hort's Introduction will see, is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph] and +their small following. That following is made up of Z in +St. Matthew, Δ in St. Mark, the fragmentary Ξ in St. Luke, +with frequent agreement with them of D, and of the eighth +century L; with occasional support from some of the +group of Cursives, consisting of 1, 33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209, +and from the Ferrar group, or now and then from some +others, as well as from the Latin k, and the Egyptian or +other versions. This perhaps appears to be a larger +number than our readers may have supposed, but rarely +are more than ten MSS. found together, and generally +speaking less, and often much less than that. To all general +intents and purposes, the Neutral Text is the text of B-[Symbol: Aleph].</p> + +<p>2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral +Text appears hardly in history except at the Semiarian<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span> +period. It was almost disowned ever after: and there is +no certainty—nothing more than inference which we hold, +and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive,—that, +except as represented in the corruption which it +gathered out of the chaos of the earliest times, it made +any appearance.</p> + +<p>3. Thus, as a matter of history acknowledged by Dr. +Hort, it was mainly superseded before the end of the +century of its emergence by the Traditional Text, which, +except in the tenets of a school of critics in the nineteenth +century, has reigned supreme ever since.</p> + +<p>4. That it was not the original text of the Gospels, as +maintained by Dr. Hort, I claim to have established from +an examination of the quotations from the Gospels made by +the Fathers. It has been proved that not only in number, +but still more conclusively in quality, the Traditional Text +enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all the kinds +of corruption advocated by some critics which I have just +now mentioned<a name="FNanchor_622_622" id="FNanchor_622_622"></a><a href="#Footnote_622_622" class="fnanchor">[622]</a>. This conclusion is strengthened by the +verdict of the early versions.</p> + +<p>5. The inferiority of the 'Neutral Text' is demonstrated +by the overwhelming weight of evidence which is marshalled +against it on passages under dispute. This glaring +contrast is increased by the disagreement among themselves +of the supporters of that Text, or class of readings. +As to antiquity, number, variety, weight, and continuity, +that Text falls hopelessly behind: and by internal evidence +also the texts of B and [Symbol: Aleph], and still more the eccentric text +of the Western D, are proved to be manifestly inferior.</p> + +<p>6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span> +inferential, that B and [Symbol: Aleph] issued nearly together from the +library or school of Caesarea. The fact of their being the +oldest MSS. of the New Testament in existence, which has +naturally misled people and caused them to be credited +with extraordinary value, has been referred, as being +mainly due, to their having been written on vellum according +to the fashion introduced in that school, instead of the +ordinary papyrus. The fact of such preservation is really +to their discredit, instead of resounding to their honour, +because if they had enjoyed general approval, they would +probably have perished creditably many centuries ago in +the constant use for which they were intended.</p> + +<p>Such are the main points in the indictment and in the +history of the Neutral Text, or rather—to speak with +more appropriate accuracy, avoiding the danger of drawing +with too definite a form and too deep a shade—of the +class of readings represented by B and [Symbol: Aleph]. It is interesting +to trace further, though very summarily, the connexion +between this class of readings and the corruptions of the +Original Text which existed previously to the early middle +of the fourth century. Such brief tracing will lead us to +a view of some causes of the development of Dr. Hort's +theory.</p> + +<p>The analysis of Corruption supplied as to the various +kinds of it by Dean Burgon has taught us how they +severally arose. This is fresh in the mind of readers, and +I will not spoil it by repetition. But the studies of textual +critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruption +chiefly under the two heads of the Western or Syrio-Low-Latin +class, and in a less prominent province of the +Alexandrian. Dr. Hort's Neutral is really a combination +of those two, with all the accuracy that these phenomena +admit. But of course, if the Neutral were indeed the +original Text, it would not do for it to be too closely connected +with one of such bad reputation as the Western,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> +which must be kept in the distance at all hazards. Therefore +he represented it—all unconsciously no doubt and +with the best intention—as one of the sources of the +Traditional, or as he called it the 'Syrian' Text. Hence +this imputed connexion between the Western and the +Traditional Text became the essential part of his framework +of Conflation, which could not exist without it. For any +permanent purpose, all this handiwork was in vain. To +say no more, D, which is the chief representative of the +Western Text, is too constant a supporter of the peculiar +readings of B and [Symbol: Aleph] not to prove its near relationship to +them. The 'Neutral' Text derives the chief part of its +support from Western sources. It is useless for Dr. Hort +to disown his leading constituents. And on the other +hand, the Syrio-Low-Latin Text is too alien to the Traditional +to be the chief element in any process, Conflate or +other, out of which it could have been constructed. The +occasional support of some of the Old Latin MSS. is +nothing to the point in such a proof. They are so fitful +and uncertain, that some of them may witness to almost +anything. If Dr. Hort's theory of Conflation had been +sounder, there would have been no lack of examples.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>'Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret.'</p></div> + +<p>He was tempted to the impossible task of driving water +uphill. Therefore I claim, not only to have refuted Dr. +Hort, whose theory is proved to be even more baseless +than I ever imagined, but by excavating more deeply than +he did, to have discovered the cause of his error.</p> + +<p>No: the true theory is, that the Traditional Text—not +in superhuman perfection, though under some superhuman +Guidance—is the embodiment of the original Text of the +New Testament. In the earliest times, just as false +doctrines were widely spread, so corrupt readings prevailed +in many places. Later on, when Christianity was better<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span> +understood, and the Church reckoned amongst the learned +and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects +of the world, and many clever men of inferior character +endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, +evil rose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe +struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day. +So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced +by true and well-grounded belief. With great ability and +with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word +was verified and established. General Councils decided in +those days upon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted +and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good +and bequeathed to future ages. So it was both as to the +Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that all +was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was +heard. But none the less, corruption after short-lived +prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity, whilst +the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true Text upon +a firm and lasting basis.</p> + +<p>And so I venture to hold, now that the question has +been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will +come gradually to see, that no other course respecting the +Words of the New Testament is so strongly justified by +the evidence, none so sound and large-minded, none so +reasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent +faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and +hope, as to maintain against all the assaults of corruption</p> + +<p class="center">THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span></p> + +<p>FOOTNOTES:</p> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_618_618" id="Footnote_618_618"></a><a href="#FNanchor_618_618"><span class="label">[618]</span></a> +Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by α Western by β, +as far as +I can understand, 'other' by γ, and 'Syrian' (=Traditional) by +Δ. But he +nowhere gives an example of γ.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_619_619" id="Footnote_619_619"></a><a href="#FNanchor_619_619"><span class="label">[619]</span></a> Introduction, p. 103.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_620_620" id="Footnote_620_620"></a><a href="#FNanchor_620_620"><span class="label">[620]</span></a> Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. Τις is used with +εξ, St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24; +St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46; Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1, &c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_621_621" id="Footnote_621_621"></a><a href="#FNanchor_621_621"><span class="label">[621]</span></a> Thus επαινος is used for a public encomium, or panegyric.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_622_622" id="Footnote_622_622"></a><a href="#FNanchor_622_622"><span class="label">[622]</span></a> +An attempt in the <i>Guardian</i> has been made in a review full of errors to +weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an unique set of details. A +correction both of the reviewer's figures in one instance and of my own may +be found above, pp. 144-153. There is no virtue in an exact proportion of +3: 2, or of 6: 1. A great majority will ultimately be found on our side.</p></div> + + + + +<h2><a name="index-i" id="index-i"></a>GENERAL INDEX.</h2> + + +<p>A.</p> + +<p>[Symbol: Aleph] or Sinaitic MS., <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></p> + +<p>Accident, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>; pure A., <a href="#Page_34">34-35</a>.</p> + +<p>Addition, <a href="#Page_166">166-7</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</p> + +<p>Ages, earliest, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>.</p> + +<p>Alexandrian error, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">readings, App. II. <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>.</span></p> + +<p>Alford, <i>passim</i>.</p> + +<p>Ammonius, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</p> + +<p>Antiquity, our appeal always made to, <a href="#Page_194">194-5</a>.</p> + +<p>Apolinarius, or-is (or Apoll.), <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</p> + +<p>Arians, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>.</p> + +<p>Assimilation, <a href="#Page_100">100-127</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">what it was, <a href="#Page_101">101-2</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">must be delicately handled, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></span></p> + +<p>Attraction, <a href="#Page_123">123-7</a>.</p> + + +<p>B.</p> + +<p>B or Vatican MS., <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">kakigraphy of, <a href="#Page_64">64</a> <a href="#Footnote_128_128">note:</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">virtually with [Symbol: Aleph] the 'Neutral' text, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</span></p> + +<p>Basilides, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197-9</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a> <a href="#Footnote_531_531">note 2</a>.</p> + +<p>Blunder, history of a, <a href="#Page_24">24-7</a>.</p> + +<p>Bohairic Version, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, and <i>passim</i>.</p> + + +<p>C.</p> + +<p>Caesarea, library of, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>.</p> + +<p>Cerinthus, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>.</p> + +<p>Clement of Alexandria, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>.</p> + +<p>Conflation, <a href="#Page_266">266-82</a>.</p> + +<p>Correctors of MSS., <a href="#Page_21">21</a>.</p> + +<p>Corruption, first origin of, <a href="#Page_3">3-8</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">classes of <a href="#Page_8">8-9</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">general, <a href="#Page_10">10-23</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">prevailed from the first, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the most corrupt authorities, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in early Fathers, <a href="#Page_193">193-4</a>.</span></p> + +<p>Curetonian Version, <i>passim. See</i> <a href="#index-traditional-text">Traditional Text</a>.</p> + +<p>Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Ferrar group, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</span></p> + + +<p>D.</p> + +<p>D or Codex Bezae, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>.</p> + +<p>Δ, or Sangallensis, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>.</p> + +<p>Damascus, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>.</p> + +<p>Diatessarons, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96-8</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>. <i>See</i> <a href="#index-tatian">Tatian</a>.</p> + +<p>Doxology, in the Lord's Prayer, <a href="#Page_81">81-8</a>.</p> + + +<p>E.</p> + +<p>Eclogadion, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</p> + +<p>Epiphanius, <a href="#Page_211">211-2</a>.</p> + +<p>Erasmus, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</p> + +<p>Error, slight clerical, <a href="#Page_37">37-31</a>.</p> + +<p>Euroclydon, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.</p> + +<p>Evangelistaria (the right name), <a href="#Page_67">67</a>.</p> + + +<p>F.</p> + +<p>Falconer's St. Paul's voyage, <a href="#Page_46">46-7</a>.</p> + +<p>Fathers, <i>passim</i>; earliest, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>.</p> + +<p>Faustinus, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>.</p> + +<p>Ferrar group of Cursives, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</p> + +<p>Field, Dr., <a href="#Page_28">28</a> <a href="#Footnote_32_32">note 5</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a> and <a href="#Footnote_43_43">note 2</a>.</p> + + +<p>G.</p> + +<p>Galilee of the Gentiles, <a href="#Page_4">4-5</a>.</p> + +<p>Genealogy, 22. <i>See</i> <a href="#index-traditional-text">Traditional Text</a>.</p> + +<p>Glosses, <a href="#Page_94">94-5</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172-90</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">described, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>.</span></p> + +<p>Gospels, the four, probable date of, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>.</p> + +<p>Guardian, review in, Pref., <a href="#Page_150">150-2</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a> <a href="#Footnote_622_622">note</a>.</p> + +<p>Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., <a href="#Page_115">115</a> <a href="#Footnote_224_224">note</a>.</p> + + +<p>H.</p> + +<p>Harmonistic influence, <a href="#Page_89">89-99</a>.</p> + +<p>Heracleon, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a> <a href="#Footnote_513_513">note 2</a>.</p> + +<p>Heretics, corruptions by, <a href="#Page_199">199-210</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not always dishonest, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">very numerous, <a href="#Page_199">199</a> &c.</span></p> + +<p>Homoeoteleuton, <a href="#Page_36">36-41</a>; explained, <a href="#Page_8">8</a><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span></p> + +<p>I.</p> + +<p>Inadvertency, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>.</p> + +<p>Internal evidence, <a href="#preface">Pref</a>.</p> + +<p>Interpolations, <a href="#Page_166">166-7</a>.</p> + +<p>Irenaeus, St., <a href="#Page_193">193</a>.</p> + +<p>Itacism, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56-86</a>.</p> + + +<p>J.</p> + +<p>Justin Martyr, St., <a href="#Page_193">193</a>.</p> + + +<p>L.</p> + +<p>L or Codex Regius, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>.</p> + +<p>Lachmann, <i>passim</i>.</p> + +<p>Last Twelve Verses, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129-30</a>.</p> + +<p>Latin MSS., Old, <i>passim</i>; Low-Latin, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>. <i>See</i> <a href="#index-traditional-text">Traditional Text</a>.</p> + +<p>Lectionaries, <a href="#Page_67">67-81</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">ecclesiastical prefaces to, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</span></p> + +<p>Lewis MS., <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</p> + +<p>Liturgical influence, <a href="#Page_67">67-88</a>.</p> + + +<p>M.</p> + +<p>Macedonians, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>.</p> + +<p>Manes, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>.</p> + +<p>Manichaeans, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>.</p> + +<p>Manuscripts, six classes of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">existing number of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">frequent inaccuracies in, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">more serious faults, <a href="#Page_20">20-1</a>; and <i>passim</i>.</span></p> + +<p>Marcion, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>.</p> + +<p>Matrimony, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>.</p> + +<p>Menologion, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</p> + + +<p>N.</p> + +<p>Naaseni, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>.</p> + +<p>'Neutral Text,' <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282-6</a>.</p> + + +<p>O.</p> + +<p>Omissions, <a href="#Page_128">128-156</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the largest of all classes, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not 'various readings,' <a href="#Page_128">128</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">prejudice in favour of, <a href="#Page_130">130-1</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">proof of, <a href="#Page_131">131-2</a>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">natural cause of corruption, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</span></p> + +<p>Origen, <a href="#Page_53">53-5</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111-3</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>.</p> + +<p>Orthodox, corruption by, <a href="#Page_211">211-31</a>,<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">misguided, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>.</span></p> + + +<p>P.</p> + +<p>Papyrus MSS., <a href="#Page_2">2</a>. <i>See</i> <a href="#index-traditional-text">Traditional Text</a>.</p> + +<p>Parallel passages, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>.</p> + +<p>Pella, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>.</p> + +<p>Pericope de Adultera, <a href="#Page_232">232-65</a>.</p> + +<p>Peshitto Version, <i>passim. See</i> <a href="#index-traditional-text">Traditional Text</a>.</p> + +<p>Porphyry, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</p> + + +<p>R.</p> + +<p>Revision, <a href="#Page_10">10-13</a>.</p> + +<p>Rose, Rev. W. F., <a href="#Page_61">61</a> <a href="#Footnote_119_119">note 3</a>.</p> + + +<p>S.</p> + +<p>Σαββατοκυριακαι, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</p> + +<p>Sahidic Version, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</p> + +<p>Saturninue, or Saturnilus, <a href="#Page_208">208</a> and <a href="#Footnote_492_492">note 3</a>.</p> + +<p>Scrivener's Introduction (4th Ed.), Miller's, <i>passim</i>.</p> + +<p>Semiarianism, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>.</p> + +<p>Substitution, <a href="#Page_164">164-5</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>.</p> + +<p>Synaxarion, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</p> + + +<p>T.</p> + +<p><a name="index-tatian" id="index-tatian"></a>Tatian's Diatessaron, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</p> + +<p>Textualism of the Gospels, different from T. of profane writings, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>.</p> + +<p>Theodotus, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>.</p> + +<p>Tischendorf, <a href="#Page_112">112-3</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, and <i>passim</i>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">misuse of Assimilation, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</span></p> + +<p><a name="index-traditional-text" id="index-traditional-text"></a>Traditional Text, <a href="#Page_1">1-4</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not = Received Text, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>. <i>See</i> Volume on it.</span></p> + +<p>Transcriptional Mistakes, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.</p> + +<p>Transposition, <a href="#Page_157">157-63</a>;<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">character of, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</span></p> + +<p>Tregelles, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>.</p> + + +<p>U.</p> + +<p>Uncials, <a href="#Page_42">42-55</a>.</p> + + +<p>V.</p> + +<p>Valentinus, <a href="#Page_197">197-9</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202-5</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a> <a href="#Footnote_531_531">note 2</a>.</p> + +<p>Various readings, <a href="#Page_14">14-16</a>.</p> + +<p>Vellum, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>.</p> + +<p>Vercellone, <a href="#Page_47">47</a> <a href="#Footnote_79_79">note</a>.</p> + +<p>Versions, <i>passim</i>.</p> + +<p>Victorinus Afer, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>.</p> + + +<p>W.</p> + +<p>Western Readings or Text, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266-85</a>.</p> + + +<p>Z.</p> + +<p>Z or Dublin palimpsest, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span></p> + + + + +<h2><a name="index-ii" id="index-ii"></a>INDEX II.</h2> + +<h3>PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED.</h3> + +<p>St. Matthew:<br/><br/> + i. 19 <a href="#Page_209">209</a><br/> + iii. 6 <a href="#Page_102">102</a><br/> +iii. 16 <a href="#Page_170">170-1</a><br/> + iv. 23 <a href="#Page_51">51-2</a><br/> + v. 44 <a href="#Page_144">144-53</a><br/> + vi. 13 <a href="#Page_81">81-8</a><br/> +vi. 18 <a href="#Page_171">171</a><br/> + vii. 4 <a href="#Page_102">102</a><br/> + viii. 9 <a href="#Page_102">102</a><br/> +viii. 13 <a href="#Page_167">167-8</a><br/> +viii. 26 <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br/> +viii. 29 <a href="#Page_102">102</a><br/> + ix. 24 <a href="#Page_104">104</a><br/> +ix. 35 <a href="#Page_74">74</a><br/> + x. 12 <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br/> + xi. 23 <a href="#Page_27">27</a><br/> + xii. 10 <a href="#Page_117">117</a><br/> + xiii. 36 <a href="#Page_173">173</a><br/> +xiii. 44 <a href="#Page_80">80-1</a><br/> + xv. 8 <a href="#Page_136">136-44</a><br/> + xvi. 8 <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br/> + xix. 9 <a href="#Page_39">39</a><br/> +xix. 16 <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br/> + xx. 24 <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br/> +xx. 28 <a href="#Page_175">175</a><br/> + xxi. 9 <a href="#Page_99">99</a><br/> +xxi. 44 <a href="#Page_134">134-6</a><br/> + xxii. 23 <a href="#Page_49">49-50</a><br/> +xxiii. 14 <a href="#Page_38">38</a><br/> + xxiv. 15 <a href="#Page_116">116</a><br/> +xxiv. 31 <a href="#Page_179">179-80</a><br/> +xxiv. 36 <a href="#Page_169">169-70</a><br/> + xxv. 13 <a href="#Page_171">171</a><br/> +xxvii. 15 <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br/> +xxvii. 17 <a href="#Page_53">53-5</a><br/> +xxvii. 25-6 <a href="#Page_91">91</a><br/> +xxvii. 35 <a href="#Page_171">171</a></p> +<p> +St. Mark:<br/><br/> + i. 2 <a href="#Page_111">111-5</a><br/> +i. 5 <a href="#Page_157">157-8</a><br/> + ii. 3 <a href="#Page_158">158-9</a><br/> + iv. 6 <a href="#Page_63">63-4</a><br/> + v. 36 <a href="#Page_188">188</a><br/> + vi. 11 <a href="#Page_118">118-9</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181-2</a><br/> +vi. 32 <a href="#Page_32">32-3</a><br/> +vi. 33 <a href="#Page_271">271-3</a><br/> + vii. 14 <a href="#Page_35">35</a><br/> +vii. 19 <a href="#Page_61">61-3</a><br/> +vii. 31 <a href="#Page_73">73-3</a><br/> + viii. 1 <a href="#Page_34">34</a><br/> +viii. 26 <a href="#Page_273">273-4</a><br/> + ix. 38 <a href="#Page_271">271</a><br/> +ix. 49 <a href="#Page_275">275</a><br/> + x. 16 <a href="#Page_48">48</a><br/> + xii. 17 <a href="#Page_48">48</a><br/> + xiv. 40 <a href="#Page_48">48</a><br/> +xiv. 41 <a href="#Page_182">182-3</a><br/> +xiv. 70 <a href="#Page_119">119-22</a><br/> + xv. 6 <a href="#Page_32">32</a><br/> +xv. 28 <a href="#Page_75">75-8</a><br/> + xvi. 9-20 <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129-30</a></p> +<p> +St. Luke:<br/><br/> + i. 66 <a href="#Page_188">188-9</a><br/> + ii. 14 <a href="#Page_21">21-2</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31-2</a><br/> +ii. 15 <a href="#Page_36">36</a><br/> + iii. 14 <a href="#Page_201">201</a><br/> +iii. 29 <a href="#Page_165">165</a><br/> + iv. 1-13 <a href="#Page_94">94</a><br/> + v. 7 <a href="#Page_108">108</a><br/> +v. 14 <a href="#Page_104">104</a><br/> + vi. 1 <a href="#Page_132">132-3</a><br/> +vi. 4 <a href="#Page_167">167</a><br/> +vi. 26 <a href="#Page_153">153</a><br/> + vii. 3 <a href="#Page_174">174</a><br/> +vii. 21 <a href="#Page_50">50</a><br/> + ix. 1 <a href="#Page_74">74</a><br/> +ix. 10 <a href="#Page_275">275-6</a><br/> +ix. 54-6 <a href="#Page_224">224-31</a><br/> + x. 15 <a href="#Page_28">28</a><br/> +x. 25 <a href="#Page_75">75</a><br/> + xi. 54 <a href="#Page_276">276-7</a><br/> + xii. 18 <a href="#Page_277">277-8</a><br/> +xii. 39 <a href="#Page_155">155</a><br/> + xiii. 9 <a href="#Page_160">160-1</a><br/> + xiv. 3 <a href="#Page_117">117</a><br/> + xv. 16 <a href="#Page_117">117</a><br/> +xv. 17 <a href="#Page_43">43-5</a><br/> +xv. 24 <a href="#Page_61">61</a><br/> +xv. 32 <a href="#Page_61">61</a><br/> + xvi. 21 <a href="#Page_40">40</a><br/> +xvi. 25 <a href="#Page_60">60</a><br/> + xvii. 37 <a href="#Page_48">48-9</a><br/> + xix. 21 <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br/> +xix. 41 <a href="#Page_212">212</a><br/> + xxii. 67-8 <a href="#Page_210">210</a><br/> +xxiii. 11 <a href="#Page_50">50-1</a><br/> +xxiii. 27 <a href="#Page_51">51</a><br/> +xxiii. 42 <a href="#Page_57">57</a><br/> + xxiv. 1 <a href="#Page_92">92-4</a><br/> +xxiv. 7 <a href="#Page_161">161</a><br/> +xxiv. 53 <a href="#Page_278">278</a></p> +<p> +St. John:<br/><br/> + i. 3-4 <a href="#Page_203">203</a><br/> +i. 18 <a href="#Page_215">215-8</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a><br/> + ii. 40 <a href="#Page_212">212-4</a><br/> + iii. 13 <a href="#Page_223">223-4</a><br/> + iv. 15 <a href="#Page_48">48</a><br/> + v. 4 <a href="#Page_50">50</a><br/> +v. 27 <a href="#Page_162">162</a><br/> + v. 44 <a href="#Page_45">45</a><br/> + vi. 11 <a href="#Page_37">37-8</a><br/> +vi. 15 <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a><br/> +vi. 55 <a href="#Page_153">153-4</a><br/> +vi. 71 <a href="#Page_124">124</a><br/> + viii. 40 <a href="#Page_214">214-5</a><br/> + ix. 22 <a href="#Page_183">183</a><br/> + x. 14-15 <a href="#Page_206">206-8</a><br/> +x. 29 <a href="#Page_24">24-7</a><br/> + xii. 1, 2 <a href="#Page_57">57-9</a><br/> +xii. 7 <a href="#Page_184">184-6</a><br/> +xii. 13 <a href="#Page_99">99</a><br/> + xiii. 21-5 <a href="#Page_106">106-11</a><br/> +xiii. 24 <a href="#Page_179">179</a><br/> +xiii. 25 <a href="#Page_60">60</a><br/> +xiii. 26 <a href="#Page_124">124</a><br/> +xiii. 37 <a href="#Page_35">35</a><br/> + xvi. 16 <a href="#Page_105">105</a><br/> + xvii. 4 <a href="#Page_186">186-8</a><br/> +xviii. 14 <a href="#Page_180">180-1</a><br/> + xx. 11 <a href="#Page_90">90-2</a></p> +<p> +Acts:<br/><br/> + ii. 45-6 <a href="#Page_159">159</a><br/> + iii. 1 <a href="#Page_78">78-80</a><br/> +xviii. 6 <a href="#Page_27">27</a><br/> + xx. 4 <a href="#Page_190">190</a><br/> +xx. 24 28, <a href="#Page_124">124-5</a><br/> +xxvii. 14 <a href="#Page_46">46-7</a><br/> +xxvii. 37 <a href="#Page_27">27</a><br/> +xxviii. 1 <a href="#Page_28">28</a></p> +<p> +1 Cor.:<br/> + xv. 47 <a href="#Page_219">219-23</a></p> +<p> +2 Cor.:<br/> + iii. 3 <a href="#Page_125">125-7</a></p> +<p> +Titus:<br/> + ii. 5 <a href="#Page_65">65-6</a></p> +<p> +Heb.:<br/> + vii. 1 <a href="#Page_53">53</a></p> +<p> +2 Pet.:<br/> + i. 21 <a href="#Page_52">52-3</a></p> +<p> +Rev.<br/> + i. 5 <a href="#Page_59">59-60</a> +</p> + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Causes of the Corruption of the +Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John Burgon + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CORRUPTION OF THE GOSPELS *** + +***** This file should be named 21112-h.htm or 21112-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/1/1/1/21112/ + +Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan, David +King, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |