312 files changed, 36862 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/21112-8.txt b/21112-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7821dc1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11798 @@
+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
+
+
+
+
+
+THE
+CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION
+OF THE
+TRADITIONAL TEXT
+OF THE
+HOLY GOSPELS
+
+
+BEING THE SEQUEL TO
+_THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS_
+
+
+BY THE LATE
+
+JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B. D.
+
+DEAN OF CHICHESTER
+
+
+ARRANGED, COMPLETED, AND EDITED
+BY
+
+EDWARD MILLER, M. A.
+
+WYKEHAMICAL PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER
+
+
+LONDON
+GEORGE BELL AND SONS
+
+CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.
+
+1896.
+
+
+'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.'
+
+Cave's _Proleg._ p. xliv.
+
+'Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate in
+ea.'--Jerem. vi. 16.
+
+'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.'--Tertull. _adv. Marc._ l. iv. c. 5.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE
+
+
+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.
+
+Something however must be said in reply to an attack made in the
+_Guardian_ 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 content with the
+companionship of some of the very first Syriac scholars, and with the
+teaching given in an unanswered article in the _Church Quarterly Review_
+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 [Greek: monogenês Theos] in St. John i.
+18, which, as may be read on pp. 215-218, was introduced by heretics and
+harmonized with 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.
+
+A curious instance of a fate like this has been supplied by a critic in
+the _Athenaeum_, 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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 discussed; and
+that our readers will kindly make allowance for the perplexity which
+such an assemblage of separate papers could not but entail.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+EDWARD MILLER.
+
+9 Bradmore Road, Oxford:
+
+_Sept._ 2, 1896.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+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. pp. 1-9
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+General Corruption.
+
+§ 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. pp.
+10-23
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. I. Pure Accident.
+
+§ 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. pp. 24-35
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. II. Homoeoteleuton.
+
+St. Luke ii. 15--St. John vi. 11; vi. 55--St. Matt. xxiii. 14; xix.
+9--St. Luke xvi. 21. pp. 36-41
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. III. From Writing in Uncials.
+
+§ 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. pp.
+42-55
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. IV. Itacism.
+
+§ 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. pp.
+56-66
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. V. Liturgical Influence.
+
+§ 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). pp. 67-88
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. I. Harmonistic Influence.
+
+§ 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. pp. 89-99
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. II. Assimilation.
+
+§ 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. pp. 100-122
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. III. Attraction.
+
+§ 1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. § 2. Acts xx. 24--2 Cor. iii. 3. pp.
+123-127
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IV. Omission.
+
+§ 1. Omissions a class of their own--Exemplified from the Last Twelve
+Verses of St. Mark--Omission the besetting fault of transcribers. § 2.
+The _onus probandi_ 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 _Guardian_. § 7. Shorter Omissions.
+pp. 128-156
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. V. Transposition.
+
+§ 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.
+
+VI. Substitution.
+
+§ 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class--Various instances. pp.
+164-165
+
+VII. Addition.
+
+§ 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. pp.
+166-171
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. VIII. Glosses.
+
+§ 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. pp.
+172-190
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IX. Corruption by Heretics.
+
+§ 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. pp. 191-210
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. X. Corruption by the Orthodox.
+
+§ 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. pp. 211-231
+
+APPENDIX I.
+
+Pericope de Adultera. pp. 233-265
+
+APPENDIX II.
+
+Dr. Hort's Theory of Conflation and the
+Neutral Text. pp. 266-286
+
+Index of Subjects. pp. 287-288
+
+Index of Passages of the New Testament Discussed. pp. 289-290
+
+
+
+
+THE CAUSES OF THE
+CORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT
+OF THE HOLY GOSPELS.
+
+
+
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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 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[1].
+
+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:--
+
+  Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra[2]:
+
+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 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':--
+
+  Tam ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri[3].
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+'Galilee of the nations' or 'the Gentiles,' not only had a mixed
+population[4] and a provincial dialect[5], but lay contiguous to the
+rest of Palestine on the one side, and 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[6], 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[7]. 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[8] and Herodion, may probably have passed along the
+stream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and Rome[9], 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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 A.D. 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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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 were (4)
+Omissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions, (7) Additions, (8)
+Glosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics, (10) Corruption by Orthodox.
+
+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.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] 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.
+
+[2]
+     'A hydra in her direful shape,
+    With fifty darkling throats agape.'--
+
+Altered from Conington's version, Aen. vi. 576.
+
+[3]
+    'How oft soe'er the truth she tell,
+    What's false and wrong she loves too well.'--
+
+Altered from Conington, Aen. iv. 188.
+
+[4] Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians,
+and Phoenicians.
+
+[5] Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken in
+Palestine in the time of Christ.
+
+[6] Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352.
+
+[7] 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.
+
+[8] 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 ([Greek:
+episêmoi en tois apostolois, oi kai pro emou gegonasin en Christô]).
+Most of the names in Rom. xvi are either Greek or Hebrew.
+
+[9]
+    'Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes
+    Et _linguam_ et mores ... vexit.'
+
+--Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+GENERAL CORRUPTION.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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.
+
+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[10].
+
+Yielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the 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[11] body.
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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[12].
+
+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.
+
+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 consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of
+judicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence of whatever
+sort.
+
+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.
+
+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
+Holy Ghost 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 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.
+
+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 God,--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.
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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[13]. 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?
+
+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.
+
+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[14]. 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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.]
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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:--
+
+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 [Greek: krabatton][15] in
+several different ways: that he should write [Greek: outô] for [Greek:
+outôs], or the contrary: that he should add or omit what grammarians
+call the [Greek: n ephelkystikon]. 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. 'Itacisms' therefore, as they
+are called, of whatever kind,--by which is meant the interchange of such
+vowels and diphthongs as [Greek: i-ei, ai-e, ê-i, ê-oi-u, o-ô,
+ê-ei],--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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 [Greek: eipe] for [Greek: elege], [Greek: phônêsan] for
+[Greek: kraxan], 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.
+
+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 Evangelist, need create no offence. It is often
+possible to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way.
+
+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.
+
+6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex (_a_) that entire
+sentences or significant clauses are habitually omitted:--(_b_) 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
+(_c_) 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.
+
+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 we have fallen into bad company. His witness may
+be false no less than true: confidence is at an end.
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+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 _verba ipsissima_ 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.]
+
+But next, well-meant endeavours must have been made at a very early
+period 'to rectify' ([Greek: diorthoun]) 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 (A.D. 100?) some copyist of St. Luke ii. 14
+(call him X) inadvertently omitted the second [Greek: en] in the Angelic
+Hymn. Now if the persons (call them Y and Z) whose business it became in
+turn to reproduce the early 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,--[Greek: epi gês eirênê anthrôpois
+eudokia]. Reference would have been made to any other copy of the third
+Gospel, and together with the omitted preposition ([Greek: en]) 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, _proprio Marte_ to
+force a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy before
+him: and he did it by affixing to [Greek: eudokia] the sign of the
+genitive case ([Greek: s]). 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[16].
+
+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.
+
+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[17].
+
+[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.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[10] 2 Kings xxii. 8 = 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15.
+
+[11] [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.]
+
+[12] See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller),
+p. 21, note 1.
+
+[13] See Traditional Text, chapter ii, § 6, p. 33.
+
+[14] [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.]
+
+[15] [I.e. generally [Greek: krabatton], or else [Greek: krabaton], or
+even [Greek: krabakton]; seldom found as [Greek: krabbatton], or spelt
+in the corrupt form [Greek: krabbaton].]
+
+[16] 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 _abridge_ 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 _pericope de adultera_; 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.
+
+[17] [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption,
+as described in The Traditional Text.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+I. Pure Accident.
+
+[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.]
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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 (_or_ 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.
+
+St. John certainly wrote the familiar words,--[Greek: ho patêr mou]
+[Greek: os dedôke moi, meizôn pantôn esti]. But, with the licentiousness
+[or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, some remote copyist
+is found to have substituted for [Greek: hos dedôke], its grammatical
+equivalent [Greek: ho dedôkôs]. And this proved fatal; for it was only
+necessary that another scribe should substitute [Greek: meizon] for
+[Greek: meizôn] (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) [Greek: o dedôkôs ... meizôn]--of
+which reading at this day D is the sole representative: (2) [Greek: os
+dedôke ... meizon]--which survives only in AX: (3) [Greek: o dedôke ...
+meizôn]--which is only found in [Symbol: Aleph]L: (4) [Greek: o dedôke
+... meizon]--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 [Greek: meizon] for [Greek: meizôn]; treating [Greek: o]
+not as the article but as the neuter of the relative [Greek: os].
+
+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[18]. Accordingly, all the
+Latin copies, and therefore all the Latin Fathers[19], translate,--
+'Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus omnibus est[20].' The Westerns
+resolutely extracted a meaning from whatever they presumed to be genuine
+Scripture: 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 Son? To be the Word of the Father (he answers),
+His only-begotten Son and the brightness of His glory[21]. The Greeks
+knew better. Basil[22], Chrysostom[23], Cyril on nine occasions[24],
+Theodoret[25]--as many as quote the place--invariably exhibit the
+_textus receptus_ [Greek: ôs ... meizôn], which is obviously the true
+reading and may on no account suffer molestation.
+
+'But,'--I shall perhaps be asked,--'although Patristic and manuscript
+evidence are wanting for the reading [Greek: o dedôke moi ...
+meizôn],--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 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[26]. 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?
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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.
+
+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[27].'--He is
+further 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 '_Titus_,' '_Titus Justus_,' and even '_Titius
+Justus_[28].'--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 Saviour is made to ask an unmeaning question--instead
+of being permitted to announce a solemn fact--concerning
+Capernaum[29].--The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island of
+Malta, _Melitene_[30], (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.
+
+Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in Acts xx. 24.
+It is but the change of a single letter ([Greek: logoU] for [Greek:
+logoN]), 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 [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai, oude echô tên
+psuchên mou timian emautô, hôs teleiôsai ton dromon mou meta charas]:
+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.'
+
+For [Greek: oudenos loGON], (the accusative after [Greek: poioumai]),
+some one having substituted [Greek: oudenos loGOU],--a reading which
+survives to this hour in B and C[31],--it became necessary to find
+something else for the verb to govern. [Greek: Tên psychên] was at hand,
+but [Greek: oude echô] stood in the way. [Greek: Oude echô] must
+therefore go[32]; and go it did,--as B, C, and [Symbol: Aleph] remain to
+attest. [Greek: Timian] should have gone also, if the sentence was to be
+made translatable; but [Greek: timian] was left behind[33]. The authors
+of ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers. In the meantime,
+Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] inadvertently retained St. Luke's word, [Greek:
+LOGON]; and because [Symbol: Aleph] here follows B in every other
+respect, it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible[34].
+
+Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words [Greek: oude echo
+tên psychên mou timian emautô], 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[35],--by the Harkleian[36],--by
+Basil[37],--by Chrysostom[38],--by Cyril[39],--by Euthalius[40],--and by
+the interpolator of Ignatius[41]. 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 [Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai tên psychên timian
+emautô][42]?
+
+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.
+
+'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, [Greek: all' oudenos logou
+poioumai tên psychên timian emautô], 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[43].' When will men believe that a reading
+vouched for by only B[Symbol: Aleph]C is safe to be a fabrication[44]?
+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?
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+We now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten Ist or IInd
+century scribes who, beguiled by the similarity of the letters [Greek:
+EN] and [Greek: AN] (in the expression [Greek: ENANthrôpois eudokia],
+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 [Greek: eudokia] the sign of the
+genitive ([Greek: S]). Thus the Old Latin translations were made.
+
+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[45]. Most Latin copies (except 14[46]) exhibit 'pax hominibus
+bonae voluntatis,' as well as many Latin Fathers[47]. On the other hand,
+the preposition [Greek: EN] is retained in every known Greek copy of St.
+Luke without exception, while the reading [Greek: eudokias] is
+absolutely limited to the four uncials AB[Symbol: Aleph]D. The witness
+of antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive.
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,--is
+discoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) certainly wrote [Greek:
+hena desmion], [Greek: ONPER êtounto], the scribe of [Symbol: Delta],
+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 [Greek: ON.PERÊTOUNTO]. The consequence might have been
+predicted. [Symbol: Aleph]AB transform this into [Greek: ON PARÊTOUNTO]:
+which accordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by Westcott
+and Hort.
+
+Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly be mistaken
+for the first syllable of the next, or _vice versa_, it is safe sooner
+or later to have misled somebody. Thus, we are not at all surprised to
+find St. Mark's [Greek: ha parelabon] (vii. 4) transformed into [Greek:
+haper elabon], but only by B.
+
+[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied by the
+substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of [Greek: tês thygatros autou
+Hêrôdiados] for [Greek: tês thygatros autês tês Hêrôdiados]. Here a
+first copyist left out [Greek: tês] as being a repetition of the last
+syllable of [Greek: autês], and afterwards a second attempted to improve
+the Greek by putting the masculine pronoun for the feminine ([Greek:
+AUTOU] for [Greek: AUTÊS]). The consequence was hardly to have been
+foreseen.]
+
+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 Herodias; and that she,--the King's own
+daughter,--was the immodest one[48] 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[49],--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]BDL[Symbol: Delta] with two cursive copies) can be found
+to exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading [Greek: AUTOU]
+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.
+
+This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidental
+errors--another proof that [Symbol: Aleph]BDL cannot be trusted.
+
+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. [Greek: AUTÊSTÊS] was safe to part with its second
+[Greek: TÊS] on the first opportunity, and the definitive article
+([Greek: tês]) once lost, the substitution of [Greek: AUTOU] for [Greek:
+AUTÊS] 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.
+
+[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was a
+frequent source of error. Copying has 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.]
+
+
+§ 5.
+
+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 [Greek: pampollou ochlou] '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 [Greek: PAMPOLLOU] for [Greek:
+PALIN POLLOU].
+
+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
+GMN[Symbol: Delta] and fifteen cursives: while two other cursives look
+both ways and exhibit [Greek: palin pampollou].
+
+In St Mark vii. 14, [Greek: palin] was similarly misread by some
+copyists for [Greek: panta], and has been preserved by [Symbol:
+Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta] ([Greek: PALIN] for [Greek: PANTA]) against
+thirteen uncials, all the cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian.
+
+So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads [Greek: dynasai moi] by an
+evident slip of the pen for [Greek: dynamai soi]. And in xix. 31 [Greek:
+megalÊ Ê Êmera] has become [Greek: megalê hêmera] in [Symbol:
+Aleph]AE[Symbol: Gamma] and some cursive copies.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[18] See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th
+ed.
+
+[19] Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 _bis_): Hilary
+(930 _bis_, 1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii^2. 615): Maximinus, an
+Arian bishop (_ap_. Aug. viii. 651).
+
+[20] Pater (_or_ Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (_or_ mihi dedit), majus
+omnibus est (_or_ majus est omnibus: _or_ omnibus majus est).
+
+[21] iii^2. 615. He begins, '_Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut
+ipsi ille esset unigenitus Filius_.'
+
+[22] i. 236.
+
+[23] viii. 363 _bis_.
+
+[24] i. 188: ii. 567: iii. 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): v^1. 326, 577, 578:
+_ap._ Mai ii. 13: iii. 336.
+
+[25] v. 1065 (=Dial^{Maced} _ap._ Athanas. ii. 555).
+
+[26] Viz. + [Greek: mou] ABD:--[Greek: mou] [Symbol: Aleph] | [Greek:
+os] A: [Greek: o] B[Symbol: Aleph]D | [Greek: dedôken] B[Symbol:
+Aleph]A: [Greek: dedôkôs] | [Greek: meizôn] [Symbol: Aleph]D: [Greek:
+meizon] AB | [Greek: meiz. pantôn estin] A: [Greek: pantôn meiz. estin]
+B[Symbol: Aleph]D.
+
+[27] The Revision Revised, p. 51-3.
+
+[28] The Revision Revised, p. 53-4.
+
+[29] Ibid. p. 51-6.
+
+[30] Ibid. p. 177-8.
+
+[31] Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A.D. 458--see Cramer's Cat. p.
+334-5, _last line_. [Greek: Logou] is read besides in the cursives Act.
+36, 96, 105.
+
+[32] 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 [Greek: oude echô] 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.
+
+[33] B and C read--[Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai tên psychên
+emautô]: which is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,--'_sed pro
+nihilo aestimo animam meam caram esse mihi_' (Galland. vi. 241).
+
+[34] [Symbol: Aleph] reads--[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai tên
+psychên timian emautô hôs teleiôsô ton dromon mou].
+
+[35] '_Sed nihil horum_ ([Greek: toutôn] is found in many Greek Codd.)
+_vereor, nee facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me_.' So, the _Cod.
+Amiat._ It is evident then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes '_nec
+facio animam meam cariorem mihi_,' he is quoting the latter of these two
+clauses. Augustine (iii^{1}. 516), when he cites the place thus, '_Non
+enim facto animam meam preliosiorem quam me_'; and elsewhere (iv. 268)
+'_pretiosam mihi_'; also Origen (_interp._ iv. 628 c), '_sed ego non
+facto cariorem animam meam mihi_'; and even the Coptic, '_sed anima mea,
+dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo_':--these evidently
+summarize the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the
+second clause. The Latin of D exhibits '_Sed nihil horum cura est mihi:
+neque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi_.'
+
+[36] Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized--[Greek: all' oudena
+logon poioumai, oude lelogistai moi psychê ti timion].
+
+[37] ii. 296 e,--exactly as the T.R.
+
+[38] Exactly as the T.R., except that he writes [Greek: tên psychên]
+without [Greek: mou] (ix. 332). So again, further on (334 b), [Greek:
+ouk echô timian tên emautou psychên]. This latter place is quoted in
+Cramer's Cat. 334.
+
+[39] _Ap._ Mai ii. 336 [Greek: edei kai tês zôês kataphronein hyper tou
+teleiôsai ton dromon, oude tên psychên ephê poieiôsai timian heautô.]
+
+[40] [Greek: logon echô, oude poioumai tên psychên timian emautô, ôste
+k.t.l.] (_ap._ Galland. x. 222).
+
+[41] [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai tôn deinôn, oude echô tên
+psychên timian emautô]. Epist. ad Tars. c. 1 (Dressel, p. 255).
+
+[42] 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.
+
+[43] Ibid. p. 2 and 3.
+
+[44] 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 [Greek:
+poioumai] and [Greek: echô] have been made to change places. The latter
+Codex introduces [Greek: moi] after [Greek: echô],--for [Greek: emautô]
+writes [Greek: emautou],--and exhibits [Greek: tou teleiôsai] without
+[Greek: hôs]. C writes [Greek: hôs to teleiôsai]. [Symbol: Aleph]B alone
+of Codexes present us with [Greek: teleiôsô] for [Greek: teleiôsai], and
+are followed by Westcott and Hort _alone of Editors_. The Peshitto
+('_sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea_'), the Sahidic ('_sed non facto
+animam meam in ullâ re_'), and the Aethiopic ('_sed non reputo animam
+meam nihil quidquam_'), get rid of [Greek: timian] as well as of [Greek:
+oude echô]. 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.
+
+[45] Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of
+[Greek: EN] by the first syllable of [Greek: ANthrôpois]) is to be seen
+in Acts iv. 12,--where however the error has led to no mischievous
+results.
+
+[46] For those which insert _in_ (14), and those which reject it (25),
+see Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate on this passage.
+
+[47] Of Fathers:--Ambrose i. 1298--Hieronymus i. 448^{2}, 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. (_ap._
+Sabat.),--Chromatius Ag. (Gall. viii. 337),--Orosius (_ib._ ix. 134),
+Marius M. (_ib._ viii. 672), Maximus Taur. (_ib._ ix. 355),--Sedulius
+(_ib._ 575),--Leo M. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Mamertus Claudianus (Gall. x.
+431),--Vigilius Taps. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Zacchaeus (Gall. ix.
+241),--Caesarius Arel. (_ib._ 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.
+
+[48] See Wetstein on this place.
+
+[49] Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+II. Homoeoteleuton.
+
+
+No one who finds the syllable [Greek: OI] recurring six times over in
+about as many words,--e.g. [Greek: kai egeneto, hôs apêlthon ... OI
+angelOI, kai OI anthrôpOI OI pOImenes eipon],--is surprised to learn
+that MSS. of a certain type exhibit serious perturbation in that place.
+Accordingly, BL[Symbol: Xi] leave out the words [Greek: kai hoi
+anthrôpoi]; 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 ([Greek: hoi]) is
+dropped,--whereby nonsense is made of the passage (viz. [Greek: hoi
+angeloi poimenes]). 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,--
+
+[Greek: OI ANGELOI]           }         {[Greek: OI ANGELOI]
+[[Greek: KAI OI A[=NO]I OI]]  } or else {[[Greek: KAI OI A[=NO]I]]
+[Greek: POIMENES]             }         {[Greek: OI POIMENES]
+
+Another such place is found in St. John vi. 11. The Evangelist certainly
+described the act of our Saviour on a famous occasion in the well-known
+words,--[Greek: kai eucharistêsas]
+
+        [Greek: diedôke
+tois [mathêtais,
+oi de mathêtai
+tois] anakeimenois.]
+
+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 Saviour's act was
+performed in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has suffered
+his eye to wander from [Greek: tois] in l. 2 to [Greek: tois] in l.
+4,--whereby St. John is made to say that our Saviour 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]ABL[Symbol: Pi], 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.
+
+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.
+The consequence is obvious. All that should have come in between gets
+omitted, or sometimes duplicated.
+
+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:--[Greek: hê gar sarx mou alêthôs esti brôsis,
+kai to haima mou alêthôs esti posis]. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph]
+by a very easy mistake let his eye pass from one [Greek: alêthôs] 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?]
+
+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 Lord 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 [Greek: ouai hymin] 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, 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 [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma], the Peshitto,
+Harkleian, Ethiopic, Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen
+(iii. 838 (only in Lat.)); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (_bis_); ix. 755); Opus
+Imperf. 185 (_bis_); 186 (_bis_); John Damascene (ii. 517); Theophylact
+(i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; v. 52; vi. 138: vii. 185)].
+
+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.
+
+Our Saviour, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that whosoever putteth
+away his wife [Greek: ei mê epi porneia, kai gamêsê allên,
+moichatai],--adds [Greek: kai ho apolelymenên gamêsas moichatai]. 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.
+
+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
+B[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]), and the vast majority of the cursives.
+So that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.
+
+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 [Greek: tôn] in the expression [Greek: TÔN psichiôn TÔN
+piptonTÔN] (St. Luke xvi. 21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the
+dropping of the words [Greek: psichiôn tôn] 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.[50] and the author of the Dialogus[51]. 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[52],
+Jerome[53], Eusebius[54] Alex., Gregory[55] Naz., Asterius[56],
+Basil[57], Ephraim[58] Syr., Chrysostom[59], and Cyril[60] 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 abolishing 'the crumbs which fell
+from the rich man's table.'
+
+[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.
+
+In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come under
+consideration.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[50] P. 232.
+
+[51] _Ap._ Orig. i. 827.
+
+[52] Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:--places which shew how insecure would
+be an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.
+
+[53] Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969.
+
+[54] _Ap._ Mai ii. 516, 520.
+
+[55] i. 370.
+
+[56] P. 12.
+
+[57] ii. 169.
+
+[58] ii. 142.
+
+[59] i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (_bis_) 764; vii. 779.
+
+[60] v^{2}. 149 (luc. text, 524).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+III. From Writing in Uncials.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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.
+
+St. John iv. 35-6 ([Greek: leukai eisi pros therismon êdê]) has suffered
+in this way,--owing to the unusual position of [Greek: êdê]. Certain of
+the scribes who imagined that [Greek: êdê] might belong to ver. 36,
+rejected the [Greek: kai] as superfluous; though no Father is known to
+have been guilty of such a solecism. Others, aware that [Greek: êdê] 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[61]. In this way it has come to pass that
+there are four ways of exhibiting this place:--(_a_) [Greek: pros
+therismon êdê. Kai ho therizôn]:--(_b_) [Greek: pros therismon. Êdê ho
+th.]:--(_c_) [Greek: pros therismon êdê. Ho therizôn]:--(_d_) [Greek:
+pros therismon. Ho therizôn, k.t.l.]
+
+The only point of importance however is the position of [Greek: êdê]:
+which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of the copies: as well as
+by Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate,
+Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly
+divided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BM[Symbol: Pi] do not help
+us. But [Greek: êdê] is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the
+Curetonian and Lewis (= [Greek: kai êdê ho therizôn]): while Codex A is
+singular in beginning ver. 36, [Greek: êdê kai],--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 [Greek: kai] (with [Symbol:
+Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (_marg._),
+are for putting the full stop after [Greek: pros therismon] and (with
+ACDL) making [Greek: êdê] begin the next sentence,--which (as Alford
+finds out) is clearly inadmissible.
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in
+the parable of the prodigal son,--'And I perish _here_ with hunger!' But
+why '_here_?' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St.
+Luke the words stood thus,--[Greek: EGÔDELIMÔAPOLLYMAI], some careless
+scribe after writing [Greek: EGÔDE], reduplicated the three last letters
+([Greek: ÔDE]): he mistook them for an independent word. Accordingly in
+the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter [Greek:
+egô de ôde]. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained
+to superadd 'transposition,' as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From
+[Greek: egô de ôde limô], the sentence has now developed into [Greek:
+egô de limô ôde]: 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, [Greek: egô de
+ôde] is: for it is found in the Latin[67] 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[68]. Having detected its origin,
+we have next to trace its progress.
+
+The inventors of [Greek: ôde] 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
+[Greek: [en tô oikô] tou patros mou]: 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[69], Augustine[70] and Cassian[71] 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 Lord intended no contrast whatever
+between two 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?'
+
+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 [Greek: gemisai tên koilian autou apo], [Symbol:
+Aleph]BDLR present us with [Greek: chortasthênai ek]: and in ver. 22,
+the prodigal, on very nearly the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX),
+is made to say to his father,--[Greek: Poiêson me hôs hena tôn misthiôn
+sou]:
+
+Which certainly he did not say[72]. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and the
+Old Latin are for thrusting in [Greek: tachy] (D [Greek: tacheôs]) after
+[Greek: exenenkate]. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated
+readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to
+improve upon the inspired original?
+
+From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS.
+written thus,--[Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i.e. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), the
+middle word ([Greek: theou]) 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[73],
+Eusebius[74], Didymus[75], 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.
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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 [Greek: Euros], the 'south-east wind,' and [Greek:
+klydôn], '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[76],
+which [blast] is called Tophonikos Eurokl[=i]don.' 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 '_Eurielion_' or
+'_Euriclion_' to mean 'commiscens, sive deorsum ducens[77].') Of this
+feat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which [Greek:
+EUROKLUDÔN] has been perverted into [Greek: EURAKULÔN]) are at this day
+_the sole surviving Greek witnesses_. 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:'--
+
+'_Euronotus_ is so called as intervening immediately between _Eurus_ and
+_Notus_, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The
+same holds true of _Libonotus_, as being interposed between _Libs_ and
+_Notus_. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant
+of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and no other
+wind intervenes. But _Eurus_ and _Aquilo_ 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[78].'
+
+Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossible _Latin_
+name? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors were
+Greeks. What business has '_Aquilo_' here? Next, if the wind did bear
+the name of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way
+([Greek: anemos typhônikos, ho kaloumenos]) 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 [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pass that every
+copyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-? The testimony of B is
+memorable. The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDÔN][79]: the
+_secunda mantis_ has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDÔN],--which is
+also the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, that
+_not_ [Greek: ULÔN] but [Greek: UDÔN] has all along been the last half
+of the word in Codex B[81].
+
+In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf
+adopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb),
+assigning as his reason, that 'If St. John had written [Greek:
+erchesthai], no one would ever have substituted [Greek: dierchesthai]
+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 [Greek: DIerchômai] is
+sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable ([Greek: DE]) of
+[Greek: mêde] which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the same
+excuse,
+
+St. Mark x. 16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei]
+               ([Symbol: Aleph]BC).
+  " xii. 17 [Greek: thaumasan] " [Greek: ezethaumasan]
+               ([Symbol: Aleph]B).
+  " xiv. 40 [Greek: bebarêmenoi] " [Greek: katabebarêmenoi]
+               (A[Symbol: Aleph]B).
+
+It is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editions
+of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause.
+In the phrase [Greek: ekei synachthêsontai hoi aetoi] it might have been
+predicted that the last syllable of [Greek: ekei] would some day be
+mistaken for the conjunction. And so it has actually come to pass.
+[Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But
+[Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and substituted [Greek:
+episynachthêsontai] for [Greek: synachthêsontai]. The self-same
+casualty, viz. [Greek: kai] elicited out of the insertion of [Greek:
+ekei] 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[82].
+How can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of
+Scripture on evidence so precarious as this?
+
+It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. xxii. 23 as
+follows:--'On that day there came to Him Sadducees _saying_ 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 [Greek: hoi legontes], we are invited to read [Greek:
+legontes], 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--
+
+[Greek: hoitines legousin anastasin mê einai] (St. Mark xii. 18) and
+[Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin mê einai] (St. Luke xx. 27)
+
+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:
+
+[Greek: SADDOUKAIOIOILEGONTES]
+
+and really nothing more requires to be said. The second [Greek: OI] was
+safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that. It might also
+have been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused
+by the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and
+Curetonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook
+[Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase.
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+The termination [Greek: TO] (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 [Greek: kai etarasse to hydôr], but so many MSS. read [Greek:
+etarasseto], 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.'
+
+The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in St. Luke
+vii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions [Greek: echarisato
+blepein] (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and 11 other
+uncials) and [Greek: echarisato to blepein] which is only supported by
+[Symbol: Aleph]^{b}ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faithfully maintain
+the former reading, and merge the article in the verb.
+
+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.
+
+Such a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit will
+shew my meaning.
+
+In the expression [Greek: esthêta lampran anepempsen] (St. Luke xxiii.
+11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of the verb
+([Greek: an]) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding
+[Greek: lampran]. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported by one copy
+of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. concur in displaying [Greek:
+epempsen] in this place.
+
+The letters [Greek: NAIKÔNAIKAI] in the expression (St. Luke xxiii. 27)
+[Greek: gynaikôn hai kai] 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 [Greek: gynaikes].) Not so however
+what follows. ABCDLX and the Old Latin (except c) drop the [Greek: kai]:
+[Symbol: Aleph] and C drop the [Greek: ai]. The truth rests with the
+fourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives.
+
+Thus also the reading [Greek: en olê tê Galilaia] (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,--[Greek: periêgen]. The received reading of the place is
+the correct one,--[Greek: kai periêgen holên tên Galilaian ho Iêsous],
+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,
+
+B reads           [Greek: kai periêgen en holêi têi Galilaiai].
+[Symbol: Aleph] " [Greek: kai periêgen ho _is_ en têi Galilaiai].
+C "               [Greek: kai periêgen ho _is_ en holê têi Galilaiai].
+
+But--(I shall be asked)--what about the position of the Sacred Name? How
+comes it to pass that [Greek: ho Iêsous], which comes after [Greek:
+Galilaian] in almost every other known copy, should come after [Greek:
+periêgen] 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 [Greek: ho Iêsous]
+altogether) will not ask me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is
+sure to ask it.
+
+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 [Greek: kai
+periêgen ho _is_]. 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 [Greek:
+ho _is_] 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.
+
+
+§ 5.
+
+The introduction of [Greek: apo] in the place of [Greek: hagioi] 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 [Greek: agioi] for [Greek: apo]. It was but the
+mistaking of [Greek: AGIO] for [Greek: APO]. 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[83] and the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of
+it[84]. Obvious it was, next, for some one in perplexity,--(2) to
+introduce both readings ([Greek: apo] and [Greek: hagioi]) into the
+text. Accordingly [Greek: apo Theou hagioi] is found in C, two cursives,
+and Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. [Greek:
+hypo] for [Greek: apo]--but only because [Greek: hypo] went immediately
+before); of which fresh blunder ([Greek: hypo Theou hagioi]) Theophylact
+is the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have been
+foreseen: (4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both [Greek: apo]
+and [Greek: agioi] were left out,--which accounts for the reading of
+certain copies of the Old Latin[87]. 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 '_holy_
+men of God spake,' require us to read 'men spake _from_ 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?
+
+Another excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished by Heb.
+vii. 1. Instead of [Greek: Ho synantêsas Abraam]--said of
+Melchizedek,--[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit [Greek: OS]. The whole body of
+the copies, headed by CLP, are against them[88],--besides
+Chrysostom[89], Theodoret[90], Damascene[91]. It is needless to do more
+than state how this reading arose. The initial letter of [Greek:
+synantêsas] has been reduplicated through careless transcription:
+[Greek: OSSYN]--instead of [Greek: OSYN]--. 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.
+
+
+§ 6.
+
+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[92]: 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[93]] Barabbas,
+or Jesus who is called Christ?' 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[94].' 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[95].
+
+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 '_unto you_'
+([Greek: UMIN]) for the word '_Jesus_' ([Greek: IN]): in other words,
+carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of [Greek: UMIN],--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 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 Saviour's namesake! We prefer Origen's account, though he
+mistook the cause, to that of the modern critic.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission
+of [Greek: êdê] 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).
+
+[62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 _bis_, 251 _bis_, 252, 253, 255
+_bis_, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat^{ox} iv. 21.
+
+[63] _dem._ 440. But not _in cs._ 426: _theoph._ 262, 275.
+
+[64] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32.
+
+[65] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, [Greek:
+etoimos êdê pros to pisteuein].
+
+[66] Ambrose, ii. 279, has '_Et qui metit_.' Iren.^{int} substitutes
+'_nam_' for '_et_,' and omits '_jam_.' Jerome 9 times introduces '_jam_'
+before '_albae sunt_.' So Aug. (iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v.
+531) he omits the word altogether.
+
+[67] 'Hic' is not recognized in Ambrose. _Append._ ii. 367.
+
+[68] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice
+(viii. 34: x. 838) has [Greek: egô de ôde]: once (viii. 153) not. John
+Damascene (ii. 579) is without the [Greek: ôde].
+
+[69] i. 76: vi. 16 (_not_ vi. 484).
+
+[70] iii.^{2} 259 (_not_ v. 511).
+
+[71] p. 405.
+
+[72] [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.]
+
+[73] iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes [Greek: theou].
+
+[74] _Ap._ Mai vii. 135.
+
+[75] Praep. xiii. 6,--[Greek: monou tou henos] (vol. ii. 294).
+
+[76] Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37.
+
+[77] iii. 101.
+
+[78] Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.
+
+[79] 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 [Greek: euraklydôn]; nos vero
+[Greek: eurakydôn]; atque subjungit, "_utrumque, ut videtur, male_." At,
+quidquid "videri" possit, certum nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum
+codicem primo habuisse [Greek: eurakydôn], 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.]
+
+[80] _Ap._ Galland. x. 225.
+
+[81] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to
+the copyist _knowing more of Latin than of Greek_.
+
+True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. _That is
+the reason why_ the Latin translator (not understanding the word)
+rendered it _Euroaquilo_: instead of writing _Euraquilo_.
+
+I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief.
+Like the man who wrote [Greek: ep' autô tô phorô] for [Greek: ep'
+autophôrô].
+
+    Readings of Euroclydon
+
+    [Greek: EURAKYDÔN] B (sic)
+    [Greek: EURAKYLÔN] [Symbol: Aleph]A
+    [Greek: EURAKÊLÔN]
+    [Greek: EUTRAKÊLÔN]
+    [Greek: EURAKLÊDÔN] Peshitto.
+    [Greek: EURAKYKLÔN]
+
+    Euroaquilo Vulg.
+
+    [Greek: EUROKLYDÔN] HLP
+    [Greek: EURAKLYDÔN] Syr. Harkl.
+    [Greek: EURYKLYDÔN] B^{2 man.}
+
+[82] [Greek: Opou] ([Greek: ou] [Symbol: Aleph]) [Greek: gar] (--[Greek:
+gar] [Symbol: Aleph]BDL) [Greek: ean] ([Greek: an] D) [Greek: to ptôma]
+([Greek: sôma] [Symbol: Aleph]).
+
+[83] _Sancti Dei homines._
+
+[84] _Ap._ Galland. x. 236 a.
+
+[85] Trin. 234.
+
+[86] iii. 389.
+
+[87] '_Locuti sunt homines D_.'
+
+[88] 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?
+
+[89] Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a.
+
+[90] Theodoret, iii. 584.
+
+[91] J. Damascene, ii. 240 c.
+
+[92] St. Matt. xxvii. 17.
+
+[93] Cf. [Greek: ho legomenos Barabbas]. St. Mark xv. 7.
+
+[94] _Int._ iii. 918 c d.
+
+[95] 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
+'_Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur et Jesus._'--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, _Append._), 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 '_Jesus_ 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).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+IV. Itacism.
+
+
+[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.']
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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
+Spirit's meaning. New incidents:--unheard-of statements:--facts as yet
+unknown to readers of Scripture:--perversions of our Lord's 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 [Greek: palin], thrust in where it has no business, makes it appear
+that our Saviour promised to return the ass on which He rode in triumph
+into Jerusalem[96]. By writing [Greek: ô] for [Greek: o], many critics
+have transferred some words from the lips of Christ to those of His
+Evangelist, and made Him say what He never could have dreamed of
+saying[97]. By subjoining [Greek: s] 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[98]. By
+omitting [Greek: tô] and [Greek: Kyrie], the repenting malefactor is
+made to say, 'Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom[99].'
+
+Speaking of our Saviour's 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 _when_ 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[100]. But Tischendorf and Lachmann, who on the authority of D
+and four later uncials read [Greek: hoti] instead of [Greek: hote],
+import into the Gospel quite another meaning. According to their way of
+exhibiting the text, St. John is made to say that 'the multitude which
+was with Jesus, testified _that_ 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 [Greek: hoti], 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, _the whole body of
+the cursives_, exhibit [Greek: hote],--which, as every one must see, is
+certainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf's assertion
+that the prolixity of the expression [Greek: ephônêsen ek tou mnêmeiou
+kai êgeiren auton ek nekrôn] is inconsistent with [Greek:
+hote][101],--may surprise, but will never convince any one who is even
+moderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar manner.
+
+The same mistake--of [Greek: hoti] for [Greek: hote]--is met with at
+ver. 41 of the same chapter. 'These things said Isaiah _because_ he saw
+His glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not '_when_ 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 [Greek: hoti]: also Nonnus,
+who lived in the Thebaid (A.D. 410): but all other MSS., the Latin,
+Peshitto, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version:--
+Origen[102],--Eusebius in four places[103],--Basil[104],--Gregory of
+Nyssa twice[105],--Didymus three times[106],--Chrysostom twice[107],--
+Severianus of Gabala[108];--these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute
+a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril three times
+reads [Greek: hoti][109], three times [Greek: hote][110],--and once
+[Greek: hênika][111], which proves at least how he understood the place.
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+[A suggestive example[112] 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 _washed_[113] us from our sins in His own blood'
+(A.V.), is replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, 'Who hath
+_loosed_[114] 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 [Greek: u] for [Greek: ou], transcribing [Greek: lusanti] for
+[Greek: lousanti] (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 [Greek: u], followed by
+nine cursives, the Harkleian Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the
+other side, two uncials--viz. B^{2} of the eighth century and P of the
+ninth--the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write [Greek: lousanti]
+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.]
+
+[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 [Greek: hôde] into [Greek: hode], misinterpreting the letter
+which served often for both the long and the short [Greek: o], 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 [Greek: hôde] is the genuine word.]
+
+[Again, in St. John xiii. 25, [Greek: houtôs] has dropped out of many
+copies and so out of the Received Text because by an Itacism it was
+written [Greek: outos] in many manuscripts. Therefore [Greek: ekeinos
+outos] 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 [Greek: houtôs] was redundant, and this
+was the cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really [Greek:
+houtôs], being sufficiently authenticated[115], is exactly in consonance
+with Greek usage and St. John's style[116], and adds considerably to the
+graphic character of the sacred narrative. St. John was reclining
+([Greek: anakeimenos]) on his left arm over the bosom of the robe
+([Greek: en tôi kolpôi]) of the Saviour. When St. Peter beckoned to him
+he turned his head for the moment and sank ([Greek: epipesôn], not
+[Greek: anapesôn] which has the testimony only of B and about
+twenty-five uncials, [Symbol: Aleph] and C being divided against
+themselves) on the breast of the Lord, being still in the general
+posture in which he was ([Greek: houtôs][117]), and asked Him in a
+whisper 'Lord, who is it?']
+
+[Another case of confusion between [Greek: ô] and [Greek: o] may be seen
+in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where [Greek: apolôlôs] has gained so strong a
+hold that it is found in the Received Text for [Greek: apolôlos], which
+last being the better attested appears to be the right reading[118]. But
+the instance which requires the most attention is [Greek: katharizon] in
+St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because in _The Last Twelve Verses of
+St. Mark_, the alteration into [Greek: katharizôn] is advocated as being
+'no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment
+on the Saviour's words[119].' 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 [Greek: katharizôn], and [Greek: katharizon]
+bears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidence
+is divided, there being eight against the change ([Symbol: Phi][Symbol:
+Sigma]KMUV[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]), and eleven for it ([Symbol:
+Aleph]ABEFGHLSX[Symbol: Delta]);--that not much is advanced by the
+versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis Codex, the Harkleian (?), the
+Gothic, the Old Latin[120], the Vulgate, favour [Greek:
+katharizon];--nor by the Fathers:--since Aphraates[121], Augustine
+(?)[122], and Novatian[123] are contradicted by Origen[124],
+Theophylact[125], and Gregory Thaumaturgus[126], 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
+[Greek: katharizon],--and that there is such difficulty cannot candidly
+be denied,--this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by
+[Greek: katharizôn], 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. The fact is that to
+make this reading satisfactory, another alteration is required. [Greek:
+Katharizôn panta ta brômata] 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.]
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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 [Greek: en] (_not the
+numeral_ [Greek: hen]) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our Lord says that the seed
+which 'fell into the good ground' 'yielded by ([Greek: en]) thirty, and
+by ([Greek: en]) sixty, and by ([Greek: en]) an hundred.' Tischendorf
+notes that besides all the uncials which are furnished with accents and
+breathings (viz. EFGHKMUV[Symbol: Pi]) 'nearly 100 cursives' exhibit
+[Greek: en] here and in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case.
+All the cursives may be declared to exhibit [Greek: en], e.g. all
+Matthaei's and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object examined
+a large number of Evangelia, and found [Greek: en] in all. The Basle MS.
+from which Erasmus derived his text[127] exhibits [Greek: en],--though
+he printed [Greek: hen] out of respect for the Vulgate. The
+Complutensian having [Greek: hen], the reading of the Textus Receptus
+follows in consequence: but the Traditional reading has been shewn to be
+[Greek: en],--which is doubtless intended by [Greek: EN] in Cod. A.
+
+Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Delta] (two ever licentious and [Symbol:
+Delta] similarly so throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition
+[Greek: en] the preposition [Greek: eis],--(a sufficient proof to me
+that they understand [Greek: EN] to represent [Greek: en], not [Greek:
+hen]): and are followed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As
+for the chartered libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the
+first [Greek: en] (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the
+preposition [Greek: EIS]: while, in ver. 20, it retains the first
+[Greek: en], but omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is
+followed by Westcott and Hort[128].
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+St. Paul[129] in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young women
+shall be 'keepers at home,' [Greek: oikourous]. So, (with five
+exceptions,) every known Codex[130], including the corrected [Symbol:
+Aleph] and D,--HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens Alex.[131]
+(A.D. 180),--Theodore of Mopsuestia[132],--Basil[133],--Chrysostom[134]--
+Theodoret[135],--Damascene[136]. So again the Old Latin (_domum
+custodientes_[137]),--the Vulgate (_domus curam habentes_[138]),--and
+Jerome (_habentes domus diligentiam_[139]): 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 [Greek:
+oikouros] was held to be a woman's chiefest praise[140]: [Greek:
+kalliston ergon gynê oikouros], writes Clemens Alex.[141]; assigning to
+the wife [Greek: oikouria] as her proper province[142]. On the contrary,
+'gadding about from house to house' is what the Apostle, writing to
+Timothy[143], 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.
+
+Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and
+Hort, because they find [Greek: oikourgous] in [Symbol: Aleph]*ACD*F-G,
+are for thrusting that 'barbarous and scarcely intelligible' word, if it
+be not even a non-existent[144], 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.]
+
+So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, [Greek: ti hêmin kai soi, Iêsou,
+huie tou Theou]; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name [Greek: Iêsou] is omitted
+by B[Symbol: Aleph].
+
+The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is inspected:--[Greek:
+KAISOI_IU_UIETOU_THU_]:--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.
+
+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.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[96] St. Mark xi. 4. See Revision Revised, pp. 57-58.
+
+[97] St. Mark vii. 19, [Greek: katharizôn] for [Greek: katharizon]. See
+below, pp. 61-3.
+
+[98] St. Luke ii. 14.
+
+[99] St. Luke xxiii. 42.
+
+[100] St. Matt. xx. 9. See also St. Mark xi. 9, 10.
+
+[101] 'Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si [Greek:
+hote] legendum esset.'
+
+[102] iv. 577: 'quando.'
+
+[103] Dem. Ev. 310, 312, 454 _bis._
+
+[104] i. 301.
+
+[105] ii. 488, and _ap._ Gall. vi. 580.
+
+[106] Trin. 59, 99, 242.
+
+[107] viii. 406, 407. Also ps.-Chrysost. v. 613. Note, that
+'Apolinarius' in Cramer's Cat. 332 is Chrys. viii. 407.
+
+[108] _Ap._ Chrys. vi. 453.
+
+[109] iv. 505, 709, and _ap_. Mai iii. 85.
+
+[110] ii. 102: iv. 709, and _ap_. Mai iii. 118.
+
+[111] v^{1}. 642.
+
+[112] Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists of instances of
+Itacism, he worked out none, except the substitution of [Greek: hen] for
+[Greek: en] 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 [Greek: lousanti] and [Greek: katharizon] 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.
+
+[113] [Greek: lousanti].
+
+[114] [Greek: lusanti].
+
+[115]
+    [Greek: houtôs]. BCEFGHLMX[Symbol: Delta]. Most cursives. Goth.
+    [Greek: outos]. KSU[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Lambda]. Ten cursives.
+    _Omit_ [Symbol: Aleph]AD[Pi]. Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop.
+      Armen. Georg. Slavon.
+    Bohair. Pers.
+
+[116] E.g. Thuc. vii. 15, St. John iv. 6.
+
+[117] See St. John iv. 6: Acts xx. 11, xxvii. 17. The beloved Apostle
+was therefore called [Greek: ho epistêthios]. See Suicer. s. v. Westcott
+on St. John xiii. 25.
+
+[118]
+    24. [Greek: apolôlôs.] [Symbol: Aleph]^{a}ABD &c.
+    [Greek: apolôlos]. [Symbol: Aleph]*GKMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol:
+    Pi]*. Most curs.
+
+    32. [Greek: apolôlôs]. [Symbol: Aleph]*ABD &c.
+    [Greek: apolôlos]. [Symbol: Aleph]^{c}KMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol:
+    Pi]*. Most curs.
+
+[119] Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted [Greek: katharizôn]
+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 _Twelve Verses_
+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 [Greek:
+katharizôn] 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.
+
+[120] 'The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have "in secessum uadit (or
+exiit) purgans omnes escas"; _i_ (Vindobonensis) and _r_ (Usserianus)
+have "et purgat" for "purgans": and _a_ 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.)
+
+[121] Dem. xv. (Graffin)--'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione
+in secessum emittitur.' (Lat.)
+
+[122] iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'
+
+[123] Galland. iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in
+secessu naturali lege purgari.'
+
+[124] iii. 494. [Greek: elege tauta ho Sôtêr, katharizôn panta ta
+brômata.]
+
+[125] i. 206. [Greek: ekkatharizôn panta ta brômata.]
+
+[126] Galland. iii. 400. [Greek: alla kai ho Sôtêr, panta katharizôn ta
+brômata.]
+
+[127] Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4.
+
+[128] [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.
+
+I. _Proper Names._
+
+[Greek: Iôanês], generally: [Greek: Iôannês], 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.
+
+[Greek: Beezeboul], Matt. x. 25; xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15,
+18, 19.
+
+[Greek: Nazaret], Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; John i. 46, 47. [Greek:
+Nazara], Matt. iv. 13. [Greek: Nazareth], Matt. xxi. 11; Luke ii. 51;
+iv. 16.
+
+[Greek: Maria] for [Greek: Mariam], Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 19. [Greek:
+Mariam] for [Greek: Maria], Matt. xxvii. 61; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42;
+xi. 32; John xi. 2; xii. 3; xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86.
+
+[Greek: Koum], Mark v. 41. [Greek: Golgoth], Luke xix. 17.
+
+[Greek: Istraêleitai, Istraêlitai, Israêleitai, Israêlitai].
+
+[Greek: Eleisabet, Elisabet].
+
+[Greek: Môsês, Môusês.]
+
+[Greek: Dalmanountha], Mark viii. 10.
+
+[Greek: Iôsê] (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. [Greek: Iôsêph], Matt.
+xxvii. 57, 59; Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38.
+
+
+II. _Mis-spelling of ordinary words._
+
+[Greek: kath' idian], Matt. xvii. 1, 19; xxi v. 3; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31,
+&c. [Greek: kat' idian], Matt. xiv. 13, 23; Mark vi. 32; vii. 33, &c.
+
+[Greek: genêma], Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. [Greek:
+gennêma], Matt. iii. 7; xii. 34; xxiii. 33; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known
+[Greek: gennêmata echidnôn]).
+
+A similar confusion between [Greek: genesis] and [Greek: gennêsis],
+Matt. i, and between [Greek: egenêthên] and [Greek: egennêthên], and
+[Greek: gegenêmai] and [Greek: gegennêmai]. See Kuenen and Cobet N. T.
+ad fid. Cod. Vaticani lxxvii.
+
+
+III. _Itacisms._
+
+[Greek: kreinô], John xii. 48 ([Greek: kreinei]). [Greek: krinô], Matt.
+vii. 1; xix. 28; Luke vi. 37; vii. 43; xii. 57, &c.
+
+[Greek: teimô, timô], Matt. xv. 4, 5, 8; xix. 19; xxvii. 9; Mark vii. 6,
+10, &c.
+
+[Greek: enebreimêthê] (Matt. ix. 30) for [Greek: enebrimêsato]. [Greek:
+anakleithênai] (Mark vi. 39) for [Greek: anaklinai. seitos] for [Greek:
+sitos] (Mark iv. 28).
+
+
+IV. _Bad Grammar._
+
+[Greek: tôi oikodespotêi epekalesan] for [Greek: ton oikodespotên ekal.]
+(Matt. x. 25). [Greek: katapatêsousin] for [Greek:-sôsin] (Matt. vii.
+6). [Greek: ho an aitêsetai] (Matt. xiv. 7). [Greek: hotan de akouete]
+(Mark xiii. 7).
+
+
+V. _Impossible words._
+
+[Greek: emnêsteumenên] (Luke i. 27). [Greek: ouranou] for [Greek:
+ouraniou] (ii. 13). [Greek: anêzêtoun] (Luke ii. 44). [Greek: kopiousin]
+(Matt. vi. 28). [Greek: êrôtoun] (Matt. xv. 23). [Greek: kataskênoin]
+(Mark iv. 32). [Greek: hêmeis] for [Greek: hymeis]. [Greek: hymeis] for
+[Greek: hêmeis].]
+
+[129] 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.
+
+[130] _All_ Matthaei's 16,--_all_ Rinck's 7,--_all_ Reiche's 6,--_all_
+Scrivener's 13, &c., &c.
+
+[131] 622.
+
+[132] _Ed._ Swete, ii. 247 (_domos suas bene regentes_); 248 (_domus
+proprias optime regant_).
+
+[133] ii. (_Eth._) 291 a, 309 b.
+
+[134] xi. 750 a, 751 b c d--[Greek: hê oikouros kai oikonomikê.]
+
+[135] iii. 704.
+
+[136] ii. 271.
+
+[137] Cod. Clarom.
+
+[138] Cod. Amiat., and August. iii^{1}. 804.
+
+[139] vii. 716 c, 718 b (_Bene domum regere_, 718 c).
+
+[140] [Greek: kat' oikon oikourousin hôste parthenoi] (Soph. Oed. Col.
+343).--'[Greek: Oikouros] est quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: [Greek:
+oikourgos] 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.
+
+[141] P. 293, _lin._ 4 (see _lin._ 2).
+
+[142] P. 288, _lin._ 20.
+
+[143] 1 Tim. v. 13.
+
+[144] [Greek: oikourgein]--which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c.
+1)--is probably due to the scribe.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+V. Liturgical Influence.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+There is one distinct class of evidence provided by Almighty God for the
+conservation of the deposit in its integrity[145], 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 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[146].
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+They seem to me to fall into two classes: (_a_) Those which contain a
+lesson for every day in the year: (_b_) Those which only contain
+[lessons for fixed Festivals and] the Saturday-Sunday lessons ([Greek:
+sabbatokyriakai]). We are reminded 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[147]. [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[148].]
+
+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[149]. 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 [Greek: deuteroprôtôi][150],' 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[151].
+
+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[152]. For example, Marcion, in A.D. 140,
+would hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and Apostolicon of his
+own, as we learn from Epiphanius[153], if he had not been induced by the
+Lectionary System prevailing around him to form a counterplan of
+teaching upon the same model.]
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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.
+
+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 Jesus said unto His
+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[154], they are found in Cod. D[155],--in copies of
+the Old Latin[156] 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[157].
+
+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[158]. 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 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.
+
+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 [Greek: TO TELOS], 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[159]? 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.]
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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 [Greek:
+eipe de ho Kyrios], 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 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 Lord's discourse,--which it is
+perceived flows on unbroken from v. 24 to v. 35. This has been seen
+already by some[160], 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[161], 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
+Lord.
+
+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 Saviour 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
+Saviour's words were receiving at the hands of his auditory; but our
+Saviour's 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 [Greek: oun] in the 31st verse; and the
+use in ver. 35 of the same verb ([Greek: edikaiôthê]) which the Divine
+Speaker had employed in ver. 29: whereby He takes up His previous
+statement while He applies and enforces it.
+
+Another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating in the same way
+is found a little farther on. In St. Luke ix. 1 ('And having called
+together His twelve Disciples'), the words [Greek: mathêtas autou] 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 Jesus having called together His twelve Disciples.'
+Accordingly we are not surprised to find the words [Greek: ho Iêsous]
+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 [Greek: mathêtas
+autou], [Symbol: Aleph]C with LX[Symbol: Lambda][Symbol: Xi] and a
+choice assortment of cursives exhibit [Greek: apostolous],--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.
+
+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 Lord's first and second missionary journey in
+very nearly the same words. The former place (iv. 23) ending [Greek: kai
+pasan malakian en tô laô] used to conclude the lesson for the second
+Sunday after Pentecost,--the latter (ix. 35) ending [Greek: kai pasan
+malakian] occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventh
+Sunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers the matter,
+that [Greek: en tô laô] 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[162].
+
+But sometimes corruptions of this class are really perplexing. Thus
+[Symbol: Aleph] testifies to the existence of a short additional clause
+([Greek: kai polloi êkolouthêsan autô]) at the end, 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.
+
+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 ([Greek: kai idou nomikos tis anestê,
+ekpeirazôn aiton, kai legôn]). Many of the Latin copies preface this
+with _et haec eo dicente_. Now, the established formula of the
+lectionaries here is,--[Greek: nomikos tis prosêthen tô I.], 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,--[Greek: anestê de tis nomikos]. Four
+Codexes ([Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi]) with the Curetonian omit the
+second [Greek: kai] which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place
+in its purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy.
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+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, Westcott and Hort, and the
+Revisers eject the words [Greek: kai eplêrôthê hê graphê hê legousa, kai
+meta anomôn elogisthê] from the text altogether. What can be the reason
+for so extraordinary a proceeding?
+
+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.
+
+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 ([Greek: sis] / [Greek: ê] 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?
+
+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 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[163].
+
+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?'
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+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 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 _it has left it_[164]. The
+explanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, and the Codexes
+which leave it out are corrupt.
+
+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.
+
+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'?
+
+
+§ 5.
+
+A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this cause, which
+nevertheless has imposed on several critics, 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. [Greek: Epi to auto
+de Petros kai Iôannês k.t.l.] So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E.
+
+The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however in
+representing the words which immediately precede in the following
+unintelligible fashion:--[Greek: ho de Kyrios prosetithei tous
+sôzomenous kath' hêmeran epi to auto. Petros de k.t.l.] 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 [Greek: archê]--indicative of the beginning of a lection,--thrust
+in between [Greek: epi to auto de] and [Greek: Petros]. 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[165]. And so it
+came to pass that in the first instance the place stood thus: [Greek: ho
+de Kyrios prosetithei tous sôzomenous kath' hêmeran tê ekklêsia epi to
+auto],--which was plainly intolerable.
+
+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:--[Greek: kathêmeran epi to auto en tê ekklêsia. En de tais
+hêmerais tautais Petros k.t.l.]: 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 [Greek: tê ekklêsia epi
+to auto] 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 [Greek: tê ekklêsia].
+
+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 [Greek: epi to auto] seemed
+hard to the Latins[166].
+
+Hence too the omission of [Greek: palin] from [Symbol: Aleph]BD (St.
+Matt, xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex[167] will
+explain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of writing:--
+
+  [Greek: akouetô. telos]
+  [Greek: palin. archê. eipen o Kurios tên parabolên tautên.]
+  [Greek: Omoia estin k.t.l.]
+
+The word [Greek: palin], because it stands between the end ([Greek:
+telos]) of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning ([Greek:
+archê]) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out [though every
+one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows that [Greek: archê] and [Greek:
+telos] were often inserted in the text]. The second of these two lessons
+begins with [Greek: homoia] [because [Greek: palin] 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^{1.2} g^{1.2} k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does but
+further shew that such an amount of evidence in and by itself is wholly
+insufficient to determine the text of Scripture.
+
+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 [Greek: akouein],--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
+[Greek: panta hosa echei pôlei],--I can but reflect on the utterly
+insecure basis on which the Revisers and the school which they follow
+would remodel the inspired Text.
+
+It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, that the clause
+[Greek: kai elypêthêsan sphodra] (St. Matt. xvii. 23) comes to be
+omitted in K and several other copies. The previous lesson ends at
+[Greek: egerthêsetai],--the next lesson begins at [Greek: prosêlthon].
+
+
+§ 6.
+
+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[168], I will in this
+place discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the Lord's
+Prayer concludes in St. Matt. vi. 13[169],--[Greek: hoti sou estin hê
+basileia kai hê dynamis kai hê doxa eis tous aiônas. amên],--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.
+
+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 of the Latin copies. Even of these however
+four (k f g^{1} 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 [Greek: Didachê] (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 [Symbol:
+Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma] 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?
+
+Four uncial MSS. ([Symbol: Aleph]BDZ), supported by five cursives of bad
+character (1, 17 which gives [Greek: amên], 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 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?
+
+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 _And deliver us
+from evil_, follows _For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
+glory, for ever_. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after
+the choir has said _And deliver us from evil_, 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 Lord's 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 Lord's Prayer. The same statement has been repeated ad nauseam by
+ten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which our
+Saviour 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.
+
+From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies, it is
+found then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that
+_not one_ 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 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.
+
+'_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory_, Father, Son
+and Holy Ghost, now and always and _for ever_ and ever. _Amen_.'
+
+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 [Greek: nun kai
+aei],--and its invariable [Greek: eis tous aiônas tôn aiônôn], (which
+must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by
+Irenaeus[170], 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,--'_For thine
+is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen._'
+
+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 Lord's 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 practice of the
+ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible.
+
+What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's peculiar method
+of reciting the Lord's 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 Lord's Prayer than
+they found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder
+would have been if they did.
+
+Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers
+concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the Lord's
+Prayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa[171], 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 A.D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this
+respect, in a different state from what they are at present?
+
+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 Lord's 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
+Lord Jesus Christ.
+
+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.
+
+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, Tregelles, Alford,
+Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as
+spurious.
+
+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 [Greek: Didachê] 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[172]. 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 [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma]. 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?
+
+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.
+
+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 Lord's Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their
+genuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an
+indefinitely remote period the Lord's 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.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[145] [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.]
+
+[146] [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.]
+
+[147] ['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--_not_ 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.]
+
+[148] [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener's Plain
+Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.]
+
+[149] See Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp.
+56-65.
+
+[150] Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence.
+
+[151] St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.
+
+[152] 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.
+
+[153] i. 311.
+
+[154] [Greek: eipen ho Kyrios tois heautou mathêtais; mê tarassesthô.]
+
+[155] [Greek: kai eipen tois mathêtais autou]. The same Codex (D) also
+prefixes to St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula--[Greek: eipen
+de kai eteran parabolên].
+
+[156] '_Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur_.'
+
+[157] E.g. the words [Greek: kai legei autois; eirênê hymin] have been
+omitted by Tisch, and rejected by W.-Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 _on the
+sole authority_ of D and five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on the
+same sorry evidence, the words [Greek: proskynêsantes auton] 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.
+
+[158] Pp. 78-80.
+
+[159] See Traditional Text, Appendix VII.
+
+[160] Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Westcott and Hort, doubt it.
+
+[161] Thus Codex [Symbol: Xi] actually interpolates at this place the
+words--[Greek: ouketi ekeinois elegeto, alla tois mathêtais.] Tisch. _ad
+loc_.
+
+[162] Cyril Alex, (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and a
+few other copies, even append the same familiar words to [Greek: kai
+pasan malakian] in St. Matt. x. 1.
+
+[163] Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348.
+
+[164] 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.'
+
+[165] [Greek: tous sôzomenous kathêmeran en tê ekklêsia. epi to auto de
+(TÊ S' TÊS DIAKINÊSIMOU) Petros kai Iôannês, k.t.l.] Addit. 16,184, fol.
+152 _b_.
+
+[166] Bede, Retr. 111. D (add. [Greek: hoi en t. ekkl.]). Brit. Mus.
+Addit. 16, 184. fol. 152 _b._ Vulgate.
+
+[167] So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed
+in a smaller type, for distinction.
+
+[168] The Revision Revised, 34-6.
+
+[169] See The Traditional Text, p. 104.
+
+[170] [Greek: alla kai hêmas epi tês Eucharistias legontas, 'eis tous
+aiônas tôn aiônôn,' k.t.l.] Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3.
+
+[171] But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener,
+Introduction, ii. p. 325, note 1.
+
+[172] See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I
+have increased the Dean's list with a few additional authorities.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+I. Harmonistic Influence.
+
+
+[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.
+
+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.
+
+We now advance to some instances which will severally and conjointly
+explain themselves.]
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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
+Lord's 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'
+([Greek: eiselthousai]), 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] _towards the sepulchre_ weeping,--_outside_[173].'
+
+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[174], from which they are 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 [Greek: pros to mnêmeion]
+into [Greek: pros tô mnêmeiô] (which is just as ambiguous in Greek as
+'_at_ the sepulchre' in English[175]), and [Greek: exô] 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 [Greek:
+heistêkei pros tô mnêmeiô, exô klaiousa],--merely transposing (with many
+other authorities) the last two words. But then Codex B substitutes
+[Greek: elthousai] for [Greek: eiselthousai] 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[176]. Codex [Symbol: Aleph], on the
+contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting [Greek: exô],--(as in
+the next verse it leaves out [Greek: duo], 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 [Greek: EN tô mnêmeiô]. (C and D
+are lost here.) When will men learn that these 'old uncials' are _ignes
+fatui_,--not beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they exhibit
+are not only inconsistent but corrupt?
+
+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 [Greek: pros tô mnêmeiô]: but so did neither
+Chrysostom[177] nor Cyril[178] read the place. And if the Evangelist
+himself had so written, is it credible 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
+[Greek: pros tô mnêmeiô], 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.
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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 [Greek: kai tines syn autais] 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 Lord's body was
+laid. Now they were the same women apparently who prepared the spices
+and ointment and hastened therewith at break of 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
+Saviour 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.'
+
+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 [Greek: kai tines syn autais] are
+observed to begin St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows,--[Greek:
+katakolouthêsasai de DUO gynaikes]. 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
+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.
+
+[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic Influence may be found
+in the substitution of 'wine' ([Greek: oinon]) for vinegar ([Greek:
+oxos]), respecting which the details are given in the second Appendix to
+the Traditional Text.]
+
+[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propensities in the Ancient
+Church.]
+
+In St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of the Old Latin
+versions (b c f g^{1} 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.
+
+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.
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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 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].
+
+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.
+
+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.]
+
+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 Lord's paying
+tribute,--set down in St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26.
+
+The received text exhibits,--'And when he [Peter] had entered ([Greek:
+hote eisêlthen]) into the house, Jesus 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 [Greek: hote
+eisêlthen], Codex B (but no other uncial) substitutes [Greek: elthonta]:
+Codex [Symbol: Aleph] (but no other) [Greek: eiselthonta]: Codex D (but
+no other) [Greek: eiselthonti]: Codex C (but no other) [Greek: hote
+êlthon]: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained [Greek:
+eiselthontôn]; and a sixth, [Greek: elthontôn autôn]. A very fair
+specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the _concordia discors_
+which prevails in the most ancient uncial copies[179]. How is all this
+discrepancy to be accounted for?
+
+The Evangelist proceeds,--'Peter saith unto Him ([Greek: Legei autô ho
+Petros]), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, but continues--'Now
+when he had said, Of strangers' ([Greek: Eipontos de autou, apo tôn
+allotriôn]);--which unauthorized clause, all but the word [Greek:
+autou], is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no other uncial. On the
+other hand, for [Greek: Legei autô ho Petros], [Symbol: Aleph] (alone of
+uncials) substitutes [Greek: Ho de ephê]: and B (also alone of uncials)
+substitutes [Greek: Eipontos de],--and then proceeds exactly like the
+received text: while D merely omits [Greek: ho Petros]. Again I
+ask,--How is all this discrepancy to be explained[180]?
+
+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, (_a_) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous clauses:
+(_b_) to introduce new incidents: (_c_) to supply picturesque details:
+(_d_) to give a new turn to the expression: (_e_) to vary the
+construction at pleasure: (_f_) 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 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.
+
+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.
+
+[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 of the piercing of the Lord's side from
+St. John xix. 34 to St. Matt. xxvii. 49[181], and the omission of the
+words 'and of an honeycomb' ([Greek: kai apo tou melissiou
+kêriou][182]).]
+
+Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac[183], the _patch-work_ supplement to St.
+Matt. xxi. 9: viz.:--[Greek: polloi de] (St. Mark xi. 8) [Greek:
+exêlthon eis hypantêsin autou. kai] (St. John xii. 13) [Greek: êrxanto
+... chairontes ainein ton Theon ... peri pasôn hôn eidon] (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 Holy Ghost?
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[173] [Greek: Maria de heistêkei pros to mnêmeion klaiousa exô] (St.
+John xx. 11). Comp. the expression [Greek: pros to phôs] 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.
+
+[174] Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius _according to the
+Greek_, the following places are brought together:--
+
+    (St. Matt. xxviii) (St. Mark xvi) (St. Luke xxiv) (St. John xx)
+          1-4.             2-5.             1-4.       1, 11, 12.
+                       _According to the Syriac_:--
+          3, 4.             5.            3, 4, 5(1/2).   11, 12.
+
+[175] Consider [Greek: ho de Petros heistêkei pros tê thyra exô] (St.
+John xviii. 16). Has not this place, by the way, exerted an assimilating
+influence over St. John xx. 11?
+
+[176] Hesychius, _qu._ 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43),
+explains St. Mark's phrase [Greek: en tois dexiois] as follows:--[Greek:
+dêlonoti tou exôterou spêlaiou].
+
+[177] viii. 513.
+
+[178] iv. 1079.
+
+[179] Traditional Text, pp. 81-8.
+
+[180] 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 Holy Ghost? Is not a superstitious reverence for B and [Symbol:
+Aleph] betraying for ever people into error?
+
+[181] Revision Revised, p. 33.
+
+[182] Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252.
+
+[183] The Lewis MS. is defective here.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+II. Assimilation.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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.
+
+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 _per fas et nefas_ an enforced Harmony has been established,--
+which abound indeed, but are by no means common,--I am disposed to draw
+a line.
+
+This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the 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[184], 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.]
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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 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:
+
+(_a_) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of Cod. [Symbol:
+Aleph], in place of [Greek: basanisai hêmas] (in St. Matt. viii. 29),
+writes [Greek: hêmas apolesai],--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.
+
+(_b_) Again, when in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B we find [Greek: tassomenos]
+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.
+
+(_c_) In the same way I make no doubt that [Greek: potamô] (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.
+
+(_d_) To be brief:--the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: adelphe]
+(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 have written
+[Greek: tô anemô] instead of [Greek: tois anemois] in St. Matt. viii.
+26, only because he was so familiar with [Greek: tô anemô] 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 [Greek: echete] in St. Matt, xvi. 8, only because he
+was thinking of the parallel place in St. Mark viii. 17.--[Greek:
+Êrxanto aganaktein] (St. Matt. xx. 24) can only have been introduced
+into [Symbol: Aleph] from the parallel place in St. Mark x. 41, and
+_may_ have been supplied _memoriter_.--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 [Greek: austêros] in place of [Greek:
+sklêros].--The substitution by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: hon
+parêtounto] in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for [Greek: hon êthelon] may seem to
+be the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in St.
+Mark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn[185], instead of [Greek: honper
+êitounto], Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit [Greek: hon parêtounto],
+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 [Greek: poiêsô hina echô
+zôên aiônion],--the formula which is found in the parallel place of St.
+Luke xviii. 18, viz. [Greek: poiêsas zôên aiônion klêronomêsô],--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.
+
+(_e_) 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 [Greek: legontes, eirênê tô oikô toutô] (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 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.
+
+(_f_) Again. When [Symbol: Aleph] and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. ix.
+34 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the clause [Greek:
+eidotes hoti apethanen], 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, [Greek: ho de exelthôn] down to
+[Greek: Kapharnaoum]), 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.]
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seen
+in the next example.
+
+The little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, with a
+few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[186]),
+conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause [Greek: hoti egô
+hypagô pros ton Patera]: 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 Saviour 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 Father.' 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, _Because I go
+to the_ Father?'--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^{b} (_both_ of the fourth
+century),--every known Cursive--all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac,
+Gothic, Coptic, &c.)--are for retaining the clause. Add, that
+Nonnus[187] (A.D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of Chrysostom[188]
+and of Cyril[189] 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 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 Lord seems at
+first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all!
+
+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 [Greek: touto ti hestin] of the
+Evangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by BDLY to the [Greek: ti
+estin touto] which went immediately before.
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+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 Saviour's 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 Jesus ([Greek: ên de anakeimenos en tô kolpô tou 'I.]) one of
+His disciples whom Jesus 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 ([Greek: epipesôn de ekeinos houtôs epi
+to stêthos tou 'I.]) [i.e. otherwise keeping his position, see above, p.
+60], saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?'
+
+The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply 'reclining
+([Greek: anakeimenos]) in the bosom' of his Divine Master: that is, his
+place at the Supper is the next adjoining 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
+([Greek: epipesôn]) on (or close to) His Master's chest ([Greek: epi to
+stêthos]), he says softly,--'Lord, 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 Jesus loved; who also at the
+Supper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay ([Greek: anepesen][190]) on Jesus'
+breast,' (literally, 'upon His chest,'--[Greek: epi to stêthos autou]),
+and said, 'Lord, 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 [Greek: ho epistêthios],--'the
+(recliner) on the chest[191].'
+
+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 [Greek: epipesôn] in St. John xiii. 25.
+Chrysostom[192] and probably Cyril[193] confirm the same reading. So
+also Nonnus[194]. Not so B and C with four other uncials and about
+twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at their head), besides
+Origen[195] in two places and apparently Theodorus of Mopsuestia[196].
+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 [Greek:
+anapesôn oun ekeinos k.t.l.] 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.
+
+That this is the true history of the substitution of [Greek: anapesôn]
+in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious [Greek: epipesôn] 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
+[Greek: anapesôn] might usurp the place of [Greek: epipesôn][197], 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 '_the one that lay_ ([Greek: ho anapesôn]) _upon
+the Lord's chest_.' The expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is
+employed by Irenaeus[198] (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates[199] (Bp. of
+Ephesus A.D. 196); by Origen[200] and by Ephraim Syrus[201]: by
+Epiphanius[202] and by Palladius[203]: by Gregory of Nazianzus[204] and
+by his namesake of Nyssa[205]: by pseudo-Eusebius[206], by
+pseudo-Caesarius[207], and by pseudo-Chrysostom[208]. 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.
+
+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[209] and
+contends on the same side. Alford informs us that [Greek: epipesôn] has
+surreptitiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why should it? how
+could it?) '[Greek: anapesôn] not seeming appropriate.' Whereas, on the
+contrary, [Greek: anapesôn] is the invariable and obvious
+expression,--[Greek: epipesôn] the unusual, and, till it has been
+explained, the unintelligible word. Tischendorf,--who had read [Greek:
+epipesôn] in 1848 and [Greek: anapesôn] 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 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?
+
+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
+[Greek: anapesôn] (for [Greek: epipesôn]) 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:--
+
+    xiii. 21.-[Greek: o] [Symbol: Aleph]B: [Greek: umin legô] _tr._
+    B.
+
+    xiii. 22.-[Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: oi Ioudaioi] [Symbol:
+    Aleph]: [Greek: aporountei] D.
+
+    xiii. 23.-[Greek: de] B: + [Greek: ek] [Symbol:
+    Aleph]ABCD:-[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai] D.
+
+    xiii. 24. (_for_ [Greek: pythesthai tis an eiê] + [Greek: outos]
+    D) [Greek: kai legei autô, eipe tis estin] BC: (_for_ [Greek:
+    legei]) [Greek: elegen] [Symbol: Aleph]: + [Greek: kai legei
+    autô eipe tis estin peri ou legei] [Symbol: Aleph].
+
+    xiii. 25. (_for_ [Greek: epipesôn]) [Greek: anapesôn] BC:-[Greek: de]
+    BC: (_for_ [Greek: de]) [Greek: oun] [Symbol: Aleph]D; -[Greek:
+    outos] [Symbol: Aleph]AD.
+
+    xiii. 26. + [Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: autô] D:--[Greek: o] B: +
+    [Greek: kai legei] [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + [Greek: an] D: (_for_
+    [Greek: bapsas]) [Greek: embapsas] AD: [Greek: bapsô ... kai
+    dôsô autô] BC: + [Greek: psômou] (_after_ [Greek: psômion]) C:
+    (_for_ [Greek: embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas] D: (_for_ [Greek: kai
+    embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas oun] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: -[Greek: to]
+    B: + [Greek: lambanei kai] BC: [Greek: Iskariôtou] [Symbol:
+    Aleph]BC: [Greek: apo Karyôtou] D.
+
+    xiii. 27.-[Greek: tote] [Symbol: Aleph]:-[Greek: meta to psômion
+    tote] D: (_for_ [Greek: legei oun]) [Greek: kai legei]
+    D:-[Greek: o] B.
+
+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 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?
+
+
+§ 5.
+
+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[210] proved that the
+clause [Greek: huiou tou Theou] 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[211], Gothic, and Egyptian versions,
+as well as by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta], and (according 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
+[Greek: en tô Êsaia tô prophêtê] instead of [Greek: en tois prophêtais]
+in St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every recent editor
+and critic[212],--has been either overestimated or else misunderstood.
+
+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 [Greek: tou prophêtou] for [Greek: tôn prophêtôn] 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[213], Eusebius[214], and pseudo-Jerome[215] certainly found it
+in many ancient copies?
+
+2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes [Symbol:
+Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]:--If any one will be at the pains to tabulate
+the 900[216] 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 responsibility is shared on about
+200 occasions by D: on about 265 by C: on about 350 by [Delta][217]. 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]BCDL[Symbol: Delta]. 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]BDL[Symbol: Delta].
+
+3. The cursive copies which exhibit 'Isaiah' in place of 'the prophet.'
+reckoned by Tischendorf at 'nearly twenty-five,' are probably less than
+fifteen[218], and those, almost all of suspicious character. High time
+it is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were
+better understood.
+
+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[219]) 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
+already), Porphyry[220] the heretic (who wrote a book to convict the
+Evangelists of mis-statements[221], and who is therefore scarcely a
+trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severianus. Of these,
+Eusebius[222] and Jerome[223] 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?
+
+And do any inquire,--How then did this perversion of the truth arise? In
+the easiest way possible, I answer. Refer to the Eusebian tables, and
+note that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:--
+
+    St. Matt. [Greek: ê] (i.e. iii. 3).
+    St. Mark. [Greek: b] (i.e. i. 3).
+    St. Luke. [Greek: z] (i.e. iii. 3-6).
+    St. John. [Greek: i] (i.e. i. 23)[224].
+
+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,
+_what_ more obvious than that some critic with harmonistic proclivities
+should have insisted on supplying _the second also_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable, except
+under peculiar circumstances. For first, whatever _a priori_
+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 [Greek: to
+rhêthen DIA Daniêl tou prophêtou], standing ([Greek: hestôs]) in the
+holy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it as '[Greek: to rhêthen UPO
+Daniêl tou prophêtou] standing ([Greek: hestos]) 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 Holy Spirit 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 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.
+
+Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of Assimilation.
+
+St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place of his Gospel
+(xiv. 3), describe our Lord 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 _not_?' 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?
+
+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 [Greek: gemisai tên koilian autou apo], in
+St. Luke xv. 16, the words [Greek: chortasthênai ek]. But editors have
+omitted to point out that the words [Greek: epethymei chortasthênai],
+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.
+
+The reader has now been presented with several examples of Assimilation.
+Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to
+be sufficiently conspicuous, 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.
+
+
+§ 6.
+
+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]BCDL[Symbol: Delta],--a most suspicious
+company, and three cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin,
+including the Vulgate:--[Greek: amên legô hymin, anektoteron estai
+Sodomois ê Gomorrois en hêmerai kriseôs, hê tê polei ekeinê]. 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, [Greek:
+SodomOIS Ê GomorrOIS]: St. Matthew, [Greek: GÊ SodomÔN KAI GomorrÔN].
+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.
+
+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[225] 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]BCDL[Symbol:
+Delta] and their Latin allies,--which will be found _never_ to conspire
+together exclusively except to mislead.
+
+
+§ 7.
+
+Because a certain clause (e.g. [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homoiazei] 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.
+
+1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader,
+although to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ 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 parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by
+side:--
+
+St. Matt. xxvi. 73.           St. Mark xiv. 70.
+
+(1) [Greek: Alêthôs kai su]  (1) [Greek: Alêthôs]
+(2) [Greek: ex autôn ei·]    (2) [Greek: ex autôn ei·]
+(3) [Greek: kai gar]         (3) [Greek: kai gar Galilaios ei,]
+(4) [Greek: hê lalia sou dêlon se poiei]
+                             (4) [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homoiazei.]
+
+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 [Greek:
+homoiazei], 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.
+
+1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of
+the Old Latin (a b c ff^{2} 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 [Greek: hê lalia
+sou dêlon se poiei] of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has
+no business to be.
+
+Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew's
+Gospel to St. Mark,--for D also omits [Greek: kai su] in clause (1).
+
+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 ([Greek: kai hê lalia sou dêlon se poiei]) to St. Mark.
+
+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,--[Greek: kai gar hê lalia sou dêlon se homoiazei].
+
+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).
+
+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 [Greek: kai su] (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).
+
+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).
+
+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--
+
+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.
+
+On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person seriously contend
+that [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homiazei] 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[226]. 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[227].' _That_ 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?
+
+[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of
+the text of the New Testament.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[184] This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep
+the words with this caution to the reader.
+
+[185] Above, p. 32.
+
+[186] The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is _nil_; the sum of it
+being that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between
+[Greek: opsesthe me] (in ver. 16), and [Greek: touto ti estin] (in ver.
+18).
+
+[187] Nonnus,--[Greek: hixomai eis gennêtêra].
+
+[188] viii. 465 a and c.
+
+[189] iv. 932 and 933 c.
+
+[190] = [Greek: ana-keimenos + epi-pesôn]. [Used not to suggest
+over-familiarity (?).]
+
+[191] Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A.D. 270 (_ap._ Galland. iii.
+548). Cf. Routh, Rell. i. 42.
+
+[192] [Greek: Ouk anakeitai monon, alla kai tô stêthei epipiptei] (Opp.
+viii. 423 a).--[Greek: Ti de kai epipiptei tô stêthei] (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).
+
+[193] Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the [Greek: keimenon] (or
+text) that the verb is found,--Opp. iv. 735.
+
+[194] [Greek: ho de thrasys oxei palmô | stêthesin achrantoisi pesôn
+perilêmenos anêr].
+
+[195] iv. 437 c: 440 d.
+
+[196] Ibid. p. 342.
+
+[197] 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.
+
+[198] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos autou anapesôn] (iii. 1, § 1).
+
+[199] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos tou Kyriou anapesôn] (_ap._ Euseb. iii.
+31).
+
+[200] [Greek: Ti dei peri tou anapesontos epi to stêthos legein tou
+'Iêsou] (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95).
+
+[201] [Greek: ho epi tô stêthei tou phlogos anapesôn] (Opp. ii. 49 a.
+Cf. 133 c).
+
+[202] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8.
+
+[203] [Greek: tou eis to tês sophias stêthos pistôs epanapesontos]
+(_ap._ Chrys, xiii. 55).
+
+[204] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos tou Iêsou anapauetai] (Opp. i. 591).
+
+[205] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488.
+
+[206] Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the
+Syriac, p. 3.
+
+[207] (Fourth or fifth century) _ap._ Galland. vi. 132.
+
+[208] _Ap._ Chrys. viii. 296.
+
+[209] On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.--'[Greek: Anapiptein], (which
+occurs eleven times in the N.T.), when said of guests ([Greek:
+anakeimenoi]) 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 "_sitting down_" to dinner. So far only does it signify "change
+of posture." The notion of "falling _backward_" 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 ([Greek: anepesen]), to that later moment when ([Greek: epi to
+stêthos autou]) he interrogated his Divine Master concerning Judas. It
+is a _general_ description of an incident,--for the details of which we
+have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which
+went before.
+
+[210] Traditional Text, Appendix IV.
+
+[211] Pesh. and Harkl.: Cur. and Lew. are defective.
+
+[212] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,
+Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, M^{c}Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the
+Revisers.
+
+[213] In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.
+
+[214] Mont. i. 462.
+
+[215] Ubi supra.
+
+[216] Omitting trifling variants.
+
+[217] [Symbol: Aleph]BL are _exclusively_ responsible on 45 occasions:
++C (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +[Symbol: Delta], on 73:
++CD, on 19: +C[Symbol: Delta], on 118: +D[Symbol: Delta] (i.e. [Symbol:
+Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]), on 42: +CD[Symbol: Delta], on 66.
+
+[218] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is _not_ 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.
+
+[219] v. 10.
+
+[220] _Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.
+
+[221] 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi,
+Porphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311.
+
+[222] [Greek: grapheôs toinun esti sphalma]. 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.)
+
+[223] 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus _additum Scriptorum vitio_, quod
+et in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from
+Eusebius).
+
+[224] 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.
+
+[225] Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.
+
+[226] Schulz,--'et [Greek: lalia] et [Greek: omoiazei] aliena a Marco.'
+Tischendorf--'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum [Greek: omoiazei]
+glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,--not criticism.
+
+[227] Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p.
+xlvii.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+III. Attraction.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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 Attraction. 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.
+
+'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every
+Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: Ioudas
+Iskariôtês] 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 brother Apostle, 'Jude ([Greek: Ioudas])
+the brother of James[228]': 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.' 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 _why_? Only, I answer,
+because--in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simônos IskariôTÊN] (in vi. 71) and
+[Greek: Iouda Simônos IskariôTÊ] (in xiii. 26)--a little handful of
+copies substitute on both occasions [Greek: IskariôTOU]. Need I go on?
+Nothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of
+some very early scribe, the [Greek: IskariôTÊN], [Greek: IskariôTÊ],
+have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive
+[Greek: SImôNOS] ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcely
+deserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered to
+remain,--where such _bêtises_ 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.
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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
+that I might finish my course with joy.' The Greek for this begins
+[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai]: where some second or third century
+copyist (misled by the preceding genitive) in place of [Greek: logoN]
+writes [Greek: logoU]; with what calamitous consequence, has been found
+largely explained elsewhere[229]. 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.
+
+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 '_stony tables_ ([Greek: en plaxi lithinais]),'
+but on '_fleshy tables_ of the heart ([Greek: en plaxi kardias
+sarkinais]).' 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
+[Greek: kardias] (unknown to Tischendorf and the rest) be produced in
+detail:--
+
+In the second century, Irenaeus[230],--the Old Latin,--the Peshitto.
+
+In the third century, Origen seven times[231],--the Coptic version.
+
+In the fourth century, the
+Dialogus[232],--Didymus[233],--Basil[234],--Gregory Nyss.[235],--Marcus
+the Monk[236],--Chrysostom in two places[237],--Nilus[238],--the
+Vulgate,--and the Gothic versions.
+
+In the fifth century, Cyril[239],--Isidorus[240],--Theodoret[241],--the
+Armenian--and the Ethiopic versions.
+
+In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing Theodorus
+P.[242]
+
+In the eighth century, J. Damascene[243] ... Besides, of the Latins,
+Hilary[244],--Ambrose[245],--Optatus[246],--Jerome[247],--
+Tichonius[248],--Augustine thirteen times[249],--Fulgentius[250], and
+others[251] ... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told what
+_is_[252]?
+
+But then it so happens that--attracted by the two datives between which
+[Greek: kardias] stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, a
+surprising number of copies are found to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd'
+and 'wholly unnatural reading[253],' [Greek: plaxi kardiAIS sarkinAIS].
+And because (as might have been expected from their character)
+A[254]B[Symbol: Aleph]CD[255] are all five of the number,--Lachmann,
+Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt and
+advocate the awkward blunder[256]. [Greek: Kardiais] 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[257].
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[228] St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1.
+
+[229] Above, pp. 28-31.
+
+[230] 753 _int_.
+
+[231] ii. 843 c. Also _int_ ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.
+
+[232] _Ap_. Orig. i. 866 a,--interesting and emphatic testimony.
+
+[233] Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272.
+
+[234] i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.
+
+[235] i. 682 ([Greek: ouk en plaxi lithinais ... all' en tô tês kardias
+pyxiô]).
+
+[236] Galland. viii. 40 b.
+
+[237] vii. 2: x. 475.
+
+[238] i. 29.
+
+[239] i. 8: ii. 504: v^{2}. 65. (Aubert prints [Greek: kardias
+sarkinês]. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits [Greek: kardias
+sarkinais]. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. [Greek: all' en plaxi
+kardias lithinais] (sic), prints [Greek: kardias sarkinais].) _Ap_. Mai,
+iii. 89, 90.
+
+[240] 299.
+
+[241] iii. 302.
+
+[242] Concil. vi. 154.
+
+[243] ii. 129.
+
+[244] 344.
+
+[245] i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.
+
+[246] Galland. v. 505.
+
+[247] vi. 609.
+
+[248] Galland. viii. 742 dis.
+
+[249] i. 672: ii. 49: iii^{1}. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311:
+x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.
+
+[250] Galland. xi. 248.
+
+[251] Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.
+
+[252] Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and
+Theodoret for [Greek: kardiais], on the ground that in the course of
+their expository remarks they contrast [Greek: kardiai sarkinai] (or
+[Greek: logikai]) with [Greek: plakes lithinai]: as if it were not the
+word [Greek: plaxi] which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf
+enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten
+that E is '_nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D_ (Claromontanus),
+made by some ignorant person'? that 'the Greek _is manifestly
+worthless_, 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.]
+
+[253] Scrivener's Introd. ii. 254.
+
+[254] A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.
+
+[255] 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.
+
+[256] 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 [Greek:
+kardias], the MSS. largely preponderate which read [Greek: kardiais] 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 ([Greek: en plaxi
+kardiais sarkinais]), which reappears at the end of eight lines without
+the word [Greek: plaxi].
+
+[257] [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.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+IV. Omission.
+
+
+[We have now to consider the largest of all classes of corrupt
+variations from the genuine Text[258]--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.]
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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.
+
+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 _prima facie_ under a disadvantage which is all their
+own. 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.
+
+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[259], 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.
+
+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[260].
+And all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives 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[261];--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 [Greek: Telos] occurring at
+the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 for
+the 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262].
+
+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?'
+
+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.'
+
+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 passages which
+they style 'interpolations,' offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields.
+
+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[263].
+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[264]. 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.]
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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 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 _e silentio_--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.]
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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
+[Greek: deuteroprôtô] is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and
+the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as
+follows:--[Greek: Egeneto de en sabbatô diaporeuesthai auton dia
+sporimôn].
+
+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. (_a_) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph],
+
+  [Greek: TO EN SABBATÔ]
+  [Greek: DEUTEROPRÔTÔ]
+
+in order to see that the like ending ([Greek: TÔ]) in the superior line,
+fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (_b_) A proper
+lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the
+phenomenon. (_c_) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand,
+are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the
+Gospels than [Greek: deuteroprôtos]. But I repeat,--will you tell us how
+it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a
+_crux_ to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies
+except a small handful?]
+
+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.
+
+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 [Greek: deuteroprôto--apo melissiou kêriou--haras
+ton stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipête]--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.]
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.
+
+The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed
+at foot[265], 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.
+
+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[266],--
+ps.-Tatian[267]--Aphraates[268],--Chrysostom[269],--Cyril Alex.[270],--
+the Opus Imperfectum[271],--Jerome[272],--Augustine[273]:--in Codexes
+B[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol:
+Pi]EFG 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^{1} ff^{2}. 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 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?]
+
+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[274], Origen[275],
+Eusebius[276] and Cyril[277] having quoted 'the parable of the wicked
+husbandmen' _in extenso_ (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), _leave off at
+verse_ 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[278]?
+That Father quotes _nothing but_ verse 43, which is all he requires for
+his purpose[279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does
+not require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280]
+and Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they
+only quote verse 43.
+
+I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St.
+Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282].
+Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the
+parallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel[283] (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[284] 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.
+
+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.]
+
+
+§ 5.
+
+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 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,--
+
+St. Matt.
+
+'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, "This people
+draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips
+([Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos tô stomati autôn, kai tois cheilesi
+me tima]), but their heart is far from Me."'
+
+St. Mark.
+
+'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, "This
+people honoureth Me with their lips ([Greek: houtos ho laos tois
+cheilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me."'
+
+The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads as follows in
+the ordinary editions of the LXX:--[Greek: kai eipe Kyrios, engizei moi
+ho laos houtos en tô stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin autôn timôsi
+me].
+
+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:--[Greek: ho
+laos houtos tois cheilesi me tima]. So that six words ([Greek: engizei
+moi] and [Greek: tô stomati autôn, kai]) are not recognized by them: in
+which peculiarity they are countenanced by DLT^{c}, 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, Tischendorf adds a phalanx of
+Fathers:--Clemens Romanus (A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A.D. 150),
+Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210),
+Eusebius (A.D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: and Alford
+supplies also Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A.D.
+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[285],' 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.
+
+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 the one hand, and the whole torrent of
+manuscript evidence on the other.
+
+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 _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_ 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[286]. To return however from this digression.
+
+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 _extant copy of the Gospels except five_ (DLT^{c}, 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:--
+
+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 Septuagintal reading is [Greek: engizei moi ho laos
+outos EN tô stomati AUTOU, kai EN tois cheilesin AUTÔN TIMÔSI me],--the
+Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than six
+particulars.
+
+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?
+
+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 _not_ the text of Isaiah?
+
+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 [Greek: ho laos outos], I observe that in the copies of
+St. Mark,--except to be sure in (_a_) Codd. B and D, (_b_) copies of the
+Old Latin, (_c_) the Vulgate, and (_d_) the Peshitto (all of which are
+confessedly corrupt in this particular,)--it is invariably [Greek: outos
+ho laos]. 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?
+
+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 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.
+
+The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 in the Apostolic
+age proves to have been this,--[Greek: Engizei moi ho laos outos tois
+cheilesin autôn timôsi me]: the words [Greek: en tô stomati autôn, kai
+en] being omitted. This is certain. Justin Martyr[287] and Cyril of
+Alexandria in two places[288] 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.[289] They are not found, for example, in the
+Codex Alexandrinus.
+
+But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was felt
+to be intolerable. In fact, without a colon point between [Greek: outos]
+and [Greek: tois], the result is without meaning. When once the
+complementary words have been withdrawn, [Greek: engizei moi] 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 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,--[Greek: Ho laos outos tois cheilesi me tima]. Clemens
+Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two
+occasions[290]. So does Chrysostom[291]. So does Theodoret[292].
+
+Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect of the
+problem: the first, (_a_) That the words [Greek: en tô stomati autôn,
+kai en] were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering of Isaiah
+xxix. 13: the second, (_b_) that the place of Isaiah was freely quoted
+by the ancients without the initial words [Greek: engizei moi].
+
+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
+[Greek: Tô stomati autôn, kai], is certainly due in the first instance
+to the ascertained Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah
+xxix. 13.
+
+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 [Greek: ho
+laos outos],--St. Mark's [Greek: outos ho laos]. And yet, when Clemens
+Romanus quotes Isaiah, he begins--[Greek: outos ho laos][293]; and so
+twice does Theodoret[294].
+
+The reader is now in a position to judge how much 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.
+
+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 [Greek: tô stomati autôn, kai] 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
+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.
+
+I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient
+Versions, and all the following early writers,--Ptolemaeus[295], Clemens
+Alexandrinus[296], Origen[297], Didymus[298], Cyril[299], Chrysostom[300],
+and possibly three others of like antiquity[301],--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.
+
+
+§ 6.
+
+What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our Lord's
+Sermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; which in almost every MS. in
+existence stands as follows:
+
+  (1) [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn],
+  (2) [Greek: eulogeite tous katarômenous humas],
+  (3) [Greek: kalôs poieite tois misousin[302] humas],
+  (4) [Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas],
+  (5) [Greek: kai diôkontôn hymas][303].
+
+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[304] reads the place thus:
+
+  [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn,
+  kai proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn humas].
+
+(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[305], seems to critics of a certain school a
+circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware that
+Cyprian[306], and they are welcome to the information that
+Tertullian[307] once and Theodoret once[308] [besides Irenaeus[309],
+Eusebius[310], and Gregory of Nyssa[311]] exhibit the place in the same
+way. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas[312],--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 reading of the Peshitto, the
+Harkleian, and the Gothic; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.
+
+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[313] quotes the first clause in connexion with
+the fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions[314], 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[315]. 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.
+
+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[316]
+quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose[317] clauses 1, 3, 4,
+5--1, 4, 5: Hilary[318], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5:
+Lucifer[319], clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[320]
+connects clauses 1, 3,--1, 3, 5: and Pacian[321], clauses 5, 2. Next we
+have to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers.
+
+And first we turn to Chrysostom[322] who (besides quoting 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 _all._
+
+Gregory Nyss.[323] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.
+
+Eusebius[324], clauses 4, 5--2, 4, 5--1, 3, 4, 5.
+
+The Apostolic Constitutions[325] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5
+(having immediately before quoted clause 2,)--also clauses 2, 4, 1.
+
+Clemens Alex.[326] (A.D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4.
+
+Athenagoras[327] (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5.
+
+Theophilus[328] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4.
+
+While Justin M.[329] (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects
+therewith clauses 2 and 4.
+
+And Polycarp[330] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5.
+
+Didache[331] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6).
+
+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.
+
+  [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn,
+  kai proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn humas,--]
+
+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 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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[332].
+
+[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the _Guardian_
+newspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from
+before A.D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional Text to two on our side
+against seven, or rather six[333], 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 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.]
+
+[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, being
+undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable than omission arising
+from what cause soever.]
+
+[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--[Greek: huper ... tôn
+diôkontôn humas] 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 [Greek: huper]--instead of the [Greek: peri] after
+[Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] 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.]
+
+[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.]
+
+[The references as corrected are given in the note[334]. It 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.]
+
+
+§ 7.
+
+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, [[Greek: hoi
+pateres autôn], 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 the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern
+times].
+
+  [Greek: ÊGAR]
+  [Greek: SARXMOUALÊTHÔS]
+  [[Greek: ESTIBRÔSISKAI]
+  [Greek: TOAIMAMOUALÊTHÔS]]
+  [Greek: ESTIPOSIS]
+
+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 [[Greek: kai hoi syn autô] (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].
+
+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[335]. 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
+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 Lord) 'the master of the house had known in what hour
+
+  [Greek: OKLEPTÊS]
+  [Greek: ERCHETAI] [[Greek: EGRÊGOR]
+  [Greek: ÊSENKAI]] [Greek: OUKANA]
+  [Greek: PHÊKEN]
+
+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 [Greek: egrêgorêsen
+kai],--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?
+
+[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[336]. 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. 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[337],' 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.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[258] It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical,
+classes. Omissions are found in many of the rest.
+
+[259] Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, chapter v. and Appendix
+B.
+
+[260] See Dr. Gwynn's remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text,
+pp. 298-301.
+
+[261] The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p.
+109, where thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A.D.
+
+[262] 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.
+
+[263] 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.
+
+[264] 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.
+
+[265] [Greek: kai ho pesôn epi ton lithon touton synthlasthêsetai; eph'
+on d' an pesê, likmêsei auton].
+
+[266] 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 [Greek: oudepote anegnôte] (ver. 42: comp.
+Orig. ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expression [Greek: epi ton lithon
+touton] (ver. 44), not [Greek: ep' ekeinon ton lithon]. Vainly is it
+urged on the opposite side, that [Greek: pas ho pesôn] belongs to St.
+Luke,--whereas [Greek: kai ho pesôn] is the phrase found in St.
+Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) writes [Greek: pas ho piptôn]
+while professing to quote from St. Matthew; and the author of Cureton's
+Syriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same.
+
+[267] P. 193.
+
+[268] P. 11.
+
+[269] vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas,
+p. 669] xii. 27 d.
+
+[270] _Ap_. Mai, ii. 401 dis.
+
+[271] _Ap_. Chrys. vi. 171 c.
+
+[272] vii. 171 d.
+
+[273] iii^{2}. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d.
+
+[274] 682-3 (Massuet 277).
+
+[275] iii. 786.
+
+[276] Theoph. 235-6 (= Mai, iv. 122).
+
+[277] ii. 660 a, b, c.
+
+[278] 'Praeterit et Lucifer.'
+
+[279] _Ap._ Galland. vi. 191 d.
+
+[280] Ibid. vii. 20 c.
+
+[281] Ibid. ix. 768 a.
+
+[282] [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]:--
+
+With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43)
+comes to an end.
+
+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.
+
+[283] 'Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.'
+
+[284] 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.
+
+[285] Vol. i. 13.
+
+[286] Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28.
+
+[287] Dial. § 78, _ad fin._ (p. 272).
+
+[288] Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c.
+
+[289] See Holmes and Parsons' ed. of the LXX,--vol. iv. _in loc._
+
+[290] Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only.
+
+[291] Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b.
+
+[292] Opp. ii. 1345: iii. 763-4.
+
+[293] § 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 [Greek: apestin] dedisset [Greek:
+apechei].'
+
+[294] Opp. i. 1502: iii. 1114.
+
+[295] _Ap._ Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d.
+
+[296] Opp. p. 461.
+
+[297] Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121.
+
+[298] De Trinitate, p. 242.
+
+[299] Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to
+Alexandria.]
+
+[300] Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain.
+
+[301] 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).
+
+[302] But Eus.^{Es 589} [Greek: tous m.]
+
+[303] 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:--
+
+    (1) Diligite inimicos vestros,
+    (2) benedicite maledicentes vos,
+    (3) benefacite odientibus vos,
+    (4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos,
+    (5) et persequentibus vos.
+
+[304] Opp. iv. 324 _bis_, 329 _bis_, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106.
+
+[305] 'A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the
+margin.' Traditional Text, p. 149.
+
+[306] Opp. p. 79, cf. 146.
+
+[307] Scap. c. 1.
+
+[308] Opp. iv. 946.
+
+[309] Haer. III. xviii. 5.
+
+[310] Dem. Evan. xiii. 7.
+
+[311] In Bapt. Christ.
+
+[312] Orig. Opp. i. 812.
+
+[313] Opp. i. 768: iv. 353.
+
+[314] Opp. i. 827: ii. 399.
+
+[315] Spect. c. 16: (Anim. c. 35): Pat. c. 6.
+
+[316] [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. _in loc._ (1, 3,
+4, 5).]
+
+[317] In Ps. xxxviii. 2.
+
+[318] Opp. pp. 303, 297.
+
+[319] Pro S. Athanas. ii.
+
+[320] Ps. cxviii. 10. 16; 9. 9.
+
+[321] Ep. ii.
+
+[322] Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:--ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:--ii.
+258: iii. 41:--iv. 267: xii. 425.
+
+[323] Opp. iii. 379.
+
+[324] Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589.
+
+[325] Pp. 3. 198.
+
+[326] Opp. p. 605 and 307.
+
+[327] Leg. pro Christian. 11.
+
+[328] Ad Autolycum, iii. 14.
+
+[329] Opp. i. 40.
+
+[330] Ad Philipp. c. 12.
+
+[331] § 1.
+
+[332] 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,--[Greek: eulogeite tous
+diôkontas humas] (so pseud.-Athan. ii. 95), which shews how little
+stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-named place
+furnishes.
+
+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
+_fatal_ to his evidence (i. 768), he gives the second member thus,--iv.
+353:
+
+[Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas]..·. 1. 4.
+
+Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:--
+
+[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn, eulogeite tous katarômenous humas,
+kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazyntôn humin, kai ta homoia.].·. 1, 2,
+4.--3, 5.
+
+Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding
+licence), yet is observed to recognize in part _both_ the clauses which
+labour under suspicion:.·. 1, 2, 4.--3, 5.
+
+[Greek: euchesthe huper tôn echthrôn humôn kai agapate tous misountas
+humas], which roughly represents [Greek: kai eulogeite tous katarômenous
+humin kai euchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas].
+
+The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards [Greek:
+tous misountas humas]. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i.
+521), who (loosely enough) quotes the place thus,--
+
+_Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt._ .·. 1
+(made up of 3, 4).--2, 5.
+
+And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who
+writes:--ad Philipp. c. 12:--
+
+_Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos._.·. 4, 5.--1, 2, 3.
+
+I have examined [Didaché] _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Eusebius_,
+_Hippolytus_, _Cyril Al._, _Greg. Naz._, _Basil_, _Athan._, _Didymus_,
+_Cyril Hier._, _Chrys._, _Greg. Nyss._, _Epiph._, _Theod._, _Clemens._
+
+And the following are the results:--
+
+Didaché. [Greek: Eulogeite tous katarômenous humin, kai proseuchesthe
+huper tôn echthrôn humôn, nêsteuete huper tôn diôkontôn humas ... humeis
+de agapate tous misountas humas]..·. 2, 3, 4, 5.
+
+Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs:--Diligite inimicos
+vestros, benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt
+et persequuntur.
+
+Eusebius Prae 654..·. 2, 4, 5, omitting 1, 3.
+
+Eusebius Ps 699..·. 4, 5, omitting 1, 2, 3.
+
+Eusebius Es 589..·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
+
+Clemens Al. 605..·. 1, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5.
+
+Greg. Nyss. iii. 379..·. 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2.
+
+Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et
+orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos..·. 1, 3, 5, 4, omitting
+2.
+
+Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro
+calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos..·. 2, 4, 5, omitting the
+_first and third_.
+
+Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos
+ac persequentibus vos..·. 1, 4, 5, omitting the _second and third_. Cf.
+128.
+
+Cyprian, 79 (cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui
+vos persequuntur..·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur.
+.·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
+
+Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici..·. 1, 2, omitting 3,
+4, 5.
+
+Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: orate
+pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos..·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
+
+Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus et
+persequentibus vos..·. 1, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3.
+
+Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt: et
+orate pro eis qui vos persequuntur..·. 1, 3, 5, omitting 2, 4.
+
+'Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac
+persequentibus vos.' Hilary, 297.
+
+Cyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus,--
+
+[Greek: eu poieite tous echthrous humôn, kai proseuchesthe huper tôn
+epêreazontôn humas.]
+
+Chrys. (iii. 355) says
+
+[Greek: autos gar eipen, euchesthe huper tôn echthrôn] [[Greek: humôn]]
+
+and repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453.
+
+So Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et _persecutoribus_
+nostris bone precari..·. 1, 5.
+
+If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should
+probably find
+
+[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn, kai proseuchesthe huper tôn
+misountôn humas]:
+
+and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 12),
+
+[Greek: proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn kai misountôn humas].
+
+[333] _Dialogus Adamantii_ is not adducible within my limits, because
+'it is in all probability the production of a later age.' My number was
+eight.
+
+[334] Observe that 5 = [Greek: huper ... tôn diôkontôn].
+
+For--
+
+Didache (§ 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5.
+
+Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5.
+
+Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5? [Greek: huper tôn
+echthrôn] (=[Greek: diôkontôn]?), but the passage more like St. Luke,
+the context more like St. Matt., ver. 45.
+
+Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11), 1, 2 (3). 5. ver. 45.
+
+Tertullian (De Patient, vi), 1, 2 (3), 5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol. c. 31.
+1, 5.
+
+Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 14), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: hyper] and
+ver. 46.
+
+Clemens Alex. (Strom, iv. 14), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom,
+vii. 14), favours St. Matt.
+
+Origen (De Orat. i), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: huper] and in the middle of two
+quotations from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), 1, 4 (4) [Greek: huper]
+and all ver. 45.
+
+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.
+
+Apost. Const, (i. 2), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper] and ver. 45.
+
+Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: hupereuchesthai].
+
+Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper], ver.
+45.
+
+Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), but quotes ver. 44 ... end of
+chapter.
+
+Pacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5.
+
+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.)
+
+Ambrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), 1, 3, 4, 5; (In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1, 4 (4),
+5.
+
+Aphraates (Dem. ii), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: ethnikoi].
+
+Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45.
+
+Number = 25.
+
+[335] See Traditional Text, p. 55.
+
+[336] For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament,
+viz. the _Pericope de Adultera_, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II.
+
+[337] Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+V. Transposition, VI. Substitution, and VII. Addition.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+One of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, is Transposition,
+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 [Greek: tauta panta] for [Greek:
+panta tauta],--or [Greek: ho laos outos] for [Greek: outos ho laos], 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.
+
+Let me before going further lay before the reader a few specimens of
+Transposition.
+
+Take for example St. Mark i. 5,--[Greek: kai ebaptizonto pantes],--is
+unreasonably turned into [Greek: pantes kai ebaptizonto]; whereby the
+meaning of the Evangelical record becomes changed, for [Greek: pantes]
+is now made to agree with [Greek: Hierosolumitai], and the Evangelist is
+represented as making the very strong assertion that _all_ the people of
+Jerusalem came to St. John and were baptized. This is the private
+property of BDL[Symbol: Delta].
+
+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 Holy Ghost.
+
+[Take again St. Mark ii. 3, in which the order in [Greek: pros auton
+paralytikon pherontes],--is changed by [Symbol: Aleph]BL into [Greek:
+pherontes pros auton paralytikon]. 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 ([Greek:
+erchontai pros auton]), 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 ([Greek:
+prosengisai autô][338]). 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 [Greek: paralytikon] from
+[Greek: airomenon] which agrees with it, and transposed [Greek:
+pherontes] 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.]
+
+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[339].
+
+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.'
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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
+Lord 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^{w}, 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^{w}, two bad
+Cursives, and the two chief Egyptian versions, this period becomes
+extended to the fifth.
+
+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 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.
+
+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,--[Greek: legôn, Hoti dei ton huion tou anthrôpou paradothênai],
+as all the MSS. in the world but four, all the Versions, and all the
+available Fathers'[340] evidence from A.D. 150 downwards attest: or
+whether he wrote,--[Greek: legôn ton huion tou anthrôpou hoti dei
+paradothênai], 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, 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
+_that_ 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.]
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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. [Greek:
+echei zôên] for instance or [Greek: zôên echei][341],--[Greek: êgerthê
+eutheôs] or [Greek: eutheôs êgerthê][342],--[Greek: chôlous,
+typhlous]--or [Greek: typhlous, chôlous][343],--shall be preferred. The
+burden of proof rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use.
+
+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 [Greek: exousian edôken autô kai krisin poiein][344],
+presents us with [Greek: kai krisin edôken autô exousian poiein], we
+hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense[345]. And when BD
+instead of [Greek: eisi tines tôn ôde hestêkotôn] exhibit [Greek: eise
+tôn ôde tôn hestêkotôn], we cannot but conclude that 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.
+
+[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.
+
+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.]
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+[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.
+
+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 [Greek: OS] ([Greek: hos]) for [Greek: THS]
+([Greek: Theos])[346] [Greek: êporei] for [Greek: epoiei] (St. Mark vi.
+20), or [Greek: ouk oidate dokimazein] for [Greek: dokimazete] (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.
+
+Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifications, as they
+well may be, are added to it[347]. 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 [Greek:
+hamartêmatos] for [Greek: kriseôs] (St. Mark iii. 29) which the Revisers
+have adopted in compliance with [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] and
+three Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads [Greek:
+hamartias] 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 [Greek:
+kriseôs] is made up of A, C under the first reading and the second
+correction, [Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] 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 [Greek: enochos], and the natural
+meaning given by [Greek: kriseôs]. [Greek: Hamartêmatos] has clearly
+crept in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be found in
+the well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 ([Greek: tou hêliou eklipontos]), St.
+Matt. xi. 27 ([Greek: boulêtai apokalypsai]), St. Matt. xxvii. 34
+([Greek: oinon] for [Greek: oxos]), St. Mark i. 2 ([Greek: Hêsaia] for
+[Greek: tois prophêtais]), St. John i. 18 ([Greek: ho Monogenês Theos]
+being a substitution made by heretics for [Greek: ho Monogenês Huios]),
+St. Mark vii. 31 ([Greek: dia Sidônos] for [Greek: kai Sidônos]). 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.]
+
+
+§ 5.
+
+[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[348]. 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.
+
+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):--
+
+'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."'
+
+And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. xx. 28), which occurs
+under a worse form in D.
+
+'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.'
+
+Who does not see that there is in these two passages no real 'ring of
+genuineness'?
+
+Take next some instances of lesser insertions.]
+
+
+§ 6.
+
+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 significant statement, that when they who had been sent
+returned to the house, 'they found the servant whole that had been
+sick[349],' recognize by implication the assurance that the Centurion,
+because he needed no such confirmation of his belief, went _not_ with
+them; but enjoyed the twofold blessedness of remaining with Christ, 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[350], 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[351].
+
+[Another and that a most remarkable Addition may be found in St. Matt.
+xxiv. 36, into which the words [Greek: oude ho Huios], '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 _neither the Son_.' 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.
+
+They are (_a_) of Uncials [Symbol: Aleph] (in the first reading and as
+re-corrected in the seventh century) BD; (_b_) five Cursives (for a
+present of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf); (_c_) ten Old Latin
+copies also the Aureus (Words.), some of the Vulgate (four according to
+Wordsworth), the Palestinian, Ethiopic, Armenian; (_d_) Origen (Lat.
+iii. 874), Hilary (733^{a}), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca,
+481), Ambrose (i. 1478^{f}). But Irenaeus (Lat. i. 386), Cyril (Zach.
+800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from St. Mark. So too, as
+Tischendorf admits, Amphilochius.
+
+On the other hand we have, (_a_) the chief corrector of [Symbol:
+Aleph](c^{a})[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] with thirteen other Uncials
+and the Greek MSS. of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome[352];
+(_b_) all the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed);
+(_c_) the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkletan, Lewis, Bohairic, and
+the Sahidic; (_d_) 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^{a}), and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne,
+lxxxix. 941).
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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,'
+[Greek: kai epoiêse dôdeka]; but because [Symbol: Aleph]B[Symbol: Delta]
+and C (which was corrected in the ninth century with a MS. of the
+Ethiopic) reiterate these words two verses 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 A[Symbol:
+Phi][Symbol: Sigma] 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.
+
+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 [Greek: ho Iêsous] 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
+[Greek: en tô phanerô] 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 [Greek: en hê ho huios tou anthrôpou erchetai] seemed
+to him to be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in St.
+Matt. xxvii. 35, where the quotation ([Greek: hina plêrôthê ... ebalon
+klêron]) must be taken for similar reasons to have been originally a
+gloss.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[338] [Greek: prosengisai] is transitive here, like [Greek: engizô] in
+Gen. xlviii. 10, 13: 2 Kings iv. 6: Isaiah xlvi. 13.
+
+[339] 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.
+
+[340] Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i.
+348): Cyril (Mai, ii. 438): John Thess. (Gall. xiii. 188).
+
+[341] St. John v. 26, in [Symbol: Aleph]
+
+[342] St. Mark ii. 12, in D.
+
+[343] St. Luke xiv. 13, in [Symbol: Aleph]B.
+
+[344] St. John v. 27.
+
+[345] 'Nec aliter' (says Tischendorf) 'Tertull.' (Prax. 21),--'_et
+judicium dedit illi facere in potestate_.' But this (begging the learned
+critic's pardon) is quite a different thing.
+
+[346] See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in
+The Revision Revised, pp. 424-501.
+
+[347] The numbers are:--
+
+    B, substitutions, 935; modifications, 1,132; total, 2,067.
+    [Symbol: Aleph], " 1,114; " 1,265; " 2,379.
+    D, " 2,121; " 1,772; " 3,893.
+
+Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13.
+
+[348] 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.
+
+[349] St. Luke vii. 10.
+
+[350] Theoph. p. 212.
+
+[351] An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause in
+the same narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead
+of [Greek: oude en tô Israêl tosautên pistin euron] (St. Matt. viii.
+10), we are invited henceforth to read [Greek: par' oudeni tosautên
+pistin en tô Israêl euron];--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.
+
+For when our Saviour 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.)
+
+It is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin (Augustine _once_
+(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?
+
+[352] 'In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, _neque Filius_: 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.
+
+In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+VIII. Glosses.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+'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 _every_ 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
+Spirit. Thus I do not call the clause [Greek: nekrous egeirete] in St.
+Matt. x. 8 'a gloss.' It is a gratuitous and unwarrantable
+interpolation,--nothing else but a clumsy encumbrance of the text[353].
+
+[Glosses, or _scholia_, 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[354], which may perhaps
+appear to modern taste to be hardly wanted, must not therefore be taken
+to be a gloss.]
+
+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:--
+
+1. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 36), requested
+our Lord to 'explain' to them ([Greek: PHRASON hêmin], '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[355],--
+Basil[356],--J. Damascene[357]. And so _all_ the Versions[358]. But
+because B-[Symbol: Aleph], instead of [Greek: phrason], exhibit [Greek:
+DIASAPHÊSON] ('make clear to us'),--which is also _once_ the reading of
+Origen[359], 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 [Greek: diasaphêson] (a palpable gloss) stood in the
+inspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore thrust out [Greek:
+phrason] and thrust in [Greek: diasaphêson]. I am wholly unable to
+discern any connexion between the premisses of these critics and their
+conclusions[360].
+
+2. Take another instance. [Greek: Pygmê],--the obscure expression
+([Symbol: Delta] 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 [Greek: pykna], which last word is of course
+nothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf degrades [Greek: pygmê]
+and promotes [Greek: pykna] 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 [Greek:
+pygmê]. It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere waste of
+time that we should argue out a point like this[361].
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+A gloss little suspected, which--not without a pang of regret--I proceed
+to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the expression 'daily' ([Greek: kath'
+hêmeran]) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found in the Peshitto and in Cureton's
+Syriac,--but only in some Copies of the Harkleian version[362]: found in
+most Copies of the Vulgate,--but largely disallowed by copies of the Old
+Latin[363]: found also in Ephraem Syrus[364],--but clearly not
+recognized by Origen[365]: 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 [Greek: kath'
+hêmeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[366]; but then he elsewhere twice quotes St.
+Luke ix. 23 in Greek without it[367]. Timotheus of Antioch, of the fifth
+century, omits the phrase[368]. Jerome again, although he suffered
+'_quotidie_' to stand in the Vulgate, yet, when for his own purposes he
+quotes the place in St. Luke[369],--ignores the word. All this is
+calculated to inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, [Greek: kath'
+hêmeran] enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions,--of the
+Gothic,--of the Armenian,--of the Ethiopic. And this, in the present
+state of our knowledge, must be allowed to be a weighty piece of
+evidence in its favour.
+
+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 [Greek: kath hêmeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[370]. 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[371]. 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 _locus_ of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty.
+Cyril once makes it part of St. Matt. x. 38[372]. Chrysostom twice
+connects it with St. Matt. xvi. 24[373]. Jerome, evidently regarding the
+phrase as a curiosity, informs us that 'juxta antiqua exemplaria' it was
+met with in St. Luke xiv. 27[374]. All this is in a high degree
+unsatisfactory. We suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slight
+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 [Greek: kath hêmeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[375].
+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?
+
+Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain place, after
+quoting our Lord's 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"[376].' The same Father, in
+the two other places already quoted from his writings, is observed
+similarly to connect the Saviour's mention of 'bearing the Cross' with
+the Apostle's announcement--'I die daily.' Add, that Ephraem Syrus[377],
+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[378] and Matthaei[379] long since suggested.
+
+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 [Greek: kath hêmeran] into the Received 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.
+
+[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.]
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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 [Greek: pheugei]
+for [Greek: anechôrêsen] 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[380]: though Tregelles ignores its very existence. That our
+Lord's 'withdrawal' to the mountain on that occasion was of the nature
+of 'flight,' or 'retreat' is obvious. Hence Chrysostom and Cyril remark
+that He '_fled_ to the mountain.' And yet both Fathers (like Origen and
+Epiphanius before them) are found to have read [Greek: anechôrêsen].
+
+Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse might
+Tischendorf (with [Symbol: Aleph]) have substituted [Greek:
+anadeiknynai] for [Greek: hina poiêsôsin auton], on the plea that
+Cyril[381] says, [Greek: zêtein auton anadeixai kai basilea]. 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 will never be
+safe. A patent gloss,--rather an interpretation,--acquires no claim to
+be regarded as the genuine utterance of the Holy Spirit 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.
+
+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 _actually saying_ 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 _oratio obliqua_ 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 Lord'
+(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.'
+
+Take another example. The Hebraism [Greek: meta salpingos phônês
+megalês] (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:--(_a_) Since 'a trumpet of great sound' means nothing else but
+'a loud trumpet,' and since this can be as well expressed by [Greek:
+salpingos megalês], the scribes at a very remote period are found to
+have omitted the word [Greek: phônês]. The Peshitto and Lewis
+(interpreting rather than translating) so deal with the text.
+Accordingly, [Greek: phônês] is not found in [Symbol: Aleph]L[Symbol:
+Delta] and five cursives. Eusebius[382], Cyril Jerus.[383],
+Chrysostom[384], Theodoret[385], and even Cyprian[386] are also without
+the word. (_b_) A less violent expedient was to interpolate [Greek: kai]
+before [Greek: phônês]. This is accordingly the reading of the best
+Italic copies, of the Vulgate, and of D. So Hilary[387] and Jerome[388],
+Severianus[389], Asterius[390], ps.-Caesarius[391], Damascene[392] 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[393], Hesychius[394],
+Theophylact[395]. 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.
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+Recent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read in St. John
+xviii. 14 [Greek: apothanein] instead of [Greek: apolesthai]:--'Now
+Caiaphas was he who counselled the Jews that it was expedient that one
+man should _die_' (instead of '_perish_') '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 [Greek: apolesthai] 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
+[Greek: apothanein] 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 [Greek: apolesthai] before them.
+
+Many of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such is the
+substitution (St. Mark vi. 11) of [Greek: hos an topos mê dexêtai hymas]
+by [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] for [Greek: hosoi an mê dexôntai
+hymas],--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
+_thence_,' imply that _place_, not _persons_, should have gone before.
+Accordingly, he substituted 'whatsoever place' for '_whosoever_[396]':
+another has bequeathed to us in four uncial MSS. a lasting record of his
+rashness and incompetency. Since however he left behind the words
+[Greek: mêde akousôsin hymôn], 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]BL[Symbol: Delta] (with
+two others, CD) we find the woe denounced in the same verse on the
+unbelieving city erased ([Greek: amên legô hymin, anektoteron estai
+Sodomois ê Gomorrois en hêmerai kriseôs, ê tê polei ekeinê]). 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 _all_ the copies is religiously
+maintained, viz. [Greek: Sodomois ê Gomorrois], in St. Mark: [Greek: gê
+Sodomôn kai Gomorrôn], 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.
+
+
+§ 5.
+
+The word [Greek: apechei] in St. Mark xiv. 41 has proved a
+stumbling-block. The most obvious explanation is probably the truest.
+After a brief pause[397], during which the Saviour 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, [Greek: Apechei],--'It is enough;' or, 'It is
+sufficient;' i.e. _The season for repose is over._
+
+But the 'Revisers' of the second century did not perceive that [Greek:
+apechei] is here used impersonally[398]. They understood the word to
+mean 'is fully come'; and supplied the supposed nominative, viz. [Greek:
+to telos][399]. Other critics who rightly understood [Greek: apechei] to
+signify 'sufficit,' still subjoined 'finis.' The Old Latin and the
+Syriac versions must have been executed from Greek copies which
+exhibited,--[Greek: apechei to telos]. This is abundantly proved by the
+renderings _adest finis_ (f),--_consummatus est finis_ (a); from which
+the change to [Greek: apechei to telos KAI hê hôra] (the reading of D)
+was obvious: _sufficit finis et hora_ (d q); _adest enim consummatio;
+et_ (ff^{2} _venit_) _hora_ (c); or, (as the Peshitto more fully gives
+it), _appropinquavit finis, et venit hora_[400]. Jerome put this matter
+straight by simply writing _sufficit_. But it is a suggestive
+circumstance, and an interesting proof how largely the reading [Greek:
+apechei to telos] must once have prevailed, that it is frequently met
+with in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour[401]. Happily it is
+an 'old reading' which finds no favour at the present day. It need not
+therefore occupy us any longer.
+
+As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help out the sense,
+the reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly [Greek: hina ean tis auton
+homologêsêi Christon]. So all the MSS. but one, and so the Old Latin. So
+indeed all the ancient versions except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds
+[Greek: einai]: but [Greek: einai] must once have been a familiar gloss:
+for Jerome retains it in the Vulgate: and indeed Cyril, whenever he
+quotes the place[402], exhibits [Greek: ton Christon einai]. Not so
+however Chrysostom[403] and Gregory of Nyssa[404].
+
+
+§ 6.
+
+There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents immediately preceding
+our Saviour's 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 Christ 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 Lord's 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 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[405] however, and
+evidently Cyril Alex.[406], as well as Ammonius[407] convey though
+roughly a better sense by quoting the verse with [Greek: epoiêse] for
+[Greek: tetêrêken]. Antiochus[408] 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[409]. So that the
+Traditional text enjoys in this passage the support of all the Notes of
+Truth.]
+
+In accordance with what has been said above, for [Greek: Aphes autên;
+eis tên hêmeran tou entaphiasmou mou tetêrêken auto] (St. John xii. 7),
+the copies which it has recently become the fashion to adore, read
+[Greek: aphes autên hina ... têrêsê auto]. This startling
+innovation,--which destroys the sense of our Saviour's words, and
+furnishes a sorry substitute which no one is able to explain[410],--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 Saviour 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 Lord. 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 '_anticipates_ to anoint'
+([Greek: proelabe myrisai], 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.
+
+
+§ 7.
+
+Our Lord, in His great Eucharistic address to the eternal Father, thus
+speaks:--'I have glorified Thee on the earth. I have perfected the work
+which Thou 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 Father's 'glory[411]': next, that the work which the Father
+had given the Son to do[412] was at last finished[413]. 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[414]
+and the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions[415]: besides a
+whole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus[416], Didymus[417],
+Eusebius[418], Athanasius[419], Basil[420], Chrysostom[421], Cyril[422],
+ps.-Polycarp[423], the interpolator of Ignatius[424], and the authors of
+the Apostolic Constitutions[425]: together with the following among the
+Latins:--Cyprian[426], Ambrose[427], Hilary[428], Zeno[429],
+Cassian[430], Novatian[431], certain Arians[432], Augustine[433].
+
+But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth Gospel) proving
+uncongenial to certain of old time, D inserted [Greek: kai]. A more
+popular device was to substitute the participle ([Greek: teleiôsas]) for
+[Greek: eteleiôsa]: whereby our Lord is made to say that He had
+glorified His Father's Name 'by perfecting' or 'completing'--'in that He
+had finished'--the work which the Father 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, _having accomplished_ ([Greek: teleiôsas]) 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.
+
+When some came with the message 'Thy daughter is dead: why troublest
+thou the Master further?' the Evangelist relates that Jesus '_as soon as
+He heard_ ([Greek: eutheôs akousas]) what was being spoken, said to the
+ruler of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe.' (St. Mark v. 36.) For
+this, [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] substitute 'disregarding ([Greek:
+parakousas]) 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 [Greek: parakousas] find favour with Teschendorf,
+Tregelles, and others.
+
+
+§ 8.
+
+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,--[Greek: ti apa to
+paidion touto estai], extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's
+record,--[Greek: kai cheir Kyriou ên met' autou]. To support this
+strange view, [Greek: kai] was altered into [Greek: kai gar], and
+[Greek: esti] was substituted for [Greek: ên]. 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 Old Latin exhibit the place.
+Augustine[434] 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[435]. Unhappily,
+there survives a notable trace of the same misapprehension in [Symbol:
+Aleph]-BCL which, alone of MSS., read [Greek: kai gar ... ên][436]. 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 Lord
+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.
+
+
+§ 9.
+
+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' ([Greek: hôste bythizesthai
+auta]) requires some qualification. Accordingly C inserts [Greek: êdê]
+(were 'just' sinking); and D, [Greek: para ti] ('within a little'):
+while the Peshitto the Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of
+the Old Latin, exhibit 'ita ut _pene_.' 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, [Greek: bythizesthai], as the
+Bohairic translators perceived and 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[437] of any additional word.
+
+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 [Greek: Pyrou]
+(or [Greek: Pyrrou]) out of [Greek: Beroiaios] (or [Greek: Berroiaios])
+which follows. The Latin form of this was 'Pyrus[438],' 'Pyrrhus,' or
+'Pirrus[439].' In the Sahidic version he is called the 'son of Berus'
+([Greek: huios Berou]),--which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed,
+if it was with some _Beraean_ 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 _p_ and _b_
+sounds[440].... 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 [Greek: Sôpatros
+Pyrrou Beroiaios], why at the present day should five copies out of six
+record nothing of that second word?
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.
+
+[354] St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.
+
+[355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the [Greek: rhêsis]
+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.
+
+[356] ii. 345.
+
+[357] ii. 242.
+
+[358] The Latin is _edissere_ or _dissere_, _enarra_ or _narra_, both
+here and in xv. 15.
+
+[359] iv. 254 a.
+
+[360] 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 _no_ various reading in either of these two passages.
+
+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., [Greek: diasaphein] occurs, viz. St.
+Matt. xviii. 31, they render [Greek: diesaphêsan] by [Syriac
+letters]--they made known.
+
+Since [Greek: phrazein] 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
+[Greek: phrazein], e.g.
+
+    of [Greek: epiluein], St. Mark iv. 34;
+    of [Greek: diermêneuein], St. Luke xxiv. 27;
+    of [Greek: dianoigein], St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.
+
+On the whole I have _no doubt_ (though it is not susceptible of _proof_)
+that the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, [Greek:
+phrason].
+
+[361] 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 [Greek: spoudaiôs], St.
+Luke vii. 4; [Greek: epimelôs], St Luke xv. 8.
+
+The Root means 'to cease'; thence 'to have leisure for a thing': it has
+nothing to do with 'Fist.' [Rev. G.H. Gwilliam.]
+
+[362] Harkl. Marg. _in loc._, and Adler, p. 115.
+
+[363] Viz. a b c e ff^{2} l q.
+
+[364] [Greek: 'Opheilei psychê, en tô logô tou Kyriou katakolouthousa,
+ton stauron autou kath' hêmeran airein, hôs gegraptai; tout' estin,
+hetoimôs echousa hypomenein dia Christon pasan thlipsin kai peirasmon,
+k.t.l.] (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further on, he exhorts to
+constancy and patience,--[Greek: ton epi tou Kyriou thanaton en
+epithymiai pantote pro ophthalmôn echontes, kai (kathôs eirêtai hypo tou
+Kyriou) kath' hêmeran ton stauron airontes, ho esti thanatos] (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.
+
+[365] [Greek: Akoue Louka legontos],--i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.
+
+[366] Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.
+
+[367] ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)--the proof that these quotations are
+from St. Luke; that Cyril exhibits [Greek: arnêsasthô] instead of
+[Greek: aparn]. (see Tischendorf's note on St. Luke ix. 23). The
+quotation in i. 40 (Glaph.) _may_ be from St. Matt. xvi. 24.
+
+[368] Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.
+
+[369] After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,--'aut juxta Lucam, _dicebat ad
+cunctos: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat
+crucem suam, et sequetur me_.'--i. 852 c.
+
+This is found in his solution of _XI Quaestiones_, '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:--'_Quotidie_ credens in Christum _tollit crucem suam_, et
+negat seipsum.'
+
+[370] 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.
+
+[371] They are St. Matt. xvi. 24; St. Mark viii. 34.
+
+[372] 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.
+
+[373] In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24:--[Greek: Dia pantos tou
+biou touto dei poiein. Diênekôs gar, phêsi, periphere ton thanaton
+touton, kai kath hêmeran hetoimos eso pros sphagên] (vii. 557 b). Again,
+commenting on ch. xix. 21,--[Greek: Dei proêgoumenôs akolouthein tô
+Christô toutesti, panta ta par autou keleuomena poiein, pros sphgas
+einai hetoimon, kai thanaton kathêmerinin] (p. 629 e):--words which
+Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a).
+
+[374] i. 949 b,--'_Quotidie_ (inquit Apostolus) _morior propter vestram
+salutem_. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, _Nisi quis tulerit
+crucem suam quotidie, et sequntus fuerit me, non potest meus esse
+discipulus_'--Commenting on St. Matt. x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome
+remarks,--'in alio Evangelio scribitur,--_Qui non accipit crucem suam
+quotidie_': but the corresponding place to St. Matt. x. 38, in the
+sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke xiv. 27.
+
+[375] Viz. Evan. 473 (2^{pe}).
+
+[376] ii. 66 c, d.
+
+[377] See above, p. 175, note 2.
+
+[378] Proleg. p. cxlvi.
+
+[379] N.T. (1803), i. 368.
+
+[380] Lewis here agrees with Peshitto.
+
+[381] iv. 745.
+
+[382] In Ps. 501.
+
+[383] 229 and 236.
+
+[384] vii. 736: xi. 478.
+
+[385] ii. 1209.
+
+[386] 269.
+
+[387] 577.
+
+[388] i. 881.
+
+[389] _Ap._ Chrys. vi. 460.
+
+[390] _Ap_. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258.
+
+[391] Galland. vi. 53.
+
+[392] ii. 346.
+
+[393] ii. 261, 324.
+
+[394] _Ap._ Greg. Nyss. iii. 429.
+
+[395] i. 132.
+
+[396] The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest
+how gracefully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this
+difficulty.
+
+[397] 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 Lord 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^{2}. 106 a, b. The passage in question
+runs thus:--[Greek: Katheidete to loipon kai anapauesthe. apechei;
+êlthen hê hôra; idou, k.t.l.]
+
+[398] Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion
+(Anon. Vat.) in Possinus, p. 321:--[Greek: apechei, toutesti,
+peplêrôtai, telos echei to kat' eme]. Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.
+
+[399] 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 (_in
+loco_).
+
+[400] So Peshitto. Lewis, _venit hora, appropinquat finis_. Harkleian,
+_adest consummatio, venit hora._
+
+[401] [Greek: apechei]. Vg. _sufficit_. + [Greek: to telos], 13, 69,
+124, 2^{pe}, c^{scr}, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q,
+_sufficit finis et hora_. f, _adest finis, venit hora_. c, ff^{2},
+_adest enim consummatio, et_ (ff^{2} venit) _hora_. a, _consummatus est
+finis, advenit hora_. 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: [Greek:
+Deuteroprôton]. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as [Greek: pygmêi]. (3)
+Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, [Greek: to
+telos], as above.
+
+[402] iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614.
+
+[403] vi. 283.
+
+[404] i. 307.
+
+[405] viii. 392.
+
+[406] iv. 696.
+
+[407] Cramer's Cat. _in loc._
+
+[408] 1063.
+
+[409] E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert [Greek: ho Iêsous],
+in order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus
+from the dead; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, [Greek: apo Karyôtou] for
+[Greek: Iskariôtês]; ver. 13, spells thus,--[Greek: hôssana]; 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.
+
+[410] 'Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My
+burying' (Alford). But how _could_ 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^{c}Clellan). But [Greek: hina têrêsê] could hardly mean
+that: and the day of His [Greek: entaphiasmos] had not yet arrived.
+
+[411] Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. i. 3.
+
+[412] Consider v. 36 and iv. 34.
+
+[413] Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37.
+
+[414] Lewis, 'and the work I have perfected': Harkleian, 'because the
+work,' &c., 'because' being obelized.
+
+[415] The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile.
+
+[416] i. 245 (= Constt. App. viii. 1; _ap._ Galland. iii. 199).
+
+[417] P. 419.
+
+[418] Mcell p. 157.
+
+[419] i. 534.
+
+[420] ii. 196, 238: iii. 39.
+
+[421] v. 256: viii. 475 _bis_.
+
+[422] iii. 542: iv. 954: v^{1}. 599, 601, 614: v^{2}. 152.--In the
+following places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the other
+reading,--iv. 879: v^{1}. 167, 366: vi. 124.
+
+[423] Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson).
+
+[424] Ps.-Ignat. 328.
+
+[425] _Ap._ Gall. iii. 215.
+
+[426] P. 285.
+
+[427] ii. 545.
+
+[428] Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But _opere constummato_, pp. 812, 815.--Jerome
+also once (iv. 563) has _opere completo._
+
+[429] _Ap._ Gall. v. 135.
+
+[430] P. 367.
+
+[431] _Ap._ Gall. iii. 308.
+
+[432] _Ap._ Aug. viii. 622.
+
+[433] iii^{2}. 761: viii. 640.
+
+[434] v. 1166.
+
+[435] Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a.
+
+[436] Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are
+disfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads 'is.'
+
+[437] Theoph. 216 note: [Greek: hôs kindyneuein auta bythisthênai].
+
+[438] Cod. Amiat.
+
+[439] g,--at Stockholm.
+
+[440] Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. [Greek: Beroia].
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+IX. Corruption by Heretics.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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 _mala fides_ 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.
+
+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, 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.
+
+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?]
+
+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 God 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].
+
+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 Christ
+had not come in the flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Paul
+denounces it by name[441], and significantly condemns the wild fancies
+of its professors, their dangerous speculations as well as their absurd
+figments. Thus he predicts and condemns[442] their pestilential teaching
+in respect of meats and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle
+to Timothy[443] 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].
+
+The 'grievous wolves' whose assaults St. Paul predicted as imminent, and
+against which he warned the heads of the Ephesian Church[444], did not
+long 'spare the flock.' Already, while St. John was yet alive, had the
+Nicolaitans developed their teaching at Ephesus[445] and in the
+neighbouring Church of Pergamos[446]. Our risen Lord in glory announced
+to His servant John that in the latter city Satan had established his
+dwelling-place[447]. 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 Christ.
+
+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 Fathers:
+some Old Latin MSS.[448] 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?
+
+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 '_id verius
+quod prius_' does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer as
+we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows more and more
+corrupt?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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 Christ,' 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.
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+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 of the Son of Man: denied that He is
+essentially very and eternal God. 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 Son,--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.
+
+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
+invariably to enumerate together. Basilides[449] and Valentinus[450] 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[451]. 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[452],--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[453],' it is idle
+to dispute as to the limit of the 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[454], 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[455]. 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[456]. 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.
+
+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[457]. 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[458],
+and Epiphanius in the East, elaborately refuted his teaching, and give
+us large information as to his method of handling Scripture.
+
+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.
+
+But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity [appears to me
+to have caused alterations in the Sacred Text.]
+
+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 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.
+
+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 [Greek: ous kai apostolous ônomasen].
+
+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.
+
+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 [Greek: ti me erôtas
+peri tou agathou], 'Why do you ask me about that which is good?' is to
+be referred to some of these tamperers with the Divine Word.
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+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.
+
+(1) They taught that the world's artificer ('the Word') was Himself a
+creature of 'the Father[459].' Encountered on the threshold of the
+Gospel by the plain declaration that, 'In the beginning was the Word:
+and the Word was with God: and the Word was God': 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 Father' created: which
+He called 'Only begotten Son,' and also 'God': 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[460]. From which it is plain that, according to
+Valentinus, 'the Word' was distinct from 'the Son'; who was not the
+world's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged to be 'God[461]':
+but only, as we have seen already, using the term in an inferior sense.
+
+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[462].' 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[463]'; 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.'
+
+Of the change of [Greek: oude hen] into [Greek: ouden][464] traces
+survive in many of the Fathers[465]: but [Symbol: Aleph] and D are the
+only Uncial MSS. which are known to retain that corrupt reading.--The
+uncouth sentence which follows ([Greek: ho gegonen en autô zôê ên]),
+singular 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[466]. Occurring first
+in a fragment of Valentinus[467]: next, in the Commentary of
+Heracleon[468]: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the Gnostic (A.D.
+192)[469]: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of the
+Naäseni[470], (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[471]: Origen[472] and Eusebius[473] 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[474].
+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[475], who insisted that the Holy Ghost is a creature.
+The former were refuted by Epiphanius, who points out that the sense is
+not complete until you have read the words [Greek: ho gegonen]. A fresh
+sentence (he says) begins at [Greek: En autô zôê ên][476]. Chrysostom
+deals with the latter. 'Let us beware of putting the full stop' (he
+says) 'at the words [Greek: oude hen],--as do the heretics. In order to
+make out that the Spirit is a creature, they read [Greek: ho gegonen en
+autô zôê ên]: by which means the Evangelist's meaning becomes
+unintelligible[477].'
+
+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, _is_ 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.
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+[We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the
+operations of Heretics.]
+
+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
+Father knoweth Me and I know the Father': 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 Father and the Son 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 Creator by slightly varying the expression,--thus
+leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed can be, on
+either side the same. God knoweth us with a perfect knowledge. Our
+so-called 'knowledge' of God is a thing different not only in degree,
+but in kind[478]. Hence the peculiar form which the sentence
+assumes[479]:--[Greek: ginôskô ta ema, kai ginôskomai hypo tôn emôn].
+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[480], Gregory Naz.[481],
+Chrysostom[482], Cyril[483], Theodoret[484], Maximus[485]. 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'?
+
+But in fact it is discovered that these words of our Lord experienced
+depravation at the hands of the Manichaean heretics. Besides inverting
+the clauses, (and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on the
+side of Man.) Manes (A.D. 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. [Greek: ginôskei me ta ema, kai ginôskô ta ema]. This
+we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil[486]. 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[487].--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 Lord as
+saying, 'I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me
+and I know the Father'; 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[488], Nonnus, and
+even Basil[489] so read the place. But no token of this clearly corrupt
+reading survives in any known copy of the 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 God's
+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[490],
+may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives no
+notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers[491]].
+
+
+§ 5.
+
+Doctrinal.
+
+The question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics
+freely dogmatized. Saturninus[492] (A.D. 120) and his followers taught
+that marriage was a production of Hell.
+
+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 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[493].
+
+  St. Matt. xix. 29.
+  [Greek: ê gynaika,]
+  --BD abc Orig.
+
+  St. Mark x. 29.
+  [Greek: ê gynaika,]
+  --[Symbol: Aleph]BD[Symbol: Delta], abc, &c.
+
+  St. Luke xviii. 29.
+  [Greek: ê gynaika],
+  all allow it.
+
+[Greek: hotan de legê; hoti "pas hostis aphêke gynaika," ou touto
+phêsin, hôste aplôs diaspasthai tous gamous, k.t.l.] Chrys. vii. 636 E.
+
+[Greek: Paradeigmatisai] (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[494]' on the difference between [Greek:
+deigmatisai] and [Greek: paradeigmatisai]; 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 [Greek:
+paradeigmatisai] (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?
+
+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 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 Lord 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?
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[441] [Greek: pseudônymou gnôseôs] 1 Tim. vi. 20.
+
+[442] 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.
+
+[443] ii. 17.
+
+[444] Acts xx. 29.
+
+[445] Rev. ii. 6.
+
+[446] Rev. ii. 15.
+
+[447] Rev. ii. 13.
+
+[448] Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. chap. vii. p.
+137.
+
+[449] '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.
+
+[450] 'Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra' (De
+Praescript., ad calcem).
+
+[451] Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) says,--[Greek: tauta de
+eirêtai prôs tois apo Oualentinou, kai Basilidou, kai tous apo
+Markiônos. echousi gar kai autoi tas lexeis en tôi kath' heautous
+euangeliôi]. Opp. iii. 981 A.
+
+[452] '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.
+
+[453] '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.
+
+[454] See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. xiii; also c. iii.
+
+[455] '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 Matthaeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte
+praesumentes de Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam
+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 Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium; cum amore veritatis
+legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod
+est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes,' &c. Iren. iii. xi. 7.
+
+[456] [Greek: Hêrakleôn, ho tês Oualentinou scholês dokimôtatos]. 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 [Greek: egeneto oude en]) the words
+[Greek: tôn en tô kosmôi, kai tê ktisei]. Heracleon clearly read [Greek:
+ho gegonen en autô zôê ên]. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for
+[Greek: en trisi], he wrote [Greek: en tritê]. He also read (St. John
+iv. 18) (for [Greek: pente]), [Greek: ex andras esches].
+
+[457] 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: [Greek: Metacharaxantas de to
+euangelion allous ouk oida, hê tous apo Markiônos, kai tous apo
+Oualentinou, oimai de kai tous apo Loukanou. touto de legomenon ou tou
+logou estin egklêma, alla tôn tolmêsantôn rhadiourgêsai ta euangelia].
+Opp. i. 411 B.
+
+[458] De Praesc. Haer. c. 51.
+
+[459] [Greek: Outos de dêmiourgos kai poiêtês toude tou pantos kosmou
+kai tôn en autô ... estai men katadeesteros tou teleiou Theou ... ate dê
+kai gennêtos ôn, kai ouk agennêtos]. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. p. 217.
+Heracleon saw in the nobleman of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who,
+[Greek: basilikos ônomasthê hoionei mikros tis basileus, hypo katholikou
+basileôs tetagmenos epi mikras basileias], p. 373.
+
+[460] [Greek: O Iôannês ... boulomenos eipein tên tôn holôn genesin,
+kath' ên ta panta proebalen ho Patêr, archên tina hypotithetai, to
+prôton gennêthen hypo tou theou, hon dê kai huion Monogenê kai Theon
+keklêken, en hô ta panta ho Patêr proebale spermatikôs. Hypo de toutou
+phêsi ton Logon probeblêsthai, kai en autô tên holên tôn Aiônôn ousian,
+ên autos hysteron emorphôsen ho Logos.... Panta di' autou egeneto, kai
+chôris autou egeneto oude hen; pasi gar tois met' auton Aiôsi morphês
+kai geneseôs aitios ho Logos egeneto].
+
+[461] [Greek: En tô Patri kai ek tou Patros hê archê, kai ek tês archês
+ho Logos. Kalôs oun eipen; en archê ên ho Logos; ên gar en tô Huiô. Kai
+ho Logos ên pros ton Theon; kai gar hê 'Archê; kai Theos ên ho Logos,
+akolouthôs. To gar ek Theou gennêthen Theos estin].--Ibid. p. 102.
+Compare the Excerpt. Theod. _ap_. Clem. Al. c. vi. p. 968.
+
+[462] _Ap_. Orig. 938. 9.
+
+[463] So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (_ap._ Epiph. i. 217),
+and so Heracleon (_ap._ Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian
+(_ap._ Epiph. i. 882).
+
+[464] See The Traditional Text, p. 113.
+
+[465] Clem. Al. always has [Greek: oude hen] (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273,
+769, 787, 803, 812, 815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838)
+he has [Greek: ouden]. Cyril, while writing his treatise De Trinitate,
+read [Greek: ouden] in his copy. Eusebius, for example, has [Greek: oude
+hen], fifteen times; [Greek: ouden] only twice, viz. Praep. 322: Esai.
+529.
+
+[466] Opp. ii. 74.
+
+[467] _Ap._ Iren. 102.
+
+[468] Ibid. 940.
+
+[469] _Ap._ Clem. Al. 968, 973.
+
+[470] Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the
+Peratae: [Greek: oude hen, ho gegonen. en autô zôê estin. en autô de,
+phêsin, hê Eua gegonen, hê Eua zôê]. Ibid. p. 134.
+
+[471] Opp. 114, 218, 1009.
+
+[472] Cels. vi. 5: Princip. II. ix. 4: IV. i. 30: In Joh. i. 22, 34: ii.
+6, 10, 12, 13 _bis_: In Rom. iii. 10, 15: Haer. v. 151.
+
+[473] Psalm. 146, 235, 245: Marcell. 237. Not so in Ecl. 100: Praep.
+322, 540.
+
+[474] [Greek: Anagkaiôs phêsin, "ho gegonen, eni autô zôê ên." ou monon
+phêsi, "di autou ta panta egeneto," alla kai ei ti gegonen ên en autô hê
+zôê. tout' estin, ho monogenês tou Theo logos, hê pantôn archê, kai
+systasis horatôn te kai aoratôn ... autos gar hyparchôn hê kata physin
+zôê, to einai kai zên kai kineisthai polytropôs tois ousi charisetai].
+Opp. iv. 49 e.
+
+He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the [Greek: Logos],
+that, [Greek: panta di' autou egeneto, kai ên en tois genomenois hôs
+zôê]. Ibid. 60 c.
+
+[475] [Greek: Outoi de boulontai auto einai ktisma ktismatos. phasi gar,
+hoti panto di' autou gegone, kai chôris autou egeneto oude hen. ara,
+phasi, kai to Pneuma ek tôn poiêmatôn hyparchei, epeidê panta di' autou
+gegone]. Opp. i. 741. Which is the teaching of Eusebius, Marcell. 333-4.
+The Macedonians were an offshoot of the Arians.
+
+[476] i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80.
+
+[477] Opp. viii. 40.
+
+[478] 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], [Greek: kai
+proegnô mallon hê egnôsthê par' hêmôn].
+
+[479] Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this:--[Greek: hina mê tês
+gnôseôs ison ton metron nomisêis, akouson pôs diorthoutai auto têi
+epagôgêi; ginôskô ta ema, phêsi, kai ginôskomai hypo tôn emôn. all' ouk
+isê hê gnôsis, k.t.l.] viii. 353 d.
+
+[480] P. 38. (Gall. vii. 26.)
+
+[481] i. 298, 613.
+
+[482] viii. 351, 353 d and e.
+
+[483] iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.
+
+[484] i. 748: iv. 374, 550.
+
+[485] In Dionys. Ar. ii. 192.
+
+[486] [Greek: Phêsi de ho autos Manês ... ta ema probata ginôskei me,
+kai ginôskô ta ema probata]. (Epiphan. i. 697.)--Again,--[Greek:
+hêrpasen ho hairetikos pros tên idian kataskeuên tês blasphêmias. idou,
+phêsin, eirêtai; hoti ginôasousi] (lower down, [Greek: ginôskei])
+[Greek: me ta ema, kai ginôskô ta ema]. (Basil ii. 188 a, b.)
+
+[487] [Greek: En taxei tê oikeia kai prepôdestatê tôn pragmatôn ekasta
+titheis. ou gar ephê, ginôskei me ta ema, kai ginôskô ta ema, all'
+heauton egnôkata proteron eispherei ta idia probata, eith' outôs
+gnôsthêsesthai phêsi par autôn ... ouch hêmeis auton epegnôkamen prôtoi,
+epegnô de hêmas prôton autos ... ouch hêmeis êrxametha tou pragmatos,
+all' ho ek Theou Theos monogenês].--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.)
+
+[488] In Ps. 489: in Es. 509: Theoph. 185, 258, 260.
+
+[489] ii. 188 a:--which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds
+exquisitely to shew (1886) that man's 'knowledge' of God consists in his
+keeping of God's Commandments. (1 John ii. 3, 4.) See p. 206, note 1.
+
+[490] So Jerome, iv. 484: vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor
+Augustine should quote the place.
+
+[491] See Revision Revised, p. 220.
+
+[492] Or Saturnilus--[Greek: to de gamein kai gennan apo tou Satana
+phêsin einai]. p. 245, l. 38. So Marcion, 253.
+
+[493] [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.]
+
+[494] Mai, iv. 221.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+X. Corruption by the Orthodox.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+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.
+
+He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the Lord's
+Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the record that our Saviour
+'wept.' We will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth.
+But when the same Father adds,--'In the uncorrected copies ([Greek: en
+tois adiorthôtois antigraphois]) 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[495].' 'Nevertheless,'
+Epiphanius adds, 'the orthodox through fear erased the record.'
+
+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.'
+
+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
+[Greek: diorthôtês].
+
+St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant Saviour 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[496], it was clearly the design of the Author of
+Scripture to teach that the Word '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 God' ([Greek: teleios Theos]), of whom it is
+related in respect of His spirit that he 'waxed strong[497]'? The
+consequence might have been foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were
+ill-advised enough to erase the word [Greek: pneumati] 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.
+
+But because it is [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, Origen[498], and the Latin, the
+Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word [Greek: pneumati],
+Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump to the
+conclusion that [Greek: pneumati] 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 ([Greek: pneumati]) 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 [Greek: ekrataiouto pneumati] 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?
+
+When then, and where did the work of depravation take place? It must
+have been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus[499]
+quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:--before
+the fifth, because, besides Cod. A, Cyril[500] Theodoret[501] and
+ps.-Caesarius[502] recognize the word:--before the fourth, because
+Epiphanius[503], Theodore of Mopsuestia[504], 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?
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St. John viii.
+40, when they pretended to shew from Scripture that Christ is mere
+Man[505]. I am persuaded that the reading 'of My Father[506],'--with
+which Origen[507], Epiphanius[508], Athanasius[509], Chrysostom[510],
+Cyril Alex.[511], and Theodoret[512] 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.
+
+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 God. 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 'God,' appeal to the words,--'the
+only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father[513],' &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 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.
+
+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 [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenês
+uios]: once, [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenês uios Theos]: once,
+[Greek: ho monogenês uios Theou][514]: Clemens Alex., [Greek: ho
+monogenês uios Theos monos][515]; which must be very nearly the reading
+of the Codex from which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin
+was derived[516]. Eusebius four times writes [Greek: ho monogenês
+uios][517]: twice, [Greek: monogenês Theos][518]: and on one occasion
+gives his reader the choice of either expression, explaining why both
+may stand[519]. Gregory Nyss.[520] and Basil[521], though they recognize
+the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more familiar with
+the reading [Greek: ho monogenês Theos][522]: for Basil adopts the
+expression thrice[523], and Gregory nearly thirty-three times as
+often[524]. This was also the reading of Cyril Alex.[525], whose usual
+phrase however is [Greek: ho monogenês tou Theou logos][526]. Didymus
+has only [? cp. context] [Greek: ho monogenês Theos],--for which he once
+writes [Greek: ho monogenês Theos logos][527]. Cyril of Jer. seems to
+have read [Greek: ho monogenês monos][528].
+
+[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[529]. 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.
+
+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 in the Arian controversy. Arius reads [Greek:
+Theos] (_ap._ Epiph. 73--Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read [Greek:
+Huios]. So Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and
+Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus[530]. 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[531]. None may read
+Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes them.]
+
+
+§ 3.
+
+All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. 47:--[Greek: ho
+prôtos anthrôpos ek gês choikos; ho deuteros anthrôpos ho Kyrios ex
+ouranou]. 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 'Jesus Christ had come in the flesh[532]'
+and who are known to have freely 'taken away from the words' of
+Scripture[533], 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 Christ took upon Himself human flesh[534]? And to
+bring out this contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate
+to remove as superfluous the word 'man' in the second clause of the
+sentence. There resulted,--'The first man [was] of the earth, earthy:
+[Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou][535].' It is thus that
+Marcion[536] (A.D. 130) and his followers[537] 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 [Greek: anthrôpos] in ver.
+47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining [Greek:
+anthrôpos], judged it expedient to leave out the expression [Greek: ho
+Kyrios], 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.
+
+(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that Christ
+was 'Man' _before_ He came into the World. This heresy came to a head in
+the persons of Apolinarius[538] and Photinus; in contending with whom,
+Greg. Naz.[539] and Epiphanius[540] are observed to argue with
+disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian[541], and Cyprian[542]
+after him, knew no other reading but 'secundus 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, _except nine_; and is vouched for by Basil[543],
+Chrysostom[544], Theodotus[545], Eutherius[546], Theodorus Mops.[547],
+Damascene[548], Petrus Siculus[549], and Theophylact[550]: and (2) The
+corrected (i.e. the maimed) text of the orthodox;--[Greek: ho deuteros;
+anthrôpos ex ouranou]: with which, besides the two Gregories[551],
+Photinus[552] 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[553], and (long after him) Cyril, employed _both_
+readings[554].
+
+(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
+[Greek: ho prôtos anthrôpos], St. Paul had set [Greek: ho deuteros
+anthrôpos]: against [Greek: ek gês]--[Greek: ex ouranou]: against [Greek:
+choikos]--[Greek: ho Kyrios]. Remove [Greek: ho Kyrios], and some
+substitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to [Greek:
+choikos]. Taking a hint from what is found in ver. 48, some one
+(plausibly enough,) suggested [Greek: epouranios]: and this gloss so
+effectually recommended itself to Western Christendom, that having been
+adopted by Ambrose[555], by Jerome[556] (and later by Augustine[557],)
+it established itself in the Vulgate[558], and is found in all the later
+Latin writers[559]. Thus then, _a third_ 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 (A.D. 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[560] lends his countenance to all the three readings.
+
+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 [Greek: ho Kyrios] be retained in
+the 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 [Greek: Adam] into the first
+clause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining [Greek: ho ouranios]. 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?
+
+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 (_a_) That all the changes which we have
+been considering belong to the earliest age of all:--(_b_) That the
+corrupt reading is retained by [Symbol: Aleph]BC and their following:
+the genuine text, in the great bulk of the copies:--(_c_) That the first
+mention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:--(_d_)
+That [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, as they
+fancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension of the nature and
+authority of the Word of God:--and (_e_) that under the Divine
+Providence that change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive
+witness is found on the other side].
+
+
+§ 4.
+
+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 Lord's 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). Christ '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
+Christ.' Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found to have
+read it without the final clause ([Greek: ho ôn en tô ouranô]); 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 [Greek: ho ôn en tô ouranô][561]. But the decisive circumstance is
+that,--besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which all witness to the
+existence of the clause,--the whole body of the uncials, four only
+excepted ([Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{b}), and every known cursive but one
+(33)--are for retaining it.
+
+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.
+
+
+§ 5[562].
+
+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.
+
+The first of these clauses ([Greek: hôs kai Hêlias epoiêse]), which
+claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, Mill
+rejected as an obvious interpolation. 'Res ipsa clamat. Quis enim sanus
+tam insignia deleverit[563]?' Griesbach retained it as probably
+genuine.--The second clause ([Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou
+pneumatos este hymeis]) he obelized as probably not genuine:--the third
+([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthrôpou ouk êlthe psychas anthrôpôn
+apolesai, alla sôsai]) 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.--[Greek: Kyrie,
+theleis eipômen pyr katabênai apo tou ouranou, kai analôsai autous;
+strapheis de epetimêsen autois. kai eporeuthêsan dêsan eis heteran
+kômên].
+
+Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. [Symbol:
+Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] l g^{1} Cyr^{luc}[564], 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 with Clemens Alex. (A.D.
+190), and five Latin Fathers beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190):
+Cyprian's testimony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of
+Carthage, A.D. 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.
+
+(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 [Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou pneumatos
+este hymeis], 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 _prima facie_ 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.
+
+And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it is
+perceived that this disputed clause is recognized by Clemens[565] (A.D.
+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 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.
+
+(2) The third clause ([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthrôpou ouk êlthe
+psychas anthrôpôn apolesai, alla sôsai]) 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,--[Greek:
+êlthe gar ho huios tou anthrôpou zêtêsai kai][566] [Greek: sôsai to
+apolôlos].
+
+(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, [Greek: hôs kai Êlias epoiêsen]: 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 L[Symbol: Xi] 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 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.
+
+Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and depravation of
+Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]ABC(D) come about? I answer as follows:--
+
+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[567]. 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 Christ. 'I acknowledge the seventy of the judge,'
+Tertullian replies; 'but I recognize the same severity on the part of
+Christ towards His Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar
+calamity on a Samaritan village[568].' From all of which it 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.
+
+But then it is further discovered that at the same remote period (about
+A.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much fastened on by the enemies of
+the Gospel. The Manichaean heretics pressed believers with it[569]. 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 God's 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!
+
+Of these three clauses then, which are closely interdependent, and as
+Tischendorf admits[570] 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.
+
+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[571] 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[572],--it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set
+up.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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[573], ended thus,--[Greek: hôs kai
+Êlias epoiêse; strapheis de epetimêsen autois. kai eporeuthêsan eis
+hetepan kômên][574]. 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[575]. 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?
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[495] [Greek: Pros tois dokêsei ton Christon pephênenai legontas].
+
+[496] [Greek: To de paidion êuxane, kai ekrataiouto pneumati].
+
+[497] It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first
+Dialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).
+
+[498] Opp. iii. 953, 954,--with suspicious emphasis.
+
+[499] Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).
+
+[500] When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),--"[Greek: To
+de paidion êuxane kai ekrataiouto PNEUMATI, plêroumenon SOPHIA kai
+CHARITI." kaitoi kata physin panteleios estin hôs Theos kai ex idion
+plêrômatos dianemei tois agiois ta PNEUMATIKA, kai autos estin ê SOPHIA,
+kai tês CHARITOS ho dotêr],--it is clear that [Greek: pneumati] 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:--[Greek: ho Euangelistês
+epsê "êuxane kai ekrataiouto" KAI TA EXÊS]. Surely this constitutes no
+ground for supposing that he did not recognize the word [Greek:
+pneumati], 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 [Greek: pneumati] must be suspected of being an unauthorized
+addition to the text of Cyril's treatise, De Rectâ fide ad Pulcheriam et
+Eudociam.
+
+[501] ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times).
+
+[502] [Greek: Ei teleios esti Theos ho Christos, pôs ho euangelistês
+legei, to de paidion Iêsous êuxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati];--S.
+Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (_ap._ Galland. vi. 17 c). And see
+Quaest. 30.
+
+[503] ii. 36 d.
+
+[504] Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53.--The only other Greek
+Fathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.
+
+[505] [Greek: Hên êkousa para tou Theou]. Epiph. i. 463.
+
+[506] Instead of [Greek: para tou Theou].
+
+[507] i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.
+
+[508] i. 260, 463: ii. 49.
+
+[509] i. 705.
+
+[510] viii. 365.
+
+[511] (Glaph.) i. 18.
+
+[512] 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 [Greek: para tou patros]
+wrong.
+
+[513] Excerpt. Theod. 968.--Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen
+with this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, [Greek: on dê kai uion
+Monogenê kai Theon keklêken].
+
+[514] Pp. 627, 630, 466.
+
+[515] P. 956.
+
+[516] '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,--[Greek: tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou Patrus, hon ho
+monoogenês huios Theos monos exêgêsato] (956), and in the Excerpt.
+Theod. we find [Greek: outos ton kolpon ton Patros exêgêsato ho Sôtêr]
+(969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord
+is often spoken of by the Fathers as [Greek: hê dexia tou hypsistou ...
+kolpos de tês dexias ho Patêr]. (Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)
+
+[517] Ps. 440 (--[Greek: ho]): Marcell. 165, 179, 273.
+
+[518] Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.
+
+[519] Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.
+
+[520] Opp. ii. 466.
+
+[521] Opp. iii. 23, 358.
+
+[522] Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 ([Greek: Theos pantôs ho monogenês,
+ho en tois kolpois ôn tou Patros, outôs eipontos tou Iôannou]). Also ii.
+432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always [Greek: en tois kolpois]. Basil, Opp.
+iii. 12.
+
+[523] Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).
+
+[524] Contra Eunom. _I have noted_ ninety-eight places.
+
+[525] Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:--[Greek: autos
+gar Theos ôn ho monogenês, en kolpois ôn tou theou kai patros, tautên
+pros hêmas epoiêsato tên exêgêsin]. Presently (p. 105), he says that St.
+John [Greek: kai "monogenê theon" apokalei ton huion, kai "en kolpois"
+einai phêsi tou patros]. But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: [Greek:
+"ho monogenês," phêsi, "Theos, ho ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros, ekeinos
+exêgêsato." epeidê gar ephê "monogenê" kai "Theon," tithêsin euthys, "ho
+ôn en tois kolpois tou patros."]--So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads
+[Greek: huios] in v. 365, 437: vi. 90.
+
+[526] 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).
+
+[527] De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:--27.
+
+[528] P. 117.
+
+[529] Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.
+
+[530] Who quoted Arius' words:--'Subsistit ante tempora et aeones
+_plenus Deus, unigenitus,_ et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find
+Tischendorf's reference.
+
+[531] The reading [Greek: Huios] is established by unanswerable
+evidence.
+
+[532] 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.
+
+[533] Rev. xxii. 19.
+
+[534] [Greek: Epipêdôsin hêmin hoi hairetikoi legontes; idou ouk anelabe
+sarka ho Christos; ho deut. gar phêsin anthr. ho k. ex ouranou.] Chrys.
+iii. 114 b.
+
+[535] [Greek: Tên gar kata sarka gênnêsin tou Christou anelein
+boulomenoi, enêllaxan to, ho deuteros anthrôpos; kai epoiêsan, ho
+deuteros Kyrios.] Dial. [_ap._ Orig.] i. 868.--Marcion had in fact
+already substituted [Greek: Kyrios] for [Greek: anthrôpos] in ver. 45:
+('_the last Lord_ became a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. ii. 304]--a
+fabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's
+followers:--[Greek: ho eschatos Kyrios eis pn. zô.] Dial. _ubi supra_.
+[Greek: edei gar autous, ei ge ta euangelia etimôn, mê peritemnein ta
+euangelia, mê merê tôn euangeliôn exyphelein, mê hetera prosthênai, mête
+logô, mête idia gnômê ta euangelia prosgraphein.... prosgegraphêkasi
+goun hosa beboulêntai, kai exypheilanto hosa kekrikasi.] Titus of Bostra
+c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).
+
+[536] Tertull. ii. 304, (_Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus
+de Caelo_).
+
+[537] Dial [Orig. i.] 868, ([Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou]).
+
+[538] [Greek: To de pantôn chalepôtaton en tais ekklêsiastikais
+symphorais, hê tôn 'Apolinaristôn esti parrêsia.] Greg. Naz. ii. 167.
+
+[539] ii. 168,--a very interesting place. See also p. 87.
+
+[540] i. 831.
+
+[541] ii. 443, 531.
+
+[542] Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (_primus homo de terrae limo_, &c.).
+
+[543] iii. 40.
+
+[544] iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has [Greek: ho
+deut. anthr. ouranios ex ouranou].
+
+[545] iv. 1051.
+
+[546] _Ap._ Thdt. v. 1135.
+
+[547] _Ap._ Galland. viii. 626, 627.
+
+[548] i. 222 (where for [Greek: anthr.] he reads [Greek: Adam]), 563.
+Also ii. 120, 346.
+
+[549] 'Adversus Manichaeos,'--_ap._ Mai, iv. 68, 69.
+
+[550] ii. 228:--[Greek: ouch hoti ho anthrôpos, êtoi to anthrôpinon
+proslêmma, ex ouranou ên, hôs ho aphrôn Apolinarios elêrei].
+
+[551] Naz. ii. 87 (=Thdt. iv. 62), 168.--Nyss. ii. 11.
+
+[552] _Ap._ Epiphan. i. 830.
+
+[553] 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.
+
+[554] 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 [Greek: tou deuterou ex ouranou
+anthrôpou] in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely
+pressed.
+
+[555] _Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo
+caelestis_.--i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437.
+
+[556] ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.
+
+[557] The places are given by Sabatier _in loc_.
+
+[558] Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this
+reading appear in Orig. _interp_. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546.
+
+[559] As Philastrius (_ap._ 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.
+
+[560] Vol. i. p. 1275,--[Greek: ho deuteros anthr. ho Kyrios ex ouranou
+ouranios]:--on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), [Greek: idou gar
+amphoterôthen ouranios anthrôpos onomazetai]. And lower down,--[Greek:
+Kyrios, dia tên mian hypostasin; deut. men anthr., kata tên henômenên
+anthrôpotêta. ex ouranou de, kata tên theotêta].--P. 448,--[Greek: ho
+deuteros anthr. ex ouranou epouranios].--_Ap._ Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland.
+v. 167),--[Greek: ho deut. anthr. ex ouranou].--Note that Maximinus, an
+Arian bishop, A.D. 427-8 (_ap._ Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have
+possessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:--'Ait ipse
+Paulus, _Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de
+Caelo caelestis_ advenit.'
+
+[561] See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114.
+
+[562] This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877,
+and is therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.
+
+[563] Proleg. 418.
+
+[564] 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 _Textus
+Receptus_ 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:--[Greek: eidenai gar chrê, hoti hôs mêpô tês
+neas kekratêkotes charitos, all' eti tês proteras echomenoi synêtheias,
+touto eipon, pros Êlian aphorôntes ton pyri kataphlexanta dis tous
+pentêkonta kai tous êgoumenous autôn], (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf.
+Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. N. T. _in loc._, pp. 333-4.) Now
+the man who wrote _that_, must surely have read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as
+we do.
+
+[565] See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland.
+ii. 157. First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71.
+
+[566] In St. Matt. xviii. 11, the words [Greek: zêtêsai kai] do not
+occur.
+
+[567] 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 _spiritu_ miti').
+
+[568] Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And
+he discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139.
+
+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.
+
+[569] Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (_ap._ Galland. v. 329 b), leaving
+others to note the correspondences between the New and the Old
+Testament, proposes to handle the 'Contrasts': [Greek: pros autas tas
+antitheseis tôn logiôn chôrêsômen]. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms
+what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.
+
+[570] Verba [Greek: hôs kai Ê. epoiêse] cur quis addiderit, planum.
+Eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba [Greek: str. de epeti. autois]
+excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum [Greek: ho gar
+huios], &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.)
+
+[571] Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio
+circumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)
+
+[572] 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.
+
+Jerome.--Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, _et
+imitari Eliam_, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum _venerat_, sed _ad
+salvandum_, &c. ... increpat eos _quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et
+bonitatis Evangelicae_, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)
+
+Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.--'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum
+perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. A.D. 253.
+
+Tatian.--Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and
+Anim. c. 13.)
+
+Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the
+words twice,--x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.
+
+[Greek: Kai ho Kyrios pros tous apostolous eipontas en pyri kolasai tous
+mê dexamenous autous kata ton Êlian; Ouk oidate phêsi poiou pneumatos
+este]. (p. 1019.)
+
+Theodoret, iii. 1119. ([Greek: poiou].)
+
+Epiph. ii. 31. ([Greek: hoiou].)
+
+Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.
+
+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.
+
+Cyril Al.--[Greek: Mêpô tês neas kekratêkotes charitos ... touto eipon,
+ton Êlian aphorôntes ton pyri k.t.l.] 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
+_some_ reproof finds record in the Gospel.
+
+Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c.
+
+Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.
+
+Didymus.--[Greek: Ouk oidate oiou pneumatos estin ho huios tou
+anthrôpou]. De Trin. p. 188.
+
+[573] Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).
+
+[574] See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.
+
+[575] [I have been unable to discover this Lection.]
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX I.
+
+PERICOPE DE ADULTERA.
+
+
+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 _pericope de adultera_, 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.
+
+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 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.
+
+And first, the case of the _pericope de adultera_ 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.
+
+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 _where_,--and
+to all intents and purposes _what_--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?
+
+'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,
+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.
+
+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 _pericope de
+adultera_, 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?
+
+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:
+
+    'and every man went to his own house: but Jesus 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.'
+
+Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is
+unmistakably not the beginning but the end 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[576]. 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[577].
+
+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 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.
+
+I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which
+some Critics in their eagerness have overlooked.
+
+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?
+
+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 Jesus 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.
+
+But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch.
+vii. 37 and 5a, and note--(_a_) That two hostile parties crowded the
+Temple courts (ver. 40-42): (_b_) That some were for laying violent
+hands on our Lord (ver. 44): (_c_) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled
+in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him
+prisoner, and disputing one against another[578] (ver. 45-52). How can
+the Evangelist have proceeded,--'Again therefore Jesus 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?
+
+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 Saviour 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--'Jesus 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[579],' prove to be even necessary
+for the logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand.
+
+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 _Pericope de
+adultera_ 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.
+
+The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our Saviour 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 Lord is observed to
+revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion.
+The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction[580], 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.
+
+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 Lord, 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.
+
+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 Jehovah 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[581] 'in an earthen vessel[582]'? 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'
+([Greek: to hydôr tou elegmou]) as it is six times called, which _they_
+had been compelled to drink; whereupon, 'convicted ([Greek:
+elegchomenoi]) 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 Lord 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.'
+
+Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition--and I am not
+concerned to defend it in every detail,--on 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.
+
+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[583].' 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[584]. 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 retained to this hour before [Greek: lithon] in
+ver. 7. On completing our survey, as to the assertions that the
+_pericope de adultera_ '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[585],' (whatever _that_ 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. _Quousque
+tandem?_
+
+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[586].' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener)
+declares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the
+passage must needs be abandoned[587].' Tregelles is 'fully satisfied
+that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel[588].'
+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 God's written Word would be a joyless and an
+unprofitable task. According to Green, 'the genuineness of the passage
+cannot be maintained[589].' 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[590].' A yet more recent critic
+'sums up,' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to the
+genuineness of the passage[591].' 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[592].' 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 _less conspicuously_ 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 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.
+
+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]ABCLTX[Symbol: Delta], 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.
+
+Woide, the learned and accurate[593] editor of the Codex Alexandrinus,
+remarked (in 1785)--'Historia adulterae _videtur_ 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
+_omitting_ the _pericope de adultera_,)--was far too roughly made to be
+of any critical use[594].
+
+Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the word [Greek:
+katabainôn] in vi. 50 to the word [Greek: legeis] in viii. 52: a
+_lacuna_ (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of 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 _Pericope de adultera_,
+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.
+
+As for L and [Symbol: Delta], 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 _for_,--not
+witnesses _against_,--the 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 _simply_ 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 _alone_ exhibit St. Mark's Gospel
+mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses.
+
+But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of later date are
+without the _pericope de adultera_: 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 _untrue_. 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.
+
+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 _pericope de adultera_ must be 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.
+
+Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition that,
+
+(1) _These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they
+now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the
+Gospels reaches._
+
+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 _in situ_ in Codd. b c e ff^{2} g h j. Jerome (A.D. 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[595]
+in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine
+times[596]; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as
+often[597]. It is quoted besides by Pacian[598], in the north of Spain
+(370),--by Faustus[599] the African (400),--by Rufinus[600] at Aquileia
+(400),--by Chrysologus[601] at Ravenna (433),--by Sedulius[602] a Scot
+(434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises[603] 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[604] (484)
+in North Africa,--by Gelasius[605], bp. of Rome (492),--by
+Cassiodorus[606] in Southern Italy,--by Gregory the Great[607], and by
+other Fathers of the Western Church.
+
+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 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 _pericope de adultera_ 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?
+
+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.
+
+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 _pericope de adultera_ 'is found in many copies
+both Greek and Latin[608].' He calls attention to the fact that what is
+rendered 'sine peccato' is [Greek: anamartêtos] in the Greek: and lets
+fall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies
+which exhibited (in ver. 8) [Greek: egraphan enos ekastou autôn tas
+amartias],--a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) and
+at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel[609]. Whence is
+it--let me ask in passing--that so many Critics fail to see that
+_positive_ testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse
+_negative_ 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.
+
+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[610]) 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 it is an afterthought of the
+Evangelist:--concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few
+words to offer by-and-by.
+
+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.
+
+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 _pericope de adultera_ 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[611]. Ambrose, a quarter of
+a century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularly
+apprehended from this quarter[612]: 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[613].
+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.
+
+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 Jesus 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 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.
+
+We may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition, which
+is
+
+(2) _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_.
+
+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 _all_ 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?
+
+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' ([Greek: archê]),
+and where its 'end' ([Greek: telos]). 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 [Greek: tê eschatê hêmera tê megalê],
+and ending--[Greek: to phôs tês zôês]: but _over-leaping_ the twelve
+verses now under discussion: viz. vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, the
+word 'over-leap' ([Greek: hyperba]) is written in _all_ 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 [Greek: kai
+mêketi hamartane] in ch. viii. 11: after which he found himself
+instructed to 'recommence' ([Greek: arxai]). 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 _middle of the lesson for Pentecost_? 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.
+
+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, _pro hac vice_, abdicate her function
+of being 'a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ'? Was she all of a sudden
+forsaken by the inspiring Spirit, 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 Jesus 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? 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.
+
+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
+Lord 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
+canonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by the collective
+wisdom of the Church in the third or fourth century?
+
+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[614].
+
+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 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.'
+
+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.
+
+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 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 _pericope de adultera_--passes it by, I
+mean,--exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But will any one pretend that
+Theophylact,--writing in A.D. 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.
+
+The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers is
+therefore invalid. The argument _e silentio_--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.
+
+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 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 _is_ 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.
+
+To proceed however with what I was about to say.
+
+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?
+
+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 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 _a fact_: 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 _en bloc_ 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 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
+_pericope de adultera_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 [Greek: Prophêtês ek tês Galilaias ouk eg.] 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 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?
+
+(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why _one_ 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
+_pericope_ de adultera: And so it may, no doubt. But then, once admit
+_this_, and the hypothesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory:
+fails even to _touch_ 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 _first_ 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[615]?
+
+(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 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.
+
+What chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary suggestion is its
+_irreverence_. 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 God the Holy Ghost: and I know of no reason for supposing
+that His works are imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands.
+
+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 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.
+
+1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but _the absence_ 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?
+
+2. So, concerning St. John v. 3, 4: to which there really attaches no
+manner of doubt, as I have elsewhere shewn[616]. 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 _all other copies_: are vouched for by the
+Syriac[617] 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.
+
+(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 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?
+
+[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.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[576] Compare 1 Sam. xxiv. 22:--'And Saul went home: _but David and his
+men gat them up into the hold_.' 1 Kings xviii. 42:--'So Ahab went up to
+eat and to drink: _and Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, and he cast
+himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees_.'
+Esther iii. 15:--'And the king and Haman sat down to drink; _but the
+city of Shushan was perplexed_.' Such are the idioms of the Bible.
+
+[577] Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it,
+remarks that our Lord's words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a
+_viaticum_ which all might take home with them, at the close of this,
+'the last, the great day of the feast.'
+
+[578] So Eusebius:--- [Greek: Ote kata to auto synachthentes hoi tôn
+Ioudaiôn ethnous archontes epi tês Hierousalêm, synedrion epoiêsanto kai
+skepsin opôs auton apolesôsin en hô hoi men thanaton autou
+katepsêphisanto; heteroi de antelegon, ôs ho Nikodêmos, k.t.l.] (in
+Psalmos, p. 230 a).
+
+[579] Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text
+of the New Testament, p. xxvii.
+
+[580] So in the LXX. See Num. v. 11-31.
+
+[581] Ver. 17. So the LXX.
+
+[582] 2 Cor. iv. 7: v. 1.
+
+[583] Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. 11,
+28: xxi. 19.
+
+[584] 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. _passim_, especially i. 11, 19: ii. 1, &c.: x. 4: xiv. 13:
+xvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12, 15: xxi. 5, 27: xxii. 18, 19.
+
+[585] Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi.
+
+[586] Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829.
+
+[587] Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364.
+
+[588] Printed Texts, 1854, p. 341.
+
+[589] Developed Criticism, p. 82.
+
+[590] Outlines, &c., p. 103.
+
+[591] Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141.
+
+[592] Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368.
+
+[593] 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 _italicism_ was in fact all that
+had been overlooked in the course of many pages.
+
+[594] It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes.
+Praefat. p. xxx, § 86.
+
+[595] ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9.
+
+[596] i. 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, 896-7.
+
+[597] i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii^{1}. 774: iii^{2}. 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.
+
+[598] Pacian (A.D. 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. (A.D. 372). _Ap._ Galland. vii.
+267.
+
+[599] _Ap._ Augustin. viii. 463.
+
+[600] In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53.
+
+[601] Chrysologus, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mystically
+explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. § 5.
+
+[602] Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a
+whole chapter to it. _Ap._ Galland. ix. 553 and 590.
+
+[603] '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, A.D. 440), _ap._ 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.
+
+[604] Wrongly ascribed to Idacius.
+
+[605] Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Conc. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, 11.
+
+[606] Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. 11. See ii. p.
+96, 3, 5-180.
+
+[607] Dialogues, xiv. 15.
+
+[608] ii. 748:--In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et
+Latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud
+Dominum.
+
+[609] [Greek: henos hekastou autôn tas hamartias]. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64,
+73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736.
+
+[610] Appendix, p. 88.
+
+[611] 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.
+
+[612] Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. xxii.
+29-30), _Terra, terra, scribe hos vivos abdicatos_.
+
+[613] Constt. App. (Gen. in. 49). Nicon (Gen. iii. 250). I am not
+certain about these two references.
+
+[614] 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+On the first Sabbath after Pentecost (All Saints'), the lesson consisted
+of St. Matt. x. 32, 33, 37-38: xix. 27-30.
+
+On the fifteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv.
+1-9, 13 (leaving out verses 10, 11, 12).
+
+On the sixteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv.
+34-37, 42-44 (leaving out verses 38-41).
+
+On the sixth Sabbath of St. Luke,--the lesson was ch. viii. 26-35
+followed by verses 38 and 39.
+
+[615] '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.
+
+[616] In an unpublished paper.
+
+[617] It is omitted in some MSS. of the Peshitto.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX II.
+
+CONFLATION AND THE SO-CALLED NEUTRAL TEXT.
+
+
+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.
+
+
+§ 1.
+
+CONFLATION.
+
+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 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[618].
+
+Perhaps I may present Dr. Hort's theory under the form of a diagram:--
+
+Western Readings. Other Readings.
+    |                   |
+    ---------------------
+               |
+            Syrian Text.
+
+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
+the original readings. Our diagram in rough presentation will therefore
+assume this character:--
+
+    Traditional Text.--|-
+                       |-Western Readings.
+                       |-w
+                       |-x
+                       |-y
+                       |-z
+                       |-etc.
+                       |-Alexandrian Readings.
+
+It should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c., denote forms of corruption. We
+do not recognize the 'Neutral' at all, believing it to be a Caesarean
+combination or recension, made from previous texts or readings of a
+corrupt character.
+
+The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's or ours?
+
+The general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Hort's theory
+are:--
+
+(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.
+
+(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.
+
+(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 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.
+
+But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon as we have seen has
+calculated the differences between 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 [Greek: ton siton kai ta
+agatha mou] which Dr. Hort[619] considers to be made by Conflation into
+[Greek: ta genêmata mou kai ta agatha mou], because [Greek: ta genêmata
+mou] 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
+now and then of the derivation attributed to the Received Text.
+
+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.
+
+(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 ([Greek:
+synedramon]) from all their cities to the point which He was making for
+([Greek: ekei]), and arrived there before the Lord and His followers
+([Greek: proêlthon autous]), and on His approach came in a body to Him
+([Greek: synêlthon pros auton]). And on disembarking ([Greek: kai
+exelthôn]), i.e. ([Greek: ek tou ploiou], 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.
+
+Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause ([Greek: kai proêlthon
+autous]) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers; another
+([Greek: kai synêlthon autou] or [Greek: êlthon autou], which is very
+different from the 'Syrian' [Greek: synêlthon pros auton]) by some
+Western documents; and he argues that the entire form in the Received
+Text, [Greek: kai proêlthon autous, kai synêlthon pros auton], 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 [Symbol: delta] (the
+Received Text) is conflate from [Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and
+[Symbol: beta] (Western), or [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta] are
+independent simplifications of [Symbol: delta]'; and that 'there is
+nothing in the sense of [Symbol: delta] 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 [Greek: autou] and [Greek: pros auton] is really in
+his favour, chiefly because [Greek: autou] would very likely _if_ it had
+previously existed been changed into [Greek: pros auton]--which no one
+can doubt; and that '[Greek: synêlthon pros auton] is certainly otiose
+after [Greek: synedramon ekei],' 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 [Greek:
+exelthôn] 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 [Greek: ploion] is; nor can [Greek: ekei] 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.
+
+Accordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. 'The balance of
+Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from
+Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly' _not_ 'in favour of [Symbol: delta]
+from [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta],' _but_ 'of [Symbol: alpha] and
+[Symbol: beta] from [Symbol: delta].' The reading of the Traditional
+Text is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to the
+probability of its 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.
+
+(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.
+
+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, ([Symbol: alpha]) neither to enter into that
+place, [Greek: mêde eis tên kômên eiselthês], nor ([Symbol: beta]) to
+tell what had happened to any inhabitant of Bethsaida ([Greek: mêde
+eipês tini en tê kômê]). Either some one who did not understand the
+Greek, or some matter-of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought or
+maintained that [Greek: tini en tê kômê] 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 ACN[Symbol: Sigma] and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except
+eight, of which six with [Symbol: Phi] 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.
+
+But what says Dr. Hort? 'Here [Symbol: alpha] is simple and vigorous,
+and it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar [Greek: Mêde] has
+the terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but the softening
+into [Greek: Mê] by [Symbol: Aleph]* shews that it might trouble
+scribes.' It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It may be said
+however that [Symbol: alpha] is bald as well as simple, and that the
+very difficulty in [Symbol: beta] makes it probable that that clause was
+not invented. To take [Greek: tini en tê kômê] Hebraistically for
+[Greek: tini tôn en tê kômê], like the [Greek: tis en hymin] of St.
+James v. 19[620], need not trouble scholars, I think. Otherwise they can
+follow Meyer, according to Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate the
+second [Greek: mêde] _nor even_. At all events, this is a poor pillar to
+support a great theory.
+
+(3) St. Mark ix. 38. 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name,
+([Symbol: beta]) who doth not follow us, and we forbad him ([Symbol:
+alpha]) because he followeth not us.'
+
+Here the authority for [Symbol: alpha] is [Symbol: Aleph]BCL[Symbol:
+Delta], four Cursives, f, Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis
+MS. For [Symbol: beta] there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but
+f and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage,
+A[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but
+six, the Harkleian (yet obelizes [Symbol: alpha]) and Gothic versions,
+Basil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact
+(i. 219): and Augustine quotes separately both omissions ([Symbol:
+alpha] ix. 533, and [Symbol: beta] III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so
+far as I can find, quote the passage.
+
+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.
+
+(4) St. Mark ix. 49. 'For ([Symbol: alpha]) every one shall be salted
+with fire, ([Symbol: beta]) and every sacrifice shall be salted with
+salt.' The authorities are--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta], fifteen
+    Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and
+    the Lewis.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of
+    the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).
+
+    Trad. Text. AC[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N 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).
+
+This evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the
+Traditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort.
+
+'A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 ... has created [Symbol: beta] out of
+[Symbol: alpha].' 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.
+
+(5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and withdrew privately
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. Into a city called Bethsaida [Greek: (eis polin
+    kaloumenên] B.).
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. Into a desert place ([Greek: eis topon erêmon]),
+    or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida.
+
+    Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called
+    Bethsaida.'
+
+The evidence for these readings respectively is--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. BLX[Symbol: Xi], with one correction of
+    [Symbol: Aleph] (C^{a}), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic.
+    D reads [Greek: kômên].
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. The first and later readings (C^{b}) of [Symbol:
+    Aleph], four Cursives?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin
+    ([Symbol: beta]^{2}), Peshitto also variant ([Symbol:
+    beta]^{3}).
+
+    Trad. Text. A (with [Greek: erêmon topon]) C + twelve Uncials,
+    all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits
+    [Greek: erêmon]), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact
+    (i. 33).
+
+Remark the curious character of [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta]. 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 ([Greek: kat' idian], which the Revisers shirking the difficulty
+translate inaccurately 'apart') _into the city called Bethsaida_. How
+could there have been privacy of life _in_ a city in those days? In
+fact, [Greek: kat' idian] necessitates the adoption of [Greek: topon
+erêmon], as to which the Peshitto ([Symbol: beta]^{3}) 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 [Symbol: beta]
+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 _how_ the process he advocates
+might have arisen, not _that_ it did actually arise. Indeed, this
+position can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established
+that it _did_ so arise.
+
+(6) St. Luke xi. 54. 'The Scribes and Pharisees began to urge Him
+vehemently and to provoke Him to speak of many things ([Greek:
+enedreuontes thêreusai]),
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of
+    His mouth.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. Seeking to get some opportunity ([Greek:
+    aphormên tina]) for finding out how to accuse Him ([Greek: hina
+    eurôsin katêgorêsai]); or, for accusing Him ([Greek: hina
+    katêgorêsôsin autou]).
+
+    Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, _and_ seeking to catch
+    something ([Greek: zêtountes thêreusai ti]) out of His mouth,
+    that they might accuse Him.'
+
+The evidence is--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril
+    Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not
+    accurately).
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.
+
+    Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except five which
+    omit [Greek: zêtountes]), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission),
+    Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).
+
+As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading [Symbol: Alpha]
+is Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into the
+bargain, [Greek: enedreuontes thêreusai] being very rough, and being
+probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the Greek language. If
+[Symbol: alpha] was the original, it is hard to see how [Symbol: beta]
+could have come from it. That the figurative language of [Symbol: alpha]
+was replaced in [Symbol: beta] by a simply descriptive paraphrase, as
+Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. On the other hand, the
+derivation of either [Symbol: alpha] or [Symbol: beta] 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 [Symbol:
+beta], the distinguishing [Greek: aphormên tina] would be a very natural
+gloss, requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying [Greek:
+labein]. 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.
+
+(7) St. Luke xii. 18. 'I will pull down my barns, and build greater, and
+there will I bestow all
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. My corn and my goods.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. My crops ([Greek: ta genêmata mou]). My fruits
+    ([Greek: tous karpous mou]).
+
+    Trad. Text. My crops ([Greek: ta genêmata mou]) and my goods.'
+
+This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, as Dr.
+Hort admitted, in [Symbol: alpha] of the more comprehensive word [Greek:
+genêmata] for [Greek: siton], and a simple omission of [Greek: kai ta
+agatha mou] in [Symbol: beta]. And the admission of it into the selected
+eight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced in
+choosing his examples. The evidence is--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol:
+    Aleph](a^{c}), eight Cursives, Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic,
+    Armenian, Ethiopic.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. [Symbol: Aleph]*D, three Cursives, b ff i q,
+    Curetonian and Lewis, St. Ambrose (i. 573).
+
+    Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except twelve,
+    _f_, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. 294-5) _bis_,
+    Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus (Migne 52, 490-1) _bis_.
+
+No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are too common to
+require justification.
+
+(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. 'They were continually in the temple
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. Blessing God ([Greek: eulogountes]).
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. Praising God ([Greek: ainountes]).
+
+    Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.'
+
+The evidence is--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian,
+    Lewis.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. D, seven Old Latin.
+
+    Trad. Text. AC^{2} + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q,
+    Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Theophylact
+    (i. 497).
+
+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. [Greek: Ainos] is the set praise of God, drawn out in
+more or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him[621].
+[Greek: Eulogia] includes all speaking well of Him, especially when
+uttered before 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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, 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.
+
+A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, [Greek: autês ton prôtotokon] and
+[Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eikê] and [Greek: tô adelphô
+autou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios]
+and [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek:
+kôphon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (hê) tên
+mêtera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo tôn kardiôn hymôn] and [Greek:
+ta paraptômata autôn]; and (8) xxvi. 3, [Greek: hoi presbyteroi (kai)
+hoi Grammateis]. 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.
+
+B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek:
+Iêsou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro
+prosôpou sou] (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous
+(kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek:
+agrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. 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 (_see_ Traditional
+Text, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on both
+sides.
+
+C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek:
+memnêsteumenê]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhêmati Theou], or [Greek:
+ep' artô monô]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalôn exô pantas (kai)], or
+[Greek: kratêsas tês cheiros autês]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hêmas
+apo tou ponêrou], or [Greek: mê eisenenkês hêmas eis peirasmon]. 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 [Greek: memnêsteumenê] by the Lewis Codex.
+
+D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: mê apolêtai], or
+[Greek: echê zôên aiônion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou mê dipsêsê eis ton
+aiôna], or [Greek: to hydôr ho dôsô autô genêsetai en autô pêgê hydatos,
+k.t.l.]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho sôtêr tou
+kosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apêngeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5)
+v. 16, [Greek: kai ezêtoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediôkon auton];
+(6) vi. 51, [Greek: hên egô dôsô], or [Greek: hou egô dôsô]; (7) ix. 1,
+25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithê]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek:
+ei ho Theos edoxasthê en autô], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthê en
+autô]. 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.
+
+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, 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.
+
+
+§ 2.
+
+THE NEUTRAL TEXT.
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+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, [Symbol:
+Delta] in St. Mark, the fragmentary [Symbol: Xi] 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].
+
+2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral Text appears
+hardly in history except at the Semiarian 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.
+
+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.
+
+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[622]. This conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of the
+early versions.
+
+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.
+
+6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as 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.
+
+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.
+
+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, 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.
+
+    'Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret.'
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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
+
+THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[618] Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by [Symbol: alpha],
+Western by [Symbol: beta], as far as I can understand, 'other' by
+[Symbol: gamma], and 'Syrian' (=Traditional) by [Symbol: delta]. But he
+nowhere gives an example of [Symbol: gamma].
+
+[619] Introduction, p. 103.
+
+[620] Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. [Greek: Tis] is used with [Greek: ex],
+St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24; St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46;
+Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1, &c.
+
+[621] Thus [Greek: epainos] is used for a public encomium, or panegyric.
+
+[622] An attempt in the _Guardian_ 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.
+
+
+
+
+GENERAL INDEX.
+
+
+A.
+
+[Symbol: Aleph] or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196.
+
+Accident, 8; pure A., 34-35.
+
+Addition, 166-7, 270.
+
+Ages, earliest, 2.
+
+Alexandrian error, 45;
+  readings, App. II. 268, 284.
+
+Alford, _passim_.
+
+Ammonius, 200.
+
+Antiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5.
+
+Apolinarius, or-is (or Apoll.), 224, 257.
+
+Arians, 204, 218.
+
+Assimilation, 100-127;
+  what it was, 101-2;
+  must be delicately handled, 115
+
+Attraction, 123-7.
+
+
+B.
+
+B or Vatican MS., 2, 8, 196;
+  kakigraphy of, 64 note:
+  virtually with [Symbol: Aleph] the 'Neutral' text, 282.
+
+Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2.
+
+Blunder, history of a, 24-7.
+
+Bohairic Version, 249, and _passim_.
+
+
+C.
+
+Caesarea, library of, 284.
+
+Cerinthus, 201.
+
+Clement of Alexandria, 193.
+
+Conflation, 266-82.
+
+Correctors of MSS., 21.
+
+Corruption, first origin of, 3-8;
+  classes of 8-9, 23;
+  general, 10-23;
+  prevailed from the first, 12;
+  the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14;
+  in early Fathers, 193-4.
+
+Curetonian Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 283;
+  Ferrar group, 282.
+
+
+D.
+
+D or Codex Bezae, 8.
+
+[Symbol: Delta], or Sangallensis, 8.
+
+Damascus, 5.
+
+Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. _See_ Tatian.
+
+Doxology, in the Lord's Prayer, 81-8.
+
+
+E.
+
+Eclogadion, 69.
+
+Epiphanius, 305, 211-2.
+
+Erasmus, 10.
+
+Error, slight clerical, 37-31.
+
+Euroclydon, 46.
+
+Evangelistaria (the right name), 67.
+
+
+F.
+
+Falconer's St. Paul's voyage, 46-7.
+
+Fathers, _passim_; earliest, 193.
+
+Faustinus, 218.
+
+Ferrar group of Cursives, 282.
+
+Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2.
+
+
+G.
+
+Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5.
+
+Genealogy, 22. _See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Glosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90;
+  described, 172.
+
+Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7.
+
+Guardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 283 note.
+
+Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., 115 note.
+
+
+H.
+
+Harmonistic influence, 89-99.
+
+Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2.
+
+Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210;
+  not always dishonest, 191;
+  very numerous, 199 &c.
+
+Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 8
+
+I.
+
+Inadvertency, 21, 23.
+
+Internal evidence, Pref.
+
+Interpolations, 166-7.
+
+Irenaeus, St., 193.
+
+Itacism, 8, 56-86.
+
+
+J.
+
+Justin Martyr, St., 193.
+
+
+L.
+
+L or Codex Regius, 8.
+
+Lachmann, _passim_.
+
+Last Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30.
+
+Latin MSS., Old, _passim_; Low-Latin, 8. _See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Lectionaries, 67-81;
+  ecclesiastical prefaces to, 71.
+
+Lewis MS., _passim_, 194.
+
+Liturgical influence, 67-88.
+
+
+M.
+
+Macedonians, 204.
+
+Manes, 207.
+
+Manichaeans, 206.
+
+Manuscripts, six classes of, 12;
+  existing number of, 12;
+  frequent inaccuracies in, 12;
+  more serious faults, 20-1; and _passim_.
+
+Marcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219.
+
+Matrimony, 208.
+
+Menologion, 69.
+
+
+N.
+
+Naaseni, 204.
+
+'Neutral Text,' 267, 282-6.
+
+
+O.
+
+Omissions, 128-156;
+  the largest of all classes, 128;
+  not 'various readings,' 128;
+  prejudice in favour of, 130-1;
+  proof of, 131-2;
+  natural cause of corruption, 270.
+
+Origen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 190, 193, 209.
+
+Orthodox, corruption by, 211-31,
+  misguided, 211.
+
+
+P.
+
+Papyrus MSS., 2. _See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Parallel passages, 95.
+
+Pella, 7.
+
+Pericope de Adultera, 232-65.
+
+Peshitto Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Porphyry, 114.
+
+
+R.
+
+Revision, 10-13.
+
+Rose, Rev. W. F., 61 note 3.
+
+
+S.
+
+[Greek: Sabbatokuriakai], 68.
+
+Sahidic Version, 194.
+
+Saturninue, or Saturnilus, 208 and note 3.
+
+Scrivener's Introduction (4th Ed.), Miller's, _passim_.
+
+Semiarianism, 2.
+
+Substitution, 164-5, 270, 277.
+
+Synaxarion, 69.
+
+
+T.
+
+Tatian's Diatessaron, 8, 98, 101, 196, 200.
+
+Textualism of the Gospels, different from T. of profane writings, 14.
+
+Theodotus, 205, 214.
+
+Tischendorf, 112-3, 176, 182, and _passim_;
+  misuse of Assimilation, 118.
+
+Traditional Text, 1-4;
+  not = Received Text, 1. _See_ Volume on it.
+
+Transcriptional Mistakes, 55.
+
+Transposition, 157-63;
+  character of, 163, 270.
+
+Tregelles, 34, 136, 138.
+
+
+U.
+
+Uncials, 42-55.
+
+
+V.
+
+Valentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 215, 218 note 2.
+
+Various readings, 14-16.
+
+Vellum, 2.
+
+Vercellone, 47 note.
+
+Versions, _passim_.
+
+Victorinus Afer, 218.
+
+
+W.
+
+Western Readings or Text, 6, 266-85.
+
+
+Z.
+
+Z or Dublin palimpsest, 8.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX II.
+
+PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED.
+
+
+St. Matthew:
+    i. 19 209
+  iii. 6 102
+       16 170-1
+   iv. 23 51-2
+    v. 44 144-53
+   vi. 13 81-8
+       18 171
+  vii. 4 102
+ viii. 9 102
+       13 167-8
+       26 103
+       29 102
+   ix. 24 104
+       35 74
+    x. 12 103
+   xi. 23 27
+  xii. 10 117
+ xiii. 36 173
+       44 80-1
+   xv. 8 136-44
+  xvi. 8 103
+  xix. 9 39
+       16 103
+   xx. 24 103
+       28 175
+  xxi. 9 99
+       44 134-6
+ xxii. 23 49-50
+xxiii. 14 38
+ xxiv. 15 116
+       31 179-80
+       36 169-70
+  xxv. 13 171
+xxvii. 15 103
+       17 53-5
+     25-6 91
+       35 171
+
+St. Mark:
+    i. 2 111-5
+        5 157-8
+   ii. 3 158-9
+   iv. 6 63-4
+    v. 36 188
+   vi. 11 118-9, 181-2
+       32 32-3
+       33 271-3
+  vii. 14 35
+       19 61-3
+       31 73-3
+ viii. 1 34
+       26 273-4
+   ix. 38 271
+       49 275
+    x. 16 48
+  xii. 17 48
+  xiv. 40 48
+       41 182-3
+       70 119-22
+   xv. 6 32
+       28 75-8
+  xvi. 9-20 72, 129-30
+
+St. Luke:
+    i. 66 188-9
+   ii. 14 21-2, 31-2
+       15 36
+  iii. 14 201
+       29 165
+   iv. 1-13 94
+    v. 7 108
+       14 104
+   vi. 1 132-3
+        4 167
+       26 153
+  vii. 3 174
+       21 50
+   ix. 1 74
+       10 275-6
+     54-6 224-31
+    x. 15 28
+       25 75
+   xi. 54 276-7
+  xii. 18 277-8
+       39 155
+ xiii. 9 160-1
+  xiv. 3 117
+   xv. 16 117
+       17 43-5
+       24 61
+       32 61
+  xvi. 21 40
+       25 60
+ xvii. 37 48-9
+  xix. 21 103
+       41 212
+ xxii. 67-8 210
+xxiii. 11 50-1
+       27 51
+       42 57
+ xxiv. 1 92-4
+        7 161
+       53 278
+
+St. John:
+    i. 3-4 203
+       18 215-8, 165
+   ii. 40 212-4
+  iii. 13 223-4
+   iv. 15 48
+    v. 4 50
+       27 162
+    v. 44 45
+   vi. 11 37-8
+       15 38, 178
+       55 153-4
+       71 124
+ viii. 40 214-5
+   ix. 22 183
+    x. 14-15 206-8
+       29 24-7
+  xii. 1, 2 57-9
+        7 184-6
+       13 99
+ xiii. 21-5 106-11
+       24 179
+       25 60
+       26 124
+       37 35
+  xvi. 16 105
+ xvii. 4 186-8
+xviii. 14 180-1
+   xx. 11 90-2
+
+Acts:
+   ii. 45-6 159
+  iii. 1 78-80
+xviii. 6 27
+   xx. 4 190
+       24 28, 124-5
+xxvii. 14 46-7
+       37 27
+xxviii. 1 28
+
+
+1 Cor.:
+   xv. 47 219-23
+
+2 Cor.:
+  iii. 3 125-7
+
+Titus:
+   ii. 5 65-6
+
+Heb.:
+  vii. 1 53
+
+2 Pet.:
+    i. 21 52-3
+
+Rev.
+    i. 5 59-60
+
+THE END.
+
+
+
+
+
+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 21112-8.txt or 21112-8.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.
diff --git a/21112-8.zip b/21112-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..84f407b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-8.zip
diff --git a/21112-h.zip b/21112-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6b0847d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-h.zip
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.'&mdash;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.'&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;'them that
+persecute you'&mdash;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 &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigma; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigma; 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&mdash;unless it contains some extraordinary
+mistake&mdash;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&mdash;established by evidence&mdash;especially before
+St. Chrysostom&mdash;corruption&mdash;early rise of it&mdash;Galilee of the Gentiles&mdash;Syrio-Low-Latin
+source&mdash;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>&sect; 1. Modern re-editing&mdash;difference between the New Testament and
+other books&mdash;immense number of copies&mdash;ordinary causes of error&mdash;Doctrinal
+causes. &sect; 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings&mdash;nature
+of inquiry. &sect; 3. Smaller blemishes in MSS. unimportant except when
+constant. &sect; 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>&sect; 1. St. John x. 29. &sect; 2. Smaller instances, and Acts xx. 24.
+&sect; 3. St. Luke ii. 14. &sect; 4. St. Mark xv. 6; vii. 4; vi. 22. &sect; 5. St. Mark
+viii. 1; vii. 14&mdash;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&mdash;St. John vi. 11; vi. 55&mdash;St. Matt. xxiii. 14; xix. 9&mdash;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>&sect; 1. St. John iv. 35-36. &sect; 2. St. Luke xv. 17&mdash;St. John v. 44.
+&sect; 3. Acts xxvii. 14&mdash;St. John iv. 15&mdash;St. Luke xvii. 37&mdash;St. Matt. xxii.
+23&mdash;and other passages. &sect; 4. St. John v. 4&mdash;St. Luke xxiii. 11&mdash;St.
+Matt. iv. 23. &sect; 5. 2 St. Peter i. 31&mdash;Heb. vii. 1. &sect; 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>&sect; 1. Various passages&mdash;St. John xii. 1, 2; 41. &sect; 2. Rev. i. 5&mdash;Other
+passages&mdash;St. Mark vii. 19. &sect; 3. St. Mark iv. 8. &sect; 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>&sect; 1. Lectionaries of the Church&mdash;Liturgical influence&mdash;Antiquity of
+the Lectionary System. &sect; 2. St. John xiv. 1&mdash;Acts iii. 1&mdash;Last Twelve
+Verses of St. Mark. &sect; 3. St. Luke vii. 31; ix. 1&mdash;Other passages.
+&sect; 4. St. Mark xv. 28. &sect; 5. Acts iii. 1&mdash;St. Matt. xiii. 44; xvii. 23.
+&sect; 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>&sect; 1. St. Mark xvi. 9. &sect; 2. St. Luke xxiv. 1&mdash;other examples.
+&sect; 3. Chiefly intentional&mdash;Diatessarons&mdash;St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26&mdash;Harmonized
+narratives&mdash;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>&sect; 1. Transfer from one Gospel to another. &sect; 2. Not entirely intentional&mdash;Various
+passages. &sect; 3. St. John xvi. 16. &sect; 4. St. John xiii.
+21-25. &sect; 5. St. Mark i. 1, 2&mdash;Other examples&mdash;St. Matt. xii. 10 (St. Luke
+xiv. 3)&mdash;and others. &sect; 6. St. Mark vi. 11. &sect; 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>&sect; 1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. &sect; 2. Acts xx. 24&mdash;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>&sect; 1. Omissions a class of their own&mdash;Exemplified from the Last
+Twelve Verses of St. Mark&mdash;Omission the besetting fault of transcribers.
+&sect; 2. The <i>onus probandi</i> rests upon omitters. &sect; 3. St Luke vi. 1;
+and other omissions. &sect; 4. St. Matt. xxi. 44. &sect; 5. St. Matt. xv. 8.
+&sect; 6. St. Matt. v. 44&mdash;Reply to the Reviewer in the <i>Guardian</i>.
+&sect; 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>&sect; 1. St. Mark i. 5; ii. 3&mdash;Other instances. &sect; 2. St. Luke xiii. 9;
+xxiv. 7. &sect; 3. Other examples&mdash;St. John v. 27&mdash;Transpositions often
+petty, but frequent.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">VI. Substitution</span>.</p>
+
+<p>&sect; 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class&mdash;Various instances.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">VII. Addition</span>.</p>
+
+<p>&sect; 5. The smallest of the four&mdash;St. Luke vi. 4&mdash;St. Matt. xx. 28.
+&sect; 6. St. Matt. viii. 13; xxiv. 36&mdash;St. Mark iii. 16&mdash;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>&sect; 1. Not so numerous as has been supposed&mdash;St. Matt. xiii. 36&mdash;St.
+Mark vii. 3. &sect; 2. St. Luke ix. 23. &sect; 3. St. John vi. 15; xiii. 24;
+xx. 18&mdash;St. Matt. xxiv. 31. &sect; 4. St. John xviii. 14&mdash;St. Mark vi. 11.
+&sect; 5. St. Mark xiv. 41&mdash;St. John ix. 22. &sect; 6. St. John xii. 7.
+&sect; 7. St. John xvii. 4. &sect; 8. St. Luke i. 66. &sect; 9. St. Luke v. 7&mdash;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>&sect; 1. This class very evident&mdash;Began in the earliest times&mdash;Appeal to
+what is earlier still&mdash;Condemned in all ages and countries. &sect; 2. The
+earliest depravers of the Text&mdash;Tatian's Diatessaron. &sect; 3. Gnostics&mdash;St.
+John i. 3-4. &sect; 4. St. John x. 14, 15. &sect; 5. Doctrinal&mdash;Matrimony&mdash;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>&sect; 1. St. Luke xix. 41; ii. 40. &sect; 2. St. John viii. 40; and i. 18.
+&sect; 3. 1 Cor. xv. 47. &sect; 4. St. John iii. 13. &sect; 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:&mdash;</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':&mdash;</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.'&mdash;</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.'&mdash;<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 (&epsilon;&pi;&iota;&sigma;&eta;&mu;&omicron;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;,
+&omicron;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron; &epsilon;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omega;). 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>
+&mdash;Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3.</p></div>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="chapter_i" id="chapter_i"></a>CHAPTER I.</h2>
+
+<h3>GENERAL CORRUPTION.</h3>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 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:&mdash;That the received Text is that of
+Erasmus:&mdash;that it was constructed in haste, and without
+skill:&mdash;that it is based on a very few, and those bad
+Manuscripts:&mdash;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:&mdash;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;&mdash;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:&mdash;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,&mdash;with
+doubts and misgivings,&mdash;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,&mdash;a necessity
+which has made itself felt in every age and in every
+clime,&mdash;has perforce resulted in an immense number of
+variants. Words have been inevitably dropped,&mdash;vowels
+have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or
+less competent:&mdash;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&mdash;and
+I certainly do not mean&mdash;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&mdash;particular
+copies of a Version&mdash;individual Fathers or Doctors of the
+Church,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain
+specimens of the Old Latin; of the Fathers,&mdash;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>,&mdash;His
+Being and Attributes:&mdash;the history of Man's Redemption:&mdash;the
+soul's eternal destiny:&mdash;the mysteries of the unseen
+world:&mdash;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,&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;and
+this is the point to which I desire to bring the
+reader and to urge upon his consideration,&mdash;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;&mdash;clerical carelessness;&mdash;a gloss finding its way
+from the margin into the text;&mdash;- 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,&mdash;in spite of its intrinsic improbability, in spite also
+of the slender amount of evidence on which it rests,&mdash;must
+needs be accepted as true. They lose sight of the correlative
+difficulty:&mdash;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>&sect; 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:&mdash;</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 &kappa;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&tau;&omicron;&nu;<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 &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; for &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigma;, or the contrary: that he should
+add or omit what grammarians call the &nu; &epsilon;&phi;&epsilon;&lambda;&kappa;&upsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;.
+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,&mdash;by
+which is meant the interchange of such vowels and
+diphthongs as &iota;-&epsilon;&iota;, &alpha;&iota;-&epsilon;, &eta;-&iota;, &eta;-&omicron;&iota;-&upsilon;, &omicron;-&omega;, &eta;-&epsilon;&iota;,&mdash;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,&mdash;the occasional omission of
+words, whether few or many,&mdash;especially that passing from
+one line to the corresponding place in a subsequent line,
+which generally results from the proximity of a similar
+ending,&mdash;is a purely venial offence. It is an evidence of
+carelessness, but it proves nothing worse.</p>
+
+<p>4. Then further,&mdash;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 &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon; for &epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;, &phi;&omega;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; for &kappa;&rho;&alpha;&xi;&alpha;&nu;,
+and the like;&mdash;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:&mdash;(<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:&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;whole sentences or parts of them
+which have a known controversial bearing;&mdash;Suppose further
+that the same MS. abounds in worthless paraphrase,
+and contains apocryphal additions throughout:&mdash;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>&sect; 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' (&delta;&iota;&omicron;&rho;&theta;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;) 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 &epsilon;&nu; 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,&mdash;simply
+because, as every one must have seen
+as well as Y and Z, it was impossible to translate the
+sentence which results,&mdash;&epsilon;&pi;&iota; &gamma;&eta;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&rho;&eta;&nu;&eta; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&upsilon;&delta;&omicron;&kappa;&iota;&alpha;.
+Reference would have been made to any other copy of
+the third Gospel, and together with the omitted preposition
+(&epsilon;&nu;) 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 &epsilon;&upsilon;&delta;&omicron;&kappa;&iota;&alpha; the sign
+of the genitive case (&sigma;). Unhappy effort of misplaced
+skill! That copy [or those copies] became the immediate
+progenitor [or progenitors] of a large family,&mdash;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,&mdash;though
+happily in no others,&mdash;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,&mdash;divers accidents,&mdash;misplaced
+critical assiduity,&mdash;doctrinal animus,&mdash;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,&mdash;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, &sect; 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 &kappa;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&tau;&omicron;&nu;, or else &kappa;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&nu;,
+or even &kappa;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&alpha;&kappa;&tau;&omicron;&nu;; seldom
+found as &kappa;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&tau;&omicron;&nu;, or spelt in the corrupt form &kappa;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&nu;.]</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:&mdash;words which interfered with the easy
+flow of a sentence:&mdash;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:&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;instead of, 'My
+Father, who hath given them [viz. My sheep] to Me, is
+greater than all,'&mdash;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,&mdash;as I proceed
+to explain.</p>
+
+<p>St. John certainly wrote the familiar words,&mdash;'&omicron; &pi;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&rho; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>
+&omicron;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon; &mu;&omicron;&iota;, &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;. But, with the licentiousness
+[or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age,
+some remote copyist is found to have substituted for '&omicron;&sigma;
+&delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon;, its grammatical equivalent '&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&omega;&sigmaf;. And this
+proved fatal; for it was only necessary that another scribe
+should substitute &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu; for &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; (after the example of
+such places as St. Matt. xii. 6, 41, 42, &amp;c.), and thus the
+door had been opened to at least four distinct deflections
+from the evangelical verity,&mdash;which straightway found
+their way into manuscripts:&mdash;(1) &omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&omega;&sigmaf; ... &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;&mdash;of
+which reading at this day D is the sole representative:
+(2) &omicron;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon; ... &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;&mdash;which survives only in AX:
+(3) &omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon; ... &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;&mdash;which is only found in [Symbol: Aleph]L:
+(4) &omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon; ... &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;&mdash;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 &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu; for &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;; treating &omicron; not
+as the article but as the neuter of the relative &omicron;&sigmaf;.</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,&mdash;'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>&mdash;as many as quote the place&mdash;invariably
+exhibit the <i>textus receptus</i> &omega;&sigmaf; ... &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;, which is obviously
+the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation.</p>
+
+<p>'But,'&mdash;I shall perhaps be asked,&mdash;'although Patristic and
+manuscript evidence are wanting for the reading &omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon;
+&mu;&omicron;&iota; ... &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;which however Tischendorf exhibits in conformity
+with no known Codex, while Tregelles and Alford blindly
+follow Cod. B,&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;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>.'&mdash;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>.'&mdash;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,&mdash;where our <span class="smcap">Saviour</span>
+is made to ask an unmeaning question&mdash;instead of being
+permitted to announce a solemn fact&mdash;concerning Capernaum<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a>.&mdash;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 (&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&Upsilon;
+for &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&Nu;), 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 &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;'
+&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota;, &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&chi;&omega; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;,
+'&omega;&sigmaf; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &delta;&rho;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&nu; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &mu;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha; &chi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf;: excellently, because
+idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of 1611,&mdash;'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 &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&Gamma;&Omicron;&Nu;, (the accusative after &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota;), some
+one having substituted &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&Gamma;&Omicron;&Upsilon;,&mdash;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>,&mdash;it became necessary to
+find something else for the verb to govern. &Tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; was
+at hand, but &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&chi;&omega; stood in the way. &Omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&chi;&omega; 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,&mdash;as B, C, and [Symbol: Aleph] remain to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>
+attest. &Tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; should have gone also, if the sentence was
+to be made translatable; but &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; 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, &Lambda;&Omicron;&Gamma;&Omicron;&Nu;; 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
+&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&chi;&omicron; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;, 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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;by the Harkleian<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>,&mdash;by Basil<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>,&mdash;by Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a>,&mdash;by
+Cyril<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a>,&mdash;by Euthalius<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a>,&mdash;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,&mdash;who is indeed
+a Master in Israel,&mdash;describes as the impossible &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;<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:&mdash;'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, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;'
+&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;, 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>&sect; 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 &Epsilon;&Nu; and &Alpha;&Nu; (in the expression
+&Epsilon;&Nu;&Alpha;&Nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&epsilon;&upsilon;&delta;&omicron;&kappa;&iota;&alpha;, 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 &epsilon;&upsilon;&delta;&omicron;&kappa;&iota;&alpha; the sign of the genitive (&Sigma;).
+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 &Epsilon;&Nu; 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 &epsilon;&upsilon;&delta;&omicron;&kappa;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; 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>&sect; 4.</h3>
+
+<p>In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,&mdash;is discoverable.
+Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) certainly
+wrote '&epsilon;&nu;&alpha; &delta;&epsilon;&sigma;&mu;&iota;&omicron;&nu;, &Omicron;&Nu;&Pi;&Epsilon;&Rho; &eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&omicron;, the scribe of &Delta;,
+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 &Omicron;&Nu;.&Pi;&Epsilon;&Rho;&Eta;&Tau;&Omicron;&Upsilon;&Nu;&Tau;&Omicron;.
+The consequence might have been predicted.
+[Symbol: Aleph]AB transform this into &Omicron;&Nu; &Pi;&Alpha;&Rho;&Eta;&Tau;&Omicron;&Upsilon;&Nu;&Tau;&Omicron;: 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
+'&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&epsilon;&lambda;&alpha;&beta;&omicron;&nu; (vii. 4) transformed into '&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &epsilon;&lambda;&alpha;&beta;&omicron;&nu;, but
+only by B.</p>
+
+<p>[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is
+supplied by the substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of &tau;&eta;&sigmaf;
+&theta;&upsilon;&gamma;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; '&Eta;&rho;&omega;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&delta;&omicron;&sigmaf; for &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &theta;&upsilon;&gamma;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; '&Eta;&rho;&omega;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&delta;&omicron;&sigmaf;.
+Here a first copyist left out &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; as being a repetition
+of the last syllable of &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&sigma;, and afterwards a second attempted
+to improve the Greek by putting the masculine
+pronoun for the feminine (&Alpha;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Omicron;&Upsilon; for &Alpha;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Eta;&Sigma;). The consequence
+was hardly to have been foreseen.]</p>
+
+<p>Strange to say it results in the following monstrous
+figment:&mdash;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,&mdash;the King's own daughter,&mdash;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&mdash;, 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>,&mdash;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.,&mdash;of which only
+seven ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL&Delta; with two cursive copies) can be found to
+exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading
+&Alpha;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Omicron;&Upsilon; 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&mdash;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. &Alpha;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Eta;&Sigma;&Tau;&Eta;&Sigma; was safe to part with its second
+&Tau;&Eta;&Sigma; on the first opportunity, and the definitive article
+(&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;) once lost, the substitution of &Alpha;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Omicron;&Upsilon; for &Alpha;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Eta;&Sigma;
+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>&sect; 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 &pi;&alpha;&mu;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon; &omicron;&chi;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon; '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 &Pi;&Alpha;&Mu;&Pi;&Omicron;&Lambda;&Lambda;&Omicron;&Upsilon; for
+&Pi;&Alpha;&Lambda;&Iota;&Nu; &Pi;&Omicron;&Lambda;&Lambda;&Omicron;&Upsilon;.</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 GMN&Delta; 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 &pi;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&mu;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;.</p>
+
+<p>In St Mark vii. 14, &pi;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&nu; was similarly misread by some
+copyists for &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha;, and has been preserved by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL&Delta;
+(&Pi;&Alpha;&Lambda;&Iota;&Nu; for &Pi;&Alpha;&Nu;&Tau;&Alpha;) against thirteen uncials, all the
+cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian.</p>
+
+<p>So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads &delta;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota; by
+an evident slip of the pen for &delta;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&omicron;&iota;. And in xix. 31
+&mu;&epsilon;&gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&Eta; &Eta; &Eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha; has become &mu;&epsilon;&gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&eta; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha; in [Symbol: Aleph]AE&Gamma; 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. + &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; ABD:&mdash;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon; [Symbol: Aleph]
+| &omicron;&sigmaf; A: &omicron; B[Symbol: Aleph]D
+| &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu; B[Symbol: Aleph]A: &delta;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&omega;&sigma;
+| &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; [Symbol: Aleph]D: &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu; AB
+| &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;. &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; A: &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; &mu;&epsilon;&iota;&zeta;. &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; 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&mdash;see Cramer's Cat. p. 334-5,
+<i>last line</i>. &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon; 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&mdash;'The
+real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T.R. is, that if the
+words &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&chi;&omega; 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&mdash;&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;: which
+is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,&mdash;'<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&mdash;&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; '&omega;&sigmaf; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&omega;
+&tau;&omicron;&nu; &delta;&rho;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&nu; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;.</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> (&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu; 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>':&mdash;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&mdash;&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&alpha; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota;,
+&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &lambda;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta; &tau;&iota; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&omicron;&nu;.</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,&mdash;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 &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; without
+&mu;&omicron;&upsilon; (ix. 332).
+So again, further on (334 b), &omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &epsilon;&chi;&omega; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &tau;&eta;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu;. 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 &epsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &zeta;&omega;&eta;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&phi;&rho;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&nu;
+&delta;&rho;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&nu;, &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &epsilon;&phi;&eta; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; '&epsilon;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;.</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>
+&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&chi;&omega;, &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;, &omega;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon; &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. (<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>
+&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omega;&nu; &delta;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&omega;&nu;, &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&chi;&omega; &tau;&eta;&nu; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;&nu; &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;.
+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 &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota;
+and &epsilon;&chi;&omega; have
+been made to change places. The latter Codex introduces &mu;&omicron;&iota; after
+&epsilon;&chi;&omega;,&mdash;for
+&epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; writes &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;,&mdash;and exhibits &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;
+without '&omega;&sigmaf;. C writes '&omega;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;
+&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;. [Symbol: Aleph]B alone of Codexes present us with &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&omega;
+for &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;, 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
+ull&acirc; re</i>'), and the Aethiopic ('<i>sed non reputo animam meam nihil quidquam</i>'),
+get rid of &tau;&iota;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; as well as of &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&chi;&omega;.
+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 &Epsilon;&Nu; by
+the first syllable of &Alpha;&Nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;) is to be seen in Acts iv. 12,&mdash;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:&mdash;Ambrose i. 1298&mdash;Hieronymus i. 448<sup>2</sup>, 693, 876: ii. 213:
+iv. 34, 92: v. 147: vi. 638: vii. 241, 251, 283,&mdash;Augustine 34 times,&mdash;Optatus
+(Galland. v. 472, 457),&mdash;Gaudentius Brix. (<i>ap.</i> Sabat.),&mdash;Chromatius Ag. (Gall.
+viii. 337),&mdash;Orosius (<i>ib.</i> ix. 134), Marius M. (<i>ib.</i> viii. 672),
+Maximus Taur. (<i>ib.</i>
+ix. 355),&mdash;Sedulius (<i>ib.</i> 575),&mdash;Leo M. (<i>ap.</i> Sabat.),&mdash;Mamertus Claudianus
+(Gall. x. 431),&mdash;Vigilius Taps. (<i>ap.</i> Sabat.),&mdash;Zacchaeus
+(Gall. ix. 241),&mdash;Caesarius
+Arel. (<i>ib.</i> xi. 11),&mdash;ps.-Ambros. ii. 394, 396,&mdash;Hormisdas P. (Conc.
+iv. 1494, 1496),&mdash;52 Bps. at 8th Council of Toledo (Conc. vi. 395), &amp;c., &amp;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 &Omicron;&Iota; recurring six times
+over in about as many words,&mdash;e.g. &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;, '&omega;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;
+... &Omicron;&Iota; &alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&Omicron;&Iota;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Omicron;&Iota; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&Omicron;&Iota; &Omicron;&Iota; &pi;&Omicron;&Iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu;,&mdash;is
+surprised to learn that MSS. of a certain type exhibit
+serious perturbation in that place. Accordingly, BL&Xi;
+leave out the words &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron;&iota; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&iota;; 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 ('&omicron;&iota;) is dropped,&mdash;whereby
+nonsense is made of the passage (viz. '&omicron;&iota; &alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&iota;
+&pi;&omicron;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&sigmaf;). 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,&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>
+&Omicron;&Iota; &Alpha;&Gamma;&Gamma;&Epsilon;&Lambda;&Omicron;&Iota;<br/>
+[&Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota; &Omicron;&Iota; &Alpha;<strong>&Nu;&Omicron;</strong>&Iota; &Omicron;&Iota;]<br/>
+&Pi;&Omicron;&Iota;&Mu;&Epsilon;&Nu;&Epsilon;&Sigma;
+</p>
+<p>or else</p>
+<p>
+&Omicron;&Iota; &Alpha;&Gamma;&Gamma;&Epsilon;&Lambda;&Omicron;&Iota;<br/>
+[&Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota; &Omicron;&Iota; &Alpha;<strong>&Nu;&Omicron;</strong>&Iota;]<br/>
+&Omicron;&Iota; &Pi;&Omicron;&Iota;&Mu;&Epsilon;&Nu;&Epsilon;&Sigma;
+</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,&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf;</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i4">&delta;&iota;&epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; [&mu;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&omicron;&iota; &delta;&epsilon; &mu;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;] &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;.<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 &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; in l. 2 to &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; in l. 4,&mdash;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]ABL&Pi;, the early
+reading of [Symbol: Aleph] being also contradicted by the fourth hand in
+the seventh century against the great cloud of witnesses,&mdash;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:&mdash;'&eta;
+&gamma;&alpha;&rho; &sigma;&alpha;&rho;&xi; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&lambda;&eta;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota; &beta;&rho;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&sigmaf;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron; '&alpha;&iota;&mu;&alpha; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&lambda;&eta;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;
+&pi;&omicron;&sigma;&iota;&sigmaf;. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph] by a very easy mistake let
+his eye pass from one &alpha;&lambda;&eta;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf; 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 &omicron;&upsilon;&alpha;&iota; '&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu; 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 &Phi; and &Sigma;, 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,&mdash;as very often is
+the case,&mdash;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,&mdash;which it clearly
+is,&mdash;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 &epsilon;&iota; &mu;&eta; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&rho;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&alpha;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&gamma;&alpha;&mu;&eta;&sigma;&eta; &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&eta;&nu;, &mu;&omicron;&iota;&chi;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&iota;,&mdash;adds &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&lambda;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&nu; &gamma;&alpha;&mu;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf;
+&mu;&omicron;&iota;&chi;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&iota;. 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
+B&Phi;&Sigma;), 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 &tau;&omega;&nu; in the
+expression &Tau;&Omega;&Nu; &psi;&iota;&chi;&iota;&omega;&nu; &Tau;&Omega;&Nu; &pi;&iota;&pi;&tau;&omicron;&nu;&Tau;&Omega;&Nu; (St. Luke xvi.
+21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the dropping of the
+words &psi;&iota;&chi;&iota;&omega;&nu; &tau;&omega;&nu; 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&mdash;[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,&mdash;when the Canon was not definitely
+acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet
+gathered round writings which had been recently composed,&mdash;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:&mdash;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>&sect; 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 (&lambda;&epsilon;&upsilon;&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&nu; &eta;&delta;&eta;) has
+suffered in this way,&mdash;owing to the unusual position
+of &eta;&delta;&eta;. Certain of the scribes who imagined that &eta;&delta;&eta;
+might belong to ver. 36, rejected the &kappa;&alpha;&iota; as superfluous;
+though no Father is known to have been guilty of such
+a solecism. Others, aware that &eta;&delta;&eta; 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:&mdash;(<i>a</i>) &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&nu; &eta;&delta;&eta;. &Kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;:&mdash;(<i>b</i>) &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&nu;. &Eta;&delta;&eta; '&omicron; &theta;.:&mdash;(<i>c</i>) &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&nu; &eta;&delta;&eta;. '&omicron; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;:&mdash;(<i>d</i>)
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&nu;. '&omicron; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;, &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;.</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 &eta;&delta;&eta;: 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]BM&Pi; do not help us. But &eta;&delta;&eta; is claimed for ver. 36
+by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis (= &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&eta;&delta;&eta; '&omicron; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;): while Codex A is singular in beginning ver.
+36, &eta;&delta;&eta; &kappa;&alpha;&iota;,&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+(with [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles
+(<i>marg.</i>), are for putting the full stop after &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&nu;
+and (with ACDL) making &eta;&delta;&eta; begin the next sentence,&mdash;which
+(as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible.</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 2.</h3>
+
+<p>Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers
+propose in the parable of the prodigal son,&mdash;'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,&mdash;&Epsilon;&Gamma;&Omega;&Delta;&Epsilon;&Lambda;&Iota;&Mu;&Omega;&Alpha;&Pi;&Omicron;&Lambda;&Lambda;&Upsilon;&Mu;&Alpha;&Iota;, some careless scribe
+after writing &Epsilon;&Gamma;&Omega;&Delta;&Epsilon;, reduplicated the three last letters
+(&Omega;&Delta;&Epsilon;): 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 &epsilon;&gamma;&omega; &delta;&epsilon; &omega;&delta;&epsilon;. The inventive faculty
+having thus done its work it remained to superadd 'transposition,'
+as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From &epsilon;&gamma;&omega; &delta;&epsilon; &omega;&delta;&epsilon; &lambda;&iota;&mu;&omega;, the
+sentence has now developed into &epsilon;&gamma;&omega; &delta;&epsilon; &lambda;&iota;&mu;&omega; &omega;&delta;&epsilon;: 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, &epsilon;&gamma;&omega;
+&delta;&epsilon; &omega;&delta;&epsilon; 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 &omega;&delta;&epsilon; 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 [&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omega;]
+&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;: 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&mdash;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.&mdash;These are many words;
+but I know not how to be briefer. And,&mdash;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 &gamma;&epsilon;&mu;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&nu; &kappa;&omicron;&iota;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;, [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR present us with
+&chi;&omicron;&rho;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa;: and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly
+the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX), is made to say to his
+father,&mdash;&Pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&nu; &mu;&epsilon; '&omega;&sigmaf; '&epsilon;&nu;&alpha; &tau;&omega;&nu; &mu;&iota;&sigma;&theta;&iota;&omega;&nu; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;:</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 &tau;&alpha;&chi;&upsilon; (D &tau;&alpha;&chi;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf;) after
+&epsilon;&xi;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&gamma;&kappa;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;. 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,&mdash;&Mu;&Omicron;&Nu;&Omicron;&Upsilon;<strong>&Theta;&Upsilon;</strong>&Omicron;&Upsilon; (i.e. &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; &omicron;&upsilon;), the middle word (&theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;) got omitted from some
+very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run
+thus in English,&mdash;'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>&sect; 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 &Epsilon;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;, the 'south-east wind,' and
+&kappa;&lambda;&upsilon;&delta;&omega;&nu;, '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,&mdash;'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 &Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Omicron;&Kappa;&Lambda;&Upsilon;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu;
+has been perverted into &Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Upsilon;&Lambda;&Omega;&Nu;) 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:'&mdash;</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&deg; distance from one another; or according to some
+writers, at 105&deg;; 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
+(&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&mu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&upsilon;&phi;&omega;&nu;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf;, '&omicron; &kappa;&alpha;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;) 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 &Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;-,
+how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has
+written &Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Omicron;&Kappa;-? The testimony of B is memorable.
+The original scribe wrote &Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Upsilon;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu;<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 &Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Upsilon;&Kappa;&Lambda;&Upsilon;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu;,&mdash;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> &Upsilon;&Lambda;&Omega;&Nu; but &Upsilon;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu; 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 &delta;&iota;&epsilon;&rho;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; (in place of the uncompounded verb), assigning
+as his reason, that 'If St. John had written &epsilon;&rho;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota;,
+no one would ever have substituted &delta;&iota;&epsilon;&rho;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; 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 &Delta;&Iota;&epsilon;&rho;&chi;&omega;&mu;&alpha;&iota; is
+sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable (&Delta;&Epsilon;) of &mu;&eta;&delta;&epsilon;
+which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the
+same excuse,</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">St. Mark x. 16 &epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; has become &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; ([Symbol: Aleph]BC).</span>
+<span class="i0">St. Mark xii. 17 &theta;&alpha;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; has become &epsilon;&zeta;&epsilon;&theta;&alpha;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; ([Symbol: Aleph]B).</span>
+<span class="i0">St. Mark xiv. 40 &beta;&epsilon;&beta;&alpha;&rho;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota; has become &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&beta;&epsilon;&beta;&alpha;&rho;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota; (A[Symbol: Aleph]B).<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>It is impossible to doubt that &kappa;&alpha;&iota; (in modern critical
+editions of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence
+to the same cause. In the phrase &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&chi;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron;&iota; &alpha;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;
+it might have been predicted that the last syllable of &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;
+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. &Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota; &omicron;&iota; &alpha;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota; is met with in many
+ancient authorities. But [Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses,
+and substituted &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&chi;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&iota; for &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&chi;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&iota;. The
+self-same casualty, viz. &kappa;&alpha;&iota; elicited out of the insertion of
+&epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota; and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable
+among the Cursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28,&mdash;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:&mdash;'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 '&omicron;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;, we are invited to read &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;, 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&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">'&omicron;&iota;&tau;&iota;&nu;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &mu;&eta; &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota; (St. Mark xii. 18) and<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">'&omicron;&iota; &alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &mu;&eta; &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota; (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">&Sigma;&Alpha;&Delta;&Delta;&Omicron;&Upsilon;&Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota;&Omicron;&Iota;&Omicron;&Iota;&Lambda;&Epsilon;&Gamma;&Omicron;&Nu;&Tau;&Epsilon;&Sigma;<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>and really nothing more requires to be said. The second
+&Omicron;&Iota; 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
+&Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota;. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian
+render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook
+&Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota; &Omicron;&Iota; &Lambda;&Epsilon;&Gamma;&Omicron;&Nu;&Tau;&Epsilon;&Sigma; for a separate phrase.</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 4.</h3>
+
+<p>The termination &Tau;&Omicron; (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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&sigma;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron; '&upsilon;&delta;&omega;&rho;, but so
+many MSS. read &epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&sigma;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;, 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
+&epsilon;&chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&tau;&omicron; &beta;&lambda;&epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and
+11 other uncials) and &epsilon;&chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&tau;&omicron; &tau;&omicron; &beta;&lambda;&epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; 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,&mdash;and they
+are literally without number&mdash;, 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 &epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&eta;&tau;&alpha; &lambda;&alpha;&mu;&pi;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&mu;&psi;&epsilon;&nu; (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 (&alpha;&nu;) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately
+preceding &lambda;&alpha;&mu;&pi;&rho;&alpha;&nu;. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported
+by one copy of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS.
+concur in displaying &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&mu;&psi;&epsilon;&nu; in this place.</p>
+
+<p>The letters &Nu;&Alpha;&Iota;&Kappa;&Omega;&Nu;&Alpha;&Iota;&Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota; in the expression (St. Luke
+xxiii. 27) &gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&kappa;&omega;&nu; '&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; 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 &gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&kappa;&epsilon;&sigmaf;.) Not so however what follows. ABCDLX
+and the Old Latin (except c) drop the &kappa;&alpha;&iota;: [Symbol: Aleph] and C drop
+the &alpha;&iota;. The truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials
+and with the cursives.</p>
+
+<p>Thus also the reading &epsilon;&nu; &omicron;&lambda;&eta; &tau;&eta; &Gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&alpha; (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,&mdash;&pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;.
+The received reading of the place is the correct
+one,&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu; '&omicron;&lambda;&eta;&nu; &tau;&eta;&nu; &Gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&alpha;&nu; '&omicron; &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, 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,&mdash;which ought to be
+deemed fatal to their evidence. Thus,</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">B reads &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; '&omicron;&lambda;&eta;&iota; &tau;&eta;&iota; &Gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&alpha;&iota;.</span>
+<span class="i0">[Symbol: Aleph] reads &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu; '&omicron; <strong>&iota;&sigmaf;</strong> &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&eta;&iota; &Gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&alpha;&iota;.</span>
+<span class="i0">C reads &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu; '&omicron; <strong>&iota;&sigmaf;</strong> &epsilon;&nu; '&omicron;&lambda;&eta; &tau;&eta;&iota; &Gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&alpha;&iota;.</span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>But&mdash;(I shall be asked)&mdash;what about the position of the
+Sacred Name? How comes it to pass that '&omicron; &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, which
+comes after &Gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&alpha;&nu; in almost every other known copy,
+should come after &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu; 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 '&omicron; &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; 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
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu; '&omicron; <strong>&iota;&sigmaf;</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,&mdash;the parallel place in
+the second Gospel,&mdash;where '&omicron; &iota;&sigmaf; 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>&sect; 5.</h3>
+
+<p>The introduction of &alpha;&pi;&omicron; in the place of '&alpha;&gamma;&iota;&omicron;&iota; made by
+the 'Revisers' into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21,&mdash;derives
+its origin from the same prolific source. (1) some
+very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of &alpha;&gamma;&iota;&omicron;&iota; for
+&alpha;&pi;&omicron;. It was but the mistaking of &Alpha;&Gamma;&Iota;&Omicron; for &Alpha;&Pi;&Omicron;. At the
+end of 1700 years, the only Copies which witness to this deformity
+are BP with four cursives,&mdash;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,&mdash;(2) to introduce
+both readings (&alpha;&pi;&omicron; and '&alpha;&gamma;&iota;&omicron;&iota;) into the text. Accordingly
+&alpha;&pi;&omicron; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; '&alpha;&gamma;&iota;&omicron;&iota; 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. '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; for &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&mdash;but
+only because '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; went immediately before); of which fresh
+blunder ('&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; '&alpha;&gamma;&iota;&omicron;&iota;) 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 &alpha;&pi;&omicron; and
+&alpha;&gamma;&iota;&omicron;&iota; were left out,&mdash;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 '&Omicron; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf; &Alpha;&beta;&rho;&alpha;&alpha;&mu;&mdash;said
+of Melchizedek,&mdash;[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit &Omicron;&Sigma;. 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>,&mdash;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 &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf; has been reduplicated
+through careless transcription: &Omicron;&Sigma;&Sigma;&Upsilon;&Nu;&mdash;instead of &Omicron;&Sigma;&Upsilon;&Nu;&mdash;.
+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>&sect; 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,&mdash;'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,&mdash;else would the
+name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked,&mdash;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&mdash;besides
+that a multitude of copies existed as well as those
+of Origen&mdash;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:&mdash;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>' (&Upsilon;&Mu;&Iota;&Nu;) for the
+word '<i>Jesus</i>' (<strong>&Iota;&Nu;</strong>): in other words, carelessly reduplicated
+the last two letters of &Upsilon;&Mu;&Iota;&Nu;,&mdash;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 &eta;&delta;&eta; in
+ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have began ver. 36&mdash;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, &epsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&mu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &eta;&delta;&eta; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&tau;&omicron; &pi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;&upsilon;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;.</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 &epsilon;&gamma;&omega; &delta;&epsilon; &omega;&delta;&epsilon;: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is
+without the &omega;&delta;&epsilon;.</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:&mdash;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 &theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;.</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,&mdash;&mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; '&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; (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 tabul&acirc; amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano
+inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrim&acirc;
+su&acirc; editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii. 14, codici
+Vaticano tribuisse a prim&acirc; manu &epsilon;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&kappa;&lambda;&upsilon;&delta;&omega;&nu;; nos vero &epsilon;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&kappa;&upsilon;&delta;&omega;&nu;;
+atque subjungit,
+"<i>utrumque, ut videtur, male</i>." At, quidquid "videri" possit, certum
+nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse &epsilon;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&kappa;&upsilon;&delta;&omega;&nu;, prout
+expressum fuit tum in tabella qu&acirc; Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in
+alter&acirc; qu&acirc; nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.'&mdash;Pr&aelig;fatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of
+the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. &sect; 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 &epsilon;&pi;' &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &tau;&omega; &phi;&omicron;&rho;&omega; for &epsilon;&pi;' &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&phi;&omega;&rho;&omega;.
+</p><p>
+Readings of Euroclydon
+</p>
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Upsilon;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu; B (sic)<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Upsilon;&Lambda;&Omega;&Nu; [Symbol: Aleph]A<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Eta;&Lambda;&Omega;&Nu;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Eta;&Lambda;&Omega;&Nu;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Lambda;&Eta;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu; Peshitto.<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Upsilon;&Kappa;&Lambda;&Omega;&Nu;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Euroaquilo Vulg.<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Omicron;&Kappa;&Lambda;&Upsilon;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu; HLP<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Lambda;&Upsilon;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu; Syr. Harkl.<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Rho;&Upsilon;&Kappa;&Lambda;&Upsilon;&Delta;&Omega;&Nu; 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> &Omicron;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon; (&omicron;&upsilon; [Symbol: Aleph])
+&gamma;&alpha;&rho; (&mdash;&gamma;&alpha;&rho; [Symbol: Aleph]BDL)
+&epsilon;&alpha;&nu; (&alpha;&nu; D)
+&tau;&omicron; &pi;&tau;&omega;&mu;&alpha; (&sigma;&omega;&mu;&alpha; [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 &sect;)], 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. '&omicron; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Beta;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&beta;&alpha;&sigmaf;. 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.'&mdash;Alluding to the place,
+he elsewhere (iii. 853 d) merely says that '<i>Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur
+et Jesus.</i>'&mdash;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.:&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;and this is a sufficient answer to
+the supposed objection,&mdash;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:&mdash;unheard-of statements:&mdash;facts
+as yet unknown to readers of Scripture:&mdash;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:&mdash;such phenomena
+are observed to follow upon the omission of the article,&mdash;the
+insertion of an expletive,&mdash;the change of a single letter.
+Thus &pi;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&nu;, 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
+&omega; for &omicron;, 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 &sigmaf; 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 &tau;&omega; and &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&epsilon;, 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,&mdash;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 '&omicron;&tau;&iota; instead of '&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;, 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 '&omicron;&tau;&iota;, 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 '&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;,&mdash;which, as every one must see, is
+certainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf's
+assertion that the prolixity of the expression &epsilon;&phi;&omega;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu; &epsilon;&kappa;
+&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &mu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&kappa; &nu;&epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&omega;&nu; is inconsistent with
+'&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a>,&mdash;may surprise, but will never convince any one who
+is even moderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar
+manner.</p>
+
+<p>The same mistake&mdash;of '&omicron;&tau;&iota; for '&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&mdash;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 '&omicron;&tau;&iota;: 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:&mdash;Origen<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a>,&mdash;Eusebius
+in four places<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a>,&mdash;Basil<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a>,&mdash;Gregory of Nyssa twice<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a>,&mdash;Didymus
+three times<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a>,&mdash;Chrysostom twice<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a>,&mdash;Severianus
+of Gabala<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a>;&mdash;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 '&omicron;&tau;&iota;<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a>, three times '&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a>,&mdash;and
+once '&eta;&nu;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;<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>&sect; 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 &upsilon; for &omicron;&upsilon;, transcribing &lambda;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota;
+for &lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota; (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 &upsilon;, 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&mdash;viz. B<sup>2</sup> of the eighth century and P of
+the ninth&mdash;the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write
+&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota; and&mdash;what is most important&mdash;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 '&omega;&delta;&epsilon; into '&omicron;&delta;&epsilon;, misinterpreting
+the letter which served often for both the long and
+the short &omicron;, 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 '&omega;&delta;&epsilon; is the genuine word.]</p>
+
+<p>[Again, in St. John xiii. 25, '&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf; has dropped out of
+many copies and so out of the Received Text because by
+an Itacism it was written &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; in many manuscripts.
+Therefore &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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 '&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf; was redundant, and this was the
+cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really '&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf;,
+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 (&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;) on his left arm over the
+bosom of the robe (&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega;&iota; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omega;&iota;) of the <span class="smcap">Saviour</span>. When
+St. Peter beckoned to him he turned his head for the
+moment and sank (&epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;, not &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; 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
+('&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigma;<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 &omega; and &omicron; may be seen
+in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&omega;&lambda;&omega;&sigmaf; has gained so strong
+a hold that it is found in the Received Text for &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&omega;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;,
+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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu; in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more
+because in <i>The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark</i>, the
+alteration into &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; 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&mdash;which
+in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way,
+for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by
+&kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;, and &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu; bears a very intelligible meaning.
+When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there
+being eight against the change (&Phi;&Sigma;KMUV&Gamma;&Pi;), and
+eleven for it ([Symbol: Aleph]ABEFGHLSX&Delta;);&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;;&mdash;nor by the Fathers:&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;,&mdash;and that there is such
+difficulty cannot candidly be denied,&mdash;this is balanced by
+the grammatical difficulty introduced by &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu;, 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. &Kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&alpha; &beta;&rho;&omega;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; 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>&sect; 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 &epsilon;&nu; (<i>not the numeral</i> '&epsilon;&nu;) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our
+<span class="smcap">Lord</span> says that the seed which 'fell into the good ground'
+'yielded by (&epsilon;&nu;) thirty, and by (&epsilon;&nu;) sixty, and by (&epsilon;&nu;) an
+hundred.' Tischendorf notes that besides all the uncials
+which are furnished with accents and breathings (viz.
+EFGHKMUV&Pi;) 'nearly 100 cursives' exhibit &epsilon;&nu; here and
+in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case. All the
+cursives may be declared to exhibit &epsilon;&nu;, e.g. all Matthaei's
+and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object examined
+a large number of Evangelia, and found &epsilon;&nu; 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 &epsilon;&nu;,&mdash;though he printed '&epsilon;&nu; out of respect for the
+Vulgate. The Complutensian having '&epsilon;&nu;, the reading of the
+Textus Receptus follows in consequence: but the Traditional
+reading has been shewn to be &epsilon;&nu;,&mdash;which is
+doubtless intended by &Epsilon;&Nu; in Cod. A.</p>
+
+<p>Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]C&Delta; (two ever licentious and &Delta; similarly so
+throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition &epsilon;&nu; the
+preposition &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;,&mdash;(a sufficient proof to me that they understand
+&Epsilon;&Nu; to represent &epsilon;&nu;, not '&epsilon;&nu;): 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
+&epsilon;&nu; (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the
+preposition &Epsilon;&Iota;&Sigma;: while, in ver. 20, it retains the first &epsilon;&nu;, 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>&sect; 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,' &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;. 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,&mdash;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),&mdash;Theodore of
+Mopsuestia<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a>,&mdash;Basil<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a>,&mdash;Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a>&mdash;Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a>,&mdash;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>),&mdash;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>),&mdash;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,&mdash;besides
+the Bohairic. There evidently can be no doubt
+whatever about such a reading so supported. To be &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+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>: &kappa;&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&rho;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;
+&gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&eta; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;, 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
+&omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&alpha; 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 &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; 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'&mdash;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, &tau;&iota; '&eta;&mu;&iota;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&omicron;&iota;,
+&Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;, '&upsilon;&iota;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; is
+omitted by B[Symbol: Aleph].</p>
+
+<p>The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is
+inspected:&mdash; &Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota;&Sigma;&Omicron;&Iota;<strong>&Iota;&Upsilon;</strong>&Upsilon;&Iota;&Epsilon;&Tau;&Omicron;&Upsilon;<strong>&Theta;&Upsilon;</strong>:&mdash;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,&mdash;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, &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; for &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;.
+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
+'&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; 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 '&epsilon;&nu; for &epsilon;&nu;
+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 &lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota; and &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;
+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> &lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota;.</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> &lambda;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota;.</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>
+'&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf;. BCEFGHLMX&Delta;. Most cursives. Goth.<br />
+&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;. KSU&Gamma;&Lambda;. Ten cursives.<br />
+<i>Omit</i> [Symbol: Aleph]AD&Pi;. 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 '&omicron; &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;. 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. &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&omega;&lambda;&omega;&sigmaf;. [Symbol: Aleph]<sup>a</sup>ABD &amp;c.<br />
+&alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&omega;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;. [Symbol: Aleph]*GKMRSX&Gamma;&Pi;*. Most curs.<br />
+32. &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&omega;&lambda;&omega;&sigmaf;. [Symbol: Aleph]*ABD &amp;c.<br />
+&alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&omega;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;. [Symbol: Aleph]<sup>c</sup>KMRSX&Gamma;&Pi;*. 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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; 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:&mdash;'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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; 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,&mdash;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"&mdash;so they all point the same way.'&mdash;(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)&mdash;'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. &epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon; &tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha; '&omicron; &Sigma;&omega;&tau;&eta;&rho;, &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&alpha; &beta;&rho;&omega;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;.</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. &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&alpha; &beta;&rho;&omega;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;.</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.
+&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron; &Sigma;&omega;&tau;&eta;&rho;, &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&zeta;&omega;&nu; &tau;&alpha; &beta;&rho;&omega;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;.</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>
+&Iota;&omega;&alpha;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;, generally: &Iota;&omega;&alpha;&nu;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;, 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>
+&Beta;&epsilon;&epsilon;&zeta;&epsilon;&beta;&omicron;&upsilon;&lambda;, Matt. x. 25; xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15, 18, 19.
+</p><p>
+&Nu;&alpha;&zeta;&alpha;&rho;&epsilon;&tau;, Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; John i. 46, 47. &Nu;&alpha;&zeta;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;, Matt. iv. 13.
+&Nu;&alpha;&zeta;&alpha;&rho;&epsilon;&theta;, Matt. xxi. 11; Luke ii. 51; iv. 16.
+</p><p>
+&Mu;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&alpha; for &Mu;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&alpha;&mu;, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 19. &Mu;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&alpha;&mu; for
+&Mu;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&alpha;, 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>
+&Kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;, Mark v. 41. &Gamma;&omicron;&lambda;&gamma;&omicron;&theta;, Luke xix. 17.
+</p><p>
+&Iota;&sigma;&tau;&rho;&alpha;&eta;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&alpha;&iota;, &Iota;&sigma;&tau;&rho;&alpha;&eta;&lambda;&iota;&tau;&alpha;&iota;, &Iota;&sigma;&rho;&alpha;&eta;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&alpha;&iota;, &Iota;&sigma;&rho;&alpha;&eta;&lambda;&iota;&tau;&alpha;&iota;.
+</p><p>
+&Epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&beta;&epsilon;&tau;, &Epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&beta;&epsilon;&tau;.
+</p><p>
+&Mu;&omega;&sigma;&eta;&sigmaf;, &Mu;&omega;&upsilon;&sigma;&eta;&sigmaf;.
+</p><p>
+&Delta;&alpha;&lambda;&mu;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&theta;&alpha;, Mark viii. 10.
+</p><p>
+&Iota;&omega;&sigma;&eta; (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. &Iota;&omega;&sigma;&eta;&phi;, 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>
+&kappa;&alpha;&theta;' &iota;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&nu;, Matt. xvii. 1, 19; xxi v. 3; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31, &amp;c. &kappa;&alpha;&tau;' &iota;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&nu;,
+Matt. xiv. 13, 23; Mark vi. 32; vii. 33, &amp;c.
+</p><p>
+&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;, Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;, Matt.
+iii. 7; xii. 34; xxiii. 33; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;
+&epsilon;&chi;&iota;&delta;&nu;&omega;&nu;).
+</p><p>
+A similar confusion between &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota;&sigmaf; and &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&sigmaf;, Matt. i, and between
+&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&theta;&eta;&nu; and &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&theta;&eta;&nu;, and &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&iota; and &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&iota;. See Kuenen
+and Cobet N. T. ad fid. Cod. Vaticani lxxvii.
+</p><p>
+III. <i>Itacisms.</i>
+</p><p>
+&kappa;&rho;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&omega;, John xii. 48 (&kappa;&rho;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;). &kappa;&rho;&iota;&nu;&omega;, Matt. vii. 1; xix. 28; Luke vi. 37;
+vii. 43; xii. 57, &amp;c.
+</p><p>
+&tau;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&omega;, &tau;&iota;&mu;&omega;, Matt. xv. 4, 5, 8; xix. 19; xxvii. 9; Mark vii. 6, 10, &amp;c.
+</p><p>
+&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&beta;&rho;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&eta;&theta;&eta; (Matt. ix. 30) for &epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&beta;&rho;&iota;&mu;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;. &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&theta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota; (Mark vi. 39)
+for &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&lambda;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;. &sigma;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; for &sigma;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; (Mark iv. 28).
+</p><p>
+IV. <i>Bad Grammar.</i>
+</p><p>
+&tau;&omega;&iota; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&delta;&epsilon;&sigma;&pi;&omicron;&tau;&eta;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&kappa;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; for &tau;&omicron;&nu; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&delta;&epsilon;&sigma;&pi;&omicron;&tau;&eta;&nu; &epsilon;&kappa;&alpha;&lambda;. (Matt. x. 25).
+&kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; for &mdash;&sigma;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&nu; (Matt. vii. 6). '&omicron; &alpha;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota; (Matt.
+xiv. 7). '&omicron;&tau;&alpha;&nu; &delta;&epsilon; &alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; (Mark xiii. 7).
+</p><p>
+V. <i>Impossible words.</i>
+</p><p>
+&epsilon;&mu;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&nu; (Luke i. 27). &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon; for &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; (ii. 13). &alpha;&nu;&eta;&zeta;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;
+(Luke ii. 44). &kappa;&omicron;&pi;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; (Matt. vi. 28). &eta;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu; (Matt. xv. 23).
+&kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&kappa;&eta;&nu;&omicron;&iota;&nu; (Mark iv. 32). '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; for '&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;. '&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; for '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;.]</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,&mdash;<i>all</i> Rinck's 7,&mdash;<i>all</i> Reiche's
+6,&mdash;<i>all</i> Scrivener's 13, &amp;c., &amp;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&mdash;'&eta; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&mu;&iota;&kappa;&eta;.</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> &kappa;&alpha;&tau;' &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&nu; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; '&omega;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&theta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota; (Soph. Oed. Col.
+343).&mdash;'&Omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; est
+quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf; est scribarum commentum,'&mdash;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>
+&omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&mdash;which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c. 1)&mdash;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>&sect; 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;&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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 (&sigma;&alpha;&beta;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&alpha;&kappa;&alpha;&iota;). 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;by which means the holy Name is often found in
+MSS. where it has no proper place,&mdash;but notes of time, &amp;c.,
+['like the unique and indubitably genuine word &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omega;&iota;<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,&mdash;and
+by implication, his namesake at Alexandria,&mdash;Chrysostom,
+at Antioch and at Constantinople,&mdash;Augustine, in Africa,&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;'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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;the Vulgate,&mdash;the two
+Egyptian versions,&mdash;besides the Armenian,&mdash;and the
+Ethiopic,&mdash;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
+&Tau;&Omicron; &Tau;&Epsilon;&Lambda;&Omicron;&Sigma;, 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>&sect; 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 &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon; &delta;&epsilon; '&omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;, 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;the
+Pharisees and the Scribes on the other. Hence the inferential
+particle &omicron;&upsilon;&nu; in the 31st verse; and the use in
+ver. 35 of the same verb (&epsilon;&delta;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;&iota;&omega;&theta;&eta;) 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 &mu;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; 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 '&omicron; &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; 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 &mu;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;, [Symbol: Aleph]C with LX&Lambda;&Xi; and a choice assortment of cursives
+exhibit &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;,&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; &mu;&alpha;&lambda;&alpha;&kappa;&iota;&alpha;&nu;
+&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &lambda;&alpha;&omega; used to conclude the lesson for the second Sunday
+after Pentecost,&mdash;the latter (ix. 35) ending &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; &mu;&alpha;&lambda;&alpha;&kappa;&iota;&alpha;&nu;
+occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventh
+Sunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers
+the matter, that &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &lambda;&alpha;&omega; 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 (&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&lambda;&lambda;&omicron;&iota; &eta;&kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;) 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:&mdash;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
+(&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &iota;&delta;&omicron;&upsilon; &nu;&omicron;&mu;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&eta;, &epsilon;&kappa;&pi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&zeta;&omega;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omega;&nu;).
+Many of the Latin copies preface this with <i>et haec eo dicente</i>.
+Now, the established formula of the lectionaries here is,&mdash;&nu;&omicron;&mu;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &Iota;., 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,&mdash;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&eta; &delta;&epsilon; &tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &nu;&omicron;&mu;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf;. Four
+Codexes ([Symbol: Aleph]BL&Xi;) with the Curetonian omit the second &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place in its
+purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy.</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 4.</h3>
+
+<p>Take another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been
+hitherto read in all Churches as follows:&mdash;'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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&omega;&theta;&eta; '&eta; &gamma;&rho;&alpha;&phi;&eta; '&eta; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &mu;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha; &alpha;&nu;&omicron;&mu;&omega;&nu;
+&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&iota;&sigma;&theta;&eta; 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,&mdash;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:&mdash;that besides these, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the
+Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur
+in exhibiting them:&mdash;that the same words are expressly
+recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius;&mdash;having
+a section (&sigma;&iota;&sigmaf; / &eta;
+i.e. 216/8) to themselves&mdash;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,&mdash;'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:&mdash;'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
+Biblioth&egrave;que 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:&mdash;'When thou readest the sixth Gospel<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span>
+of the Passion,&mdash;also when thou readest the second Gospel
+of the Vigil of Good Friday,&mdash;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),&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;I was going to say of truth
+and fairness,&mdash;to leave the text unmolested: with a marginal
+memorandum that just 'a very few ancient authorities
+leave it out'?</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 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. &Epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&Iota;&omega;&alpha;&nu;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. 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:&mdash;'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&tau;&iota;&theta;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &sigma;&omega;&zeta;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&theta;' '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;. &Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;
+&kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. 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 &alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;&mdash;indicative of the beginning of
+a lection,&mdash;thrust in between &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; and &Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;. 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: '&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&tau;&iota;&theta;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;
+&sigma;&omega;&zeta;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&theta;' '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &tau;&eta; &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&alpha; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;,&mdash;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:&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&eta;
+&epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&alpha;. &Epsilon;&nu; &delta;&epsilon; &tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; &Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;.: 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 &tau;&eta; &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&alpha; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;
+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 &tau;&eta; &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&alpha;.<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 &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; 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 &pi;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&nu; 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:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">&alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&epsilon;&tau;&omega;. &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;<br/><br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&pi;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&nu;. &alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;. &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu; &omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&eta;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&omicron;&lambda;&eta;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&nu;.<br/><br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;.<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>The word &pi;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&nu;, because it stands between the end (&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;)
+of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning
+(&alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out
+[though every one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows
+that &alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta; and &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf; were often inserted in the text]. The
+second of these two lessons begins with '&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha; [because
+&pi;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&nu; 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 &alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;,&mdash;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 &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; '&omicron;&sigma;&alpha; &epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; &pi;&omega;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;,&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&lambda;&upsilon;&pi;&eta;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; &sigma;&phi;&omicron;&delta;&rho;&alpha; (St. Matt. xvii. 23)
+comes to be omitted in K and several other copies. The
+previous lesson ends at &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&rho;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota;,&mdash;the next lesson begins
+at &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;.</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 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>,&mdash;'&omicron;&tau;&iota; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; '&eta; &beta;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&eta; &delta;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&mu;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&eta; &delta;&omicron;&xi;&alpha; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&alpha;&sigmaf;. &alpha;&mu;&eta;&nu;,&mdash;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,&mdash;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:&mdash;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 &Delta;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&chi;&eta; (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 &Phi; and &Sigma; 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 &alpha;&mu;&eta;&nu;, 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;with its ever-varying terminology of praise,&mdash;its
+constant reference to the blessed Trinity,&mdash;its habitual &nu;&upsilon;&nu;
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&epsilon;&iota;,&mdash;and its invariable &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&alpha;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&omega;&nu;, (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;)&mdash;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,&mdash;'<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:&mdash;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:&mdash;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 &Delta;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&chi;&eta; 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 &Phi; and &Sigma;. 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,&mdash;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:&mdash;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.,&mdash;not the very many,&mdash;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,&mdash;and
+I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is
+possible,&mdash;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,'&mdash;a
+doxology of some sort being invariably added, but pronounced
+by the priest alone,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>not</i> from the Sunday with which it commences, but&mdash;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> &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu; '&omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; '&epsilon;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &mu;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;; &mu;&eta; &tau;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&sigma;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&omega;.</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> &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &mu;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;. The same Codex (D) also prefixes to
+St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula&mdash;&epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu; &delta;&epsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&beta;&omicron;&lambda;&eta;&nu;.</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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;; &epsilon;&iota;&rho;&eta;&nu;&eta; '&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu; 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
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&kappa;&upsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; 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 &Xi; actually interpolates at this place the
+words&mdash;&omicron;&upsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&tau;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &mu;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;. 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
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; &mu;&alpha;&lambda;&alpha;&kappa;&iota;&alpha;&nu; 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> &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &sigma;&omega;&zeta;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&eta; &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&alpha;. &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;
+(&Tau;&Eta; &Sigma;' &Tau;&Eta;&Sigma; &Delta;&Iota;&Alpha;&Kappa;&Iota;&Nu;&Eta;&Sigma;&Iota;&Mu;&Omicron;&Upsilon;)
+&Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Iota;&omega;&alpha;&nu;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;, &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. 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. '&omicron;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;. &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&lambda;.). 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>
+&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&eta;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &Epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf;, '&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&alpha;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&omega;&nu;,'
+&kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. 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 &amp; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;the first of His appearances after His Resurrection.
+The reason is discoverable for every word the
+Evangelist uses:&mdash;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' (&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;),
+saw the Angels. St John explains that at that time Mary
+was not with them. She had separated herself from their
+company;&mdash;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,&mdash;<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;&mdash;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;&mdash;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 &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron; &mu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&omicron;&nu; into &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega; &mu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;
+(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 &epsilon;&xi;&omega; 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 '&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega; &mu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;, &epsilon;&xi;&omega; &kappa;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;,&mdash;merely
+transposing (with many other authorities) the last
+two words. But then Codex B substitutes &epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; for
+&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; 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
+&epsilon;&xi;&omega;,&mdash;(as in the next verse it leaves out &delta;&upsilon;&omicron;, in order to
+prevent St. John xx. 12 from seeming to contradict St.
+Matt. xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark xvi. 5),&mdash;it stands alone in
+reading &Epsilon;&Nu; &tau;&omega; &mu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;. (C and D are lost here.) When
+will men learn that these 'old uncials' are <i>ignes fatui</i>,&mdash;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 &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega; &mu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;: 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
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega; &mu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;, 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>&sect; 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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&iota;&nu;&epsilon;&sigmaf;
+&sigma;&upsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; from St. Luke xxiv. 1. Their only plea is the
+testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BCL and certain of the Latin copies,&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&iota;&nu;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; are observed to begin
+St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows,&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &delta;&epsilon; &Delta;&Upsilon;&Omicron;
+&gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&kappa;&epsilon;&sigmaf;. 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' (&omicron;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&nu;)
+for vinegar (&omicron;&xi;&omicron;&sigmaf;), 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,'&mdash;which he seems to have
+thought as good a scene for the third temptation as 'a high
+mountain,' and so left it.</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;set down in St.
+Matt. xvii. 25, 26.</p>
+
+<p>The received text exhibits,&mdash;'And when he [Peter] had
+entered ('&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; &epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&epsilon;&nu;) 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 '&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; &epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&epsilon;&nu;, Codex B (but no other
+uncial) substitutes &epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;: Codex [Symbol: Aleph] (but no other) &epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;:
+Codex D (but no other) &epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&iota;: Codex C (but
+no other) '&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; &eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained
+&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu;; and a sixth, &epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;. 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,&mdash;'Peter saith unto Him (&Lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; '&omicron; &Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;), Of strangers.' These four words C retains,
+but continues&mdash;'Now when he had said, Of strangers'
+(&Epsilon;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;, &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omega;&nu; &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&omicron;&tau;&rho;&iota;&omega;&nu;);&mdash;which unauthorized
+clause, all but the word &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;, is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no
+other uncial. On the other hand, for &Lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; '&omicron; &Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;,
+[Symbol: Aleph] (alone of uncials) substitutes '&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&phi;&eta;: and B (also alone<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span>
+of uncials) substitutes &Epsilon;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;,&mdash;and then proceeds exactly
+like the received text: while D merely omits '&omicron; &Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;.
+Again I ask,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;among whom Origen may
+be regarded as a prime offender,&mdash;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,&mdash;in Lectionaries,&mdash;in Versions,&mdash;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:&mdash;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' (&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &mu;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&sigma;&sigma;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&eta;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;<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.:&mdash;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&lambda;&omicron;&iota; &delta;&epsilon; (St. Mark xi. 8)
+&epsilon;&xi;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;. &kappa;&alpha;&iota; (St. John xii. 13) &eta;&rho;&xi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron; ...
+&chi;&alpha;&iota;&rho;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&iota;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu; ... &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&sigma;&omega;&nu; '&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&delta;&omicron;&nu; (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>
+&Mu;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&alpha; &delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron; &mu;&nu;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha; &epsilon;&xi;&omega; (St. John xx. 11). Comp.
+the expression &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron; &phi;&omega;&sigmaf; 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:&mdash;
+</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
+'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &Pi;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&eta; &theta;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha; &epsilon;&xi;&omega; (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 &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;&xi;&iota;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; as follows:&mdash;&delta;&eta;&lambda;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&tau;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&xi;&omega;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon; &sigma;&pi;&eta;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;.</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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>&sect; 1.</h3>
+
+
+<p>There results inevitably from the fourfold structure of
+the Gospel,&mdash;from the very fact that the story of Redemption
+is set forth in four narratives, three of which often ran
+parallel,&mdash;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,&mdash;which abound indeed, but are by no
+means common,&mdash;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,&mdash;at all events I am not aware&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;astonishing
+familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the
+other,&mdash;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 &beta;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; '&eta;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; (in St. Matt. viii. 29),
+writes '&eta;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;,&mdash;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 &tau;&alpha;&sigma;&sigma;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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 &pi;&omicron;&tau;&alpha;&mu;&omega; (St.
+Matt. iii. 6) is indebted for its place in [Symbol: Aleph]BC, &amp;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:&mdash;the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of &alpha;&delta;&epsilon;&lambda;&phi;&epsilon; (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 &tau;&omega; &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&mu;&omega; instead of &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; in St. Matt.
+viii. 26, only because he was so familiar with &tau;&omega; &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&mu;&omega; in
+St. Luke viii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39.&mdash;The author of
+the prototype of [Symbol: Aleph]BD (with whom by the way are some
+of the Latin versions) may have written &epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; in St. Matt,
+xvi. 8, only because he was thinking of the parallel place in
+St. Mark viii. 17.&mdash;&Eta;&rho;&xi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron; &alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&tau;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; (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>.&mdash;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
+&alpha;&upsilon;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; in place of &sigma;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;.&mdash;The substitution by [Symbol: Aleph] of
+'&omicron;&nu;
+&pi;&alpha;&rho;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&omicron; in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for '&omicron;&nu; &eta;&theta;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&nu; 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
+'&omicron;&nu;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &eta;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&omicron;, Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit
+'&omicron;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&omicron;, 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,&mdash;instead of the words
+&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&omega; '&iota;&nu;&alpha; &epsilon;&chi;&omega; &zeta;&omega;&eta;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&nu;,&mdash;the formula which is found in
+the parallel place of St. Luke xviii. 18, viz. &pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf; &zeta;&omega;&eta;&nu;
+&alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&mu;&eta;&sigma;&omega;,&mdash;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 &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;, &epsilon;&iota;&rho;&eta;&nu;&eta; &tau;&omega; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omega; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;
+(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:&mdash;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 &epsilon;&iota;&delta;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; '&omicron;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&theta;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&nu;, it is of course conceivable that
+the authors of those copies were merely the victims of
+excessive familiarity with the third Gospel. But then,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;ii. 1, '&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&xi;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omega;&nu; down to &Kappa;&alpha;&phi;&alpha;&rho;&nu;&alpha;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;), opens our
+eyes. This wholesale importation suggests the inquiry,&mdash;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>&sect; 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 '&omicron;&tau;&iota; &epsilon;&gamma;&omega; '&upsilon;&pi;&alpha;&gamma;&omega; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &Pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;: 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),&mdash;'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),&mdash;'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>?'&mdash;Now, the context here,&mdash;the general sequence
+of words and ideas&mdash;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),&mdash;every
+known Cursive&mdash;all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac,
+Gothic, Coptic, &amp;c.)&mdash;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:&mdash;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&mdash;and then I will dismiss the matter&mdash;that
+the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse
+but one (ver. 18), as Tischendorf candidly acknowledges.
+The &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &tau;&iota; '&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; of the Evangelist has been tastelessly
+assimilated by BDLY to the &tau;&iota; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; which went
+immediately before.</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 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> (&eta;&nu; &delta;&epsilon;
+&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omega; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; '&Iota;.) 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 (&epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; &delta;&epsilon;
+&epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; '&Iota;.) [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 (&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;) 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,&mdash;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 (&epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;) on (or close to) His Master's chest (&epsilon;&pi;&iota;
+&tau;&omicron; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf;), he says softly,&mdash;'<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,&mdash;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 (&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu;<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,'&mdash;&epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;), 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 '&omicron; &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;,&mdash;'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 &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; 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
+&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; &omicron;&upsilon;&nu; &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. 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
+&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; 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 &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; might usurp the place of
+&epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;<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> ('&omicron; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;) <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 &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; has
+surreptitiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why
+should it? how could it?) '&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; not seeming appropriate.'
+Whereas, on the contrary, &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; is the
+invariable and obvious expression,&mdash;&epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; the unusual,
+and, till it has been explained, the unintelligible word.
+Tischendorf,&mdash;who had read &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; in 1848 and &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;
+in 1859,&mdash;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,&mdash;now
+visible, now eclipsed, now visible again,&mdash;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 &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;
+(for &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;) 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:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>xiii. 21.-&omicron; [Symbol: Aleph]B: &upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omega; <i>tr.</i> B.</p>
+
+<p>xiii. 22.-&omicron;&upsilon;&nu; BC: + &omicron;&iota; &Iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&iota; [Symbol: Aleph]: &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&iota; D.</p>
+
+<p>xiii. 23.-&delta;&epsilon; B: + &epsilon;&kappa; [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD:-&omicron; B: + &kappa;&alpha;&iota; D.</p>
+
+<p>xiii. 24. (<i>for</i> &pi;&upsilon;&theta;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&eta; + &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; D) &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;, &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon; &tau;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; BC: (<i>for</i> &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;) &epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu; [Symbol: Aleph]: + &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;
+&tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota; &omicron;&upsilon; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; [Symbol: Aleph].</p>
+
+<p>xiii. 25. (<i>for</i> &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;) &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; BC:-&delta;&epsilon; BC: (<i>for</i> &delta;&epsilon;) &omicron;&upsilon;&nu; [Symbol: Aleph]D;
+-&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; [Symbol: Aleph]AD.</p>
+
+<p>xiii. 26. + &omicron;&upsilon;&nu; BC: + &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; D:&mdash;&omicron; B:
++ &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + &alpha;&nu; D:
+(<i>for</i> &beta;&alpha;&psi;&alpha;&sigmaf;) &epsilon;&mu;&beta;&alpha;&psi;&alpha;&sigmaf; AD:
+&beta;&alpha;&psi;&omega; ... &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &delta;&omega;&sigma;&omega; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; BC:
++ &psi;&omega;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon; (<i>after</i> &psi;&omega;&mu;&iota;&omicron;&nu;) C:
+(<i>for</i> &epsilon;&mu;&beta;&alpha;&psi;&alpha;&sigmaf;) &beta;&alpha;&psi;&alpha;&sigmaf; D:
+(<i>for</i> &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&mu;&beta;&alpha;&psi;&alpha;&sigmaf;) &beta;&alpha;&psi;&alpha;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&nu; [Symbol: Aleph]BC:
+-&tau;&omicron; B: + &lambda;&alpha;&mu;&beta;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; BC:
+&Iota;&sigma;&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; [Symbol: Aleph]BC: &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &Kappa;&alpha;&rho;&upsilon;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; D.</p>
+
+<p>xiii. 27.-&tau;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; [Symbol: Aleph]:-&mu;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&omicron; &psi;&omega;&mu;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; D:
+(<i>for</i> &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; &omicron;&upsilon;&nu;) &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; D:-&omicron; 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,&mdash;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>&sect; 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 '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; 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&mdash;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]BDL&Delta;, 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
+&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &Eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;&alpha; &tau;&omega; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&phi;&eta;&tau;&eta; instead of &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&phi;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; 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>,&mdash;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:&mdash;the first, with Curetonian,
+Lewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D,&mdash;the second,
+with Chrysostom and Hilary,&mdash;the third, with the Peshitto.
+The Latin and the Syriac further substitute &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&phi;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;
+for &tau;&omega;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&phi;&eta;&tau;&omega;&nu; in St. Matt. ii. 23,&mdash;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,&mdash;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]BDL&Delta;:&mdash;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,&mdash;all the 450, as I believe, being corruptions
+of the text,&mdash;[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]BCDL&Delta;. 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]BDL&Delta;.</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 Isai&acirc; 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,&mdash;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:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>St. Matt. &eta; (i.e. iii. 3).<br/>
+St. Mark. &beta; (i.e. i. 3).<br/>
+St. Luke. &zeta; (i.e. iii. 3-6).<br/>
+St. John. &iota; (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&mdash;a clause&mdash;a sentence&mdash;omitted by his favourite
+authorities [Symbol: Aleph]BDL? It is enough if that learned critic
+finds nearly the same word,&mdash;a very similar clause,&mdash;a
+sentence of the same general import,&mdash;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.&mdash;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;&mdash;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:&mdash;Whereas
+St. Matt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of 'the abomination
+of desolation &tau;&omicron; '&rho;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&nu; &Delta;&Iota;&Alpha; &Delta;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&eta;&lambda; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&phi;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;, standing
+('&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf;) in the holy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it
+as '&tau;&omicron; '&rho;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&nu; &Upsilon;&Pi;&Omicron; &Delta;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&eta;&lambda; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&phi;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; standing ('&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;)
+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,&mdash;besides the Peshitto, Harkleian, and copies of the
+Old Latin&mdash;a much more weighty body of evidence&mdash;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,&mdash;'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,&mdash;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 &gamma;&epsilon;&mu;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&nu; &kappa;&omicron;&iota;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;, in St. Luke xv. 16,
+the words &chi;&omicron;&rho;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa;. But editors have omitted to
+point out that the words &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&theta;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&iota; &chi;&omicron;&rho;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota;, 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>&sect; 6.</h3>
+
+<p>The value&mdash;may I not say, the use?&mdash;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]BCDL&Delta;,&mdash;a most suspicious company, and three
+cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin, including
+the Vulgate:&mdash;&alpha;&mu;&eta;&nu; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omega; '&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu;, &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&kappa;&tau;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &Sigma;&omicron;&delta;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &eta;
+&Gamma;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&rho;&rho;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&nu; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf;, '&eta; &tau;&eta; &pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&eta;. 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, &Sigma;&omicron;&delta;&omicron;&mu;&Omicron;&Iota;&Sigma; &Eta; &Gamma;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&rho;&rho;&Omicron;&Iota;&Sigma;: St.
+Matthew, &Gamma;&Eta; &Sigma;&omicron;&delta;&omicron;&mu;&Omega;&Nu; &Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota; &Gamma;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&rho;&rho;&Omega;&Nu;. 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,&mdash;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),&mdash;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&mdash;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]BCDL&Delta; and their Latin allies,&mdash;which
+will be found <i>never</i> to conspire together exclusively
+except to mislead.</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 7.</h3>
+
+<p>Because a certain clause (e.g. &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&eta; &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; '&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; 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,&mdash;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:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">St. Matt. xxvi. 73.</span>
+</div><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">(1) &Alpha;&lambda;&eta;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon;</span>
+<span class="i0">(2) &epsilon;&xi; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;</span>
+<span class="i0">(3) &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho;</span>
+<span class="i0">(4) '&eta; &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; &delta;&eta;&lambda;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&epsilon; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;</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) &Alpha;&lambda;&eta;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf;</span>
+<span class="i0">(2) &epsilon;&xi; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;</span>
+<span class="i0">(3) &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &Gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;,</span>
+<span class="i0">(4) &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&eta; &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; '&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota;.</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,&mdash;a Jew addressing Jews,&mdash;it seemed superfluous
+to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee
+which betrayed Simon Peter. To St. Mark,&mdash;or rather
+to the readers whom St. Mark specially addressed,&mdash;the
+point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he
+paraphrases,&mdash;'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 '&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota;,
+I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent
+inquiry,&mdash;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, &amp;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,&mdash;where it supplants the '&eta; &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; &delta;&eta;&lambda;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&epsilon;
+&pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota; 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,&mdash;for D also omits
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon; 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 (&kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&eta; &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;
+&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; &delta;&eta;&lambda;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&epsilon; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;) 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,&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; '&eta; &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; &delta;&eta;&lambda;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&epsilon;
+'&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota;.</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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon; (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&mdash;</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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&eta; &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; '&omicron;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; 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)&mdash;retain them;&mdash;those in their
+usual place,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;and
+with this I shall take leave of the discussion,&mdash;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 &omicron;&psi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; &mu;&epsilon; (in ver. 16),
+and &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &tau;&iota; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; (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,&mdash;'&iota;&xi;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&tau;&eta;&rho;&alpha;.</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>
+= &alpha;&nu;&alpha;-&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; + &epsilon;&pi;&iota;-&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu;. [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> &Omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&nu;, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omega; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&iota;&pi;&tau;&epsilon;&iota; (Opp. viii. 423
+a).&mdash;&Tau;&iota; &delta;&epsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&iota;&pi;&tau;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omega; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&iota; (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 &kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&nu; (or text) that the verb is
+found,&mdash;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>
+'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &theta;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &omicron;&xi;&epsilon;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&lambda;&mu;&omega; | &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&chi;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigma;&iota; &pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&lambda;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&eta;&rho;.</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> '&omicron; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; (iii. 1, &sect; 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> '&omicron; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; (<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> &Tau;&iota; &delta;&epsilon;&iota; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;
+&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; '&Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; (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> '&omicron; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omega; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &phi;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; (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> &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &sigma;&omicron;&phi;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf; &pi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf;
+&epsilon;&pi;&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; (<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> '&omicron; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&upsilon;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota; (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, &amp;c., p. 73.&mdash;'&Alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&iota;&pi;&tau;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;, (which occurs eleven times in
+the N.T.), when said of guests (&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota;)
+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."'&mdash;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 (&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu;), to that
+later moment when (&epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &sigma;&tau;&eta;&theta;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;) he interrogated his Divine Master
+concerning Judas. It is a <i>general</i> description of an incident,&mdash;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: +&Delta;, on 73: +CD, on 19: +C&Delta;, on 118:
++D&Delta; (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL&Delta;),
+on 42: +CD&Delta;, 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:&mdash;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> &gamma;&rho;&alpha;&phi;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&nu;&upsilon;&nu; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota; &sigma;&phi;&alpha;&lambda;&mu;&alpha;.
+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, &amp;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,&mdash;'et &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; et &omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; aliena a Marco.' Tischendorf&mdash;'omnino
+e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum &omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,&mdash;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., &amp;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>&sect; 1.</h3>
+
+
+<p>There exist not a few corrupt Readings,&mdash;and they have
+imposed largely on many critics,&mdash;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,&mdash;whether in respect of grammatical
+form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to
+suffer grievously,&mdash;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 &Iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&alpha;&sigmaf; &Iota;&sigma;&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omega;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; 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;'&mdash;jealous doubtless for the honour of his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span>
+brother Apostle, 'Jude (&Iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&alpha;&sigmaf;) 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,&mdash;'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&mdash;in place of &Iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&alpha;&nu; &Sigma;&iota;&mu;&omega;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&Iota;&sigma;&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omega;&Tau;&Eta;&Nu; (in vi. 71) and &Iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&alpha; &Sigma;&iota;&mu;&omega;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Iota;&sigma;&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omega;&Tau;&Eta; (in
+xiii. 26)&mdash;a little handful of copies substitute on both
+occasions &Iota;&sigma;&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omega;&Tau;&Omicron;&Upsilon;. Need I go on? Nothing else has
+evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of
+some very early scribe, the &Iota;&sigma;&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omega;&Tau;&Eta;&Nu;, &Iota;&sigma;&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omega;&Tau;&Eta;, have
+been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding
+genitive &Sigma;&Iota;&mu;&omega;&Nu;&Omicron;&Sigma; ... So transparent a blunder would have
+scarcely deserved a passing remark at our hands had it
+been suffered to remain,&mdash;where such <i>b&ecirc;tises</i> are the rule
+and not the exception,&mdash;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>&sect; 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 &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&iota;: where some second
+or third century copyist (misled by the preceding genitive)
+in place of &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&Nu; writes &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&Upsilon;; 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> (&epsilon;&nu; &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&iota; &lambda;&iota;&theta;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;),' but on '<i>fleshy tables</i> of the heart
+(&epsilon;&nu; &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;).' 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 &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; (unknown to Tischendorf and
+the rest) be produced in detail:&mdash;</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>,&mdash;the Old Latin,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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>,&mdash;Didymus<a name="FNanchor_233_233" id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a>,&mdash;Basil<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a>,&mdash;Gregory
+Nyss.<a name="FNanchor_235_235" id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a>,&mdash;Marcus the Monk<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a>,&mdash;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>,&mdash;Nilus<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a>,&mdash;the Vulgate,&mdash;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>,&mdash;Isidorus<a name="FNanchor_240_240" id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a>,&mdash;Theodoret<a name="FNanchor_241_241" id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a>,&mdash;the
+Armenian&mdash;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>,&mdash;Ambrose<a name="FNanchor_245_245" id="FNanchor_245_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a>,&mdash;Optatus<a name="FNanchor_246_246" id="FNanchor_246_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a>,&mdash;Jerome<a name="FNanchor_247_247" id="FNanchor_247_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a>,&mdash;Tichonius<a name="FNanchor_248_248" id="FNanchor_248_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a>,&mdash;Augustine
+thirteen times<a name="FNanchor_249_249" id="FNanchor_249_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a>,&mdash;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&mdash;attracted by the two
+datives between which &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; 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>,' &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&Alpha;&Iota;&Sigma; &sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&nu;&Alpha;&Iota;&Sigma;. 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,&mdash;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>. &Kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; 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,&mdash;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 (&omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &epsilon;&nu; &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&iota; &lambda;&iota;&theta;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; ... &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &pi;&upsilon;&xi;&iota;&omega;).</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 &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf;
+&sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf;
+&sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &epsilon;&nu; &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&iota;
+&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &lambda;&iota;&theta;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; (sic), prints &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;.) <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 &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;, on the ground that in the
+course of their expository remarks they contrast &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&iota;
+&sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota; (or &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;&iota;) with &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&kappa;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &lambda;&iota;&theta;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;: as if it
+were not the word &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&iota; 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,&mdash;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:&mdash;the doubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads
+&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf;, the MSS. largely preponderate which read &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;
+in H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. &sect; 6. See Burton's ed. p.
+637):&mdash;Cyril in one place, as explained above:&mdash;and lastly, a quotation
+from Chrysostom on the Maccabees, given in Cramer's Catena, vii. 595
+(&epsilon;&nu; &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; &sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;), which reappears at the end of
+eight lines without the word &pi;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&iota;.</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.&mdash;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>&mdash;the omission
+of words and clauses and sentences,&mdash;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>&sect; 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;&mdash;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;&mdash;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;&mdash;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,&mdash;together with all the versions, except one Old
+Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two Armenian MSS. and an
+Arabic Lectionary,&mdash;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>;&mdash;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
+&Tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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&mdash;in
+Dr. Hort's expressive phrase&mdash;'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,&mdash;and this is the real source and ground of attestation,&mdash;they
+enjoy superior evidence from copies, generally
+beyond comparison with the opposing testimony, from
+Versions, and from Fathers.]</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 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,&mdash;in all ages,&mdash;in all countries,&mdash;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&mdash;the argument <i>e silentio</i>&mdash;has been effectually
+disposed of. A very different task&mdash;a far graver responsibility&mdash;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>&sect; 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 &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omega; is omitted
+from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers
+accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows:&mdash;&Epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;
+&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&nu; &sigma;&alpha;&beta;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&omega; &delta;&iota;&alpha;&pi;&omicron;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &delta;&iota;&alpha; &sigma;&pi;&omicron;&rho;&iota;&mu;&omega;&nu;.</p>
+
+<p>Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so
+very difficult and peculiar a word as this,&mdash;for indeed the
+expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,&mdash;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">&Tau;&Omicron; &Epsilon;&Nu; &Sigma;&Alpha;&Beta;&Beta;&Alpha;&Tau;&Omega;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Delta;&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Epsilon;&Rho;&Omicron;&Pi;&Rho;&Omega;&Tau;&Omega;<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>in order to see that the like ending (&Tau;&Omega;) 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 &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;. But I repeat,&mdash;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:&mdash;Not only am I of course
+willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely
+'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining
+&delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&mdash;&alpha;&pi;&omicron; &mu;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&sigma;&sigma;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&eta;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&mdash;'&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu;&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&phi;&epsilon;&rho;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&nu;&mdash;'&omicron;&tau;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&kappa;&lambda;&iota;&pi;&eta;&tau;&epsilon;&mdash;the 14th verse of
+St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter&mdash;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>&sect; 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:&mdash;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,&mdash;in
+the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,&mdash;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>,&mdash;ps.-Tatian<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a>&mdash;Aphraates<a name="FNanchor_268_268" id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a>,&mdash;Chrysostom<a name="FNanchor_269_269" id="FNanchor_269_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a>,&mdash;Cyril
+Alex.<a name="FNanchor_270_270" id="FNanchor_270_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a>,&mdash;the Opus Imperfectum<a name="FNanchor_271_271" id="FNanchor_271_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a>,&mdash;Jerome<a name="FNanchor_272_272" id="FNanchor_272_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_272_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a>,&mdash;Augustine<a name="FNanchor_273_273" id="FNanchor_273_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a>:&mdash;in
+Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]C&Theta;&Sigma;XZ&Delta;&Pi;EFG
+HKLMSUV,&mdash;in short, it is attested by every known
+Codex except two of bad character, viz.&mdash;D, 33; together
+with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.&mdash;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:&mdash;at
+least eight of the fourth:&mdash;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,&mdash;the verse is omitted by Origen
+and by Eusebius,&mdash;by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,&mdash;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,&mdash;why
+should not their quotation of it end at the same verse?
+But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we
+have seen,&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;and parallel to it in St. Mark
+vii. 6,&mdash;</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 (&epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota;
+'&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega; &sigma;&tau;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota; &mu;&epsilon; &tau;&iota;&mu;&alpha;), 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 ('&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&chi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota; &mu;&epsilon; &tau;&iota;&mu;&alpha;), 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:&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;
+&Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota; '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &sigma;&tau;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&chi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu; &tau;&iota;&mu;&omega;&sigma;&iota; &mu;&epsilon;.</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:&mdash;'&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota; &mu;&epsilon; &tau;&iota;&mu;&alpha;. So that
+six words (&epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota; and &tau;&omega; &sigma;&tau;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota;) are not
+recognized by them: in which peculiarity they are countenanced
+by DLT<sup>c</sup>, two cursive copies, and the following
+versions:&mdash;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:&mdash;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,&mdash;not so much as
+a 'proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which
+accord with ancient testimony';&mdash;for one instance cannot
+possibly prove that; and that is after all beside the real
+question;&mdash;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,&mdash;for it is well to know
+at the outset exactly what is required of us,&mdash;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:&mdash;</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 &epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota; '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Epsilon;&Nu; &tau;&omega;
+&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &Alpha;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Omicron;&Upsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Epsilon;&Nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &Alpha;&Upsilon;&Tau;&Omega;&Nu; &Tau;&Iota;&Mu;&Omega;&Sigma;&Iota; &mu;&epsilon;,&mdash;the
+Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no
+less than six particulars.</p>
+
+<p>2. Further,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;I discover in this place a minute illustration
+of the general fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas
+in St. Matthew it is invariably '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;, I observe that
+in the copies of St. Mark,&mdash;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,)&mdash;it is invariably &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf;. But now,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;&Epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota;
+'&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu; &tau;&iota;&mu;&omega;&sigma;&iota; &mu;&epsilon;: the words &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega;
+&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; 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 &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; and &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;, the result is without
+meaning. When once the complementary words have
+been withdrawn, &epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota; 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 (&sect; 3),
+professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah,
+exhibits it thus,&mdash;'&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota; &mu;&epsilon; &tau;&iota;&mu;&alpha;. 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 &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega;
+&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; 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 &epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&omicron;&iota;.</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 &Tau;&omega; &sigma;&tau;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota;, 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 '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;,&mdash;St. Mark's
+&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf;. And yet, when Clemens Romanus quotes Isaiah,
+he begins&mdash;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf;<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.&mdash;In all the
+extant uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive
+copy of the Gospels, the words &tau;&omega; &sigma;&tau;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; are
+found to belong to St. Matt. xv. 8. How is the presence of
+those words to be accounted for? The reply is obvious:&mdash;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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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>&sect; 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) &alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">(2) &epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&rho;&omega;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">(3) &kappa;&alpha;&lambda;&omega;&sigmaf; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &mu;&iota;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu;<a name="FNanchor_302_302" id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">(4) &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&alpha;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">(5) &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigma;<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">&alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;.<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and
+fourth clauses;)&mdash;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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;iii. 167; 1, 4&mdash;iv.
+619; 2, 4&mdash;v. 436; 4, 3&mdash;ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5&mdash;ii.
+258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4&mdash;iv. 267; 1, 3, 4, 5&mdash;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&mdash;2, 4, 5&mdash;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,)&mdash;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">&alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;,&mdash;<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,&mdash;doing good to those who hate,&mdash;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,&mdash;one longer, one
+briefer,&mdash;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&mdash;the conspicuous inadequacy
+of Patristic evidence by themselves,&mdash;have been made
+apparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations
+are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,&mdash;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,&mdash;concerning which he
+is so strangely communicative,&mdash;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,&mdash;Philo of Carpasus,
+I. 7,&mdash;Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. cxviii. 12. 51,
+and the two referred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote
+Origen, Cels. viii. 41,&mdash;Eusebius in Ps. iii.,&mdash;Apost. Const.
+vii. 4,&mdash;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:&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;'&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; ... &tau;&omega;&nu; &delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;
+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 '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho;&mdash;instead
+of the &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota; after [Symbol: Aleph]BL&Xi; in St. Luke&mdash;should be to
+our opponents a sign betraying the origin, though when it
+stands by itself&mdash;as in Eusebius, In Ps. iii.&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;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, ['&omicron;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;, 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">&Eta;&Gamma;&Alpha;&Rho;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Sigma;&Alpha;&Rho;&Xi;&Mu;&Omicron;&Upsilon;&Alpha;&Lambda;&Eta;&Theta;&Omega;&Sigma;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">[&Epsilon;&Sigma;&Tau;&Iota;&Beta;&Rho;&Omega;&Sigma;&Iota;&Sigma;&Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Tau;&Omicron;&Alpha;&Iota;&Mu;&Alpha;&Mu;&Omicron;&Upsilon;&Alpha;&Lambda;&Eta;&Theta;&Omega;&Sigma;]<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Sigma;&Tau;&Iota;&Pi;&Omicron;&Sigma;&Iota;&Sigma;<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three
+words, the sense of the context remains unimpaired,&mdash;the
+clause being of independent signification,&mdash;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 [&kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; (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">&Omicron;&Kappa;&Lambda;&Epsilon;&Pi;&Tau;&Eta;&Sigma;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Epsilon;&Rho;&Chi;&Epsilon;&Tau;&Alpha;&Iota; [&Epsilon;&Gamma;&Rho;&Eta;&Gamma;&Omicron;&Rho;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Eta;&Sigma;&Epsilon;&Nu;&Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota;] &Omicron;&Upsilon;&Kappa;&Alpha;&Nu;&Alpha;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&Phi;&Eta;&Kappa;&Epsilon;&Nu;<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 &epsilon;&gamma;&rho;&eta;&gamma;&omicron;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota;,&mdash;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,&mdash;to say nothing of the very strong evidence wherewith
+they are attested&mdash;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&mdash;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>
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron; &pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &lambda;&iota;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&theta;&lambda;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota;; &epsilon;&phi;' &omicron;&nu; &delta;' &alpha;&nu; &pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&eta;,
+&lambda;&iota;&kappa;&mu;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&iota;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;.</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.&mdash;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
+&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&gamma;&nu;&omega;&tau;&epsilon; (ver. 42: comp. Orig. ii. 794 c),
+and both exhibit the expression
+&epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &lambda;&iota;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; (ver. 44), not &epsilon;&pi;' &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &lambda;&iota;&theta;&omicron;&nu;.
+Vainly is it urged
+on the opposite side, that &pi;&alpha;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; belongs to St. Luke,&mdash;whereas
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron; &pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&nu; is the phrase found in St. Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672)
+writes &pi;&alpha;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &pi;&iota;&pi;&tau;&omega;&nu; 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]:&mdash;
+</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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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. &sect; 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,&mdash;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>
+&sect; xv:&mdash;on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently remarks,&mdash;'Hunc
+locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo laudatam, S. Marc.
+vii. 6, si pro &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; dedisset &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota;.'</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,&mdash;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> &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &mu;.</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.&mdash;It will perhaps facilitate
+the study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I subjoin a representation of
+the same words in Latin:&mdash;
+</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 &amp;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:&mdash;ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:&mdash;ii. 258: iii.
+41:&mdash;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> &sect; 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,&mdash;&epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; (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&mdash;but on one occasion, which it will be observed is <i>fatal</i> to his evidence
+(i. 768), he gives the second member thus,&mdash;iv. 353:
+</p><p>
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&alpha;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;..&middot;. 1. 4.
+</p><p>
+Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:&mdash;
+</p><p>
+&alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;, &epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&rho;&omega;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon;
+'&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&alpha;&zeta;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&alpha; '&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;..&middot;. 1, 2, 4.&mdash;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:.&middot;. 1, 2, 4.&mdash;3, 5.
+</p><p>
+&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &mu;&iota;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;,
+which roughly represents &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&rho;&omega;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon;
+'&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&alpha;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;.
+</p><p>
+The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &mu;&iota;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf;
+'&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i. 521), who (loosely
+enough) quotes the place thus,&mdash;
+</p><p>
+<i>Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt.</i>
+.&middot;. 1 (made up of 3, 4).&mdash;2, 5.
+</p><p>
+And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who writes:&mdash;ad
+Philipp. c. 12:&mdash;
+</p><p>
+<i>Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos.</i>.&middot;. 4, 5.&mdash;1, 2, 3.
+</p><p>
+I have examined [Didach&eacute;] <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:&mdash;
+</p><p>
+Didach&eacute;. &Epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&rho;&omega;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omega;&nu;
+'&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;, &nu;&eta;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;&upsilon;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; ... '&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon; &alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &mu;&iota;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf;
+'&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;..&middot;. 2, 3, 4, 5.
+</p><p>
+Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs:&mdash;Diligite inimicos vestros,
+benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt et persequuntur.
+</p><p>
+Eusebius Prae 654..&middot;. 2, 4, 5, omitting 1, 3.
+</p><p>
+Eusebius Ps 699..&middot;. 4, 5, omitting 1, 2, 3.
+</p><p>
+Eusebius Es 589..&middot;. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
+</p><p>
+Clemens Al. 605..&middot;. 1, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5.
+</p><p>
+Greg. Nyss. iii. 379..&middot;. 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2.
+</p><p>
+Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro
+persequentibus et calumniantibus vos..&middot;. 1, 3, 5, 4, omitting 2.
+</p><p>
+Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus
+vos ac persequentibus vos..&middot;. 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..&middot;. 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..&middot;. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
+</p><p>
+Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et orate pro maledicentibus
+vos&mdash;which apparently is meant for a quotation of 1, 2.
+.&middot;. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5.
+</p><p>
+Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et maledicentibus benedicite,
+et orate pro persecutoribus vestris&mdash;which is a quotation of 1, 2, 5.
+.&middot;. 1, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4.
+</p><p>
+Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur.
+.&middot;. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
+</p><p>
+Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici..&middot;. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5.
+</p><p>
+Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: orate
+pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos..&middot;. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
+</p><p>
+Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus et persequentibus
+vos..&middot;. 1, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3.
+</p><p>
+Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt: et orate
+pro eis qui vos persequuntur..&middot;. 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,&mdash;
+</p><p>
+&epsilon;&upsilon; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;,
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&alpha;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;.
+</p><p>
+Chrys. (iii. 355) says
+</p><p>
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu;, &epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omega;&nu; ['&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;]</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..&middot;. 1, 5.</p>
+<p>If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should probably find</p>
+<p>&alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;,
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &mu;&iota;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;:</p>
+<p>and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 12),</p>
+<p>&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &mu;&iota;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;.</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 = '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; ... &tau;&omega;&nu; &delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu;.
+</p><p>
+For&mdash;
+</p><p>
+Didache (&sect; 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? '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&chi;&theta;&rho;&omega;&nu; (=&delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu;?),
+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), '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; 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), '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; and in the middle of two quotations
+from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), 1, 4 (4) '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; 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, '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho; and ver. 45.
+</p><p>
+Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4
+(4), 5, '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota;.
+</p><p>
+Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2),
+4 (4), 5, '&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho;, 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, &epsilon;&theta;&nu;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&iota;.
+</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>&sect; 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,&mdash;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 &tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; for &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha;
+&tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha;,&mdash;or '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; for &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &lambda;&alpha;&omicron;&sigmaf;, 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&beta;&alpha;&pi;&tau;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;,&mdash;is
+unreasonably turned into &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&beta;&alpha;&pi;&tau;&iota;&zeta;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron;;
+whereby the meaning of the Evangelical record becomes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span>
+changed, for &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; is now made to agree with '&Iota;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&omicron;&lambda;&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&tau;&alpha;&iota;,
+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 BDL&Delta;.</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,&mdash;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 &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&lambda;&upsilon;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&nu; &phi;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;,&mdash;is changed by [Symbol: Aleph]BL into
+&phi;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&lambda;&upsilon;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;. 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 (&epsilon;&rho;&chi;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;), 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 (&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;<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 &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&lambda;&upsilon;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span>
+from &alpha;&iota;&rho;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&nu; which agrees with it, and transposed
+&phi;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; 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,&mdash;however valuable commercially and
+to be prized by learned and unlearned alike for their
+unique importance,&mdash;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,' &amp;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;'And if it bear fruit next year,&mdash;well: but if not,
+thou shalt cut it down':&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omega;&nu;, '&Omicron;&tau;&iota; &delta;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&nu; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&nu;
+&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&delta;&omicron;&theta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota;, 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,&mdash;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omega;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&nu; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon; '&omicron;&tau;&iota; &delta;&epsilon;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&delta;&omicron;&theta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota;,
+as [Symbol: Aleph]BCL,&mdash;and those four documents only&mdash;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>&sect; 3.</h3>
+
+<p>On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult&mdash;perhaps
+impossible&mdash;to determine, apart from external
+evidence, which collocation of two or more words is the
+true one, whether e.g. &epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; &zeta;&omega;&eta;&nu; for instance or
+&zeta;&omega;&eta;&nu; &epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota;<a name="FNanchor_341_341" id="FNanchor_341_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_341_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a>,&mdash;&eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&rho;&theta;&eta; &epsilon;&upsilon;&theta;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; or
+&epsilon;&upsilon;&theta;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; &eta;&gamma;&epsilon;&rho;&theta;&eta;<a name="FNanchor_342_342" id="FNanchor_342_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_342_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a>,&mdash;&chi;&omega;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, &tau;&upsilon;&phi;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;&mdash;or
+&tau;&upsilon;&phi;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, &chi;&omega;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;<a name="FNanchor_343_343" id="FNanchor_343_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_343_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a>,&mdash;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 &epsilon;&xi;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;<a name="FNanchor_344_344" id="FNanchor_344_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_344_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a>,
+presents us with &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &epsilon;&delta;&omega;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &epsilon;&xi;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;, 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 &epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&iota; &tau;&iota;&nu;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega;&nu; &omega;&delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&kappa;&omicron;&tau;&omega;&nu; exhibit
+&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon; &tau;&omega;&nu; &omega;&delta;&epsilon; &tau;&omega;&nu; '&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&kappa;&omicron;&tau;&omega;&nu;, 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,&mdash;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>&sect; 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 &Omicron;&Sigma; ('&omicron;&sigmaf;) for &Theta;&Sigma;
+(&Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf;)<a name="FNanchor_346_346" id="FNanchor_346_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_346_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a>
+&eta;&pi;&omicron;&rho;&epsilon;&iota; for &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota; (St. Mark vi. 20), or &omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &omicron;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &delta;&omicron;&kappa;&iota;&mu;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;
+for &delta;&omicron;&kappa;&iota;&mu;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; (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 '&alpha;&mu;&alpha;&rho;&tau;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; for &kappa;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; (St. Mark iii. 29)
+which the Revisers have adopted in compliance with [Symbol: Aleph]BL&Delta;
+and three Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads
+'&alpha;&mu;&alpha;&rho;&tau;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; 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 &kappa;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; is made
+up of A, C under the first reading and the second correction,
+&Phi;&Sigma; 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 &epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&chi;&omicron;&sigmaf;, and the natural
+meaning given by &kappa;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf;. '&alpha;&mu;&alpha;&rho;&tau;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; has clearly crept
+in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be
+found in the well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 (&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; '&eta;&lambda;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&epsilon;&kappa;&lambda;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;), St. Matt. xi. 27 (&beta;&omicron;&upsilon;&lambda;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&kappa;&alpha;&lambda;&upsilon;&psi;&alpha;&iota;), St. Matt.
+xxvii. 34 (&omicron;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&nu; for &omicron;&xi;&omicron;&sigmaf;), St. Mark i. 2 ('&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;&alpha; for
+&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&phi;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;),
+St. John i. 18 ('&omicron; &Mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; being a substitution
+made by heretics for '&omicron; &Mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;), St. Mark vii. 31
+(&delta;&iota;&alpha; &Sigma;&iota;&delta;&omega;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; for &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Sigma;&iota;&delta;&omega;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;). 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>&sect; 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&mdash;in
+a word, to invent happily&mdash;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):&mdash;</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>&sect; 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
+&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; '&omicron; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;, '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>)&Phi;&Sigma;
+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,' &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon; &delta;&omega;&delta;&epsilon;&kappa;&alpha;; but because
+[Symbol: Aleph]B&Delta; 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 A&Phi;&Sigma;
+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
+'&omicron; &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; 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 &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &phi;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&rho;&omega; 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 &epsilon;&nu; '&eta; '&omicron; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&rho;&chi;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota; seemed to him to
+be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in
+St. Matt. xxvii. 35, where the quotation ('&iota;&nu;&alpha; &pi;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&omega;&theta;&eta; ...
+&epsilon;&beta;&alpha;&lambda;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&omicron;&nu;) 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> &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; is transitive here, like &epsilon;&gamma;&gamma;&iota;&zeta;&omega;
+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:&mdash;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),&mdash;'<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:&mdash;</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 &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&nu;
+&tau;&omega; &Iota;&sigma;&rho;&alpha;&eta;&lambda; &tau;&omicron;&sigma;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&nu; &pi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; &epsilon;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu; (St. Matt. viii. 10), we are invited henceforth
+to read &pi;&alpha;&rho;' &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&sigma;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&nu; &pi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &Iota;&sigma;&rho;&alpha;&eta;&lambda; &epsilon;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu;;&mdash;a tame and
+tasteless gloss, witnessed to by only B, and five cursives,&mdash;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:&mdash;"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>&sect; 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 &nu;&epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; in St. Matt. x. 8 'a gloss.' It is
+a gratuitous and unwarrantable interpolation,&mdash;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;&mdash;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:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 36),
+requested our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> to 'explain' to them (&Phi;&Rho;&Alpha;&Sigma;&Omicron;&Nu; '&eta;&mu;&iota;&nu;,
+'they said') the parable of the tares. So every known copy,
+except two: so, all the Fathers who quote the place,&mdash;viz.
+Origen, five times<a name="FNanchor_355_355" id="FNanchor_355_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_355_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a>,&mdash;Basil<a name="FNanchor_356_356" id="FNanchor_356_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_356_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a>,&mdash;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 &phi;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;,
+exhibit &Delta;&Iota;&Alpha;&Sigma;&Alpha;&Phi;&Eta;&Sigma;&Omicron;&Nu; ('make clear to us'),&mdash;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],&mdash;Lachmann, Tregelles (not
+Tischendorf), Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers of
+1881, assume that &delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&phi;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&nu; (a palpable gloss) stood in
+the inspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore
+thrust out &phi;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&omicron;&nu; and thrust in &delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&phi;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;. 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. &Pi;&upsilon;&gamma;&mu;&eta;,&mdash;the obscure expression
+(&Delta; leaves it out) which St. Mark employs in vii. 3
+to denote the strenuous frequency of the Pharisees' ceremonial
+washings,&mdash;is exchanged by Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], but by no other
+known copy of the Gospels, for &pi;&upsilon;&kappa;&nu;&alpha;, which last word is
+of course nothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf
+degrades &pi;&upsilon;&gamma;&mu;&eta; and promotes &pi;&upsilon;&kappa;&nu;&alpha; to honour,&mdash;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&mdash;the
+only Fathers who quote the place&mdash;both read &pi;&upsilon;&gamma;&mu;&eta;.
+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>&sect; 2.</h3>
+
+<p>A gloss little suspected, which&mdash;not without a pang of
+regret&mdash;I proceed to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the
+expression 'daily' (&kappa;&alpha;&theta;' '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found
+in the Peshitto and in Cureton's Syriac,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta;' '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;
+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>,&mdash;ignores the word. All this is calculated to
+inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, &kappa;&alpha;&theta;' '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;
+enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions,&mdash;of the
+Gothic,&mdash;of the Armenian,&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; 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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; 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,&mdash;it
+is obvious to inquire,&mdash;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&mdash;'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,&mdash;persistently connect the same two
+places together; the last named Father even citing them in
+immediate succession;&mdash;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,&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&theta; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; 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>&sect; 3.</h3>
+
+<p>Indeed, a great many 'various readings,' so called, are
+nothing else but very ancient interpretations,&mdash;fabricated
+readings therefore,&mdash;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 &phi;&epsilon;&upsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota; for &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&chi;&omega;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu;
+in St. John vi. 15;&mdash;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 &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&chi;&omega;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu;.</p>
+
+<p>Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse
+might Tischendorf (with [Symbol: Aleph]) have substituted &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&delta;&epsilon;&iota;&kappa;&nu;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;
+for '&iota;&nu;&alpha; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;, 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, &zeta;&eta;&tau;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&delta;&epsilon;&iota;&xi;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &beta;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&alpha;. 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,&mdash;rather an interpretation,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,' &amp;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:&mdash;'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,&mdash;'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 &mu;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha; &sigma;&alpha;&lambda;&pi;&iota;&gamma;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&phi;&omega;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &mu;&epsilon;&gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&eta;&sigmaf; (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:&mdash;(<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
+&sigma;&alpha;&lambda;&pi;&iota;&gamma;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf; &mu;&epsilon;&gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&eta;&sigmaf;, the scribes at a very remote period
+are found to have omitted the word &phi;&omega;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;. The Peshitto
+and Lewis (interpreting rather than translating) so deal
+with the text. Accordingly, &phi;&omega;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; is not found in
+[Symbol: Aleph]L&Delta;
+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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; before
+&phi;&omega;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;. 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.&mdash;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>&sect; 4.</h3>
+
+<p>Recent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read
+in St. John xviii. 14 &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&theta;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; instead of &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota;:&mdash;'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 &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; in this place. The
+proper proof of the statement is the consentient voice of all
+the copies,&mdash;except about nineteen of loose character:&mdash;we
+know their vagaries but too well, and decline to let
+them impose upon us. In real fact, nothing else is &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&theta;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;
+but a critical assimilation of St. John xviii. 14 to xi. 50,&mdash;somewhat
+as 'die' in our A. V. has been retained by
+King James' translators, though they certainly had &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota;
+before them.</p>
+
+<p>Many of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such
+is the substitution (St. Mark vi. 11) of '&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf; &mu;&eta; &delta;&epsilon;&xi;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;
+'&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; by [Symbol: Aleph]BL&Delta; for '&omicron;&sigma;&omicron;&iota; &alpha;&nu; &mu;&eta; &delta;&epsilon;&xi;&omega;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&iota; '&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf;,&mdash;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 &mu;&eta;&delta;&epsilon; &alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;, 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]BL&Delta; (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 (&alpha;&mu;&eta;&nu; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omega; '&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu;, &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&kappa;&tau;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu;
+&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &Sigma;&omicron;&delta;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &eta; &Gamma;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&rho;&rho;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&nu; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf;, &eta; &tau;&eta; &pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;
+&epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&eta;). 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. &Sigma;&omicron;&delta;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &eta; &Gamma;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&rho;&rho;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;, in
+St. Mark: &gamma;&eta; &Sigma;&omicron;&delta;&omicron;&mu;&omega;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Gamma;&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&rho;&rho;&omega;&nu;, 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>&sect; 5.</h3>
+
+<p>The word &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; 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;&mdash;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;&mdash;He
+announces the arrival of 'the hour,' by exclaiming,
+&Alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota;,&mdash;'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 &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; 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. &tau;&omicron; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigma;<a name="FNanchor_399_399" id="FNanchor_399_399"></a><a href="#Footnote_399_399" class="fnanchor">[399]</a>. Other critics who
+rightly understood &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; to signify 'sufficit,' still subjoined
+'finis.' The Old Latin and the Syriac versions must have
+been executed from Greek copies which exhibited,&mdash;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;.
+This is abundantly proved by the
+renderings <i>adest finis</i> (f),&mdash;<i>consummatus est finis</i> (a); from
+which the change to &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota; '&eta; '&omega;&rho;&alpha; (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 &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+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
+'&iota;&nu;&alpha; &epsilon;&alpha;&nu; &tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; '&omicron;&mu;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&eta;&sigma;&eta;&iota; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&nu;. So all the MSS. but one,
+and so the Old Latin. So indeed all the ancient versions
+except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;: but &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;
+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 &tau;&omicron;&nu; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;. 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>&sect; 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,&mdash;(with the presentiment
+of true Love, she knew that it could not be
+very far distant),&mdash;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,&mdash;she could not in
+fact have known,&mdash;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:&mdash;'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 &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon; for
+&tau;&epsilon;&tau;&eta;&rho;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu;. 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 &Alpha;&phi;&epsilon;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&nu;; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&eta;&nu; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&phi;&iota;&alpha;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&epsilon;&tau;&eta;&rho;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;
+(St. John xii. 7), the copies which it has recently become
+the fashion to adore, read &alpha;&phi;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&nu; '&iota;&nu;&alpha; ... &tau;&eta;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&eta; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;.
+This startling innovation,&mdash;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>,&mdash;is accepted by recent Editors
+and some Critics: yet is it clearly nothing else but
+a stupid correction of the text,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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'
+(&pi;&rho;&omicron;&epsilon;&lambda;&alpha;&beta;&epsilon; &mu;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;, 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>&sect; 7.</h3>
+
+<p>Our <span class="smcap">Lord,</span> in His great Eucharistic address to the
+eternal <span class="smcap">Father</span>, thus speaks:&mdash;'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:&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota;. A more popular device was to substitute
+the participle (&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf;) for &epsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;: 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'&mdash;'in that He had finished'&mdash;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&mdash;'I glorified Thee on the earth, <i>having accomplished</i>
+(&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf;) 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>
+(&epsilon;&upsilon;&theta;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; &alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf;) what was being spoken, said to the ruler
+of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe.' (St. Mark
+v. 36.) For this, [Symbol: Aleph]BL&Delta; substitute 'disregarding
+(&pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf;)
+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 &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf; find
+favour with Teschendorf, Tregelles, and others.</p>
+
+
+<h3>&sect; 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,&mdash;&tau;&iota; &alpha;&pi;&alpha; &tau;&omicron; &pi;&alpha;&iota;&delta;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;
+&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&iota;, extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's
+record,&mdash;&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &eta;&nu; &mu;&epsilon;&tau;' &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;. To support this
+strange view, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; was altered into &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho;, and &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota; was
+substituted for &eta;&nu;. 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&mdash;'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
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; ... &eta;&nu;<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>&sect; 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' ('&omega;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon; &beta;&upsilon;&theta;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha;) requires some qualification.
+Accordingly C inserts &eta;&delta;&eta; (were 'just' sinking);
+and D, &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha; &tau;&iota; ('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, &beta;&upsilon;&theta;&iota;&zeta;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota;, 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 &Pi;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon; (or &Pi;&upsilon;&rho;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;) out
+of &Beta;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; (or &Beta;&epsilon;&rho;&rho;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;) 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' ('&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Beta;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;),&mdash;which
+confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with
+some <i>Beraean</i> that the gloss originated,&mdash;and what more
+likely?&mdash;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,&mdash;If St. Luke actually wrote
+&Sigma;&omega;&pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Pi;&upsilon;&rho;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon; &Beta;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;,
+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 &rho;'&eta;&sigma;&iota;&sigmaf; 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., &delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&phi;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; occurs, viz. St. Matt. xviii. 31, they render
+&delta;&iota;&epsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&phi;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; by [Syriac letters]&mdash;they made known.
+</p><p>
+Since &phi;&rho;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; 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 &phi;&rho;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;, e.g.
+</p>
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">of &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&lambda;&upsilon;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;, St. Mark iv. 34;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">of &delta;&iota;&epsilon;&rho;&mu;&eta;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;, St. Luke xxiv. 27;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">of &delta;&iota;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&iota;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;, 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, &phi;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;.</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 &sigma;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&alpha;&iota;&omega;&sigmaf;, St. Luke vii. 4; &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&mu;&epsilon;&lambda;&omega;&sigmaf;, 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>
+'&Omicron;&phi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&eta;, &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omega; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&theta;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;, &tau;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&kappa;&alpha;&theta;' '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&rho;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;, '&omega;&sigmaf; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&rho;&alpha;&pi;&tau;&alpha;&iota;; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;' &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu;, '&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&mu;&omega;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha; '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &delta;&iota;&alpha;
+&Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; &theta;&lambda;&iota;&psi;&iota;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&nu;, &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit,
+further on, he exhorts to constancy and patience,&mdash;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &theta;&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&nu;
+&epsilon;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&iota;&theta;&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; &pi;&rho;&omicron; &omicron;&phi;&theta;&alpha;&lambda;&mu;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&chi;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; (&kappa;&alpha;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&rho;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota; '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;)
+&kappa;&alpha;&theta;' '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&rho;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;, '&omicron; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota; &theta;&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; (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> &Alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&epsilon; &Lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&kappa;&alpha; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;,&mdash;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.)&mdash;the proof that these quotations are from St. Luke;
+that Cyril exhibits &alpha;&rho;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&omega; instead of &alpha;&pi;&alpha;&rho;&nu;.
+(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,&mdash;'aut juxta Lucam, <i>dicebat ad cunctos: Si
+quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat crucem suam, et sequetur
+me</i>.'&mdash;i. 852 c.
+</p><p>
+This is found in his solution of <i>XI Quaestiones</i>, 'ad Algasiam,'&mdash;free
+translations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines lower
+down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels),
+Jerome proceeds:&mdash;'<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,&mdash;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.)&mdash;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:&mdash;&Delta;&iota;&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &beta;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&iota;
+&pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;. &Delta;&iota;&eta;&nu;&epsilon;&kappa;&omega;&sigmaf; &gamma;&alpha;&rho;, &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;, &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&phi;&epsilon;&rho;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &theta;&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&theta; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; '&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&mu;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&epsilon;&sigma;&omicron; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &sigma;&phi;&alpha;&gamma;&eta;&nu; (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. xix.
+21,&mdash;&Delta;&epsilon;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&eta;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omega;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&theta;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &tau;&omega; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omega; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;, &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&rho; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&upsilon;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&alpha; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;,
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &sigma;&phi;&gamma;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota; '&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&mu;&omicron;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &theta;&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&nu;&iota;&nu; (p. 629 e):&mdash;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,&mdash;'<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>'&mdash;Commenting on St. Matt.
+x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome remarks,&mdash;'in alio Evangelio scribitur,&mdash;<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,&mdash;'It is enough'&mdash;(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.'&mdash;iii<sup>2</sup>. 106 a, b. The
+passage in question runs thus:&mdash;&Kappa;&alpha;&theta;&epsilon;&iota;&delta;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron; &lambda;&omicron;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&pi;&alpha;&upsilon;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon;. &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota;;
+&eta;&lambda;&theta;&epsilon;&nu; '&eta; '&omega;&rho;&alpha;; &iota;&delta;&omicron;&upsilon;, &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;.</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:&mdash;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota;, &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;, &pi;&epsilon;&pi;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&omega;&tau;&alpha;&iota;, &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;' &epsilon;&mu;&epsilon;.
+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, &amp;c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who seldom indeed
+misleads,&mdash;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> &alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&iota;. Vg. <i>sufficit</i>. + &tau;&omicron; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;,
+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,&mdash;(1) sometimes in the omission of words:
+&Delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&nu;. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as &pi;&upsilon;&gamma;&mu;&eta;&iota;.
+(3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus,
+&tau;&omicron; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;, 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
+'&omicron; &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, in order to prevent
+people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead; ver. 4,
+D gives the gloss, &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &Kappa;&alpha;&rho;&upsilon;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; for &Iota;&sigma;&kappa;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omega;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;;
+ver. 13, spells thus,&mdash;'&omega;&sigma;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&alpha;;
+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?&mdash;'Suffer her to have
+kept it against the day of My preparation unto burial' (M<sup>c</sup>Clellan). But '&iota;&nu;&alpha;
+&tau;&eta;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&eta; could hardly mean that: and the day of His &epsilon;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&phi;&iota;&alpha;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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,'
+&amp;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.&mdash;In the following places Cyril
+shews himself acquainted with the other reading,&mdash;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.&mdash;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: '&omega;&sigmaf; &kappa;&iota;&nu;&delta;&upsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha; &beta;&upsilon;&theta;&iota;&sigma;&theta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota;.</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,&mdash;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. &Beta;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;.</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>&sect; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;among the
+Versions: of the copies Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and above all,
+coming later down still, Cod. D:&mdash;these venerable monuments
+of a primitive age occasionally present us with
+deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate,&mdash;quite
+impossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes,&mdash;tasteless
+and stupid amplifications,&mdash;plain perversions of
+the meaning of the Evangelists,&mdash;wholly gratuitous assimilations
+of one Gospel to another,&mdash;the unprovoked omission
+of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of
+high doctrinal import:&mdash;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.&mdash;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,&mdash;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:&mdash;that
+they are never vouched for by the oldest documents
+generally, but only by a few of them,&mdash;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:&mdash;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:&mdash;what with those
+who like Marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the
+inspired text:&mdash;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,&mdash;'Lives
+of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>,' so to speak;&mdash;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,&mdash;the interesting fullness of another,&mdash;the
+plausibility of a thirds&mdash;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>&sect; 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;&mdash;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>,&mdash;to
+His Incarnation,&mdash;or to the circumstances of His Nativity,&mdash;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':&mdash;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:&mdash;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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;and that traces of
+these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles
+to the present hour,&mdash;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&mdash;as
+in St. Mark iii. 14 &omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &omega;&nu;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu;.</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,&mdash;such monstrous additions as are found in
+Cod. D,&mdash;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 &tau;&iota; &mu;&epsilon; &epsilon;&rho;&omega;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf;
+&pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&theta;&omicron;&upsilon;,<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>&sect; 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';&mdash;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,&mdash;'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,&mdash;'What
+was made in Him was life.'</p>
+
+<p>Of the change of &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&nu; into &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;<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.&mdash;The uncouth
+sentence which follows ('&omicron; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &zeta;&omega;&eta; &eta;&nu;), 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 Na&auml;seni<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);&mdash;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 '&omicron; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&nu;. A fresh sentence (he says)
+begins at &Epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &zeta;&omega;&eta; &eta;&nu;<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 &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&nu;,&mdash;as do the heretics. In order to
+make out that the <span class="smcap">Spirit</span> is a creature, they read '&omicron; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&nu;
+&epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &zeta;&omega;&eta; &eta;&nu;: 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,&mdash;a memorable indication,
+by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived
+their texts,&mdash;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>&sect; 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&mdash;'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,&mdash;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>:&mdash;&gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&omega;
+&tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&iota; '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;. 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,&mdash;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. &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&epsilon; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&omega;
+&tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;. 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>.&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;to the manifest injury of the deposit?
+'Many words about a trifle,'&mdash;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>&sect; 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">&eta; &gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&mdash;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">&eta; &gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&mdash;[Symbol: Aleph]BD&Delta;, abc, &amp;c.<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">St. Luke xviii. 29.<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">&eta; &gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">all allow it.<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>'&omicron;&tau;&alpha;&nu; &delta;&epsilon; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&eta;; '&omicron;&tau;&iota; "&pi;&alpha;&sigmaf; '&omicron;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&phi;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon; &gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;," &omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu;,
+'&omega;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon; &alpha;&pi;&lambda;&omega;&sigmaf; &delta;&iota;&alpha;&sigma;&pi;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &gamma;&alpha;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. Chrys. vii. 636 E.</p>
+
+<p>&Pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&delta;&epsilon;&iota;&gamma;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; (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 &delta;&epsilon;&iota;&gamma;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;
+and &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&delta;&epsilon;&iota;&gamma;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;; 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
+&pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&delta;&epsilon;&iota;&gamma;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; (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,&mdash;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,&mdash;'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> &psi;&epsilon;&upsilon;&delta;&omega;&nu;&upsilon;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &gamma;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; 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.'&mdash;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,&mdash;&tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha; &delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&iota;&rho;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omega;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &Omicron;&upsilon;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Beta;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&lambda;&iota;&delta;&omicron;&upsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;
+&Mu;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&omega;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;. &epsilon;&chi;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota; &tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&xi;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&theta;' '&epsilon;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;
+&epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&nu;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&omega;&iota;. 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,' &amp;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> '&eta;&rho;&alpha;&kappa;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu;, '&omicron; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &Omicron;&upsilon;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon; &sigma;&chi;&omicron;&lambda;&eta;&sigmaf; &delta;&omicron;&kappa;&iota;&mu;&omega;&tau;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;.
+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
+&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron; &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&nu;) the words &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &kappa;&omicron;&sigma;&mu;&omega;&iota;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta; &kappa;&tau;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&iota;.
+Heracleon clearly read
+'&omicron; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &zeta;&omega;&eta; &eta;&nu;. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for
+&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&iota;, he
+wrote &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&rho;&iota;&tau;&eta;. He also read (St. John iv. 18) (for &pi;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;),
+&epsilon;&xi; &alpha;&nu;&delta;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&chi;&epsilon;&sigmaf;.</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: &Mu;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&chi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&xi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron; &epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &omicron;&iota;&delta;&alpha;, '&eta; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;
+&Mu;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&iota;&omega;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &Omicron;&upsilon;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;, &omicron;&iota;&mu;&alpha;&iota; &delta;&epsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &Lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&kappa;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;. &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;
+&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&nu; &omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; &epsilon;&gamma;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&mu;&alpha;, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha; &tau;&omega;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&lambda;&mu;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&rho;&alpha;&delta;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&gamma;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&alpha;
+&epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;. 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>
+&Omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon; &delta;&eta;&mu;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &kappa;&omicron;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; ...
+&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &mu;&epsilon;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&delta;&epsilon;&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; ... &alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &delta;&eta; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omega;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &omicron;&upsilon;&kappa;
+&alpha;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. p. 217. Heracleon saw in the nobleman
+of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who, &beta;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&lambda;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omega;&nu;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&eta; '&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&iota;&kappa;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &beta;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; &kappa;&alpha;&theta;&omicron;&lambda;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon; &beta;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; &tau;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&gamma;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &mu;&iota;&kappa;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &beta;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf;, 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>
+&Omicron; &Iota;&omega;&alpha;&nu;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; ... &beta;&omicron;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &tau;&eta;&nu; &tau;&omega;&nu; '&omicron;&lambda;&omega;&nu; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&theta;' &eta;&nu; &tau;&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha;
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&epsilon;&beta;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&nu; '&omicron; &Pi;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&rho;, &alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;&nu; &tau;&iota;&nu;&alpha; '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron;&tau;&iota;&theta;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota;, &tau;&omicron; &pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&nu; '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;, '&omicron;&nu;
+&delta;&eta; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &Mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&epsilon;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu;, &epsilon;&nu; '&omega; &tau;&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; '&omicron; &Pi;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&rho; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&epsilon;&beta;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;
+&sigma;&pi;&epsilon;&rho;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omega;&sigmaf;. '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&beta;&epsilon;&beta;&lambda;&eta;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &tau;&eta;&nu;
+'&omicron;&lambda;&eta;&nu; &tau;&omega;&nu; &Alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&omega;&nu; &omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&alpha;&nu;, &eta;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&omicron;&rho;&phi;&omega;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu; '&omicron; &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;.... &Pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &delta;&iota;'
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &chi;&omega;&rho;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron; &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&nu;; &pi;&alpha;&sigma;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &mu;&epsilon;&tau;' &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &Alpha;&iota;&omega;&sigma;&iota;
+&mu;&omicron;&rho;&phi;&eta;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&sigma;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; &alpha;&iota;&tau;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;.</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>
+&Epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &Pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&eta; &alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;. &Kappa;&alpha;&lambda;&omega;&sigmaf;
+&omicron;&upsilon;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu;; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta; &eta;&nu; '&omicron; &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;; &eta;&nu; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; '&upsilon;&iota;&omega;. &Kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron; &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf; &eta;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu;
+&Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; '&eta; '&Alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &eta;&nu; '&omicron; &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf;. &Tau;&omicron; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &epsilon;&kappa; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&nu;
+&Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu;.&mdash;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 &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&nu; (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273, 769, 787, 803, 812,
+815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838) he has &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;. Cyril,
+while writing his treatise De Trinitate, read &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu; in his copy. Eusebius,
+for example, has &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&nu;, fifteen times; &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;
+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:
+&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&nu;, '&omicron; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&nu;. &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &zeta;&omega;&eta; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu;. &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &delta;&epsilon;, &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu;, '&eta; &Epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&nu;,
+'&eta; &Epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha; &zeta;&omega;&eta;. 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>
+&Alpha;&nu;&alpha;&gamma;&kappa;&alpha;&iota;&omega;&sigmaf; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu;, "'&omicron; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&nu;, &epsilon;&nu;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &zeta;&omega;&eta; &eta;&nu;." &omicron;&upsilon; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&nu; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;, "&delta;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&tau;&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;," &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&iota; &tau;&iota; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;&nu; &eta;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; '&eta; &zeta;&omega;&eta;. &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;' &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu;, '&omicron;
+&mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;, '&eta; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; &alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&sigmaf; '&omicron;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&omega;&nu; &tau;&epsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&omicron;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&omega;&nu; ... &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&gamma;&alpha;&rho; '&upsilon;&pi;&alpha;&rho;&chi;&omega;&nu; '&eta; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &phi;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &zeta;&omega;&eta;, &tau;&omicron; &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &zeta;&eta;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&iota;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&lambda;&upsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&pi;&omega;&sigmaf;
+&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota; &chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota;. Opp. iv. 49 e.
+</p><p>
+He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the &Lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;, that, &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha;
+&delta;&iota;' &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &eta;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; '&omega;&sigmaf; &zeta;&omega;&eta;. 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>
+&Omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota; &delta;&epsilon; &beta;&omicron;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&tau;&iota;&sigma;&mu;&alpha; &kappa;&tau;&iota;&sigma;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;. &phi;&alpha;&sigma;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho;, '&omicron;&tau;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron; &delta;&iota;'
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &chi;&omega;&rho;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&tau;&omicron; &omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&epsilon; '&epsilon;&nu;. &alpha;&rho;&alpha;, &phi;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &Pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha; &epsilon;&kappa; &tau;&omega;&nu;
+&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&pi;&alpha;&rho;&chi;&epsilon;&iota;, &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&iota;&delta;&eta; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &delta;&iota;' &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&epsilon;. 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], &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&epsilon;&gamma;&nu;&omega; &mu;&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&omicron;&nu; '&eta;
+&epsilon;&gamma;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&theta;&eta; &pi;&alpha;&rho;' '&eta;&mu;&omega;&nu;.</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:&mdash;'&iota;&nu;&alpha; &mu;&eta; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &gamma;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&epsilon;&omega;&sigmaf; &iota;&sigma;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&nu;
+&mu;&epsilon;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&nu; &nu;&omicron;&mu;&iota;&sigma;&eta;&iota;&sigmaf;, &alpha;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&omega;&sigmaf; &delta;&iota;&omicron;&rho;&theta;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &tau;&eta;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&alpha;&gamma;&omega;&gamma;&eta;&iota;; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&omega; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;,
+&phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&iota; '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu;. &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &iota;&sigma;&eta; '&eta; &gamma;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&sigmaf;, &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. 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> &Phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota; &delta;&epsilon; '&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Mu;&alpha;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; ... &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&epsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&omega;
+&tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;. (Epiphan. i.
+697.)&mdash;Again,&mdash;'&eta;&rho;&pi;&alpha;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu; '&omicron; '&alpha;&iota;&rho;&epsilon;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&eta;&nu; &iota;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&upsilon;&eta;&nu;
+&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &beta;&lambda;&alpha;&sigma;&phi;&eta;&mu;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf;. &iota;&delta;&omicron;&upsilon;, &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu;, &epsilon;&iota;&rho;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;; '&omicron;&tau;&iota; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&alpha;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota; (lower down,
+&gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;) &mu;&epsilon; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&omega; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;. (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>
+&Epsilon;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&xi;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&eta; &omicron;&iota;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&epsilon;&pi;&omega;&delta;&epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&tau;&eta; &tau;&omega;&nu; &pi;&rho;&alpha;&gamma;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&kappa;&alpha;&sigma;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&iota;&theta;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;. &omicron;&upsilon; &gamma;&alpha;&rho;
+&epsilon;&phi;&eta;, &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota; &mu;&epsilon; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&iota;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&kappa;&omega; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&mu;&alpha;, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' '&epsilon;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&gamma;&nu;&omega;&kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&nu;
+&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&phi;&epsilon;&rho;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&alpha; &iota;&delta;&iota;&alpha; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;, &epsilon;&iota;&theta;' &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf; &gamma;&nu;&omega;&sigma;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&rho; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu; ... &omicron;&upsilon;&chi; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&gamma;&nu;&omega;&kappa;&alpha;&mu;&epsilon;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&iota;, &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&gamma;&nu;&omega; &delta;&epsilon; '&eta;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; ... &omicron;&upsilon;&chi; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &eta;&rho;&xi;&alpha;&mu;&epsilon;&theta;&alpha;
+&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&rho;&alpha;&gamma;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' '&omicron; &epsilon;&kappa; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;.&mdash;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,&mdash;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:&mdash;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&mdash;&tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &gamma;&alpha;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&nu;&alpha;&nu; &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Sigma;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&nu;&alpha; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;. 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>&sect; 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,'&mdash;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,&mdash;'In the uncorrected copies (&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&delta;&iota;&omicron;&rho;&theta;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota;&gamma;&rho;&alpha;&phi;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;) 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 &delta;&iota;&omicron;&rho;&theta;&omega;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;.</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,&mdash;viz. in
+chap. i. 80,&mdash;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,'&mdash;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>' (&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf;), 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 &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; 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 &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;,
+Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump
+to the conclusion that &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; 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,&mdash;how then is it
+supposed that the word (&pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;) 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 &epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;
+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],&mdash;the sixth century Cod. D,&mdash;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:&mdash;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:&mdash;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:&mdash;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>&sect; 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>,'&mdash;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,&mdash;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,' &amp;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,&mdash;'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>,' &amp;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,&mdash;derived, let it
+be remembered, from documents which carry us back to
+the former half of the second century,&mdash;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 '&omicron; [?]
+&mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;: once, '&omicron; [?] &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf;:
+once, '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;<a name="FNanchor_514_514" id="FNanchor_514_514"></a><a href="#Footnote_514_514" class="fnanchor">[514]</a>:
+Clemens Alex., '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf;<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 '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;<a name="FNanchor_517_517" id="FNanchor_517_517"></a><a href="#Footnote_517_517" class="fnanchor">[517]</a>:
+twice, &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf;<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 '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf;<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 '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;<a name="FNanchor_526_526" id="FNanchor_526_526"></a><a href="#Footnote_526_526" class="fnanchor">[526]</a>. Didymus has only [? cp. context] '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf;,&mdash;for
+which he once writes '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&sigmaf;<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 '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&sigma;<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 &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; (<i>ap.</i> Epiph.
+73&mdash;Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;. 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>&sect; 3.</h3>
+
+<p>All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv.
+47:&mdash;'&omicron; &pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&kappa; &gamma;&eta;&sigmaf; &chi;&omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf;; '&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron;
+&Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;. 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,&mdash;'The first man
+[was] of the earth, earthy: '&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;<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 &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf; in ver. 47, that, early in
+the second century, the orthodox retaining &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf;,
+judged it expedient to leave out the expression '&omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;,
+which had been so unfairly pressed against them; and
+were contented to read,&mdash;'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,'&mdash;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:&mdash;(1)
+The inspired language of the Apostle, cited at the outset,&mdash;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;&mdash;'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;: 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 '&omicron; &pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf;, St. Paul had
+set '&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf;: against &epsilon;&kappa; &gamma;&eta;&sigmaf;&mdash;&epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;: against
+&chi;&omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf;&mdash;'&omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;. Remove '&omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;, and some substitute for it
+must be invented as a counterpoise to &chi;&omicron;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigmaf;. Taking a hint
+from what is found in ver. 48, some one (plausibly enough,)
+suggested &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;: 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,&mdash;which because it has well-nigh
+disappeared from Greek MSS., no longer finds an
+advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two
+former:&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;shall '&omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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.'&mdash;In this very verse, C is for introducing
+&Alpha;&delta;&alpha;&mu; into the first clause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining
+'&omicron; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;. 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,&mdash;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:&mdash;(<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:&mdash;(<i>c</i>) That the first mention
+of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:&mdash;(<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:&mdash;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>&sect; 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,&mdash;'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 ('&omicron; &omega;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omega;);
+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 '&omicron; &omega;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omega; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omega;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;the whole body
+of the uncials, four only excepted ([Symbol: Aleph]BLT<sup>b</sup>), and every
+known cursive but one (33)&mdash;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>&sect; 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:&mdash;'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 ('&omega;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&eta;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;), 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.&mdash;The second clause (&kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu;, &Omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &omicron;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; '&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon; '&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;) he obelized as
+probably not genuine:&mdash;the third ('&omicron; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &eta;&lambda;&theta;&epsilon; &psi;&upsilon;&chi;&alpha;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omega;&nu; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha; &sigma;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;) 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.&mdash;&Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&epsilon;,
+&theta;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&omega;&mu;&epsilon;&nu; &pi;&upsilon;&rho; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&beta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&lambda;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;; &sigma;&tau;&rho;&alpha;&phi;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&tau;&iota;&mu;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;. &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;
+&delta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; '&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu; &kappa;&omega;&mu;&eta;&nu;.</p>
+
+<p>Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd.
+[Symbol: Aleph]BL&Xi; 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 &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu;, &Omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &omicron;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; '&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;
+'&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;, is the discovery that these words are absent from
+many uncial MSS.,&mdash;[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,&mdash;(only six out of the twenty which Scrivener has
+collated being without them,)&mdash;and it is plain that at least
+five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The third clause ('&omicron; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon; &omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &eta;&lambda;&theta;&epsilon;
+&psi;&upsilon;&chi;&alpha;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omega;&nu; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha; &sigma;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;) rests on precisely the
+same solid evidence as the second; except that the testimony
+of Clemens is no longer available,&mdash;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,&mdash;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&epsilon; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; '&omicron; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&zeta;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota;<a name="FNanchor_566_566" id="FNanchor_566_566"></a><a href="#Footnote_566_566" class="fnanchor">[566]</a> &sigma;&omega;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&omega;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;.</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, '&omega;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Eta;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu;: 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 L&Xi; 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:&mdash;</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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;'&omega;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Eta;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;; &sigma;&tau;&rho;&alpha;&phi;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&tau;&iota;&mu;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;. &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; '&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&pi;&alpha;&nu; &kappa;&omega;&mu;&eta;&nu;<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:&mdash;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> &Pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &delta;&omicron;&kappa;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&epsilon;&phi;&eta;&nu;&epsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf;.</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> &Tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &pi;&alpha;&iota;&delta;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &eta;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;.</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,&mdash;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),&mdash;"&Tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &pi;&alpha;&iota;&delta;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &eta;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &Pi;&Nu;&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Mu;&Alpha;&Tau;&Iota;, &pi;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&nu; &Sigma;&Omicron;&Phi;&Iota;&Alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Chi;&Alpha;&Rho;&Iota;&Tau;&Iota;." &kappa;&alpha;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;
+&phi;&upsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; '&omega;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&xi; &iota;&delta;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&omega;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &delta;&iota;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &alpha;&gamma;&iota;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&alpha;
+&Pi;&Nu;&Epsilon;&Upsilon;&Mu;&Alpha;&Tau;&Iota;&Kappa;&Alpha;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; &eta; &Sigma;&Omicron;&Phi;&Iota;&Alpha;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &Chi;&Alpha;&Rho;&Iota;&Tau;&Omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &delta;&omicron;&tau;&eta;&rho;,&mdash;it is clear
+that &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; 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:&mdash;'&omicron; &Epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&psi;&eta; "&eta;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;" &Kappa;&Alpha;&Iota; &Tau;&Alpha; &Epsilon;&Xi;&Eta;&Sigma;. Surely this constitutes no ground for supposing
+that he did not recognize the word &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;, 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 &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; must be suspected of being an unauthorized addition to the
+text of Cyril's treatise, De Rect&acirc; 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> &Epsilon;&iota; &tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &pi;&omega;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;,
+&tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &pi;&alpha;&iota;&delta;&iota;&omicron;&nu;
+&Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &eta;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;;&mdash;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.&mdash;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> '&eta;&nu; &eta;&kappa;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;. 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 &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;.</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 &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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.&mdash;Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen with
+this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, &omicron;&nu; &delta;&eta; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &Mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;
+&kappa;&epsilon;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu;.</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.'&mdash;(Comp. Tertullian:&mdash;'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,&mdash;&tau;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&pi;&tau;&epsilon;&upsilon;&sigma;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&Pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, '&omicron;&nu; '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&xi;&eta;&gamma;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&tau;&omicron; (956), and in the Excerpt.
+Theod. we find &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &Pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&xi;&eta;&gamma;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&tau;&omicron; '&omicron; &Sigma;&omega;&tau;&eta;&rho; (969). But
+this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> is often spoken
+of by the Fathers as '&eta; &delta;&epsilon;&xi;&iota;&alpha; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; '&upsilon;&psi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; ... &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;&xi;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &Pi;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&rho;.
+(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 (&mdash;'&omicron;): 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
+(&Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;, '&omicron; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&omega;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Iota;&omega;&alpha;&nu;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;). Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506:
+always &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;. 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:&mdash;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omega;&nu; '&omicron;
+&mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;, &epsilon;&nu; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &omega;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &tau;&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&eta;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&tau;&omicron; &tau;&eta;&nu;
+&epsilon;&xi;&eta;&gamma;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu;. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John &kappa;&alpha;&iota; "&mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta; &theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;"
+&alpha;&pi;&omicron;&kappa;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&nu; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&nu;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; "&epsilon;&nu; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&sigma;" &epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;. But on p. 107
+he speaks quite plainly: "'&omicron; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigmaf;," &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;, "&Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf;, '&omicron; &omega;&nu; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&xi;&eta;&gamma;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;." &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&iota;&delta;&eta; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &epsilon;&phi;&eta; "&mu;&omicron;&nu;&omicron;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;" &kappa;&alpha;&iota; "&Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;," &tau;&iota;&theta;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu;
+&epsilon;&upsilon;&theta;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, "'&omicron; &omega;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&alpha;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;."&mdash;So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads
+'&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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, &amp;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:&mdash;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:&mdash;'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 '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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, &amp;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> &Epsilon;&pi;&iota;&pi;&eta;&delta;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&nu; '&eta;&mu;&iota;&nu; '&omicron;&iota; '&alpha;&iota;&rho;&epsilon;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&iota; &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;;
+&iota;&delta;&omicron;&upsilon; &omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&lambda;&alpha;&beta;&epsilon; &sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&alpha; '&omicron; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;; '&omicron;
+&delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;. &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;. '&omicron; &kappa;. &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;. 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> &Tau;&eta;&nu; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &sigma;&alpha;&rho;&kappa;&alpha; &gamma;&eta;&nu;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;
+&alpha;&nu;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &beta;&omicron;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota;, &epsilon;&nu;&eta;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha;&xi;&alpha;&nu; &tau;&omicron;,
+'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf;; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;, '&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;. Dial. [<i>ap.</i> Orig.]
+i. 868.&mdash;Marcion
+had in fact already substituted &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; for &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf; in ver. 45:
+('<i>the
+last Lord</i> became a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. ii. 304]&mdash;a fabricated reading
+which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's
+followers:&mdash;'&omicron; &epsilon;&sigma;&chi;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &pi;&nu;. &zeta;&omega;. Dial. <i>ubi supra</i>.
+&epsilon;&delta;&epsilon;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, &epsilon;&iota; &gamma;&epsilon; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&nu;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; &epsilon;&tau;&iota;&mu;&omega;&nu;,
+&mu;&eta; &pi;&epsilon;&rho;&iota;&tau;&epsilon;&mu;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;, &mu;&eta; &mu;&epsilon;&rho;&eta; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&xi;&upsilon;&phi;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;, &mu;&eta; '&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&theta;&eta;&nu;&alpha;&iota;, &mu;&eta;&tau;&epsilon; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omega;, &mu;&eta;&tau;&epsilon; &iota;&delta;&iota;&alpha; &gamma;&nu;&omega;&mu;&eta; &tau;&alpha; &epsilon;&upsilon;&alpha;&gamma;&gamma;&epsilon;&lambda;&iota;&alpha; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&gamma;&rho;&alpha;&phi;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;....
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&gamma;&epsilon;&gamma;&rho;&alpha;&phi;&eta;&kappa;&alpha;&sigma;&iota; &gamma;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu; '&omicron;&sigma;&alpha; &beta;&epsilon;&beta;&omicron;&upsilon;&lambda;&eta;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&iota;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&xi;&upsilon;&phi;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron; '&omicron;&sigma;&alpha; &kappa;&epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;. 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, ('&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;).</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>
+&Tau;&omicron; &delta;&epsilon; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu; &chi;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&pi;&omega;&tau;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&alpha;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf; &sigma;&upsilon;&mu;&phi;&omicron;&rho;&alpha;&iota;&sigmaf;,
+'&eta; &tau;&omega;&nu; '&Alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&alpha;. 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,&mdash;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>, &amp;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
+'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;. &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;. &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;.</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 &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;. he reads &Alpha;&delta;&alpha;&mu;), 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,'&mdash;<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:&mdash;&omicron;&upsilon;&chi; '&omicron;&tau;&iota; '&omicron; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &eta;&tau;&omicron;&iota; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&lambda;&eta;&mu;&mu;&alpha;, &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon; &eta;&nu;,
+'&omega;&sigmaf; '&omicron; &alpha;&phi;&rho;&omega;&nu; &Alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&lambda;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&iota;.</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.&mdash;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:&mdash;ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:&mdash;ed. Galland. ii. 483.)&mdash;Neither may the
+expression &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon; 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>.&mdash;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).&mdash;Pacianus (ib. 275).&mdash;Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).&mdash;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,&mdash;'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;. '&omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&xi;
+&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;:&mdash;on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he),
+&iota;&delta;&omicron;&upsilon; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &alpha;&mu;&phi;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omega;&theta;&epsilon;&nu; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&sigmaf; &omicron;&nu;&omicron;&mu;&alpha;&zeta;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota;. And lower
+down,&mdash;&Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &delta;&iota;&alpha; &tau;&eta;&nu; &mu;&iota;&alpha;&nu; '&upsilon;&pi;&omicron;&sigma;&tau;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&nu;; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;. &mu;&epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;., &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;
+&tau;&eta;&nu; '&epsilon;&nu;&omega;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&nu; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&tau;&eta;&tau;&alpha;. &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon; &delta;&epsilon;, &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&eta;&nu; &theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&tau;&eta;&tau;&alpha;.&mdash;P.
+448,&mdash;'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;. &epsilon;&xi; &omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;.&mdash;<i>Ap.</i>
+Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland. v. 167),&mdash;'&omicron; &delta;&epsilon;&upsilon;&tau;. &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;. &epsilon;&xi;
+&omicron;&upsilon;&rho;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;.&mdash;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:&mdash;'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],&mdash;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:&mdash;&epsilon;&iota;&delta;&epsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; &chi;&rho;&eta;, '&omicron;&tau;&iota; '&omega;&sigmaf; &mu;&eta;&pi;&omega; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &nu;&epsilon;&alpha;&sigmaf; &kappa;&epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&kappa;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;
+&chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &alpha;&lambda;&lambda;' &epsilon;&tau;&iota; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&chi;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&eta;&theta;&epsilon;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf;, &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu;, &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &Eta;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;&nu;
+&alpha;&phi;&omicron;&rho;&omega;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&upsilon;&rho;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&phi;&lambda;&epsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &delta;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &pi;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&eta;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &eta;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;, (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 &zeta;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; 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,&mdash;'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,&mdash;'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': &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota;&theta;&epsilon;&sigma;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omega;&nu; &lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&iota;&omega;&nu; &chi;&omega;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&omega;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;. 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 '&omega;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &Eta;. &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon; cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolatori
+debentur quae verba &sigma;&tau;&rho;. &delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&tau;&iota;. &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf; excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod
+testium additamentum '&omicron; &gamma;&alpha;&rho; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &amp;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.&mdash;Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, <i>et imitari
+Eliam</i>, &amp;c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum <i>venerat</i>, sed <i>ad salvandum</i>, &amp;c.
+... increpat eos <i>quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae</i>,
+&amp;c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)
+</p><p>
+Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.&mdash;'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum
+perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. <span class="smcap">A.D.</span> 253.
+</p><p>
+Tatian.&mdash;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,&mdash;x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.
+</p><p>
+&Kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron; &Kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&nu; &pi;&upsilon;&rho;&iota; &kappa;&omicron;&lambda;&alpha;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &mu;&eta; &delta;&epsilon;&xi;&alpha;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &Eta;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;&nu;; &Omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &omicron;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &phi;&eta;&sigma;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;. (p. 1019.)
+</p><p>
+Theodoret, iii. 1119. (&pi;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;.)
+</p><p>
+Epiph. ii. 31. ('&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;.)
+</p><p>
+Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.
+</p><p>
+Augustine.&mdash;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.&mdash;&Mu;&eta;&pi;&omega; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &nu;&epsilon;&alpha;&sigmaf; &kappa;&epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&kappa;&omicron;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; ... &tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&omicron;&nu;, &tau;&omicron;&nu; &Eta;&lambda;&iota;&alpha;&nu;
+&alpha;&phi;&omicron;&rho;&omega;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&upsilon;&rho;&iota; &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017.&mdash;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.&mdash;&Omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &omicron;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon; &omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; '&omicron; '&upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&nu;&theta;&rho;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon;. 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,'&mdash;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&mdash;as many consecutive Verses in the
+fourth&mdash;are in this predicament. It is singular, I say,
+that the Providence which has watched so marvellously
+over the fortunes of the Deposit,&mdash;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,&mdash;trials of human
+faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features
+of correspondence, but far more of contrast,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;Shall these Twelve Verses
+be admitted&mdash;or, Must they be refused admission&mdash;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&mdash;as far as is known&mdash;- when they
+were not <i>where</i>,&mdash;and to all intents and purposes <i>what</i>&mdash;they
+now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary
+method of proof,&mdash;no merely common argument,&mdash;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&mdash;as related
+in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel&mdash;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&mdash;to speak without a figure&mdash;is a connected
+and very striking portion of the sacred narrative:&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;contending, as I do,
+that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine
+Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its
+lawful context,&mdash;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&mdash;(<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,&mdash;'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,&mdash;the time, the place, His
+own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness
+and love,&mdash;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&mdash;'<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,&mdash;His own
+visible emblem and image in the Heavens?... I protest
+that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery,'&mdash;so
+introduced, so dismissed,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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'&mdash;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' (&tau;&omicron; '&upsilon;&delta;&omega;&rho; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon;) as it is six times
+called, which <i>they</i> had been compelled to drink; whereupon,
+'convicted (&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&chi;&omicron;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&iota;) 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,&mdash;when He made the floor of the sanctuary His
+'book.'</p>
+
+<p>Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition&mdash;and
+I am not concerned to defend it in every detail,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;'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,&mdash;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 &lambda;&iota;&theta;&omicron;&nu; 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,'&mdash;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,&mdash;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';&mdash;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&mdash;like countless other
+places&mdash;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:&mdash;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:&mdash;On
+a review of the whole of the evidence,&mdash;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:&mdash;such is the imperative strength of the evidence.</p>
+
+<p>To begin then. Tischendorf&mdash;(who may be taken as
+a fair sample of the assailants of this passage)&mdash;commences
+by stating roundly that the Pericope is omitted
+by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCLTX&Delta;, 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)&mdash;'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,&mdash;(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>,)&mdash;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 &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;&beta;&alpha;&iota;&nu;&omega;&nu; in vi. 50 to the word &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;with
+a 'certissimum,'&mdash;as Tischendorf does.</p>
+
+<p>As for L and &Delta;, they exhibit a vacant space after
+St. John vii. 52,&mdash;which testifies to the consciousness of
+the copyists that they were leaving out something. These
+are therefore witnesses <i>for</i>,&mdash;not witnesses <i>against</i>,&mdash;the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span>
+passage under discussion.&mdash;X being a Commentary on
+the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the
+passage out.&mdash;The only uncial MSS. therefore which <i>simply</i>
+leave out the pericope, are the three following&mdash;[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:&mdash;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:&mdash;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.&mdash;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.&mdash;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.&mdash;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),&mdash;by Faustus<a name="FNanchor_599_599" id="FNanchor_599_599"></a><a href="#Footnote_599_599" class="fnanchor">[599]</a> the
+African (400),&mdash;by Rufinus<a name="FNanchor_600_600" id="FNanchor_600_600"></a><a href="#Footnote_600_600" class="fnanchor">[600]</a> at Aquileia (400),&mdash;by Chrysologus<a name="FNanchor_601_601" id="FNanchor_601_601"></a><a href="#Footnote_601_601" class="fnanchor">[601]</a>
+at Ravenna (433),&mdash;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),&mdash;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,&mdash;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),&mdash;by Cassiodorus<a name="FNanchor_606_606" id="FNanchor_606_606"></a><a href="#Footnote_606_606" class="fnanchor">[606]</a> in Southern Italy,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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),&mdash;the
+Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century),&mdash;the
+Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century),&mdash;to say
+nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which
+are of later date,&mdash;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 &alpha;&nu;&alpha;&mu;&alpha;&rho;&tau;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf; in the Greek: and lets fall an
+exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with
+copies which exhibited (in ver. 8) &epsilon;&gamma;&rho;&alpha;&phi;&alpha;&nu; &epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&kappa;&alpha;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;
+&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &alpha;&mu;&alpha;&rho;&tau;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf;,&mdash;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&mdash;let me ask in passing&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;rather exercise
+such a tyranny&mdash;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:&mdash;concerning both
+which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by-and-by.</p>
+
+<p>It clearly follows,&mdash;indeed it may be said with truth that
+it only remains,&mdash;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,&mdash;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;&mdash;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;&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;the greater part of
+which is clearly descriptive of what happened at the Feast
+of Tabernacles&mdash;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;&mdash;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,&mdash;'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,&mdash;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&mdash;ch.
+vii. 53 to viii. 11&mdash;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,&mdash;all the seventeen which belong
+to Lord Zouch,&mdash;all the thirty-nine which Baroness Burdett-Coutts
+imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all these
+copies&mdash;(and nearly each of them represents a different line
+of ancestry)&mdash;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' (&alpha;&rho;&chi;&eta;), and where its 'end'
+(&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&sigmaf;). 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 &tau;&eta;
+&epsilon;&sigma;&chi;&alpha;&tau;&eta; '&eta;&mu;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha; &tau;&eta; &mu;&epsilon;&gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&eta;, and ending&mdash;&tau;&omicron; &phi;&omega;&sigmaf; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &zeta;&omega;&eta;&sigmaf;: but
+<i>over-leaping</i> the twelve verses now under discussion: viz.
+vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, the word 'over-leap'
+('&upsilon;&pi;&epsilon;&rho;&beta;&alpha;) is written in <i>all</i> the copies after vii. 52,&mdash;whereby
+the reader, having read on to the end of that verse, was
+directed to skip all that followed down to the words &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&mu;&eta;&kappa;&epsilon;&tau;&iota; '&alpha;&mu;&alpha;&rho;&tau;&alpha;&nu;&epsilon; 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' (&alpha;&rho;&xi;&alpha;&iota;). Again I ask (and this
+time does not the riddle admit of only one solution?),&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;is
+unapproached,&mdash;is impossible.</p>
+
+<p>Above all,&mdash;(the reader is entreated to give the subject
+his sustained attention),&mdash;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,&mdash;to the withdrawal of our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> to the Mount
+of Olives,&mdash;and to His return next morning to the Temple,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;occupation for a thousand years.
+His evidences are&mdash;the allowance of the State throughout
+that long interval. Every procession to St. Stephen's&mdash;every
+procession to the Abbey&mdash;has swept by defendant's
+property&mdash;on this side of it and on that,&mdash;since the days
+of Edward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to
+quit the soil, I defy you&mdash;except by violence&mdash;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:&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;how could
+they,&mdash;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,&mdash;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;&mdash;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>&mdash;passes it
+by, I mean,&mdash;exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But
+will any one pretend that Theophylact,&mdash;writing in <span class="smcap">A.D.</span>
+1077,&mdash;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>&mdash;always
+an insecure argument,&mdash;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,&mdash;not expressed indeed, yet consciously entertained
+by us all,&mdash;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;&mdash;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:&mdash;'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,&mdash;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,&mdash;and they reach
+back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence we
+felt to be embarrassing,&mdash;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.&mdash;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,&mdash;(I entreat the candid reader's sustained attention),&mdash;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 &Pi;&rho;&omicron;&phi;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&kappa; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &Gamma;&alpha;&lambda;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf; &omicron;&upsilon;&kappa; &epsilon;&gamma;. 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;&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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:&mdash;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:&mdash;'And Saul went home: <i>but David and his
+men gat them up into the hold</i>.' 1 Kings xviii. 42:&mdash;'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:&mdash;'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:&mdash;- &Omicron;&tau;&epsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &tau;&omicron; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&chi;&theta;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; '&omicron;&iota; &tau;&omega;&nu; &Iota;&omicron;&upsilon;&delta;&alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&theta;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&rho;&chi;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; '&iota;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&lambda;&eta;&mu;, &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&delta;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&pi;&omicron;&iota;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&psi;&iota;&nu; &omicron;&pi;&omega;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;
+&alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&epsilon;&sigma;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; '&omega; '&omicron;&iota; &mu;&epsilon;&nu; &theta;&alpha;&nu;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;&psi;&eta;&phi;&iota;&sigma;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&omicron;; '&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&iota; &delta;&epsilon; &alpha;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;, &omega;&sigmaf;
+'&omicron; &Nu;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&delta;&eta;&mu;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;. (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.&mdash;1 John i. 4:
+ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13.&mdash;2 John 5, 12.&mdash;3 John 9, 13.&mdash;Rev.
+<i>passim</i>, especially i. 11, 19: ii. 1, &amp;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, &amp;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,&mdash;himself a very accurate observer and a competent
+judge,&mdash;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, &sect; 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. &sect; 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:&mdash;'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,' &amp;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:&mdash;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> '&epsilon;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; '&epsilon;&kappa;&alpha;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; '&alpha;&mu;&alpha;&rho;&tau;&iota;&alpha;&sigmaf;. 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:&mdash;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:&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>&sect; 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:&mdash;'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&mdash;'the great lines of transmission ... to
+all appearance exclusively divergent,'&mdash;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:&mdash;</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&mdash;to admit for
+a moment its existence&mdash;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, &amp;c., read &tau;&omicron;&nu; &sigma;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&alpha; &alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&theta;&alpha; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; 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 &tau;&alpha; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&tau;&alpha; &alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&theta;&alpha; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;, because &tau;&alpha; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; 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 (&sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&delta;&rho;&alpha;&mu;&omicron;&nu;) from all their cities
+to the point which He was making for (&epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;), and arrived
+there before the Lord and His followers (&pi;&rho;&omicron;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;),
+and on His approach came in a body to Him (&sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf;
+&alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;). And on disembarking (&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&xi;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omega;&nu;), i.e. (&epsilon;&kappa; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&lambda;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon;,
+ver. 32), &amp;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 (&kappa;&alpha;&iota;
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers;
+another (&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; or &eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;, which is very
+different from the 'Syrian' &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;) 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, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf;, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu;
+&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;, 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 &Delta; (the Received Text) is conflate from
+[Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and &beta; (Western),
+or &alpha; and &beta; are independent
+simplifications of &Delta;'; and that 'there is nothing in the
+sense of &Delta; 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 &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; and &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; is really
+in his favour, chiefly because &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; would very likely <i>if</i>
+it had previously existed been changed into &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;&mdash;which
+no one can doubt; and that '&sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&eta;&lambda;&theta;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;
+is certainly otiose after &sigma;&upsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&delta;&rho;&alpha;&mu;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;,' 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 &epsilon;&xi;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&omega;&nu; 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 &pi;&lambda;&omicron;&iota;&omicron;&nu; is; nor can &epsilon;&kappa;&epsilon;&iota;
+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 &Delta; from &alpha; and &beta;,'
+<i>but</i> 'of &alpha; and &beta; from &Delta;.'
+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,
+(&alpha;) neither to enter into that place, &mu;&eta;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&eta;&nu; &kappa;&omega;&mu;&eta;&nu;
+&epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&lambda;&theta;&eta;&sigmaf;, nor (&beta;) to tell what had happened to any inhabitant
+of Bethsaida (&mu;&eta;&delta;&epsilon; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&eta;&sigmaf; &tau;&iota;&nu;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&eta; &kappa;&omega;&mu;&eta;). Either some
+one who did not understand the Greek, or some matter-of-fact
+and officious scholar, or both, thought or maintained
+that &tau;&iota;&nu;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&eta; &kappa;&omega;&mu;&eta; 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 ACN&Sigma;
+and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except eight, of
+which six with &Phi; 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 &alpha; is simple and
+vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the
+peculiar &Mu;&eta;&delta;&epsilon; has the terse force of many sayings as given
+by St. Mark, but the softening into &Mu;&eta; by [Symbol: Aleph]* shews that
+it might trouble scribes.' It is surely not necessary to
+controvert this. It may be said however that &alpha; is bald as
+well as simple, and that the very difficulty in &beta; makes it
+probable that that clause was not invented. To take &tau;&iota;&nu;&iota;
+&epsilon;&nu; &tau;&eta; &kappa;&omega;&mu;&eta; Hebraistically for &tau;&iota;&nu;&iota; &tau;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&nu; &tau;&eta; &kappa;&omega;&mu;&eta;, like the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span>
+&tau;&iota;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&iota;&nu; 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 &mu;&eta;&delta;&epsilon;
+<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, (&beta;) who doth not follow us, and we
+forbad him (&alpha;) because he followeth not us.'</p>
+
+<p>Here the authority for &alpha; is [Symbol: Aleph]BCL&Delta;,
+four Cursives, f,
+Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis MS. For &beta;
+there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but f and the
+Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage,
+A&Phi;&Sigma;N + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but six, the Harkleian
+(yet obelizes &alpha;) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252),
+Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact (i. 219):
+and Augustine quotes separately both omissions (&alpha; ix. 533,
+and &beta; 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 (&alpha;) every one shall be salted
+with fire, (&beta;) and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.'
+The authorities are&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>&alpha;. [Symbol: Aleph]BL&Delta;, fifteen Cursives,
+some MSS. of the Bohairic,
+some of the Armenian, and the Lewis.</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of the
+Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).</p>
+
+<p>Trad. Text. AC&Phi;&Sigma;N 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 &beta; out
+of &alpha;.' 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>&alpha;. Into a city called Bethsaida (&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &pi;&omicron;&lambda;&iota;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&lambda;&omicron;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&nu; B.).</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. Into a desert place (&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&pi;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&rho;&eta;&mu;&omicron;&nu;), 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&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>&alpha;. BLX&Xi;, with one correction of [Symbol: Aleph]
+(C<sup>a</sup>), one Cursive,
+the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads &kappa;&omega;&mu;&eta;&nu;.</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. The first and later readings (C<sup>b</sup>) of [Symbol: Aleph], four Cursives?,
+Curetonian, some variant Old Latin (&beta;<sup>2</sup>), Peshitto also
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span>variant (&beta;<sup>3</sup>).</p>
+
+<p>Trad. Text. A (with &epsilon;&rho;&eta;&mu;&omicron;&nu; &tau;&omicron;&pi;&omicron;&nu;) C + twelve Uncials, all
+Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits
+&epsilon;&rho;&eta;&mu;&omicron;&nu;), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact
+(i. 33).</p></div>
+
+<p>Remark the curious character of &alpha; and &beta;. 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 (&kappa;&alpha;&tau;' &iota;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&nu;, 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, &kappa;&alpha;&tau;' &iota;&delta;&iota;&alpha;&nu; necessitates
+the adoption of &tau;&omicron;&pi;&omicron;&nu; &epsilon;&rho;&eta;&mu;&omicron;&nu;, as to which the Peshitto (&beta;<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 &beta; 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 (&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&delta;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &theta;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;),</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>&alpha;. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His
+mouth.</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. Seeking to get some opportunity (&alpha;&phi;&omicron;&rho;&mu;&eta;&nu; &tau;&iota;&nu;&alpha;) for
+finding out how to accuse Him ('&iota;&nu;&alpha; &epsilon;&upsilon;&rho;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&gamma;&omicron;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota;); or,
+for accusing Him ('&iota;&nu;&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&gamma;&omicron;&rho;&eta;&sigma;&omega;&sigma;&iota;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;).</p>
+
+<p>Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, <i>and</i> seeking to catch
+something (&zeta;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &theta;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&iota;) 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&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>&alpha;. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp.
+Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not accurately).</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.</p>
+
+<p>Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except
+five which omit &zeta;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission),
+Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).</p></div>
+
+<p>As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading
+&Alpha; is Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into
+the bargain, &epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&delta;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &theta;&eta;&rho;&epsilon;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; being very rough, and
+being probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the
+Greek language. If &alpha; was the original, it is hard to see
+how &beta; could have come from it. That the figurative
+language of &alpha; was replaced in &beta; by a simply descriptive
+paraphrase, as Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable.
+On the other hand, the derivation of either &alpha; or &beta; 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 &beta;, the distinguishing &alpha;&phi;&omicron;&rho;&mu;&eta;&nu;
+&tau;&iota;&nu;&alpha; would be a very natural gloss, requiring for completeness
+of the phrase the accompanying &lambda;&alpha;&beta;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;. 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>&alpha;. My corn and my goods.</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. My crops (&tau;&alpha; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;).
+My fruits (&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;).</p>
+
+<p>Trad. Text. My crops (&tau;&alpha; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;) and my goods.'</p></div>
+
+<p>This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution,
+as Dr. Hort admitted, in &alpha; of the more comprehensive
+word &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; for &sigma;&iota;&tau;&omicron;&nu;, and a simple omission of &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &tau;&alpha;
+&alpha;&gamma;&alpha;&theta;&alpha; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; in &beta;. 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&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>&alpha;. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol: Aleph](a^{c}), eight Cursives,
+Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic.</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. [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>&alpha;. Blessing God (&epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;).</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. Praising God (&alpha;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;).</p>
+
+<p>Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.'</p></div>
+
+<p>The evidence is&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>&alpha;. [Symbol: Aleph]BC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian, Lewis.</p>
+
+<p>&beta;. 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. &Alpha;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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>. &Epsilon;&upsilon;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;&iota;&alpha; 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&mdash;if they are not in fact only seven&mdash;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, &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&rho;&omega;&tau;&omicron;&tau;&omicron;&kappa;&omicron;&nu;
+and &tau;&omicron;&nu; '&Upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&nu;; (2) v. 22, &epsilon;&iota;&kappa;&eta; and &tau;&omega; &alpha;&delta;&epsilon;&lambda;&phi;&omega; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;; (3) ix. 13,
+&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &mu;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&nu;&omicron;&iota;&alpha;&nu;; (4) x. 3, &Lambda;&epsilon;&beta;&beta;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf; and &Theta;&alpha;&delta;&delta;&alpha;&iota;&omicron;&sigmaf;; (5) xii. 22,
+&tau;&upsilon;&phi;&lambda;&omicron;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; and &kappa;&omega;&phi;&omicron;&nu;; (6) xv. 5, &tau;&omicron;&nu; &pi;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon; and
+('&eta;) &tau;&eta;&nu; &mu;&eta;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;,
+(7) xviii. 35, &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omega;&nu; &kappa;&alpha;&rho;&delta;&iota;&omega;&nu; '&upsilon;&mu;&omega;&nu; and &tau;&alpha; &pi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&pi;&tau;&omega;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&alpha; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;&nu;;
+and (8) xxvi. 3, '&omicron;&iota; &pi;&rho;&epsilon;&sigma;&beta;&upsilon;&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&iota; (&kappa;&alpha;&iota;) '&omicron;&iota; &Gamma;&rho;&alpha;&mu;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;.
+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, '&Upsilon;&iota;&omicron;&upsilon; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon; and &Iota;&eta;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span>
+(2) i. 2, &epsilon;&mu;&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon;&nu; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; and &pi;&rho;&omicron; &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&omega;&pi;&omicron;&upsilon; &sigma;&omicron;&upsilon; (cp. ix.
+38); (3) iii. 15, &theta;&epsilon;&rho;&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&upsilon;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &nu;&omicron;&sigma;&omicron;&upsilon;&sigmaf; (&kappa;&alpha;&iota;) and &epsilon;&kappa;&beta;&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&epsilon;&iota;&nu; &tau;&alpha;
+&delta;&alpha;&iota;&mu;&omicron;&nu;&iota;&alpha;; (4) xiii. 33, &alpha;&gamma;&rho;&upsilon;&pi;&nu;&epsilon;&iota;&tau;&epsilon; and (&kappa;&alpha;&iota;) &pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&epsilon;. 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, &gamma;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&iota;&kappa;&iota; and &mu;&epsilon;&mu;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;;
+(2) iv. 4, &epsilon;&pi;&iota; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&iota; '&rho;&eta;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&upsilon;, or &epsilon;&pi;' &alpha;&rho;&tau;&omega; &mu;&omicron;&nu;&omega;; (3) viii. 54,
+&epsilon;&kappa;&beta;&alpha;&lambda;&omega;&nu; &epsilon;&xi;&omega; &pi;&alpha;&nu;&tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; (&kappa;&alpha;&iota;), or &kappa;&rho;&alpha;&tau;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&sigmaf; &tau;&eta;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&omicron;&sigmaf; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;; xi. 4,
+(&alpha;&lambda;&lambda;&alpha;) '&rho;&upsilon;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; '&eta;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; &alpha;&pi;&omicron; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &pi;&omicron;&nu;&eta;&rho;&omicron;&upsilon;, or &mu;&eta; &epsilon;&iota;&sigma;&epsilon;&nu;&epsilon;&nu;&kappa;&eta;&sigmaf; '&eta;&mu;&alpha;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&pi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&nu;. 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 &mu;&epsilon;&mu;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&tau;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&epsilon;&nu;&eta; by the Lewis Codex.</p>
+
+<p>D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, &mu;&eta; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&lambda;&eta;&tau;&alpha;&iota;,
+or &epsilon;&chi;&eta; &zeta;&omega;&eta;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&iota;&omicron;&nu;; (2) iv. 14, &omicron;&upsilon; &mu;&eta; &delta;&iota;&psi;&eta;&sigma;&eta; &epsilon;&iota;&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&iota;&omega;&nu;&alpha;,
+or &tau;&omicron; '&upsilon;&delta;&omega;&rho; '&omicron; &delta;&omega;&sigma;&omega; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&eta;&sigma;&epsilon;&tau;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega; &pi;&eta;&gamma;&eta; '&upsilon;&delta;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;, &kappa;.&tau;.&lambda;.;
+(3) iv. 42, '&omicron; &Chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron;&sigmaf;, or '&omicron; &sigma;&omega;&tau;&eta;&rho; &tau;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&omicron;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&upsilon;; (4) iv. 51,
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &alpha;&pi;&eta;&nu;&gamma;&epsilon;&iota;&lambda;&alpha;&nu; and &lambda;&epsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;; (5) v. 16,
+&kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&zeta;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&pi;&omicron;&kappa;&tau;&epsilon;&iota;&nu;&alpha;&iota;
+and &epsilon;&delta;&iota;&omega;&kappa;&omicron;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omicron;&nu;; (6) vi. 51, '&eta;&nu; &epsilon;&gamma;&omega; &delta;&omega;&sigma;&omega;, or
+'&omicron;&upsilon; &epsilon;&gamma;&omega; &delta;&omega;&sigma;&omega;; (7) ix. 1, 25, &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&nu; or
+&alpha;&pi;&epsilon;&kappa;&rho;&iota;&theta;&eta;; (8) xiii. 31, 32, &epsilon;&iota; '&omicron; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&delta;&omicron;&xi;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&eta; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;,
+and &kappa;&alpha;&iota; '&omicron; &Theta;&epsilon;&omicron;&sigmaf; &epsilon;&delta;&omicron;&xi;&alpha;&sigma;&theta;&eta; &epsilon;&nu; &alpha;&upsilon;&tau;&omega;. All
+these instances turn out to be single omissions:&mdash;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:&mdash;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>&sect; 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, &Delta; in St. Mark, the fragmentary &Xi; 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&mdash;nothing more than inference which we hold,
+and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive,&mdash;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&mdash;to speak with
+more appropriate accuracy, avoiding the danger of drawing
+with too definite a form and too deep a shade&mdash;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&mdash;all unconsciously no doubt and
+with the best intention&mdash;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&mdash;not
+in superhuman perfection, though under some superhuman
+Guidance&mdash;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 &alpha; Western by &beta;,
+as far as
+I can understand, 'other' by &gamma;, and 'Syrian' (=Traditional) by
+&Delta;. But he
+nowhere gives an example of &gamma;.</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. &Tau;&iota;&sigmaf; is used with
+&epsilon;&xi;, St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24;
+St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46; Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1, &amp;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 &epsilon;&pi;&alpha;&iota;&nu;&omicron;&sigmaf; 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>&Delta;, 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> &amp;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>&Sigma;&alpha;&beta;&beta;&alpha;&tau;&omicron;&kappa;&upsilon;&rho;&iota;&alpha;&kappa;&alpha;&iota;, <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>
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f001.png b/21112-page-images/f001.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7045811
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f001.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f002.png b/21112-page-images/f002.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..42fd1cb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f002.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f003.png b/21112-page-images/f003.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..aa4ee75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f003.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f004.png b/21112-page-images/f004.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3df77ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f004.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f005.png b/21112-page-images/f005.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f574932
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f005.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f006.png b/21112-page-images/f006.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dcdf9ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f006.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f007.png b/21112-page-images/f007.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..49a7b3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f007.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f008.png b/21112-page-images/f008.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..23e43b9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f008.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f009.png b/21112-page-images/f009.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0e025bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f009.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f010.png b/21112-page-images/f010.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ca5c29e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f010.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f011.png b/21112-page-images/f011.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2af62ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f011.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f012.png b/21112-page-images/f012.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6d3b462
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f012.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/f013.png b/21112-page-images/f013.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a820956
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/f013.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p001.png b/21112-page-images/p001.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..686ae8c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p001.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p002.png b/21112-page-images/p002.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..14aa32f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p002.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p003.png b/21112-page-images/p003.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4518bff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p003.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p004.png b/21112-page-images/p004.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..aba5ff9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p004.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p005.png b/21112-page-images/p005.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ce529fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p005.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p006.png b/21112-page-images/p006.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0aef76a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p006.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p007.png b/21112-page-images/p007.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c2ee045
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p007.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p008.png b/21112-page-images/p008.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ea14f7a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p008.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p009.png b/21112-page-images/p009.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6b6d4a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p009.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p010.png b/21112-page-images/p010.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0354c36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p010.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p011.png b/21112-page-images/p011.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3325e41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p011.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p012.png b/21112-page-images/p012.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7adbae9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p012.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p013.png b/21112-page-images/p013.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6120e9f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p013.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p014.png b/21112-page-images/p014.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9fd65fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p014.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p015.png b/21112-page-images/p015.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d9106b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p015.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p016.png b/21112-page-images/p016.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3c14069
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p016.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p017.png b/21112-page-images/p017.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e4c8ddf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p017.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p018.png b/21112-page-images/p018.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..836b346
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p018.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p019.png b/21112-page-images/p019.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..04712db
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p019.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p020.png b/21112-page-images/p020.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3e04556
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p020.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p021.png b/21112-page-images/p021.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..81146c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p021.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p022.png b/21112-page-images/p022.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..01dd8fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p022.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p023.png b/21112-page-images/p023.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..914ee9c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p023.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p024.png b/21112-page-images/p024.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f16f5ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p024.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p025.png b/21112-page-images/p025.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6936bc2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p025.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p026.png b/21112-page-images/p026.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c4deceb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p026.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p027.png b/21112-page-images/p027.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fd3368c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p027.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p028.png b/21112-page-images/p028.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..35726c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p028.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p029.png b/21112-page-images/p029.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3cc1aab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p029.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p030.png b/21112-page-images/p030.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9336628
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p030.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p031.png b/21112-page-images/p031.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ae3e23f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p031.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p032.png b/21112-page-images/p032.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..66fa579
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p032.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p033.png b/21112-page-images/p033.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..936611c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p033.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p034.png b/21112-page-images/p034.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..06c9e1d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p034.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p035.png b/21112-page-images/p035.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7c8f154
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p035.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p036.png b/21112-page-images/p036.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7d06c11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p036.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p037.png b/21112-page-images/p037.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2912173
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p037.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p038.png b/21112-page-images/p038.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..635b76c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p038.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p039.png b/21112-page-images/p039.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fc7f64f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p039.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p040.png b/21112-page-images/p040.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f92bd17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p040.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p041.png b/21112-page-images/p041.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..99761e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p041.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p042.png b/21112-page-images/p042.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..385d861
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p042.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p043.png b/21112-page-images/p043.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8efed6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p043.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p044.png b/21112-page-images/p044.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a9950d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p044.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p045.png b/21112-page-images/p045.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5379164
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p045.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p046.png b/21112-page-images/p046.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f583625
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p046.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p047.png b/21112-page-images/p047.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0a33264
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p047.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p048.png b/21112-page-images/p048.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..730ceff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p048.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p049.png b/21112-page-images/p049.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d642c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p049.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p050.png b/21112-page-images/p050.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cb33ddc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p050.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p051.png b/21112-page-images/p051.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5aaff25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p051.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p052.png b/21112-page-images/p052.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f8f8454
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p052.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p053.png b/21112-page-images/p053.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d814630
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p053.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p054.png b/21112-page-images/p054.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b7601d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p054.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p055.png b/21112-page-images/p055.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3cbd9c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p055.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p056.png b/21112-page-images/p056.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6145da0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p056.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p057.png b/21112-page-images/p057.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..99e038f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p057.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p058.png b/21112-page-images/p058.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c7ae5f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p058.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p059.png b/21112-page-images/p059.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3fd7d5b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p059.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p060.png b/21112-page-images/p060.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fe63a72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p060.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p061.png b/21112-page-images/p061.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..de3bb9a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p061.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p062.png b/21112-page-images/p062.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c767c4b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p062.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p063.png b/21112-page-images/p063.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..90e73ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p063.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p064.png b/21112-page-images/p064.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..94a07ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p064.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p065.png b/21112-page-images/p065.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..507e997
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p065.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p066.png b/21112-page-images/p066.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7dded57
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p066.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p067.png b/21112-page-images/p067.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d2c7f47
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p067.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p068.png b/21112-page-images/p068.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ac5d175
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p068.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p069.png b/21112-page-images/p069.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6d71534
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p069.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p070.png b/21112-page-images/p070.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a5fce44
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p070.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p071.png b/21112-page-images/p071.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d98214b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p071.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p072.png b/21112-page-images/p072.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d206cec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p072.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p073.png b/21112-page-images/p073.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6418dfe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p073.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p074.png b/21112-page-images/p074.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ec7107c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p074.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p075.png b/21112-page-images/p075.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..73c01d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p075.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p076.png b/21112-page-images/p076.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f6b02db
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p076.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p077.png b/21112-page-images/p077.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4718473
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p077.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p078.png b/21112-page-images/p078.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6def565
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p078.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p079.png b/21112-page-images/p079.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..54d512a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p079.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p080.png b/21112-page-images/p080.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6801dcc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p080.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p081.png b/21112-page-images/p081.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..43d6b92
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p081.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p082.png b/21112-page-images/p082.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..aa81d2e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p082.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p083.png b/21112-page-images/p083.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4004f85
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p083.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p084.png b/21112-page-images/p084.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7251f3d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p084.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p085.png b/21112-page-images/p085.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3f0feb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p085.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p086.png b/21112-page-images/p086.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7cf3501
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p086.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p087.png b/21112-page-images/p087.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e62918b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p087.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p088.png b/21112-page-images/p088.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..892f8a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p088.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p089.png b/21112-page-images/p089.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..50111e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p089.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p090.png b/21112-page-images/p090.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b4394d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p090.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p091.png b/21112-page-images/p091.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fadbd13
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p091.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p092.png b/21112-page-images/p092.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b32d3f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p092.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p093.png b/21112-page-images/p093.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ce55401
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p093.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p094.png b/21112-page-images/p094.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..901949c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p094.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p095.png b/21112-page-images/p095.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f4942ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p095.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p096.png b/21112-page-images/p096.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4ceff88
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p096.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p097.png b/21112-page-images/p097.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c9d7b53
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p097.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p098.png b/21112-page-images/p098.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f5e0f26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p098.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p099.png b/21112-page-images/p099.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b72deb9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p099.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p100.png b/21112-page-images/p100.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4e74887
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p100.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p101.png b/21112-page-images/p101.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bf5f4ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p101.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p102.png b/21112-page-images/p102.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7634aa1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p102.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p103.png b/21112-page-images/p103.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d45d300
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p103.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p104.png b/21112-page-images/p104.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bb46594
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p104.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p105.png b/21112-page-images/p105.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..72be412
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p105.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p106.png b/21112-page-images/p106.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..58f20a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p106.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p107.png b/21112-page-images/p107.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ece6ec1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p107.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p108.png b/21112-page-images/p108.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dadccac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p108.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p109.png b/21112-page-images/p109.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..56d2ccb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p109.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p110.png b/21112-page-images/p110.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7dcb454
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p110.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p111.png b/21112-page-images/p111.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4b2af3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p111.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p112.png b/21112-page-images/p112.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5fcabfe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p112.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p113.png b/21112-page-images/p113.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c5358d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p113.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p114.png b/21112-page-images/p114.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3d7ac0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p114.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p115.png b/21112-page-images/p115.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7383cca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p115.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p116.png b/21112-page-images/p116.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..63425f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p116.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p117.png b/21112-page-images/p117.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..306faa8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p117.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p118.png b/21112-page-images/p118.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..435b765
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p118.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p119.png b/21112-page-images/p119.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2ef6689
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p119.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p120.png b/21112-page-images/p120.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..593623a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p120.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p121.png b/21112-page-images/p121.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..22e38e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p121.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p122.png b/21112-page-images/p122.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..583db1c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p122.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p123.png b/21112-page-images/p123.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cd461ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p123.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p124.png b/21112-page-images/p124.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..341e339
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p124.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p125.png b/21112-page-images/p125.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b9e113d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p125.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p126.png b/21112-page-images/p126.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6f44724
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p126.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p127.png b/21112-page-images/p127.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5d31973
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p127.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p128.png b/21112-page-images/p128.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3c6a653
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p128.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p129.png b/21112-page-images/p129.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9cb93c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p129.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p130.png b/21112-page-images/p130.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..24093ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p130.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p131.png b/21112-page-images/p131.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..077ddf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p131.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p132.png b/21112-page-images/p132.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4c84c06
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p132.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p133.png b/21112-page-images/p133.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c9cf1b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p133.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p134.png b/21112-page-images/p134.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d3f67f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p134.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p135.png b/21112-page-images/p135.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c75c926
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p135.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p136.png b/21112-page-images/p136.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e3da786
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p136.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p137.png b/21112-page-images/p137.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..749c114
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p137.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p138.png b/21112-page-images/p138.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..31aa776
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p138.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p139.png b/21112-page-images/p139.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b919b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p139.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p140.png b/21112-page-images/p140.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d46d7fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p140.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p141.png b/21112-page-images/p141.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7625604
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p141.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p142.png b/21112-page-images/p142.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0f44239
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p142.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p143.png b/21112-page-images/p143.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bb886cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p143.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p144.png b/21112-page-images/p144.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..70a1fd6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p144.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p145.png b/21112-page-images/p145.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..129e8c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p145.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p146.png b/21112-page-images/p146.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c7e75ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p146.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p147.png b/21112-page-images/p147.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..370457f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p147.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p148.png b/21112-page-images/p148.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bb9f6a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p148.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p149.png b/21112-page-images/p149.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b6f607
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p149.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p150.png b/21112-page-images/p150.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b202c00
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p150.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p151.png b/21112-page-images/p151.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f985547
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p151.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p152.png b/21112-page-images/p152.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c02ae23
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p152.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p153.png b/21112-page-images/p153.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..11db5ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p153.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p154.png b/21112-page-images/p154.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b689eee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p154.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p155.png b/21112-page-images/p155.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6f299cf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p155.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p156.png b/21112-page-images/p156.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..150af38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p156.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p157.png b/21112-page-images/p157.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..00b929d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p157.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p158.png b/21112-page-images/p158.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..088708d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p158.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p159.png b/21112-page-images/p159.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..25e933d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p159.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p160.png b/21112-page-images/p160.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d2f85e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p160.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p161.png b/21112-page-images/p161.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d65e3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p161.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p162.png b/21112-page-images/p162.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b552a19
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p162.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p163.png b/21112-page-images/p163.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6302220
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p163.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p164.png b/21112-page-images/p164.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e75da22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p164.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p165.png b/21112-page-images/p165.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f3246a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p165.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p166.png b/21112-page-images/p166.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a524e0d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p166.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p167.png b/21112-page-images/p167.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a6c3902
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p167.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p168.png b/21112-page-images/p168.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..be6a2a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p168.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p169.png b/21112-page-images/p169.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..950583d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p169.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p170.png b/21112-page-images/p170.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..09c9ab5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p170.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p171.png b/21112-page-images/p171.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f10b09e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p171.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p172.png b/21112-page-images/p172.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8283134
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p172.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p173.png b/21112-page-images/p173.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3aeaac3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p173.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p174.png b/21112-page-images/p174.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..debfd53
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p174.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p175.png b/21112-page-images/p175.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ffeef91
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p175.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p176.png b/21112-page-images/p176.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ce84803
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p176.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p177.png b/21112-page-images/p177.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3d9dd1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p177.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p178.png b/21112-page-images/p178.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4fda123
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p178.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p179.png b/21112-page-images/p179.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..682d52b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p179.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p180.png b/21112-page-images/p180.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3e2dd7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p180.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p181.png b/21112-page-images/p181.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e3bfb0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p181.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p182.png b/21112-page-images/p182.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8157181
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p182.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p183.png b/21112-page-images/p183.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..508788b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p183.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p184.png b/21112-page-images/p184.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d6b88b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p184.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p185.png b/21112-page-images/p185.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6fd15b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p185.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p186.png b/21112-page-images/p186.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2ab0eb2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p186.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p187.png b/21112-page-images/p187.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3e513d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p187.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p188.png b/21112-page-images/p188.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8b342a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p188.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p189.png b/21112-page-images/p189.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ff30317
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p189.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p190.png b/21112-page-images/p190.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f3d9b90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p190.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p191.png b/21112-page-images/p191.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..60242c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p191.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p192.png b/21112-page-images/p192.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ba566fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p192.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p193.png b/21112-page-images/p193.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..76fa17d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p193.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p194.png b/21112-page-images/p194.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..15c72bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p194.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p195.png b/21112-page-images/p195.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b03f278
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p195.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p196.png b/21112-page-images/p196.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..30dd3fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p196.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p197.png b/21112-page-images/p197.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..80181a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p197.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p198.png b/21112-page-images/p198.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3ea0f15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p198.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p199.png b/21112-page-images/p199.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7f89075
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p199.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p200.png b/21112-page-images/p200.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..586ac17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p200.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p201.png b/21112-page-images/p201.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7353ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p201.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p202.png b/21112-page-images/p202.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0d3d33b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p202.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p203.png b/21112-page-images/p203.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c99dfb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p203.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p204.png b/21112-page-images/p204.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ec68658
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p204.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p205.png b/21112-page-images/p205.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a5f7126
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p205.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p206.png b/21112-page-images/p206.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ee1dc0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p206.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p207.png b/21112-page-images/p207.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7cb9a2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p207.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p208.png b/21112-page-images/p208.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1bb33ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p208.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p209.png b/21112-page-images/p209.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8a8874d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p209.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p210.png b/21112-page-images/p210.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0cbf3e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p210.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p211.png b/21112-page-images/p211.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cb1f946
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p211.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p212.png b/21112-page-images/p212.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b884d95
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p212.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p213.png b/21112-page-images/p213.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5142f40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p213.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p214.png b/21112-page-images/p214.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ea6808d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p214.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p215.png b/21112-page-images/p215.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7faa695
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p215.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p216.png b/21112-page-images/p216.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d500249
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p216.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p217.png b/21112-page-images/p217.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bc6720c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p217.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p218.png b/21112-page-images/p218.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d87fd41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p218.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p219.png b/21112-page-images/p219.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e9f7960
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p219.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p220.png b/21112-page-images/p220.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c78265c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p220.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p221.png b/21112-page-images/p221.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..39b222a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p221.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p222.png b/21112-page-images/p222.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7a8da35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p222.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p223.png b/21112-page-images/p223.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8e25183
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p223.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p224.png b/21112-page-images/p224.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dd84768
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p224.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p225.png b/21112-page-images/p225.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0594445
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p225.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p226.png b/21112-page-images/p226.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..eb567a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p226.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p227.png b/21112-page-images/p227.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..16e63a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p227.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p228.png b/21112-page-images/p228.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f2780aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p228.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p229.png b/21112-page-images/p229.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..de4db42
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p229.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p230.png b/21112-page-images/p230.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..73b7f15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p230.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p231.png b/21112-page-images/p231.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9022c8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p231.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p232.png b/21112-page-images/p232.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d23fe6e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p232.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p233.png b/21112-page-images/p233.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..90188b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p233.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p234.png b/21112-page-images/p234.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a4d2ade
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p234.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p235.png b/21112-page-images/p235.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..12e43dc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p235.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p236.png b/21112-page-images/p236.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0d30276
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p236.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p237.png b/21112-page-images/p237.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7d256d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p237.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p238.png b/21112-page-images/p238.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cdf920b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p238.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p239.png b/21112-page-images/p239.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2739f3c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p239.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p240.png b/21112-page-images/p240.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d5879f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p240.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p241.png b/21112-page-images/p241.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6c9e048
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p241.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p242.png b/21112-page-images/p242.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..afb9ad5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p242.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p243.png b/21112-page-images/p243.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8db462d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p243.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p244.png b/21112-page-images/p244.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..93e7a83
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p244.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p245.png b/21112-page-images/p245.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0d28946
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p245.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p246.png b/21112-page-images/p246.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3aa9259
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p246.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p247.png b/21112-page-images/p247.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b31982
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p247.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p248.png b/21112-page-images/p248.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1ce097f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p248.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p249.png b/21112-page-images/p249.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..813c5ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p249.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p250.png b/21112-page-images/p250.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c7a665a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p250.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p251.png b/21112-page-images/p251.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ed5c4a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p251.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p252.png b/21112-page-images/p252.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..684bccc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p252.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p253.png b/21112-page-images/p253.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0516f54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p253.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p254.png b/21112-page-images/p254.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c0d5206
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p254.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p255.png b/21112-page-images/p255.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4b952b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p255.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p256.png b/21112-page-images/p256.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2751d3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p256.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p257.png b/21112-page-images/p257.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5567c4c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p257.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p258.png b/21112-page-images/p258.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4d3d5d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p258.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p259.png b/21112-page-images/p259.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..40d8f6f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p259.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p260.png b/21112-page-images/p260.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b3c8683
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p260.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p261.png b/21112-page-images/p261.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..305835b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p261.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p262.png b/21112-page-images/p262.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c05f4dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p262.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p263.png b/21112-page-images/p263.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..655e508
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p263.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p264.png b/21112-page-images/p264.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f5c446b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p264.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p265.png b/21112-page-images/p265.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..424acbc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p265.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p266.png b/21112-page-images/p266.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8ab58fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p266.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p267.png b/21112-page-images/p267.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..682fa63
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p267.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p268.png b/21112-page-images/p268.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8b3b750
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p268.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p269.png b/21112-page-images/p269.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b1005d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p269.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p270.png b/21112-page-images/p270.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f33a39b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p270.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p271.png b/21112-page-images/p271.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e739d34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p271.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p272.png b/21112-page-images/p272.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..03a4076
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p272.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p273.png b/21112-page-images/p273.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d1bd074
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p273.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p274.png b/21112-page-images/p274.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4c74adf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p274.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p275.png b/21112-page-images/p275.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f75c271
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p275.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p276.png b/21112-page-images/p276.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..157f204
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p276.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p277.png b/21112-page-images/p277.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3c78857
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p277.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p278.png b/21112-page-images/p278.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3fb832c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p278.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p279.png b/21112-page-images/p279.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9dce771
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p279.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p280.png b/21112-page-images/p280.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3643bed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p280.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p281.png b/21112-page-images/p281.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..883f546
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p281.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p282.png b/21112-page-images/p282.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2b05723
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p282.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p283.png b/21112-page-images/p283.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0652bd1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p283.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p284.png b/21112-page-images/p284.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..479415e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p284.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p285.png b/21112-page-images/p285.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2080302
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p285.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p286.png b/21112-page-images/p286.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f0ab683
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p286.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p287.png b/21112-page-images/p287.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a407b40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p287.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p288.png b/21112-page-images/p288.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..28c8bcc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p288.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p289.png b/21112-page-images/p289.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..705c800
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p289.png
diff --git a/21112-page-images/p290.png b/21112-page-images/p290.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..16e4b36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112-page-images/p290.png
diff --git a/21112.txt b/21112.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dee5873
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11798 @@
+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: ASCII
+
+*** 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
+
+
+
+
+
+THE
+CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION
+OF THE
+TRADITIONAL TEXT
+OF THE
+HOLY GOSPELS
+
+
+BEING THE SEQUEL TO
+_THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS_
+
+
+BY THE LATE
+
+JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B. D.
+
+DEAN OF CHICHESTER
+
+
+ARRANGED, COMPLETED, AND EDITED
+BY
+
+EDWARD MILLER, M. A.
+
+WYKEHAMICAL PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER
+
+
+LONDON
+GEORGE BELL AND SONS
+
+CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.
+
+1896.
+
+
+'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.'
+
+Cave's _Proleg._ p. xliv.
+
+'Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate in
+ea.'--Jerem. vi. 16.
+
+'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.'--Tertull. _adv. Marc._ l. iv. c. 5.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE
+
+
+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.
+
+Something however must be said in reply to an attack made in the
+_Guardian_ 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 content with the
+companionship of some of the very first Syriac scholars, and with the
+teaching given in an unanswered article in the _Church Quarterly Review_
+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 [Greek: monogenes Theos] in St. John i.
+18, which, as may be read on pp. 215-218, was introduced by heretics and
+harmonized with 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.
+
+A curious instance of a fate like this has been supplied by a critic in
+the _Athenaeum_, 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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 discussed; and
+that our readers will kindly make allowance for the perplexity which
+such an assemblage of separate papers could not but entail.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+EDWARD MILLER.
+
+9 Bradmore Road, Oxford:
+
+_Sept._ 2, 1896.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+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. pp. 1-9
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+General Corruption.
+
+Sec. 1. Modern re-editing--difference between the New Testament and other
+books--immense number of copies--ordinary causes of error--Doctrinal
+causes. Sec. 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings--nature of inquiry.
+Sec. 3. Smaller blemishes in MSS. unimportant except when constant. Sec. 4.
+Most mistakes arose from inadvertency: many from unfortunate design. pp.
+10-23
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. I. Pure Accident.
+
+Sec. 1. St. John x. 29. Sec. 2. Smaller instances, and Acts xx. 24. Sec. 3. St.
+Luke ii. 14. Sec. 4. St. Mark xv. 6; vii. 4; vi. 22. Sec. 5. St. Mark viii. 1;
+vii. 14--St. John xiii. 37. pp. 24-35
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. II. Homoeoteleuton.
+
+St. Luke ii. 15--St. John vi. 11; vi. 55--St. Matt. xxiii. 14; xix.
+9--St. Luke xvi. 21. pp. 36-41
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. III. From Writing in Uncials.
+
+Sec. 1. St. John iv. 35-36. Sec. 2. St. Luke xv. 17--St. John v. 44. Sec. 3. Acts
+xxvii. 14--St. John iv. 15--St. Luke xvii. 37--St. Matt. xxii. 23--and
+other passages. Sec. 4. St. John v. 4--St. Luke xxiii. 11--St. Matt. iv.
+23. Sec. 5. 2 St. Peter i. 31--Heb. vii. 1. Sec. 6. St. Matt. xxvii. 17. pp.
+42-55
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. IV. Itacism.
+
+Sec. 1. Various passages--St. John xii. 1, 2; 41. Sec. 2. Rev. i. 5--Other
+passages--St. Mark vii. 19. Sec. 3. St. Mark iv. 8. Sec. 4. Titus ii. 5. pp.
+56-66
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+Accidental Causes of Corruption. V. Liturgical Influence.
+
+Sec. 1. Lectionaries of the Church--Liturgical influence--Antiquity of the
+Lectionary System. Sec. 2. St. John xiv. 1--Acts iii. 1--Last Twelve Verses
+of St. Mark. Sec. 3. St. Luke vii. 31; ix. 1--Other passages. Sec. 4. St. Mark
+xv. 28. Sec. 5. Acts iii. 1--St. Matt. xiii. 44; xvii. 23. Sec. 6. St. Matt
+vi. 13 (doxology in the Lord's Prayer). pp. 67-88
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. I. Harmonistic Influence.
+
+Sec. 1. St. Mark xvi. 9. Sec. 2. St. Luke xxiv. 1--other examples. Sec. 3.
+Chiefly intentional--Diatessarons--St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26--Harmonized
+narratives--Other examples. pp. 89-99
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. II. Assimilation.
+
+Sec. 1. Transfer from one Gospel to another. Sec. 2. Not entirely
+intentional--Various passages. Sec. 3. St. John xvi. 16. Sec. 4. St. John
+xiii. 21-25. Sec. 5. St. Mark i. 1, 2--Other examples--St. Matt. xii. 10
+(St. Luke xiv. 3)--and others. Sec. 6. St. Mark vi. 11. Sec. 7. St. Mark xiv.
+70. pp. 100-122
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. III. Attraction.
+
+Sec. 1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. Sec. 2. Acts xx. 24--2 Cor. iii. 3. pp.
+123-127
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IV. Omission.
+
+Sec. 1. Omissions a class of their own--Exemplified from the Last Twelve
+Verses of St. Mark--Omission the besetting fault of transcribers. Sec. 2.
+The _onus probandi_ rests upon omitters. Sec. 3. St Luke vi. 1; and other
+omissions. Sec. 4. St. Matt. xxi. 44. Sec. 5. St. Matt. xv. 8. Sec. 6. St. Matt.
+v. 44--Reply to the Reviewer in the _Guardian_. Sec. 7. Shorter Omissions.
+pp. 128-156
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. V. Transposition.
+
+Sec. 1. St. Mark i. 5; ii. 3--Other instances. Sec. 2. St. Luke xiii. 9; xxiv.
+7. Sec. 3. Other examples--St. John v. 27--Transpositions often petty, but
+frequent.
+
+VI. Substitution.
+
+Sec. 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class--Various instances. pp.
+164-165
+
+VII. Addition.
+
+Sec. 5. The smallest of the four--St. Luke vi. 4--St. Matt. xx. 28. Sec. 6.
+St. Matt. viii. 13; xxiv. 36--St. Mark iii. 16--Other examples. pp.
+166-171
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. VIII. Glosses.
+
+Sec. 1. Not so numerous as has been supposed--St. Matt. xiii. 36--St. Mark
+vii. 3. Sec. 2. St. Luke ix. 23. Sec. 3. St. John vi. 15; xiii. 24; xx.
+18--St. Matt. xxiv. 31. Sec. 4. St. John xviii. 14--St. Mark vi. 11. Sec. 5.
+St. Mark xiv. 41--St. John ix. 22. Sec. 6. St. John xii. 7. Sec. 7. St. John
+xvii. 4. Sec. 8. St. Luke i. 66. Sec. 9. St. Luke v. 7--Acts xx. 4. pp.
+172-190
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IX. Corruption by Heretics.
+
+Sec. 1. This class very evident--Began in the earliest times--Appeal to
+what is earlier still--Condemned in all ages and countries. Sec. 2. The
+earliest depravers of the Text--Tatian's Diatessaron. Sec. 3. Gnostics--St.
+John i. 3-4. Sec. 4. St. John x. 14, 15. Sec. 5. Doctrinal--Matrimony--St.
+Matt i. 19. pp. 191-210
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. X. Corruption by the Orthodox.
+
+Sec. 1. St. Luke xix. 41; ii. 40. Sec. 2. St. John viii. 40; and i. 18. Sec. 3. 1
+Cor. xv. 47. Sec. 4. St. John iii. 13. Sec. 5. St. Luke ix. 54-56. pp. 211-231
+
+APPENDIX I.
+
+Pericope de Adultera. pp. 233-265
+
+APPENDIX II.
+
+Dr. Hort's Theory of Conflation and the
+Neutral Text. pp. 266-286
+
+Index of Subjects. pp. 287-288
+
+Index of Passages of the New Testament Discussed. pp. 289-290
+
+
+
+
+THE CAUSES OF THE
+CORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT
+OF THE HOLY GOSPELS.
+
+
+
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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 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[1].
+
+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:--
+
+  Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra[2]:
+
+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 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':--
+
+  Tam ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri[3].
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+'Galilee of the nations' or 'the Gentiles,' not only had a mixed
+population[4] and a provincial dialect[5], but lay contiguous to the
+rest of Palestine on the one side, and 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[6], 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[7]. 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[8] and Herodion, may probably have passed along the
+stream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and Rome[9], 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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 A.D. 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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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 were (4)
+Omissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions, (7) Additions, (8)
+Glosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics, (10) Corruption by Orthodox.
+
+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.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] 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.
+
+[2]
+     'A hydra in her direful shape,
+    With fifty darkling throats agape.'--
+
+Altered from Conington's version, Aen. vi. 576.
+
+[3]
+    'How oft soe'er the truth she tell,
+    What's false and wrong she loves too well.'--
+
+Altered from Conington, Aen. iv. 188.
+
+[4] Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians,
+and Phoenicians.
+
+[5] Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken in
+Palestine in the time of Christ.
+
+[6] Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352.
+
+[7] 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.
+
+[8] 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 ([Greek:
+episemoi en tois apostolois, oi kai pro emou gegonasin en Christo]).
+Most of the names in Rom. xvi are either Greek or Hebrew.
+
+[9]
+    'Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes
+    Et _linguam_ et mores ... vexit.'
+
+--Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+GENERAL CORRUPTION.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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.
+
+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[10].
+
+Yielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the 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[11] body.
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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[12].
+
+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.
+
+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 consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of
+judicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence of whatever
+sort.
+
+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.
+
+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
+Holy Ghost 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 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.
+
+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 God,--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.
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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[13]. 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?
+
+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.
+
+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[14]. 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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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.]
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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:--
+
+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 [Greek: krabatton][15] in
+several different ways: that he should write [Greek: outo] for [Greek:
+outos], or the contrary: that he should add or omit what grammarians
+call the [Greek: n ephelkystikon]. 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. 'Itacisms' therefore, as they
+are called, of whatever kind,--by which is meant the interchange of such
+vowels and diphthongs as [Greek: i-ei, ai-e, e-i, e-oi-u, o-o,
+e-ei],--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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 [Greek: eipe] for [Greek: elege], [Greek: phonesan] for
+[Greek: kraxan], 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.
+
+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 Evangelist, need create no offence. It is often
+possible to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way.
+
+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.
+
+6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex (_a_) that entire
+sentences or significant clauses are habitually omitted:--(_b_) 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
+(_c_) 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.
+
+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 we have fallen into bad company. His witness may
+be false no less than true: confidence is at an end.
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+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 _verba ipsissima_ 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.]
+
+But next, well-meant endeavours must have been made at a very early
+period 'to rectify' ([Greek: diorthoun]) 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 (A.D. 100?) some copyist of St. Luke ii. 14
+(call him X) inadvertently omitted the second [Greek: en] in the Angelic
+Hymn. Now if the persons (call them Y and Z) whose business it became in
+turn to reproduce the early 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,--[Greek: epi ges eirene anthropois
+eudokia]. Reference would have been made to any other copy of the third
+Gospel, and together with the omitted preposition ([Greek: en]) 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, _proprio Marte_ to
+force a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy before
+him: and he did it by affixing to [Greek: eudokia] the sign of the
+genitive case ([Greek: s]). 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[16].
+
+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.
+
+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[17].
+
+[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.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[10] 2 Kings xxii. 8 = 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15.
+
+[11] [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.]
+
+[12] See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller),
+p. 21, note 1.
+
+[13] See Traditional Text, chapter ii, Sec. 6, p. 33.
+
+[14] [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.]
+
+[15] [I.e. generally [Greek: krabatton], or else [Greek: krabaton], or
+even [Greek: krabakton]; seldom found as [Greek: krabbatton], or spelt
+in the corrupt form [Greek: krabbaton].]
+
+[16] 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 _abridge_ 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 _pericope de adultera_; 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.
+
+[17] [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption,
+as described in The Traditional Text.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+I. Pure Accident.
+
+[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.]
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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 (_or_ 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.
+
+St. John certainly wrote the familiar words,--[Greek: ho pater mou]
+[Greek: os dedoke moi, meizon panton esti]. But, with the licentiousness
+[or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, some remote copyist
+is found to have substituted for [Greek: hos dedoke], its grammatical
+equivalent [Greek: ho dedokos]. And this proved fatal; for it was only
+necessary that another scribe should substitute [Greek: meizon] for
+[Greek: meizon] (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) [Greek: o dedokos ... meizon]--of
+which reading at this day D is the sole representative: (2) [Greek: os
+dedoke ... meizon]--which survives only in AX: (3) [Greek: o dedoke ...
+meizon]--which is only found in [Symbol: Aleph]L: (4) [Greek: o dedoke
+... meizon]--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 [Greek: meizon] for [Greek: meizon]; treating [Greek: o]
+not as the article but as the neuter of the relative [Greek: os].
+
+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[18]. Accordingly, all the
+Latin copies, and therefore all the Latin Fathers[19], translate,--
+'Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus omnibus est[20].' The Westerns
+resolutely extracted a meaning from whatever they presumed to be genuine
+Scripture: 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 Son? To be the Word of the Father (he answers),
+His only-begotten Son and the brightness of His glory[21]. The Greeks
+knew better. Basil[22], Chrysostom[23], Cyril on nine occasions[24],
+Theodoret[25]--as many as quote the place--invariably exhibit the
+_textus receptus_ [Greek: os ... meizon], which is obviously the true
+reading and may on no account suffer molestation.
+
+'But,'--I shall perhaps be asked,--'although Patristic and manuscript
+evidence are wanting for the reading [Greek: o dedoke moi ...
+meizon],--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 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[26]. 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?
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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.
+
+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[27].'--He is
+further 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 '_Titus_,' '_Titus Justus_,' and even '_Titius
+Justus_[28].'--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 Saviour is made to ask an unmeaning question--instead
+of being permitted to announce a solemn fact--concerning
+Capernaum[29].--The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island of
+Malta, _Melitene_[30], (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.
+
+Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in Acts xx. 24.
+It is but the change of a single letter ([Greek: logoU] for [Greek:
+logoN]), 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 [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai, oude echo ten
+psuchen mou timian emauto, hos teleiosai ton dromon mou meta charas]:
+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.'
+
+For [Greek: oudenos loGON], (the accusative after [Greek: poioumai]),
+some one having substituted [Greek: oudenos loGOU],--a reading which
+survives to this hour in B and C[31],--it became necessary to find
+something else for the verb to govern. [Greek: Ten psychen] was at hand,
+but [Greek: oude echo] stood in the way. [Greek: Oude echo] must
+therefore go[32]; and go it did,--as B, C, and [Symbol: Aleph] remain to
+attest. [Greek: Timian] should have gone also, if the sentence was to be
+made translatable; but [Greek: timian] was left behind[33]. The authors
+of ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers. In the meantime,
+Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] inadvertently retained St. Luke's word, [Greek:
+LOGON]; and because [Symbol: Aleph] here follows B in every other
+respect, it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible[34].
+
+Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words [Greek: oude echo
+ten psychen mou timian emauto], 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[35],--by the Harkleian[36],--by
+Basil[37],--by Chrysostom[38],--by Cyril[39],--by Euthalius[40],--and by
+the interpolator of Ignatius[41]. 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 [Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai ten psychen timian
+emauto][42]?
+
+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.
+
+'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, [Greek: all' oudenos logou
+poioumai ten psychen timian emauto], 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[43].' When will men believe that a reading
+vouched for by only B[Symbol: Aleph]C is safe to be a fabrication[44]?
+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?
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+We now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten Ist or IInd
+century scribes who, beguiled by the similarity of the letters [Greek:
+EN] and [Greek: AN] (in the expression [Greek: ENANthropois eudokia],
+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 [Greek: eudokia] the sign of the
+genitive ([Greek: S]). Thus the Old Latin translations were made.
+
+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[45]. Most Latin copies (except 14[46]) exhibit 'pax hominibus
+bonae voluntatis,' as well as many Latin Fathers[47]. On the other hand,
+the preposition [Greek: EN] is retained in every known Greek copy of St.
+Luke without exception, while the reading [Greek: eudokias] is
+absolutely limited to the four uncials AB[Symbol: Aleph]D. The witness
+of antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive.
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,--is
+discoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) certainly wrote [Greek:
+hena desmion], [Greek: ONPER etounto], the scribe of [Symbol: Delta],
+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 [Greek: ON.PERETOUNTO]. The consequence might have been
+predicted. [Symbol: Aleph]AB transform this into [Greek: ON PARETOUNTO]:
+which accordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by Westcott
+and Hort.
+
+Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly be mistaken
+for the first syllable of the next, or _vice versa_, it is safe sooner
+or later to have misled somebody. Thus, we are not at all surprised to
+find St. Mark's [Greek: ha parelabon] (vii. 4) transformed into [Greek:
+haper elabon], but only by B.
+
+[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied by the
+substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of [Greek: tes thygatros autou
+Herodiados] for [Greek: tes thygatros autes tes Herodiados]. Here a
+first copyist left out [Greek: tes] as being a repetition of the last
+syllable of [Greek: autes], and afterwards a second attempted to improve
+the Greek by putting the masculine pronoun for the feminine ([Greek:
+AUTOU] for [Greek: AUTES]). The consequence was hardly to have been
+foreseen.]
+
+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 Herodias; and that she,--the King's own
+daughter,--was the immodest one[48] 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[49],--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]BDL[Symbol: Delta] with two cursive copies) can be found
+to exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading [Greek: AUTOU]
+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.
+
+This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidental
+errors--another proof that [Symbol: Aleph]BDL cannot be trusted.
+
+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. [Greek: AUTESTES] was safe to part with its second
+[Greek: TES] on the first opportunity, and the definitive article
+([Greek: tes]) once lost, the substitution of [Greek: AUTOU] for [Greek:
+AUTES] 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.
+
+[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was a
+frequent source of error. Copying has 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 5.
+
+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 [Greek: pampollou ochlou] '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 [Greek: PAMPOLLOU] for [Greek:
+PALIN POLLOU].
+
+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
+GMN[Symbol: Delta] and fifteen cursives: while two other cursives look
+both ways and exhibit [Greek: palin pampollou].
+
+In St Mark vii. 14, [Greek: palin] was similarly misread by some
+copyists for [Greek: panta], and has been preserved by [Symbol:
+Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta] ([Greek: PALIN] for [Greek: PANTA]) against
+thirteen uncials, all the cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian.
+
+So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads [Greek: dynasai moi] by an
+evident slip of the pen for [Greek: dynamai soi]. And in xix. 31 [Greek:
+megalE E Emera] has become [Greek: megale hemera] in [Symbol:
+Aleph]AE[Symbol: Gamma] and some cursive copies.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[18] See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th
+ed.
+
+[19] Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 _bis_): Hilary
+(930 _bis_, 1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii^2. 615): Maximinus, an
+Arian bishop (_ap_. Aug. viii. 651).
+
+[20] Pater (_or_ Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (_or_ mihi dedit), majus
+omnibus est (_or_ majus est omnibus: _or_ omnibus majus est).
+
+[21] iii^2. 615. He begins, '_Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut
+ipsi ille esset unigenitus Filius_.'
+
+[22] i. 236.
+
+[23] viii. 363 _bis_.
+
+[24] i. 188: ii. 567: iii. 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): v^1. 326, 577, 578:
+_ap._ Mai ii. 13: iii. 336.
+
+[25] v. 1065 (=Dial^{Maced} _ap._ Athanas. ii. 555).
+
+[26] Viz. + [Greek: mou] ABD:--[Greek: mou] [Symbol: Aleph] | [Greek:
+os] A: [Greek: o] B[Symbol: Aleph]D | [Greek: dedoken] B[Symbol:
+Aleph]A: [Greek: dedokos] | [Greek: meizon] [Symbol: Aleph]D: [Greek:
+meizon] AB | [Greek: meiz. panton estin] A: [Greek: panton meiz. estin]
+B[Symbol: Aleph]D.
+
+[27] The Revision Revised, p. 51-3.
+
+[28] The Revision Revised, p. 53-4.
+
+[29] Ibid. p. 51-6.
+
+[30] Ibid. p. 177-8.
+
+[31] Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A.D. 458--see Cramer's Cat. p.
+334-5, _last line_. [Greek: Logou] is read besides in the cursives Act.
+36, 96, 105.
+
+[32] 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 [Greek: oude echo] 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.
+
+[33] B and C read--[Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai ten psychen
+emauto]: which is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,--'_sed pro
+nihilo aestimo animam meam caram esse mihi_' (Galland. vi. 241).
+
+[34] [Symbol: Aleph] reads--[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai ten
+psychen timian emauto hos teleioso ton dromon mou].
+
+[35] '_Sed nihil horum_ ([Greek: touton] is found in many Greek Codd.)
+_vereor, nee facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me_.' So, the _Cod.
+Amiat._ It is evident then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes '_nec
+facio animam meam cariorem mihi_,' he is quoting the latter of these two
+clauses. Augustine (iii^{1}. 516), when he cites the place thus, '_Non
+enim facto animam meam preliosiorem quam me_'; and elsewhere (iv. 268)
+'_pretiosam mihi_'; also Origen (_interp._ iv. 628 c), '_sed ego non
+facto cariorem animam meam mihi_'; and even the Coptic, '_sed anima mea,
+dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo_':--these evidently
+summarize the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the
+second clause. The Latin of D exhibits '_Sed nihil horum cura est mihi:
+neque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi_.'
+
+[36] Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized--[Greek: all' oudena
+logon poioumai, oude lelogistai moi psyche ti timion].
+
+[37] ii. 296 e,--exactly as the T.R.
+
+[38] Exactly as the T.R., except that he writes [Greek: ten psychen]
+without [Greek: mou] (ix. 332). So again, further on (334 b), [Greek:
+ouk echo timian ten emautou psychen]. This latter place is quoted in
+Cramer's Cat. 334.
+
+[39] _Ap._ Mai ii. 336 [Greek: edei kai tes zoes kataphronein hyper tou
+teleiosai ton dromon, oude ten psychen ephe poieiosai timian heauto.]
+
+[40] [Greek: logon echo, oude poioumai ten psychen timian emauto, oste
+k.t.l.] (_ap._ Galland. x. 222).
+
+[41] [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai ton deinon, oude echo ten
+psychen timian emauto]. Epist. ad Tars. c. 1 (Dressel, p. 255).
+
+[42] 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.
+
+[43] Ibid. p. 2 and 3.
+
+[44] 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 [Greek:
+poioumai] and [Greek: echo] have been made to change places. The latter
+Codex introduces [Greek: moi] after [Greek: echo],--for [Greek: emauto]
+writes [Greek: emautou],--and exhibits [Greek: tou teleiosai] without
+[Greek: hos]. C writes [Greek: hos to teleiosai]. [Symbol: Aleph]B alone
+of Codexes present us with [Greek: teleioso] for [Greek: teleiosai], and
+are followed by Westcott and Hort _alone of Editors_. The Peshitto
+('_sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea_'), the Sahidic ('_sed non facto
+animam meam in ulla re_'), and the Aethiopic ('_sed non reputo animam
+meam nihil quidquam_'), get rid of [Greek: timian] as well as of [Greek:
+oude echo]. 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.
+
+[45] Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of
+[Greek: EN] by the first syllable of [Greek: ANthropois]) is to be seen
+in Acts iv. 12,--where however the error has led to no mischievous
+results.
+
+[46] For those which insert _in_ (14), and those which reject it (25),
+see Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate on this passage.
+
+[47] Of Fathers:--Ambrose i. 1298--Hieronymus i. 448^{2}, 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. (_ap._
+Sabat.),--Chromatius Ag. (Gall. viii. 337),--Orosius (_ib._ ix. 134),
+Marius M. (_ib._ viii. 672), Maximus Taur. (_ib._ ix. 355),--Sedulius
+(_ib._ 575),--Leo M. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Mamertus Claudianus (Gall. x.
+431),--Vigilius Taps. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Zacchaeus (Gall. ix.
+241),--Caesarius Arel. (_ib._ 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.
+
+[48] See Wetstein on this place.
+
+[49] Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+II. Homoeoteleuton.
+
+
+No one who finds the syllable [Greek: OI] recurring six times over in
+about as many words,--e.g. [Greek: kai egeneto, hos apelthon ... OI
+angelOI, kai OI anthropOI OI pOImenes eipon],--is surprised to learn
+that MSS. of a certain type exhibit serious perturbation in that place.
+Accordingly, BL[Symbol: Xi] leave out the words [Greek: kai hoi
+anthropoi]; 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 ([Greek: hoi]) is
+dropped,--whereby nonsense is made of the passage (viz. [Greek: hoi
+angeloi poimenes]). 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,--
+
+[Greek: OI ANGELOI]           }         {[Greek: OI ANGELOI]
+[[Greek: KAI OI A[=NO]I OI]]  } or else {[[Greek: KAI OI A[=NO]I]]
+[Greek: POIMENES]             }         {[Greek: OI POIMENES]
+
+Another such place is found in St. John vi. 11. The Evangelist certainly
+described the act of our Saviour on a famous occasion in the well-known
+words,--[Greek: kai eucharistesas]
+
+        [Greek: diedoke
+tois [mathetais,
+oi de mathetai
+tois] anakeimenois.]
+
+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 Saviour's act was
+performed in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has suffered
+his eye to wander from [Greek: tois] in l. 2 to [Greek: tois] in l.
+4,--whereby St. John is made to say that our Saviour 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]ABL[Symbol: Pi], 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.
+
+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.
+The consequence is obvious. All that should have come in between gets
+omitted, or sometimes duplicated.
+
+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:--[Greek: he gar sarx mou alethos esti brosis,
+kai to haima mou alethos esti posis]. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph]
+by a very easy mistake let his eye pass from one [Greek: alethos] 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?]
+
+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 Lord 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 [Greek: ouai hymin] 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, 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 [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma], the Peshitto,
+Harkleian, Ethiopic, Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen
+(iii. 838 (only in Lat.)); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (_bis_); ix. 755); Opus
+Imperf. 185 (_bis_); 186 (_bis_); John Damascene (ii. 517); Theophylact
+(i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; v. 52; vi. 138: vii. 185)].
+
+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.
+
+Our Saviour, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that whosoever putteth
+away his wife [Greek: ei me epi porneia, kai gamese allen,
+moichatai],--adds [Greek: kai ho apolelymenen gamesas moichatai]. 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.
+
+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
+B[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]), and the vast majority of the cursives.
+So that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.
+
+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 [Greek: ton] in the expression [Greek: TON psichion TON
+piptonTON] (St. Luke xvi. 21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the
+dropping of the words [Greek: psichion ton] 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.[50] and the author of the Dialogus[51]. 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[52],
+Jerome[53], Eusebius[54] Alex., Gregory[55] Naz., Asterius[56],
+Basil[57], Ephraim[58] Syr., Chrysostom[59], and Cyril[60] 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 abolishing 'the crumbs which fell
+from the rich man's table.'
+
+[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.
+
+In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come under
+consideration.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[50] P. 232.
+
+[51] _Ap._ Orig. i. 827.
+
+[52] Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:--places which shew how insecure would
+be an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.
+
+[53] Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969.
+
+[54] _Ap._ Mai ii. 516, 520.
+
+[55] i. 370.
+
+[56] P. 12.
+
+[57] ii. 169.
+
+[58] ii. 142.
+
+[59] i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (_bis_) 764; vii. 779.
+
+[60] v^{2}. 149 (luc. text, 524).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+III. From Writing in Uncials.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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.
+
+St. John iv. 35-6 ([Greek: leukai eisi pros therismon ede]) has suffered
+in this way,--owing to the unusual position of [Greek: ede]. Certain of
+the scribes who imagined that [Greek: ede] might belong to ver. 36,
+rejected the [Greek: kai] as superfluous; though no Father is known to
+have been guilty of such a solecism. Others, aware that [Greek: ede] 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[61]. In this way it has come to pass that
+there are four ways of exhibiting this place:--(_a_) [Greek: pros
+therismon ede. Kai ho therizon]:--(_b_) [Greek: pros therismon. Ede ho
+th.]:--(_c_) [Greek: pros therismon ede. Ho therizon]:--(_d_) [Greek:
+pros therismon. Ho therizon, k.t.l.]
+
+The only point of importance however is the position of [Greek: ede]:
+which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of the copies: as well as
+by Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate,
+Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly
+divided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BM[Symbol: Pi] do not help
+us. But [Greek: ede] is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the
+Curetonian and Lewis (= [Greek: kai ede ho therizon]): while Codex A is
+singular in beginning ver. 36, [Greek: ede kai],--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 [Greek: kai] (with [Symbol:
+Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (_marg._),
+are for putting the full stop after [Greek: pros therismon] and (with
+ACDL) making [Greek: ede] begin the next sentence,--which (as Alford
+finds out) is clearly inadmissible.
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in
+the parable of the prodigal son,--'And I perish _here_ with hunger!' But
+why '_here_?' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St.
+Luke the words stood thus,--[Greek: EGODELIMOAPOLLYMAI], some careless
+scribe after writing [Greek: EGODE], reduplicated the three last letters
+([Greek: ODE]): he mistook them for an independent word. Accordingly in
+the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter [Greek:
+ego de ode]. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained
+to superadd 'transposition,' as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From
+[Greek: ego de ode limo], the sentence has now developed into [Greek:
+ego de limo ode]: 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, [Greek: ego de
+ode] is: for it is found in the Latin[67] 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[68]. Having detected its origin,
+we have next to trace its progress.
+
+The inventors of [Greek: ode] 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
+[Greek: [en to oiko] tou patros mou]: 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[69], Augustine[70] and Cassian[71] 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 Lord intended no contrast whatever
+between two 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?'
+
+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 [Greek: gemisai ten koilian autou apo], [Symbol:
+Aleph]BDLR present us with [Greek: chortasthenai ek]: and in ver. 22,
+the prodigal, on very nearly the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX),
+is made to say to his father,--[Greek: Poieson me hos hena ton misthion
+sou]:
+
+Which certainly he did not say[72]. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and the
+Old Latin are for thrusting in [Greek: tachy] (D [Greek: tacheos]) after
+[Greek: exenenkate]. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated
+readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to
+improve upon the inspired original?
+
+From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS.
+written thus,--[Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i.e. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), the
+middle word ([Greek: theou]) 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[73],
+Eusebius[74], Didymus[75], 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.
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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 [Greek: Euros], the 'south-east wind,' and [Greek:
+klydon], '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[76],
+which [blast] is called Tophonikos Eurokl[=i]don.' 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 '_Eurielion_' or
+'_Euriclion_' to mean 'commiscens, sive deorsum ducens[77].') Of this
+feat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which [Greek:
+EUROKLUDON] has been perverted into [Greek: EURAKULON]) are at this day
+_the sole surviving Greek witnesses_. 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:'--
+
+'_Euronotus_ is so called as intervening immediately between _Eurus_ and
+_Notus_, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The
+same holds true of _Libonotus_, as being interposed between _Libs_ and
+_Notus_. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant
+of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and no other
+wind intervenes. But _Eurus_ and _Aquilo_ are at 90 deg. distance from one
+another; or according to some writers, at 105 deg.; 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[78].'
+
+Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossible _Latin_
+name? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors were
+Greeks. What business has '_Aquilo_' here? Next, if the wind did bear
+the name of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way
+([Greek: anemos typhonikos, ho kaloumenos]) 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 [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pass that every
+copyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-? The testimony of B is
+memorable. The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDON][79]: the
+_secunda mantis_ has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDON],--which is
+also the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, that
+_not_ [Greek: ULON] but [Greek: UDON] has all along been the last half
+of the word in Codex B[81].
+
+In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf
+adopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb),
+assigning as his reason, that 'If St. John had written [Greek:
+erchesthai], no one would ever have substituted [Greek: dierchesthai]
+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 [Greek: DIerchomai] is
+sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable ([Greek: DE]) of
+[Greek: mede] which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the same
+excuse,
+
+St. Mark x. 16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei]
+               ([Symbol: Aleph]BC).
+  " xii. 17 [Greek: thaumasan] " [Greek: ezethaumasan]
+               ([Symbol: Aleph]B).
+  " xiv. 40 [Greek: bebaremenoi] " [Greek: katabebaremenoi]
+               (A[Symbol: Aleph]B).
+
+It is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editions
+of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause.
+In the phrase [Greek: ekei synachthesontai hoi aetoi] it might have been
+predicted that the last syllable of [Greek: ekei] would some day be
+mistaken for the conjunction. And so it has actually come to pass.
+[Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But
+[Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and substituted [Greek:
+episynachthesontai] for [Greek: synachthesontai]. The self-same
+casualty, viz. [Greek: kai] elicited out of the insertion of [Greek:
+ekei] 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[82].
+How can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of
+Scripture on evidence so precarious as this?
+
+It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. xxii. 23 as
+follows:--'On that day there came to Him Sadducees _saying_ 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 [Greek: hoi legontes], we are invited to read [Greek:
+legontes], 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--
+
+[Greek: hoitines legousin anastasin me einai] (St. Mark xii. 18) and
+[Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin me einai] (St. Luke xx. 27)
+
+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:
+
+[Greek: SADDOUKAIOIOILEGONTES]
+
+and really nothing more requires to be said. The second [Greek: OI] was
+safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that. It might also
+have been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused
+by the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and
+Curetonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook
+[Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase.
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+The termination [Greek: TO] (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 [Greek: kai etarasse to hydor], but so many MSS. read [Greek:
+etarasseto], 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.'
+
+The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in St. Luke
+vii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions [Greek: echarisato
+blepein] (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and 11 other
+uncials) and [Greek: echarisato to blepein] which is only supported by
+[Symbol: Aleph]^{b}ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faithfully maintain
+the former reading, and merge the article in the verb.
+
+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.
+
+Such a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit will
+shew my meaning.
+
+In the expression [Greek: estheta lampran anepempsen] (St. Luke xxiii.
+11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of the verb
+([Greek: an]) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding
+[Greek: lampran]. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported by one copy
+of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. concur in displaying [Greek:
+epempsen] in this place.
+
+The letters [Greek: NAIKONAIKAI] in the expression (St. Luke xxiii. 27)
+[Greek: gynaikon hai kai] 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 [Greek: gynaikes].) Not so however
+what follows. ABCDLX and the Old Latin (except c) drop the [Greek: kai]:
+[Symbol: Aleph] and C drop the [Greek: ai]. The truth rests with the
+fourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives.
+
+Thus also the reading [Greek: en ole te Galilaia] (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,--[Greek: periegen]. The received reading of the place is
+the correct one,--[Greek: kai periegen holen ten Galilaian ho Iesous],
+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,
+
+B reads           [Greek: kai periegen en holei tei Galilaiai].
+[Symbol: Aleph] " [Greek: kai periegen ho _is_ en tei Galilaiai].
+C "               [Greek: kai periegen ho _is_ en hole tei Galilaiai].
+
+But--(I shall be asked)--what about the position of the Sacred Name? How
+comes it to pass that [Greek: ho Iesous], which comes after [Greek:
+Galilaian] in almost every other known copy, should come after [Greek:
+periegen] 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 [Greek: ho Iesous]
+altogether) will not ask me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is
+sure to ask it.
+
+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 [Greek: kai
+periegen ho _is_]. 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 [Greek:
+ho _is_] 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.
+
+
+Sec. 5.
+
+The introduction of [Greek: apo] in the place of [Greek: hagioi] 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 [Greek: agioi] for [Greek: apo]. It was but the
+mistaking of [Greek: AGIO] for [Greek: APO]. 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[83] and the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of
+it[84]. Obvious it was, next, for some one in perplexity,--(2) to
+introduce both readings ([Greek: apo] and [Greek: hagioi]) into the
+text. Accordingly [Greek: apo Theou hagioi] is found in C, two cursives,
+and Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. [Greek:
+hypo] for [Greek: apo]--but only because [Greek: hypo] went immediately
+before); of which fresh blunder ([Greek: hypo Theou hagioi]) Theophylact
+is the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have been
+foreseen: (4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both [Greek: apo]
+and [Greek: agioi] were left out,--which accounts for the reading of
+certain copies of the Old Latin[87]. 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 '_holy_
+men of God spake,' require us to read 'men spake _from_ 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?
+
+Another excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished by Heb.
+vii. 1. Instead of [Greek: Ho synantesas Abraam]--said of
+Melchizedek,--[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit [Greek: OS]. The whole body of
+the copies, headed by CLP, are against them[88],--besides
+Chrysostom[89], Theodoret[90], Damascene[91]. It is needless to do more
+than state how this reading arose. The initial letter of [Greek:
+synantesas] has been reduplicated through careless transcription:
+[Greek: OSSYN]--instead of [Greek: OSYN]--. 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.
+
+
+Sec. 6.
+
+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[92]: 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[93]] Barabbas,
+or Jesus who is called Christ?' 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[94].' 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[95].
+
+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 '_unto you_'
+([Greek: UMIN]) for the word '_Jesus_' ([Greek: IN]): in other words,
+carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of [Greek: UMIN],--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 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 Saviour's namesake! We prefer Origen's account, though he
+mistook the cause, to that of the modern critic.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission
+of [Greek: ede] 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).
+
+[62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 _bis_, 251 _bis_, 252, 253, 255
+_bis_, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat^{ox} iv. 21.
+
+[63] _dem._ 440. But not _in cs._ 426: _theoph._ 262, 275.
+
+[64] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32.
+
+[65] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, [Greek:
+etoimos ede pros to pisteuein].
+
+[66] Ambrose, ii. 279, has '_Et qui metit_.' Iren.^{int} substitutes
+'_nam_' for '_et_,' and omits '_jam_.' Jerome 9 times introduces '_jam_'
+before '_albae sunt_.' So Aug. (iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v.
+531) he omits the word altogether.
+
+[67] 'Hic' is not recognized in Ambrose. _Append._ ii. 367.
+
+[68] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice
+(viii. 34: x. 838) has [Greek: ego de ode]: once (viii. 153) not. John
+Damascene (ii. 579) is without the [Greek: ode].
+
+[69] i. 76: vi. 16 (_not_ vi. 484).
+
+[70] iii.^{2} 259 (_not_ v. 511).
+
+[71] p. 405.
+
+[72] [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.]
+
+[73] iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes [Greek: theou].
+
+[74] _Ap._ Mai vii. 135.
+
+[75] Praep. xiii. 6,--[Greek: monou tou henos] (vol. ii. 294).
+
+[76] Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37.
+
+[77] iii. 101.
+
+[78] Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.
+
+[79] Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: 'Antequam
+manum de tabula amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano
+inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in
+nuperrima sua editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii.
+14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a prima manu [Greek: euraklydon]; nos vero
+[Greek: eurakydon]; atque subjungit, "_utrumque, ut videtur, male_." At,
+quidquid "videri" possit, certum nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum
+codicem primo habuisse [Greek: eurakydon], prout expressum fuit tum in
+tabella qua Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in altera qua nos
+errata corrigenda recensuimus.'--Praefatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of the Cod.
+Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. Sec. vi. [Any one may now see this in the
+photographed copy.]
+
+[80] _Ap._ Galland. x. 225.
+
+[81] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to
+the copyist _knowing more of Latin than of Greek_.
+
+True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. _That is
+the reason why_ the Latin translator (not understanding the word)
+rendered it _Euroaquilo_: instead of writing _Euraquilo_.
+
+I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief.
+Like the man who wrote [Greek: ep' auto to phoro] for [Greek: ep'
+autophoro].
+
+    Readings of Euroclydon
+
+    [Greek: EURAKYDON] B (sic)
+    [Greek: EURAKYLON] [Symbol: Aleph]A
+    [Greek: EURAKELON]
+    [Greek: EUTRAKELON]
+    [Greek: EURAKLEDON] Peshitto.
+    [Greek: EURAKYKLON]
+
+    Euroaquilo Vulg.
+
+    [Greek: EUROKLYDON] HLP
+    [Greek: EURAKLYDON] Syr. Harkl.
+    [Greek: EURYKLYDON] B^{2 man.}
+
+[82] [Greek: Opou] ([Greek: ou] [Symbol: Aleph]) [Greek: gar] (--[Greek:
+gar] [Symbol: Aleph]BDL) [Greek: ean] ([Greek: an] D) [Greek: to ptoma]
+([Greek: soma] [Symbol: Aleph]).
+
+[83] _Sancti Dei homines._
+
+[84] _Ap._ Galland. x. 236 a.
+
+[85] Trin. 234.
+
+[86] iii. 389.
+
+[87] '_Locuti sunt homines D_.'
+
+[88] Their only supporters seem to be K [i.e. Paul 117 (Matthaei's Sec.)],
+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?
+
+[89] Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a.
+
+[90] Theodoret, iii. 584.
+
+[91] J. Damascene, ii. 240 c.
+
+[92] St. Matt. xxvii. 17.
+
+[93] Cf. [Greek: ho legomenos Barabbas]. St. Mark xv. 7.
+
+[94] _Int._ iii. 918 c d.
+
+[95] 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
+'_Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur et Jesus._'--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, _Append._), 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 '_Jesus_ 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).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+IV. Itacism.
+
+
+[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.']
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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
+Spirit's meaning. New incidents:--unheard-of statements:--facts as yet
+unknown to readers of Scripture:--perversions of our Lord's 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 [Greek: palin], thrust in where it has no business, makes it appear
+that our Saviour promised to return the ass on which He rode in triumph
+into Jerusalem[96]. By writing [Greek: o] for [Greek: o], many critics
+have transferred some words from the lips of Christ to those of His
+Evangelist, and made Him say what He never could have dreamed of
+saying[97]. By subjoining [Greek: s] 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[98]. By
+omitting [Greek: to] and [Greek: Kyrie], the repenting malefactor is
+made to say, 'Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom[99].'
+
+Speaking of our Saviour's 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 _when_ 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[100]. But Tischendorf and Lachmann, who on the authority of D
+and four later uncials read [Greek: hoti] instead of [Greek: hote],
+import into the Gospel quite another meaning. According to their way of
+exhibiting the text, St. John is made to say that 'the multitude which
+was with Jesus, testified _that_ 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 [Greek: hoti], 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, _the whole body of
+the cursives_, exhibit [Greek: hote],--which, as every one must see, is
+certainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf's assertion
+that the prolixity of the expression [Greek: ephonesen ek tou mnemeiou
+kai egeiren auton ek nekron] is inconsistent with [Greek:
+hote][101],--may surprise, but will never convince any one who is even
+moderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar manner.
+
+The same mistake--of [Greek: hoti] for [Greek: hote]--is met with at
+ver. 41 of the same chapter. 'These things said Isaiah _because_ he saw
+His glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not '_when_ 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 [Greek: hoti]: also Nonnus,
+who lived in the Thebaid (A.D. 410): but all other MSS., the Latin,
+Peshitto, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version:--
+Origen[102],--Eusebius in four places[103],--Basil[104],--Gregory of
+Nyssa twice[105],--Didymus three times[106],--Chrysostom twice[107],--
+Severianus of Gabala[108];--these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute
+a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril three times
+reads [Greek: hoti][109], three times [Greek: hote][110],--and once
+[Greek: henika][111], which proves at least how he understood the place.
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+[A suggestive example[112] 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 _washed_[113] us from our sins in His own blood'
+(A.V.), is replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, 'Who hath
+_loosed_[114] 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 [Greek: u] for [Greek: ou], transcribing [Greek: lusanti] for
+[Greek: lousanti] (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 [Greek: u], followed by
+nine cursives, the Harkleian Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the
+other side, two uncials--viz. B^{2} of the eighth century and P of the
+ninth--the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write [Greek: lousanti]
+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.]
+
+[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 [Greek: hode] into [Greek: hode], misinterpreting the letter
+which served often for both the long and the short [Greek: o], 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 [Greek: hode] is the genuine word.]
+
+[Again, in St. John xiii. 25, [Greek: houtos] has dropped out of many
+copies and so out of the Received Text because by an Itacism it was
+written [Greek: outos] in many manuscripts. Therefore [Greek: ekeinos
+outos] 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 [Greek: houtos] was redundant, and this
+was the cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really [Greek:
+houtos], being sufficiently authenticated[115], is exactly in consonance
+with Greek usage and St. John's style[116], and adds considerably to the
+graphic character of the sacred narrative. St. John was reclining
+([Greek: anakeimenos]) on his left arm over the bosom of the robe
+([Greek: en toi kolpoi]) of the Saviour. When St. Peter beckoned to him
+he turned his head for the moment and sank ([Greek: epipeson], not
+[Greek: anapeson] which has the testimony only of B and about
+twenty-five uncials, [Symbol: Aleph] and C being divided against
+themselves) on the breast of the Lord, being still in the general
+posture in which he was ([Greek: houtos][117]), and asked Him in a
+whisper 'Lord, who is it?']
+
+[Another case of confusion between [Greek: o] and [Greek: o] may be seen
+in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where [Greek: apololos] has gained so strong a
+hold that it is found in the Received Text for [Greek: apololos], which
+last being the better attested appears to be the right reading[118]. But
+the instance which requires the most attention is [Greek: katharizon] in
+St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because in _The Last Twelve Verses of
+St. Mark_, the alteration into [Greek: katharizon] is advocated as being
+'no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment
+on the Saviour's words[119].' 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 [Greek: katharizon], and [Greek: katharizon]
+bears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidence
+is divided, there being eight against the change ([Symbol: Phi][Symbol:
+Sigma]KMUV[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]), and eleven for it ([Symbol:
+Aleph]ABEFGHLSX[Symbol: Delta]);--that not much is advanced by the
+versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis Codex, the Harkleian (?), the
+Gothic, the Old Latin[120], the Vulgate, favour [Greek:
+katharizon];--nor by the Fathers:--since Aphraates[121], Augustine
+(?)[122], and Novatian[123] are contradicted by Origen[124],
+Theophylact[125], and Gregory Thaumaturgus[126], 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
+[Greek: katharizon],--and that there is such difficulty cannot candidly
+be denied,--this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by
+[Greek: katharizon], 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. The fact is that to
+make this reading satisfactory, another alteration is required. [Greek:
+Katharizon panta ta bromata] 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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 [Greek: en] (_not the
+numeral_ [Greek: hen]) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our Lord says that the seed
+which 'fell into the good ground' 'yielded by ([Greek: en]) thirty, and
+by ([Greek: en]) sixty, and by ([Greek: en]) an hundred.' Tischendorf
+notes that besides all the uncials which are furnished with accents and
+breathings (viz. EFGHKMUV[Symbol: Pi]) 'nearly 100 cursives' exhibit
+[Greek: en] here and in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case.
+All the cursives may be declared to exhibit [Greek: en], e.g. all
+Matthaei's and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object examined
+a large number of Evangelia, and found [Greek: en] in all. The Basle MS.
+from which Erasmus derived his text[127] exhibits [Greek: en],--though
+he printed [Greek: hen] out of respect for the Vulgate. The
+Complutensian having [Greek: hen], the reading of the Textus Receptus
+follows in consequence: but the Traditional reading has been shewn to be
+[Greek: en],--which is doubtless intended by [Greek: EN] in Cod. A.
+
+Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Delta] (two ever licentious and [Symbol:
+Delta] similarly so throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition
+[Greek: en] the preposition [Greek: eis],--(a sufficient proof to me
+that they understand [Greek: EN] to represent [Greek: en], not [Greek:
+hen]): and are followed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As
+for the chartered libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the
+first [Greek: en] (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the
+preposition [Greek: EIS]: while, in ver. 20, it retains the first
+[Greek: en], but omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is
+followed by Westcott and Hort[128].
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+St. Paul[129] in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young women
+shall be 'keepers at home,' [Greek: oikourous]. So, (with five
+exceptions,) every known Codex[130], including the corrected [Symbol:
+Aleph] and D,--HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens Alex.[131]
+(A.D. 180),--Theodore of Mopsuestia[132],--Basil[133],--Chrysostom[134]--
+Theodoret[135],--Damascene[136]. So again the Old Latin (_domum
+custodientes_[137]),--the Vulgate (_domus curam habentes_[138]),--and
+Jerome (_habentes domus diligentiam_[139]): 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 [Greek:
+oikouros] was held to be a woman's chiefest praise[140]: [Greek:
+kalliston ergon gyne oikouros], writes Clemens Alex.[141]; assigning to
+the wife [Greek: oikouria] as her proper province[142]. On the contrary,
+'gadding about from house to house' is what the Apostle, writing to
+Timothy[143], 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.
+
+Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and
+Hort, because they find [Greek: oikourgous] in [Symbol: Aleph]*ACD*F-G,
+are for thrusting that 'barbarous and scarcely intelligible' word, if it
+be not even a non-existent[144], 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.]
+
+So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, [Greek: ti hemin kai soi, Iesou,
+huie tou Theou]; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name [Greek: Iesou] is omitted
+by B[Symbol: Aleph].
+
+The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is inspected:--[Greek:
+KAISOI_IU_UIETOU_THU_]:--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.
+
+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.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[96] St. Mark xi. 4. See Revision Revised, pp. 57-58.
+
+[97] St. Mark vii. 19, [Greek: katharizon] for [Greek: katharizon]. See
+below, pp. 61-3.
+
+[98] St. Luke ii. 14.
+
+[99] St. Luke xxiii. 42.
+
+[100] St. Matt. xx. 9. See also St. Mark xi. 9, 10.
+
+[101] 'Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si [Greek:
+hote] legendum esset.'
+
+[102] iv. 577: 'quando.'
+
+[103] Dem. Ev. 310, 312, 454 _bis._
+
+[104] i. 301.
+
+[105] ii. 488, and _ap._ Gall. vi. 580.
+
+[106] Trin. 59, 99, 242.
+
+[107] viii. 406, 407. Also ps.-Chrysost. v. 613. Note, that
+'Apolinarius' in Cramer's Cat. 332 is Chrys. viii. 407.
+
+[108] _Ap._ Chrys. vi. 453.
+
+[109] iv. 505, 709, and _ap_. Mai iii. 85.
+
+[110] ii. 102: iv. 709, and _ap_. Mai iii. 118.
+
+[111] v^{1}. 642.
+
+[112] Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists of instances of
+Itacism, he worked out none, except the substitution of [Greek: hen] for
+[Greek: en] 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 [Greek: lousanti] and [Greek: katharizon] 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.
+
+[113] [Greek: lousanti].
+
+[114] [Greek: lusanti].
+
+[115]
+    [Greek: houtos]. BCEFGHLMX[Symbol: Delta]. Most cursives. Goth.
+    [Greek: outos]. KSU[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Lambda]. Ten cursives.
+    _Omit_ [Symbol: Aleph]AD[Pi]. Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop.
+      Armen. Georg. Slavon.
+    Bohair. Pers.
+
+[116] E.g. Thuc. vii. 15, St. John iv. 6.
+
+[117] See St. John iv. 6: Acts xx. 11, xxvii. 17. The beloved Apostle
+was therefore called [Greek: ho epistethios]. See Suicer. s. v. Westcott
+on St. John xiii. 25.
+
+[118]
+    24. [Greek: apololos.] [Symbol: Aleph]^{a}ABD &c.
+    [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]*GKMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol:
+    Pi]*. Most curs.
+
+    32. [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]*ABD &c.
+    [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]^{c}KMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol:
+    Pi]*. Most curs.
+
+[119] Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted [Greek: katharizon]
+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 _Twelve Verses_
+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 [Greek:
+katharizon] 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.
+
+[120] 'The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have "in secessum uadit (or
+exiit) purgans omnes escas"; _i_ (Vindobonensis) and _r_ (Usserianus)
+have "et purgat" for "purgans": and _a_ 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.)
+
+[121] Dem. xv. (Graffin)--'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione
+in secessum emittitur.' (Lat.)
+
+[122] iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'
+
+[123] Galland. iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in
+secessu naturali lege purgari.'
+
+[124] iii. 494. [Greek: elege tauta ho Soter, katharizon panta ta
+bromata.]
+
+[125] i. 206. [Greek: ekkatharizon panta ta bromata.]
+
+[126] Galland. iii. 400. [Greek: alla kai ho Soter, panta katharizon ta
+bromata.]
+
+[127] Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4.
+
+[128] [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.
+
+I. _Proper Names._
+
+[Greek: Ioanes], generally: [Greek: Ioannes], 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.
+
+[Greek: Beezeboul], Matt. x. 25; xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15,
+18, 19.
+
+[Greek: Nazaret], Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; John i. 46, 47. [Greek:
+Nazara], Matt. iv. 13. [Greek: Nazareth], Matt. xxi. 11; Luke ii. 51;
+iv. 16.
+
+[Greek: Maria] for [Greek: Mariam], Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 19. [Greek:
+Mariam] for [Greek: Maria], Matt. xxvii. 61; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42;
+xi. 32; John xi. 2; xii. 3; xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86.
+
+[Greek: Koum], Mark v. 41. [Greek: Golgoth], Luke xix. 17.
+
+[Greek: Istraeleitai, Istraelitai, Israeleitai, Israelitai].
+
+[Greek: Eleisabet, Elisabet].
+
+[Greek: Moses, Mouses.]
+
+[Greek: Dalmanountha], Mark viii. 10.
+
+[Greek: Iose] (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. [Greek: Ioseph], Matt.
+xxvii. 57, 59; Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38.
+
+
+II. _Mis-spelling of ordinary words._
+
+[Greek: kath' idian], Matt. xvii. 1, 19; xxi v. 3; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31,
+&c. [Greek: kat' idian], Matt. xiv. 13, 23; Mark vi. 32; vii. 33, &c.
+
+[Greek: genema], Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. [Greek:
+gennema], Matt. iii. 7; xii. 34; xxiii. 33; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known
+[Greek: gennemata echidnon]).
+
+A similar confusion between [Greek: genesis] and [Greek: gennesis],
+Matt. i, and between [Greek: egenethen] and [Greek: egennethen], and
+[Greek: gegenemai] and [Greek: gegennemai]. See Kuenen and Cobet N. T.
+ad fid. Cod. Vaticani lxxvii.
+
+
+III. _Itacisms._
+
+[Greek: kreino], John xii. 48 ([Greek: kreinei]). [Greek: krino], Matt.
+vii. 1; xix. 28; Luke vi. 37; vii. 43; xii. 57, &c.
+
+[Greek: teimo, timo], Matt. xv. 4, 5, 8; xix. 19; xxvii. 9; Mark vii. 6,
+10, &c.
+
+[Greek: enebreimethe] (Matt. ix. 30) for [Greek: enebrimesato]. [Greek:
+anakleithenai] (Mark vi. 39) for [Greek: anaklinai. seitos] for [Greek:
+sitos] (Mark iv. 28).
+
+
+IV. _Bad Grammar._
+
+[Greek: toi oikodespotei epekalesan] for [Greek: ton oikodespoten ekal.]
+(Matt. x. 25). [Greek: katapatesousin] for [Greek:-sosin] (Matt. vii.
+6). [Greek: ho an aitesetai] (Matt. xiv. 7). [Greek: hotan de akouete]
+(Mark xiii. 7).
+
+
+V. _Impossible words._
+
+[Greek: emnesteumenen] (Luke i. 27). [Greek: ouranou] for [Greek:
+ouraniou] (ii. 13). [Greek: anezetoun] (Luke ii. 44). [Greek: kopiousin]
+(Matt. vi. 28). [Greek: erotoun] (Matt. xv. 23). [Greek: kataskenoin]
+(Mark iv. 32). [Greek: hemeis] for [Greek: hymeis]. [Greek: hymeis] for
+[Greek: hemeis].]
+
+[129] 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.
+
+[130] _All_ Matthaei's 16,--_all_ Rinck's 7,--_all_ Reiche's 6,--_all_
+Scrivener's 13, &c., &c.
+
+[131] 622.
+
+[132] _Ed._ Swete, ii. 247 (_domos suas bene regentes_); 248 (_domus
+proprias optime regant_).
+
+[133] ii. (_Eth._) 291 a, 309 b.
+
+[134] xi. 750 a, 751 b c d--[Greek: he oikouros kai oikonomike.]
+
+[135] iii. 704.
+
+[136] ii. 271.
+
+[137] Cod. Clarom.
+
+[138] Cod. Amiat., and August. iii^{1}. 804.
+
+[139] vii. 716 c, 718 b (_Bene domum regere_, 718 c).
+
+[140] [Greek: kat' oikon oikourousin hoste parthenoi] (Soph. Oed. Col.
+343).--'[Greek: Oikouros] est quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: [Greek:
+oikourgos] 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.
+
+[141] P. 293, _lin._ 4 (see _lin._ 2).
+
+[142] P. 288, _lin._ 20.
+
+[143] 1 Tim. v. 13.
+
+[144] [Greek: oikourgein]--which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c.
+1)--is probably due to the scribe.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
+
+V. Liturgical Influence.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+There is one distinct class of evidence provided by Almighty God for the
+conservation of the deposit in its integrity[145], 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 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[146].
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+They seem to me to fall into two classes: (_a_) Those which contain a
+lesson for every day in the year: (_b_) Those which only contain
+[lessons for fixed Festivals and] the Saturday-Sunday lessons ([Greek:
+sabbatokyriakai]). We are reminded 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[147]. [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[148].]
+
+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[149]. 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 [Greek: deuteroprotoi][150],' 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[151].
+
+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[152]. For example, Marcion, in A.D. 140,
+would hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and Apostolicon of his
+own, as we learn from Epiphanius[153], if he had not been induced by the
+Lectionary System prevailing around him to form a counterplan of
+teaching upon the same model.]
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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.
+
+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 Jesus said unto His
+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[154], they are found in Cod. D[155],--in copies of
+the Old Latin[156] 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[157].
+
+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[158]. 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 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.
+
+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 [Greek: TO TELOS], 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[159]? 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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 [Greek:
+eipe de ho Kyrios], 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 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 Lord's discourse,--which it is
+perceived flows on unbroken from v. 24 to v. 35. This has been seen
+already by some[160], 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[161], 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
+Lord.
+
+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 Saviour 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
+Saviour's words were receiving at the hands of his auditory; but our
+Saviour's 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 [Greek: oun] in the 31st verse; and the
+use in ver. 35 of the same verb ([Greek: edikaiothe]) which the Divine
+Speaker had employed in ver. 29: whereby He takes up His previous
+statement while He applies and enforces it.
+
+Another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating in the same way
+is found a little farther on. In St. Luke ix. 1 ('And having called
+together His twelve Disciples'), the words [Greek: mathetas autou] 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 Jesus having called together His twelve Disciples.'
+Accordingly we are not surprised to find the words [Greek: ho Iesous]
+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 [Greek: mathetas
+autou], [Symbol: Aleph]C with LX[Symbol: Lambda][Symbol: Xi] and a
+choice assortment of cursives exhibit [Greek: apostolous],--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.
+
+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 Lord's first and second missionary journey in
+very nearly the same words. The former place (iv. 23) ending [Greek: kai
+pasan malakian en to lao] used to conclude the lesson for the second
+Sunday after Pentecost,--the latter (ix. 35) ending [Greek: kai pasan
+malakian] occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventh
+Sunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers the matter,
+that [Greek: en to lao] 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[162].
+
+But sometimes corruptions of this class are really perplexing. Thus
+[Symbol: Aleph] testifies to the existence of a short additional clause
+([Greek: kai polloi ekolouthesan auto]) at the end, 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.
+
+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 ([Greek: kai idou nomikos tis aneste,
+ekpeirazon aiton, kai legon]). Many of the Latin copies preface this
+with _et haec eo dicente_. Now, the established formula of the
+lectionaries here is,--[Greek: nomikos tis prosethen to I.], 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,--[Greek: aneste de tis nomikos]. Four
+Codexes ([Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi]) with the Curetonian omit the
+second [Greek: kai] which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place
+in its purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy.
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+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, Westcott and Hort, and the
+Revisers eject the words [Greek: kai eplerothe he graphe he legousa, kai
+meta anomon elogisthe] from the text altogether. What can be the reason
+for so extraordinary a proceeding?
+
+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.
+
+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 ([Greek: sis] / [Greek: e] 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?
+
+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 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[163].
+
+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?'
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the Bibliotheque 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 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 _it has left it_[164]. The
+explanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, and the Codexes
+which leave it out are corrupt.
+
+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.
+
+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'?
+
+
+Sec. 5.
+
+A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this cause, which
+nevertheless has imposed on several critics, 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. [Greek: Epi to auto
+de Petros kai Ioannes k.t.l.] So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E.
+
+The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however in
+representing the words which immediately precede in the following
+unintelligible fashion:--[Greek: ho de Kyrios prosetithei tous
+sozomenous kath' hemeran epi to auto. Petros de k.t.l.] 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 [Greek: arche]--indicative of the beginning of a lection,--thrust
+in between [Greek: epi to auto de] and [Greek: Petros]. 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[165]. And so it
+came to pass that in the first instance the place stood thus: [Greek: ho
+de Kyrios prosetithei tous sozomenous kath' hemeran te ekklesia epi to
+auto],--which was plainly intolerable.
+
+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:--[Greek: kathemeran epi to auto en te ekklesia. En de tais
+hemerais tautais Petros k.t.l.]: 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 [Greek: te ekklesia epi
+to auto] 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 [Greek: te ekklesia].
+
+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 [Greek: epi to auto] seemed
+hard to the Latins[166].
+
+Hence too the omission of [Greek: palin] from [Symbol: Aleph]BD (St.
+Matt, xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex[167] will
+explain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of writing:--
+
+  [Greek: akoueto. telos]
+  [Greek: palin. arche. eipen o Kurios ten parabolen tauten.]
+  [Greek: Omoia estin k.t.l.]
+
+The word [Greek: palin], because it stands between the end ([Greek:
+telos]) of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning ([Greek:
+arche]) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out [though every
+one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows that [Greek: arche] and [Greek:
+telos] were often inserted in the text]. The second of these two lessons
+begins with [Greek: homoia] [because [Greek: palin] 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^{1.2} g^{1.2} k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does but
+further shew that such an amount of evidence in and by itself is wholly
+insufficient to determine the text of Scripture.
+
+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 [Greek: akouein],--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
+[Greek: panta hosa echei polei],--I can but reflect on the utterly
+insecure basis on which the Revisers and the school which they follow
+would remodel the inspired Text.
+
+It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, that the clause
+[Greek: kai elypethesan sphodra] (St. Matt. xvii. 23) comes to be
+omitted in K and several other copies. The previous lesson ends at
+[Greek: egerthesetai],--the next lesson begins at [Greek: proselthon].
+
+
+Sec. 6.
+
+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[168], I will in this
+place discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the Lord's
+Prayer concludes in St. Matt. vi. 13[169],--[Greek: hoti sou estin he
+basileia kai he dynamis kai he doxa eis tous aionas. amen],--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.
+
+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 of the Latin copies. Even of these however
+four (k f g^{1} 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 [Greek: Didache] (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 [Symbol:
+Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma] 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?
+
+Four uncial MSS. ([Symbol: Aleph]BDZ), supported by five cursives of bad
+character (1, 17 which gives [Greek: amen], 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 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?
+
+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 _And deliver us
+from evil_, follows _For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
+glory, for ever_. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after
+the choir has said _And deliver us from evil_, 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 Lord's 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 Lord's Prayer. The same statement has been repeated ad nauseam by
+ten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which our
+Saviour 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.
+
+From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies, it is
+found then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that
+_not one_ 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 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.
+
+'_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory_, Father, Son
+and Holy Ghost, now and always and _for ever_ and ever. _Amen_.'
+
+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 [Greek: nun kai
+aei],--and its invariable [Greek: eis tous aionas ton aionon], (which
+must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by
+Irenaeus[170], 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,--'_For thine
+is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen._'
+
+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 Lord's 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 practice of the
+ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible.
+
+What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's peculiar method
+of reciting the Lord's 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 Lord's Prayer than
+they found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder
+would have been if they did.
+
+Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers
+concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the Lord's
+Prayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa[171], 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 A.D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this
+respect, in a different state from what they are at present?
+
+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 Lord's 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
+Lord Jesus Christ.
+
+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.
+
+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, Tregelles, Alford,
+Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as
+spurious.
+
+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 [Greek: Didache] 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[172]. 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 [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma]. 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?
+
+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.
+
+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 Lord's Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their
+genuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an
+indefinitely remote period the Lord's 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.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[145] [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.]
+
+[146] [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.]
+
+[147] ['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--_not_ 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.]
+
+[148] [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener's Plain
+Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.]
+
+[149] See Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp.
+56-65.
+
+[150] Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence.
+
+[151] St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.
+
+[152] 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.
+
+[153] i. 311.
+
+[154] [Greek: eipen ho Kyrios tois heautou mathetais; me tarassestho.]
+
+[155] [Greek: kai eipen tois mathetais autou]. The same Codex (D) also
+prefixes to St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula--[Greek: eipen
+de kai eteran parabolen].
+
+[156] '_Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur_.'
+
+[157] E.g. the words [Greek: kai legei autois; eirene hymin] have been
+omitted by Tisch, and rejected by W.-Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 _on the
+sole authority_ of D and five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on the
+same sorry evidence, the words [Greek: proskynesantes auton] 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.
+
+[158] Pp. 78-80.
+
+[159] See Traditional Text, Appendix VII.
+
+[160] Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Westcott and Hort, doubt it.
+
+[161] Thus Codex [Symbol: Xi] actually interpolates at this place the
+words--[Greek: ouketi ekeinois elegeto, alla tois mathetais.] Tisch. _ad
+loc_.
+
+[162] Cyril Alex, (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and a
+few other copies, even append the same familiar words to [Greek: kai
+pasan malakian] in St. Matt. x. 1.
+
+[163] Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348.
+
+[164] 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.'
+
+[165] [Greek: tous sozomenous kathemeran en te ekklesia. epi to auto de
+(TE S' TES DIAKINESIMOU) Petros kai Ioannes, k.t.l.] Addit. 16,184, fol.
+152 _b_.
+
+[166] Bede, Retr. 111. D (add. [Greek: hoi en t. ekkl.]). Brit. Mus.
+Addit. 16, 184. fol. 152 _b._ Vulgate.
+
+[167] So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed
+in a smaller type, for distinction.
+
+[168] The Revision Revised, 34-6.
+
+[169] See The Traditional Text, p. 104.
+
+[170] [Greek: alla kai hemas epi tes Eucharistias legontas, 'eis tous
+aionas ton aionon,' k.t.l.] Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3.
+
+[171] But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener,
+Introduction, ii. p. 325, note 1.
+
+[172] See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I
+have increased the Dean's list with a few additional authorities.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+I. Harmonistic Influence.
+
+
+[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.
+
+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.
+
+We now advance to some instances which will severally and conjointly
+explain themselves.]
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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
+Lord's 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'
+([Greek: eiselthousai]), 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] _towards the sepulchre_ weeping,--_outside_[173].'
+
+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[174], from which they are 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 [Greek: pros to mnemeion]
+into [Greek: pros to mnemeio] (which is just as ambiguous in Greek as
+'_at_ the sepulchre' in English[175]), and [Greek: exo] 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 [Greek:
+heistekei pros to mnemeio, exo klaiousa],--merely transposing (with many
+other authorities) the last two words. But then Codex B substitutes
+[Greek: elthousai] for [Greek: eiselthousai] 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[176]. Codex [Symbol: Aleph], on the
+contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting [Greek: exo],--(as in
+the next verse it leaves out [Greek: duo], 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 [Greek: EN to mnemeio]. (C and D
+are lost here.) When will men learn that these 'old uncials' are _ignes
+fatui_,--not beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they exhibit
+are not only inconsistent but corrupt?
+
+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 [Greek: pros to mnemeio]: but so did neither
+Chrysostom[177] nor Cyril[178] read the place. And if the Evangelist
+himself had so written, is it credible 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
+[Greek: pros to mnemeio], 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.
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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 [Greek: kai tines syn autais] 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 Lord's body was
+laid. Now they were the same women apparently who prepared the spices
+and ointment and hastened therewith at break of 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
+Saviour 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.'
+
+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 [Greek: kai tines syn autais] are
+observed to begin St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows,--[Greek:
+katakolouthesasai de DUO gynaikes]. 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
+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.
+
+[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic Influence may be found
+in the substitution of 'wine' ([Greek: oinon]) for vinegar ([Greek:
+oxos]), respecting which the details are given in the second Appendix to
+the Traditional Text.]
+
+[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propensities in the Ancient
+Church.]
+
+In St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of the Old Latin
+versions (b c f g^{1} 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.
+
+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.
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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 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].
+
+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.
+
+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.]
+
+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 Lord's paying
+tribute,--set down in St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26.
+
+The received text exhibits,--'And when he [Peter] had entered ([Greek:
+hote eiselthen]) into the house, Jesus 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 [Greek: hote
+eiselthen], Codex B (but no other uncial) substitutes [Greek: elthonta]:
+Codex [Symbol: Aleph] (but no other) [Greek: eiselthonta]: Codex D (but
+no other) [Greek: eiselthonti]: Codex C (but no other) [Greek: hote
+elthon]: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained [Greek:
+eiselthonton]; and a sixth, [Greek: elthonton auton]. A very fair
+specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the _concordia discors_
+which prevails in the most ancient uncial copies[179]. How is all this
+discrepancy to be accounted for?
+
+The Evangelist proceeds,--'Peter saith unto Him ([Greek: Legei auto ho
+Petros]), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, but continues--'Now
+when he had said, Of strangers' ([Greek: Eipontos de autou, apo ton
+allotrion]);--which unauthorized clause, all but the word [Greek:
+autou], is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no other uncial. On the
+other hand, for [Greek: Legei auto ho Petros], [Symbol: Aleph] (alone of
+uncials) substitutes [Greek: Ho de ephe]: and B (also alone of uncials)
+substitutes [Greek: Eipontos de],--and then proceeds exactly like the
+received text: while D merely omits [Greek: ho Petros]. Again I
+ask,--How is all this discrepancy to be explained[180]?
+
+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, (_a_) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous clauses:
+(_b_) to introduce new incidents: (_c_) to supply picturesque details:
+(_d_) to give a new turn to the expression: (_e_) to vary the
+construction at pleasure: (_f_) 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 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.
+
+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.
+
+[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 of the piercing of the Lord's side from
+St. John xix. 34 to St. Matt. xxvii. 49[181], and the omission of the
+words 'and of an honeycomb' ([Greek: kai apo tou melissiou
+keriou][182]).]
+
+Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac[183], the _patch-work_ supplement to St.
+Matt. xxi. 9: viz.:--[Greek: polloi de] (St. Mark xi. 8) [Greek:
+exelthon eis hypantesin autou. kai] (St. John xii. 13) [Greek: erxanto
+... chairontes ainein ton Theon ... peri pason hon eidon] (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 Holy Ghost?
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[173] [Greek: Maria de heistekei pros to mnemeion klaiousa exo] (St.
+John xx. 11). Comp. the expression [Greek: pros to phos] 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.
+
+[174] Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius _according to the
+Greek_, the following places are brought together:--
+
+    (St. Matt. xxviii) (St. Mark xvi) (St. Luke xxiv) (St. John xx)
+          1-4.             2-5.             1-4.       1, 11, 12.
+                       _According to the Syriac_:--
+          3, 4.             5.            3, 4, 5(1/2).   11, 12.
+
+[175] Consider [Greek: ho de Petros heistekei pros te thyra exo] (St.
+John xviii. 16). Has not this place, by the way, exerted an assimilating
+influence over St. John xx. 11?
+
+[176] Hesychius, _qu._ 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43),
+explains St. Mark's phrase [Greek: en tois dexiois] as follows:--[Greek:
+delonoti tou exoterou spelaiou].
+
+[177] viii. 513.
+
+[178] iv. 1079.
+
+[179] Traditional Text, pp. 81-8.
+
+[180] 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 Holy Ghost? Is not a superstitious reverence for B and [Symbol:
+Aleph] betraying for ever people into error?
+
+[181] Revision Revised, p. 33.
+
+[182] Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252.
+
+[183] The Lewis MS. is defective here.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+II. Assimilation.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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.
+
+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 _per fas et nefas_ an enforced Harmony has been established,--
+which abound indeed, but are by no means common,--I am disposed to draw
+a line.
+
+This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the 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[184], 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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 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:
+
+(_a_) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of Cod. [Symbol:
+Aleph], in place of [Greek: basanisai hemas] (in St. Matt. viii. 29),
+writes [Greek: hemas apolesai],--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.
+
+(_b_) Again, when in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B we find [Greek: tassomenos]
+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.
+
+(_c_) In the same way I make no doubt that [Greek: potamo] (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.
+
+(_d_) To be brief:--the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: adelphe]
+(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 have written
+[Greek: to anemo] instead of [Greek: tois anemois] in St. Matt. viii.
+26, only because he was so familiar with [Greek: to anemo] 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 [Greek: echete] in St. Matt, xvi. 8, only because he
+was thinking of the parallel place in St. Mark viii. 17.--[Greek:
+Erxanto aganaktein] (St. Matt. xx. 24) can only have been introduced
+into [Symbol: Aleph] from the parallel place in St. Mark x. 41, and
+_may_ have been supplied _memoriter_.--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 [Greek: austeros] in place of [Greek:
+skleros].--The substitution by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: hon
+paretounto] in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for [Greek: hon ethelon] may seem to
+be the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in St.
+Mark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn[185], instead of [Greek: honper
+eitounto], Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit [Greek: hon paretounto],
+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 [Greek: poieso hina echo
+zoen aionion],--the formula which is found in the parallel place of St.
+Luke xviii. 18, viz. [Greek: poiesas zoen aionion kleronomeso],--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.
+
+(_e_) 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 [Greek: legontes, eirene to oiko touto] (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 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.
+
+(_f_) Again. When [Symbol: Aleph] and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. ix.
+34 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the clause [Greek:
+eidotes hoti apethanen], 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, [Greek: ho de exelthon] down to
+[Greek: Kapharnaoum]), 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seen
+in the next example.
+
+The little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, with a
+few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[186]),
+conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause [Greek: hoti ego
+hypago pros ton Patera]: 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 Saviour 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 Father.' 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, _Because I go
+to the_ Father?'--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^{b} (_both_ of the fourth
+century),--every known Cursive--all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac,
+Gothic, Coptic, &c.)--are for retaining the clause. Add, that
+Nonnus[187] (A.D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of Chrysostom[188]
+and of Cyril[189] 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 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 Lord seems at
+first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all!
+
+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 [Greek: touto ti hestin] of the
+Evangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by BDLY to the [Greek: ti
+estin touto] which went immediately before.
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+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 Saviour's 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 Jesus ([Greek: en de anakeimenos en to kolpo tou 'I.]) one of
+His disciples whom Jesus 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 ([Greek: epipeson de ekeinos houtos epi
+to stethos tou 'I.]) [i.e. otherwise keeping his position, see above, p.
+60], saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?'
+
+The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply 'reclining
+([Greek: anakeimenos]) in the bosom' of his Divine Master: that is, his
+place at the Supper is the next adjoining 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
+([Greek: epipeson]) on (or close to) His Master's chest ([Greek: epi to
+stethos]), he says softly,--'Lord, 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 Jesus loved; who also at the
+Supper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay ([Greek: anepesen][190]) on Jesus'
+breast,' (literally, 'upon His chest,'--[Greek: epi to stethos autou]),
+and said, 'Lord, 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 [Greek: ho epistethios],--'the
+(recliner) on the chest[191].'
+
+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 [Greek: epipeson] in St. John xiii. 25.
+Chrysostom[192] and probably Cyril[193] confirm the same reading. So
+also Nonnus[194]. Not so B and C with four other uncials and about
+twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at their head), besides
+Origen[195] in two places and apparently Theodorus of Mopsuestia[196].
+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 [Greek:
+anapeson oun ekeinos k.t.l.] 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.
+
+That this is the true history of the substitution of [Greek: anapeson]
+in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious [Greek: epipeson] 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
+[Greek: anapeson] might usurp the place of [Greek: epipeson][197], 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 '_the one that lay_ ([Greek: ho anapeson]) _upon
+the Lord's chest_.' The expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is
+employed by Irenaeus[198] (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates[199] (Bp. of
+Ephesus A.D. 196); by Origen[200] and by Ephraim Syrus[201]: by
+Epiphanius[202] and by Palladius[203]: by Gregory of Nazianzus[204] and
+by his namesake of Nyssa[205]: by pseudo-Eusebius[206], by
+pseudo-Caesarius[207], and by pseudo-Chrysostom[208]. 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.
+
+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[209] and
+contends on the same side. Alford informs us that [Greek: epipeson] has
+surreptitiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why should it? how
+could it?) '[Greek: anapeson] not seeming appropriate.' Whereas, on the
+contrary, [Greek: anapeson] is the invariable and obvious
+expression,--[Greek: epipeson] the unusual, and, till it has been
+explained, the unintelligible word. Tischendorf,--who had read [Greek:
+epipeson] in 1848 and [Greek: anapeson] 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 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?
+
+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
+[Greek: anapeson] (for [Greek: epipeson]) 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:--
+
+    xiii. 21.-[Greek: o] [Symbol: Aleph]B: [Greek: umin lego] _tr._
+    B.
+
+    xiii. 22.-[Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: oi Ioudaioi] [Symbol:
+    Aleph]: [Greek: aporountei] D.
+
+    xiii. 23.-[Greek: de] B: + [Greek: ek] [Symbol:
+    Aleph]ABCD:-[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai] D.
+
+    xiii. 24. (_for_ [Greek: pythesthai tis an eie] + [Greek: outos]
+    D) [Greek: kai legei auto, eipe tis estin] BC: (_for_ [Greek:
+    legei]) [Greek: elegen] [Symbol: Aleph]: + [Greek: kai legei
+    auto eipe tis estin peri ou legei] [Symbol: Aleph].
+
+    xiii. 25. (_for_ [Greek: epipeson]) [Greek: anapeson] BC:-[Greek: de]
+    BC: (_for_ [Greek: de]) [Greek: oun] [Symbol: Aleph]D; -[Greek:
+    outos] [Symbol: Aleph]AD.
+
+    xiii. 26. + [Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: auto] D:--[Greek: o] B: +
+    [Greek: kai legei] [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + [Greek: an] D: (_for_
+    [Greek: bapsas]) [Greek: embapsas] AD: [Greek: bapso ... kai
+    doso auto] BC: + [Greek: psomou] (_after_ [Greek: psomion]) C:
+    (_for_ [Greek: embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas] D: (_for_ [Greek: kai
+    embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas oun] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: -[Greek: to]
+    B: + [Greek: lambanei kai] BC: [Greek: Iskariotou] [Symbol:
+    Aleph]BC: [Greek: apo Karyotou] D.
+
+    xiii. 27.-[Greek: tote] [Symbol: Aleph]:-[Greek: meta to psomion
+    tote] D: (_for_ [Greek: legei oun]) [Greek: kai legei]
+    D:-[Greek: o] B.
+
+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 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?
+
+
+Sec. 5.
+
+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[210] proved that the
+clause [Greek: huiou tou Theou] 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[211], Gothic, and Egyptian versions,
+as well as by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta], and (according 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
+[Greek: en to Esaia to prophete] instead of [Greek: en tois prophetais]
+in St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every recent editor
+and critic[212],--has been either overestimated or else misunderstood.
+
+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 [Greek: tou prophetou] for [Greek: ton propheton] 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[213], Eusebius[214], and pseudo-Jerome[215] certainly found it
+in many ancient copies?
+
+2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes [Symbol:
+Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]:--If any one will be at the pains to tabulate
+the 900[216] 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 responsibility is shared on about
+200 occasions by D: on about 265 by C: on about 350 by [Delta][217]. 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]BCDL[Symbol: Delta]. 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]BDL[Symbol: Delta].
+
+3. The cursive copies which exhibit 'Isaiah' in place of 'the prophet.'
+reckoned by Tischendorf at 'nearly twenty-five,' are probably less than
+fifteen[218], and those, almost all of suspicious character. High time
+it is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were
+better understood.
+
+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[219]) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augustine, being
+Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version ('sicut scriptum est in
+Isaia propheta'), which is without variety of reading. There remain
+Origen (the faulty character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon
+already), Porphyry[220] the heretic (who wrote a book to convict the
+Evangelists of mis-statements[221], and who is therefore scarcely a
+trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severianus. Of these,
+Eusebius[222] and Jerome[223] 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?
+
+And do any inquire,--How then did this perversion of the truth arise? In
+the easiest way possible, I answer. Refer to the Eusebian tables, and
+note that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:--
+
+    St. Matt. [Greek: e] (i.e. iii. 3).
+    St. Mark. [Greek: b] (i.e. i. 3).
+    St. Luke. [Greek: z] (i.e. iii. 3-6).
+    St. John. [Greek: i] (i.e. i. 23)[224].
+
+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,
+_what_ more obvious than that some critic with harmonistic proclivities
+should have insisted on supplying _the second also_, 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.
+
+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.
+
+But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable, except
+under peculiar circumstances. For first, whatever _a priori_
+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 [Greek: to
+rhethen DIA Daniel tou prophetou], standing ([Greek: hestos]) in the
+holy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it as '[Greek: to rhethen UPO
+Daniel tou prophetou] standing ([Greek: hestos]) 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 Holy Spirit 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 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.
+
+Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of Assimilation.
+
+St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place of his Gospel
+(xiv. 3), describe our Lord 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 _not_?' 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?
+
+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 [Greek: gemisai ten koilian autou apo], in
+St. Luke xv. 16, the words [Greek: chortasthenai ek]. But editors have
+omitted to point out that the words [Greek: epethymei chortasthenai],
+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.
+
+The reader has now been presented with several examples of Assimilation.
+Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to
+be sufficiently conspicuous, 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.
+
+
+Sec. 6.
+
+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]BCDL[Symbol: Delta],--a most suspicious
+company, and three cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin,
+including the Vulgate:--[Greek: amen lego hymin, anektoteron estai
+Sodomois e Gomorrois en hemerai kriseos, he te polei ekeine]. 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, [Greek:
+SodomOIS E GomorrOIS]: St. Matthew, [Greek: GE SodomON KAI GomorrON].
+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.
+
+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[225] 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]BCDL[Symbol:
+Delta] and their Latin allies,--which will be found _never_ to conspire
+together exclusively except to mislead.
+
+
+Sec. 7.
+
+Because a certain clause (e.g. [Greek: kai he lalia sou homoiazei] 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.
+
+1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader,
+although to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ 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 parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by
+side:--
+
+St. Matt. xxvi. 73.           St. Mark xiv. 70.
+
+(1) [Greek: Alethos kai su]  (1) [Greek: Alethos]
+(2) [Greek: ex auton ei.]    (2) [Greek: ex auton ei.]
+(3) [Greek: kai gar]         (3) [Greek: kai gar Galilaios ei,]
+(4) [Greek: he lalia sou delon se poiei]
+                             (4) [Greek: kai he lalia sou homoiazei.]
+
+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 [Greek:
+homoiazei], 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.
+
+1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of
+the Old Latin (a b c ff^{2} 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 [Greek: he lalia
+sou delon se poiei] of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has
+no business to be.
+
+Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew's
+Gospel to St. Mark,--for D also omits [Greek: kai su] in clause (1).
+
+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 ([Greek: kai he lalia sou delon se poiei]) to St. Mark.
+
+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,--[Greek: kai gar he lalia sou delon se homoiazei].
+
+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).
+
+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 [Greek: kai su] (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).
+
+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).
+
+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--
+
+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.
+
+On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person seriously contend
+that [Greek: kai he lalia sou homiazei] 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[226]. 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[227].' _That_ 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?
+
+[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of
+the text of the New Testament.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[184] This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep
+the words with this caution to the reader.
+
+[185] Above, p. 32.
+
+[186] The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is _nil_; the sum of it
+being that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between
+[Greek: opsesthe me] (in ver. 16), and [Greek: touto ti estin] (in ver.
+18).
+
+[187] Nonnus,--[Greek: hixomai eis gennetera].
+
+[188] viii. 465 a and c.
+
+[189] iv. 932 and 933 c.
+
+[190] = [Greek: ana-keimenos + epi-peson]. [Used not to suggest
+over-familiarity (?).]
+
+[191] Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A.D. 270 (_ap._ Galland. iii.
+548). Cf. Routh, Rell. i. 42.
+
+[192] [Greek: Ouk anakeitai monon, alla kai to stethei epipiptei] (Opp.
+viii. 423 a).--[Greek: Ti de kai epipiptei to stethei] (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).
+
+[193] Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the [Greek: keimenon] (or
+text) that the verb is found,--Opp. iv. 735.
+
+[194] [Greek: ho de thrasys oxei palmo | stethesin achrantoisi peson
+perilemenos aner].
+
+[195] iv. 437 c: 440 d.
+
+[196] Ibid. p. 342.
+
+[197] 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.
+
+[198] [Greek: ho epi to stethos autou anapeson] (iii. 1, Sec. 1).
+
+[199] [Greek: ho epi to stethos tou Kyriou anapeson] (_ap._ Euseb. iii.
+31).
+
+[200] [Greek: Ti dei peri tou anapesontos epi to stethos legein tou
+'Iesou] (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95).
+
+[201] [Greek: ho epi to stethei tou phlogos anapeson] (Opp. ii. 49 a.
+Cf. 133 c).
+
+[202] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8.
+
+[203] [Greek: tou eis to tes sophias stethos pistos epanapesontos]
+(_ap._ Chrys, xiii. 55).
+
+[204] [Greek: ho epi to stethos tou Iesou anapauetai] (Opp. i. 591).
+
+[205] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488.
+
+[206] Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the
+Syriac, p. 3.
+
+[207] (Fourth or fifth century) _ap._ Galland. vi. 132.
+
+[208] _Ap._ Chrys. viii. 296.
+
+[209] On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.--'[Greek: Anapiptein], (which
+occurs eleven times in the N.T.), when said of guests ([Greek:
+anakeimenoi]) 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 "_sitting down_" to dinner. So far only does it signify "change
+of posture." The notion of "falling _backward_" 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 ([Greek: anepesen]), to that later moment when ([Greek: epi to
+stethos autou]) he interrogated his Divine Master concerning Judas. It
+is a _general_ description of an incident,--for the details of which we
+have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which
+went before.
+
+[210] Traditional Text, Appendix IV.
+
+[211] Pesh. and Harkl.: Cur. and Lew. are defective.
+
+[212] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,
+Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, M^{c}Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the
+Revisers.
+
+[213] In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.
+
+[214] Mont. i. 462.
+
+[215] Ubi supra.
+
+[216] Omitting trifling variants.
+
+[217] [Symbol: Aleph]BL are _exclusively_ responsible on 45 occasions:
++C (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +[Symbol: Delta], on 73:
++CD, on 19: +C[Symbol: Delta], on 118: +D[Symbol: Delta] (i.e. [Symbol:
+Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]), on 42: +CD[Symbol: Delta], on 66.
+
+[218] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is _not_ 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.
+
+[219] v. 10.
+
+[220] _Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.
+
+[221] 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi,
+Porphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311.
+
+[222] [Greek: grapheos toinun esti sphalma]. 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.)
+
+[223] 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus _additum Scriptorum vitio_, quod
+et in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from
+Eusebius).
+
+[224] 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.
+
+[225] Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.
+
+[226] Schulz,--'et [Greek: lalia] et [Greek: omoiazei] aliena a Marco.'
+Tischendorf--'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum [Greek: omoiazei]
+glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,--not criticism.
+
+[227] Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p.
+xlvii.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+III. Attraction.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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 Attraction. 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.
+
+'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every
+Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: Ioudas
+Iskariotes] 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 brother Apostle, 'Jude ([Greek: Ioudas])
+the brother of James[228]': 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.' 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 _why_? Only, I answer,
+because--in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simonos IskarioTEN] (in vi. 71) and
+[Greek: Iouda Simonos IskarioTE] (in xiii. 26)--a little handful of
+copies substitute on both occasions [Greek: IskarioTOU]. Need I go on?
+Nothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of
+some very early scribe, the [Greek: IskarioTEN], [Greek: IskarioTE],
+have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive
+[Greek: SImoNOS] ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcely
+deserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered to
+remain,--where such _betises_ 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.
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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
+that I might finish my course with joy.' The Greek for this begins
+[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai]: where some second or third century
+copyist (misled by the preceding genitive) in place of [Greek: logoN]
+writes [Greek: logoU]; with what calamitous consequence, has been found
+largely explained elsewhere[229]. 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.
+
+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 '_stony tables_ ([Greek: en plaxi lithinais]),'
+but on '_fleshy tables_ of the heart ([Greek: en plaxi kardias
+sarkinais]).' 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
+[Greek: kardias] (unknown to Tischendorf and the rest) be produced in
+detail:--
+
+In the second century, Irenaeus[230],--the Old Latin,--the Peshitto.
+
+In the third century, Origen seven times[231],--the Coptic version.
+
+In the fourth century, the
+Dialogus[232],--Didymus[233],--Basil[234],--Gregory Nyss.[235],--Marcus
+the Monk[236],--Chrysostom in two places[237],--Nilus[238],--the
+Vulgate,--and the Gothic versions.
+
+In the fifth century, Cyril[239],--Isidorus[240],--Theodoret[241],--the
+Armenian--and the Ethiopic versions.
+
+In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing Theodorus
+P.[242]
+
+In the eighth century, J. Damascene[243] ... Besides, of the Latins,
+Hilary[244],--Ambrose[245],--Optatus[246],--Jerome[247],--
+Tichonius[248],--Augustine thirteen times[249],--Fulgentius[250], and
+others[251] ... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told what
+_is_[252]?
+
+But then it so happens that--attracted by the two datives between which
+[Greek: kardias] stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, a
+surprising number of copies are found to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd'
+and 'wholly unnatural reading[253],' [Greek: plaxi kardiAIS sarkinAIS].
+And because (as might have been expected from their character)
+A[254]B[Symbol: Aleph]CD[255] are all five of the number,--Lachmann,
+Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt and
+advocate the awkward blunder[256]. [Greek: Kardiais] 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[257].
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[228] St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1.
+
+[229] Above, pp. 28-31.
+
+[230] 753 _int_.
+
+[231] ii. 843 c. Also _int_ ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.
+
+[232] _Ap_. Orig. i. 866 a,--interesting and emphatic testimony.
+
+[233] Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272.
+
+[234] i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.
+
+[235] i. 682 ([Greek: ouk en plaxi lithinais ... all' en to tes kardias
+pyxio]).
+
+[236] Galland. viii. 40 b.
+
+[237] vii. 2: x. 475.
+
+[238] i. 29.
+
+[239] i. 8: ii. 504: v^{2}. 65. (Aubert prints [Greek: kardias
+sarkines]. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits [Greek: kardias
+sarkinais]. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. [Greek: all' en plaxi
+kardias lithinais] (sic), prints [Greek: kardias sarkinais].) _Ap_. Mai,
+iii. 89, 90.
+
+[240] 299.
+
+[241] iii. 302.
+
+[242] Concil. vi. 154.
+
+[243] ii. 129.
+
+[244] 344.
+
+[245] i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.
+
+[246] Galland. v. 505.
+
+[247] vi. 609.
+
+[248] Galland. viii. 742 dis.
+
+[249] i. 672: ii. 49: iii^{1}. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311:
+x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.
+
+[250] Galland. xi. 248.
+
+[251] Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.
+
+[252] Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and
+Theodoret for [Greek: kardiais], on the ground that in the course of
+their expository remarks they contrast [Greek: kardiai sarkinai] (or
+[Greek: logikai]) with [Greek: plakes lithinai]: as if it were not the
+word [Greek: plaxi] which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf
+enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten
+that E is '_nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D_ (Claromontanus),
+made by some ignorant person'? that 'the Greek _is manifestly
+worthless_, 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.]
+
+[253] Scrivener's Introd. ii. 254.
+
+[254] A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.
+
+[255] 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.
+
+[256] 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 [Greek:
+kardias], the MSS. largely preponderate which read [Greek: kardiais] in
+H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. Sec. 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 ([Greek: en plaxi
+kardiais sarkinais]), which reappears at the end of eight lines without
+the word [Greek: plaxi].
+
+[257] [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.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+IV. Omission.
+
+
+[We have now to consider the largest of all classes of corrupt
+variations from the genuine Text[258]--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.]
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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.
+
+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 _prima facie_ under a disadvantage which is all their
+own. 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.
+
+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[259], 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.
+
+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[260].
+And all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives 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[261];--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 [Greek: Telos] occurring at
+the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 for
+the 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262].
+
+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?'
+
+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.'
+
+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 passages which
+they style 'interpolations,' offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields.
+
+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[263].
+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[264]. 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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 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 _e silentio_--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.]
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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
+[Greek: deuteroproto] is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and
+the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as
+follows:--[Greek: Egeneto de en sabbato diaporeuesthai auton dia
+sporimon].
+
+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. (_a_) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph],
+
+  [Greek: TO EN SABBATO]
+  [Greek: DEUTEROPROTO]
+
+in order to see that the like ending ([Greek: TO]) in the superior line,
+fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (_b_) A proper
+lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the
+phenomenon. (_c_) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand,
+are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the
+Gospels than [Greek: deuteroprotos]. But I repeat,--will you tell us how
+it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a
+_crux_ to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies
+except a small handful?]
+
+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.
+
+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 [Greek: deuteroproto--apo melissiou keriou--haras
+ton stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipete]--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.]
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.
+
+The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed
+at foot[265], 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.
+
+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[266],--
+ps.-Tatian[267]--Aphraates[268],--Chrysostom[269],--Cyril Alex.[270],--
+the Opus Imperfectum[271],--Jerome[272],--Augustine[273]:--in Codexes
+B[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol:
+Pi]EFG 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^{1} ff^{2}. 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 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?]
+
+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[274], Origen[275],
+Eusebius[276] and Cyril[277] having quoted 'the parable of the wicked
+husbandmen' _in extenso_ (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), _leave off at
+verse_ 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[278]?
+That Father quotes _nothing but_ verse 43, which is all he requires for
+his purpose[279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does
+not require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280]
+and Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they
+only quote verse 43.
+
+I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St.
+Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282].
+Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the
+parallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel[283] (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[284] 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.
+
+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.]
+
+
+Sec. 5.
+
+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 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,--
+
+St. Matt.
+
+'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, "This people
+draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips
+([Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos to stomati auton, kai tois cheilesi
+me tima]), but their heart is far from Me."'
+
+St. Mark.
+
+'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, "This
+people honoureth Me with their lips ([Greek: houtos ho laos tois
+cheilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me."'
+
+The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads as follows in
+the ordinary editions of the LXX:--[Greek: kai eipe Kyrios, engizei moi
+ho laos houtos en to stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin auton timosi
+me].
+
+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:--[Greek: ho
+laos houtos tois cheilesi me tima]. So that six words ([Greek: engizei
+moi] and [Greek: to stomati auton, kai]) are not recognized by them: in
+which peculiarity they are countenanced by DLT^{c}, 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, Tischendorf adds a phalanx of
+Fathers:--Clemens Romanus (A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A.D. 150),
+Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210),
+Eusebius (A.D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: and Alford
+supplies also Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A.D.
+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[285],' 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.
+
+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 the one hand, and the whole torrent of
+manuscript evidence on the other.
+
+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 _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_ 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[286]. To return however from this digression.
+
+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 _extant copy of the Gospels except five_ (DLT^{c}, 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:--
+
+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 Septuagintal reading is [Greek: engizei moi ho laos
+outos EN to stomati AUTOU, kai EN tois cheilesin AUTON TIMOSI me],--the
+Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than six
+particulars.
+
+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?
+
+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 _not_ the text of Isaiah?
+
+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 [Greek: ho laos outos], I observe that in the copies of
+St. Mark,--except to be sure in (_a_) Codd. B and D, (_b_) copies of the
+Old Latin, (_c_) the Vulgate, and (_d_) the Peshitto (all of which are
+confessedly corrupt in this particular,)--it is invariably [Greek: outos
+ho laos]. 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?
+
+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 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.
+
+The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 in the Apostolic
+age proves to have been this,--[Greek: Engizei moi ho laos outos tois
+cheilesin auton timosi me]: the words [Greek: en to stomati auton, kai
+en] being omitted. This is certain. Justin Martyr[287] and Cyril of
+Alexandria in two places[288] 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.[289] They are not found, for example, in the
+Codex Alexandrinus.
+
+But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was felt
+to be intolerable. In fact, without a colon point between [Greek: outos]
+and [Greek: tois], the result is without meaning. When once the
+complementary words have been withdrawn, [Greek: engizei moi] 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 an obvious proceeding.
+Accordingly the author of the (so-called) second Epistle of Clemens
+Romanus (Sec. 3), professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah,
+exhibits it thus,--[Greek: Ho laos outos tois cheilesi me tima]. Clemens
+Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two
+occasions[290]. So does Chrysostom[291]. So does Theodoret[292].
+
+Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect of the
+problem: the first, (_a_) That the words [Greek: en to stomati auton,
+kai en] were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering of Isaiah
+xxix. 13: the second, (_b_) that the place of Isaiah was freely quoted
+by the ancients without the initial words [Greek: engizei moi].
+
+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
+[Greek: To stomati auton, kai], is certainly due in the first instance
+to the ascertained Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah
+xxix. 13.
+
+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 [Greek: ho
+laos outos],--St. Mark's [Greek: outos ho laos]. And yet, when Clemens
+Romanus quotes Isaiah, he begins--[Greek: outos ho laos][293]; and so
+twice does Theodoret[294].
+
+The reader is now in a position to judge how much 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.
+
+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 [Greek: to stomati auton, kai] 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
+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.
+
+I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient
+Versions, and all the following early writers,--Ptolemaeus[295], Clemens
+Alexandrinus[296], Origen[297], Didymus[298], Cyril[299], Chrysostom[300],
+and possibly three others of like antiquity[301],--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.
+
+
+Sec. 6.
+
+What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our Lord's
+Sermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; which in almost every MS. in
+existence stands as follows:
+
+  (1) [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon],
+  (2) [Greek: eulogeite tous kataromenous humas],
+  (3) [Greek: kalos poieite tois misousin[302] humas],
+  (4) [Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper ton epereazonton humas],
+  (5) [Greek: kai diokonton hymas][303].
+
+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[304] reads the place thus:
+
+  [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon,
+  kai proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas].
+
+(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[305], seems to critics of a certain school a
+circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware that
+Cyprian[306], and they are welcome to the information that
+Tertullian[307] once and Theodoret once[308] [besides Irenaeus[309],
+Eusebius[310], and Gregory of Nyssa[311]] exhibit the place in the same
+way. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas[312],--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 reading of the Peshitto, the
+Harkleian, and the Gothic; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.
+
+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[313] quotes the first clause in connexion with
+the fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions[314], 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[315]. 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.
+
+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[316]
+quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose[317] clauses 1, 3, 4,
+5--1, 4, 5: Hilary[318], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5:
+Lucifer[319], clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[320]
+connects clauses 1, 3,--1, 3, 5: and Pacian[321], clauses 5, 2. Next we
+have to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers.
+
+And first we turn to Chrysostom[322] who (besides quoting 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 _all._
+
+Gregory Nyss.[323] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.
+
+Eusebius[324], clauses 4, 5--2, 4, 5--1, 3, 4, 5.
+
+The Apostolic Constitutions[325] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5
+(having immediately before quoted clause 2,)--also clauses 2, 4, 1.
+
+Clemens Alex.[326] (A.D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4.
+
+Athenagoras[327] (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5.
+
+Theophilus[328] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4.
+
+While Justin M.[329] (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects
+therewith clauses 2 and 4.
+
+And Polycarp[330] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5.
+
+Didache[331] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6).
+
+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.
+
+  [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon,
+  kai proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas,--]
+
+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 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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[332].
+
+[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the _Guardian_
+newspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from
+before A.D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional Text to two on our side
+against seven, or rather six[333], 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 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.]
+
+[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, being
+undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable than omission arising
+from what cause soever.]
+
+[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--[Greek: huper ... ton
+diokonton humas] 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 [Greek: huper]--instead of the [Greek: peri] after
+[Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] 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.]
+
+[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.]
+
+[The references as corrected are given in the note[334]. It 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 7.
+
+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, [[Greek: hoi
+pateres auton], 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 the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern
+times].
+
+  [Greek: EGAR]
+  [Greek: SARXMOUALETHOS]
+  [[Greek: ESTIBROSISKAI]
+  [Greek: TOAIMAMOUALETHOS]]
+  [Greek: ESTIPOSIS]
+
+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 [[Greek: kai hoi syn auto] (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].
+
+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[335]. 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
+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 Lord) 'the master of the house had known in what hour
+
+  [Greek: OKLEPTES]
+  [Greek: ERCHETAI] [[Greek: EGREGOR]
+  [Greek: ESENKAI]] [Greek: OUKANA]
+  [Greek: PHEKEN]
+
+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 [Greek: egregoresen
+kai],--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?
+
+[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[336]. 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. 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[337],' 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.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[258] It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical,
+classes. Omissions are found in many of the rest.
+
+[259] Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, chapter v. and Appendix
+B.
+
+[260] See Dr. Gwynn's remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text,
+pp. 298-301.
+
+[261] The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p.
+109, where thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A.D.
+
+[262] 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.
+
+[263] 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.
+
+[264] 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.
+
+[265] [Greek: kai ho peson epi ton lithon touton synthlasthesetai; eph'
+on d' an pese, likmesei auton].
+
+[266] 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 [Greek: oudepote anegnote] (ver. 42: comp.
+Orig. ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expression [Greek: epi ton lithon
+touton] (ver. 44), not [Greek: ep' ekeinon ton lithon]. Vainly is it
+urged on the opposite side, that [Greek: pas ho peson] belongs to St.
+Luke,--whereas [Greek: kai ho peson] is the phrase found in St.
+Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) writes [Greek: pas ho pipton]
+while professing to quote from St. Matthew; and the author of Cureton's
+Syriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same.
+
+[267] P. 193.
+
+[268] P. 11.
+
+[269] vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas,
+p. 669] xii. 27 d.
+
+[270] _Ap_. Mai, ii. 401 dis.
+
+[271] _Ap_. Chrys. vi. 171 c.
+
+[272] vii. 171 d.
+
+[273] iii^{2}. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d.
+
+[274] 682-3 (Massuet 277).
+
+[275] iii. 786.
+
+[276] Theoph. 235-6 (= Mai, iv. 122).
+
+[277] ii. 660 a, b, c.
+
+[278] 'Praeterit et Lucifer.'
+
+[279] _Ap._ Galland. vi. 191 d.
+
+[280] Ibid. vii. 20 c.
+
+[281] Ibid. ix. 768 a.
+
+[282] [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]:--
+
+With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43)
+comes to an end.
+
+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.
+
+[283] 'Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.'
+
+[284] 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.
+
+[285] Vol. i. 13.
+
+[286] Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28.
+
+[287] Dial. Sec. 78, _ad fin._ (p. 272).
+
+[288] Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c.
+
+[289] See Holmes and Parsons' ed. of the LXX,--vol. iv. _in loc._
+
+[290] Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only.
+
+[291] Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b.
+
+[292] Opp. ii. 1345: iii. 763-4.
+
+[293] Sec. 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 [Greek: apestin] dedisset [Greek:
+apechei].'
+
+[294] Opp. i. 1502: iii. 1114.
+
+[295] _Ap._ Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d.
+
+[296] Opp. p. 461.
+
+[297] Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121.
+
+[298] De Trinitate, p. 242.
+
+[299] Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to
+Alexandria.]
+
+[300] Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain.
+
+[301] 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).
+
+[302] But Eus.^{Es 589} [Greek: tous m.]
+
+[303] 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:--
+
+    (1) Diligite inimicos vestros,
+    (2) benedicite maledicentes vos,
+    (3) benefacite odientibus vos,
+    (4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos,
+    (5) et persequentibus vos.
+
+[304] Opp. iv. 324 _bis_, 329 _bis_, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106.
+
+[305] 'A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the
+margin.' Traditional Text, p. 149.
+
+[306] Opp. p. 79, cf. 146.
+
+[307] Scap. c. 1.
+
+[308] Opp. iv. 946.
+
+[309] Haer. III. xviii. 5.
+
+[310] Dem. Evan. xiii. 7.
+
+[311] In Bapt. Christ.
+
+[312] Orig. Opp. i. 812.
+
+[313] Opp. i. 768: iv. 353.
+
+[314] Opp. i. 827: ii. 399.
+
+[315] Spect. c. 16: (Anim. c. 35): Pat. c. 6.
+
+[316] [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. _in loc._ (1, 3,
+4, 5).]
+
+[317] In Ps. xxxviii. 2.
+
+[318] Opp. pp. 303, 297.
+
+[319] Pro S. Athanas. ii.
+
+[320] Ps. cxviii. 10. 16; 9. 9.
+
+[321] Ep. ii.
+
+[322] Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:--ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:--ii.
+258: iii. 41:--iv. 267: xii. 425.
+
+[323] Opp. iii. 379.
+
+[324] Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589.
+
+[325] Pp. 3. 198.
+
+[326] Opp. p. 605 and 307.
+
+[327] Leg. pro Christian. 11.
+
+[328] Ad Autolycum, iii. 14.
+
+[329] Opp. i. 40.
+
+[330] Ad Philipp. c. 12.
+
+[331] Sec. 1.
+
+[332] 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,--[Greek: eulogeite tous
+diokontas humas] (so pseud.-Athan. ii. 95), which shews how little
+stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-named place
+furnishes.
+
+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
+_fatal_ to his evidence (i. 768), he gives the second member thus,--iv.
+353:
+
+[Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper ton epereazonton humas].... 1. 4.
+
+Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:--
+
+[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon, eulogeite tous kataromenous humas,
+kai proseuchesthe huper ton epereazynton humin, kai ta homoia.]... 1, 2,
+4.--3, 5.
+
+Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding
+licence), yet is observed to recognize in part _both_ the clauses which
+labour under suspicion:... 1, 2, 4.--3, 5.
+
+[Greek: euchesthe huper ton echthron humon kai agapate tous misountas
+humas], which roughly represents [Greek: kai eulogeite tous kataromenous
+humin kai euchesthe huper ton epereazonton humas].
+
+The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards [Greek:
+tous misountas humas]. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i.
+521), who (loosely enough) quotes the place thus,--
+
+_Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt._ ... 1
+(made up of 3, 4).--2, 5.
+
+And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who
+writes:--ad Philipp. c. 12:--
+
+_Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos._... 4, 5.--1, 2, 3.
+
+I have examined [Didache] _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Eusebius_,
+_Hippolytus_, _Cyril Al._, _Greg. Naz._, _Basil_, _Athan._, _Didymus_,
+_Cyril Hier._, _Chrys._, _Greg. Nyss._, _Epiph._, _Theod._, _Clemens._
+
+And the following are the results:--
+
+Didache. [Greek: Eulogeite tous kataromenous humin, kai proseuchesthe
+huper ton echthron humon, nesteuete huper ton diokonton humas ... humeis
+de agapate tous misountas humas].... 2, 3, 4, 5.
+
+Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs:--Diligite inimicos
+vestros, benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt
+et persequuntur.
+
+Eusebius Prae 654.... 2, 4, 5, omitting 1, 3.
+
+Eusebius Ps 699.... 4, 5, omitting 1, 2, 3.
+
+Eusebius Es 589.... 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
+
+Clemens Al. 605.... 1, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5.
+
+Greg. Nyss. iii. 379.... 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2.
+
+Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et
+orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos.... 1, 3, 5, 4, omitting
+2.
+
+Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro
+calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos.... 2, 4, 5, omitting the
+_first and third_.
+
+Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos
+ac persequentibus vos.... 1, 4, 5, omitting the _second and third_. Cf.
+128.
+
+Cyprian, 79 (cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui
+vos persequuntur.... 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur.
+... 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
+
+Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici.... 1, 2, omitting 3,
+4, 5.
+
+Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: orate
+pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos.... 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
+
+Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus et
+persequentibus vos.... 1, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3.
+
+Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt: et
+orate pro eis qui vos persequuntur.... 1, 3, 5, omitting 2, 4.
+
+'Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac
+persequentibus vos.' Hilary, 297.
+
+Cyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus,--
+
+[Greek: eu poieite tous echthrous humon, kai proseuchesthe huper ton
+epereazonton humas.]
+
+Chrys. (iii. 355) says
+
+[Greek: autos gar eipen, euchesthe huper ton echthron] [[Greek: humon]]
+
+and repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453.
+
+So Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et _persecutoribus_
+nostris bone precari.... 1, 5.
+
+If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should
+probably find
+
+[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon, kai proseuchesthe huper ton
+misounton humas]:
+
+and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 12),
+
+[Greek: proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton kai misounton humas].
+
+[333] _Dialogus Adamantii_ is not adducible within my limits, because
+'it is in all probability the production of a later age.' My number was
+eight.
+
+[334] Observe that 5 = [Greek: huper ... ton diokonton].
+
+For--
+
+Didache (Sec. 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5.
+
+Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5.
+
+Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5? [Greek: huper ton
+echthron] (=[Greek: diokonton]?), but the passage more like St. Luke,
+the context more like St. Matt., ver. 45.
+
+Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11), 1, 2 (3). 5. ver. 45.
+
+Tertullian (De Patient, vi), 1, 2 (3), 5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol. c. 31.
+1, 5.
+
+Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 14), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: hyper] and
+ver. 46.
+
+Clemens Alex. (Strom, iv. 14), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom,
+vii. 14), favours St. Matt.
+
+Origen (De Orat. i), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: huper] and in the middle of two
+quotations from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), 1, 4 (4) [Greek: huper]
+and all ver. 45.
+
+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.
+
+Apost. Const, (i. 2), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper] and ver. 45.
+
+Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: hupereuchesthai].
+
+Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper], ver.
+45.
+
+Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), but quotes ver. 44 ... end of
+chapter.
+
+Pacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5.
+
+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.)
+
+Ambrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), 1, 3, 4, 5; (In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1, 4 (4),
+5.
+
+Aphraates (Dem. ii), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: ethnikoi].
+
+Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45.
+
+Number = 25.
+
+[335] See Traditional Text, p. 55.
+
+[336] For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament,
+viz. the _Pericope de Adultera_, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II.
+
+[337] Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+V. Transposition, VI. Substitution, and VII. Addition.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+One of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, is Transposition,
+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 [Greek: tauta panta] for [Greek:
+panta tauta],--or [Greek: ho laos outos] for [Greek: outos ho laos], 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.
+
+Let me before going further lay before the reader a few specimens of
+Transposition.
+
+Take for example St. Mark i. 5,--[Greek: kai ebaptizonto pantes],--is
+unreasonably turned into [Greek: pantes kai ebaptizonto]; whereby the
+meaning of the Evangelical record becomes changed, for [Greek: pantes]
+is now made to agree with [Greek: Hierosolumitai], and the Evangelist is
+represented as making the very strong assertion that _all_ the people of
+Jerusalem came to St. John and were baptized. This is the private
+property of BDL[Symbol: Delta].
+
+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 Holy Ghost.
+
+[Take again St. Mark ii. 3, in which the order in [Greek: pros auton
+paralytikon pherontes],--is changed by [Symbol: Aleph]BL into [Greek:
+pherontes pros auton paralytikon]. 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 ([Greek:
+erchontai pros auton]), 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 ([Greek:
+prosengisai auto][338]). 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 [Greek: paralytikon] from
+[Greek: airomenon] which agrees with it, and transposed [Greek:
+pherontes] 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.]
+
+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[339].
+
+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.'
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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
+Lord 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^{w}, 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^{w}, two bad
+Cursives, and the two chief Egyptian versions, this period becomes
+extended to the fifth.
+
+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 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.
+
+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,--[Greek: legon, Hoti dei ton huion tou anthropou paradothenai],
+as all the MSS. in the world but four, all the Versions, and all the
+available Fathers'[340] evidence from A.D. 150 downwards attest: or
+whether he wrote,--[Greek: legon ton huion tou anthropou hoti dei
+paradothenai], 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, 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
+_that_ 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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. [Greek:
+echei zoen] for instance or [Greek: zoen echei][341],--[Greek: egerthe
+eutheos] or [Greek: eutheos egerthe][342],--[Greek: cholous,
+typhlous]--or [Greek: typhlous, cholous][343],--shall be preferred. The
+burden of proof rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use.
+
+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 [Greek: exousian edoken auto kai krisin poiein][344],
+presents us with [Greek: kai krisin edoken auto exousian poiein], we
+hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense[345]. And when BD
+instead of [Greek: eisi tines ton ode hestekoton] exhibit [Greek: eise
+ton ode ton hestekoton], we cannot but conclude that 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.
+
+[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.
+
+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.]
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+[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.
+
+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 [Greek: OS] ([Greek: hos]) for [Greek: THS]
+([Greek: Theos])[346] [Greek: eporei] for [Greek: epoiei] (St. Mark vi.
+20), or [Greek: ouk oidate dokimazein] for [Greek: dokimazete] (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.
+
+Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifications, as they
+well may be, are added to it[347]. 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 [Greek:
+hamartematos] for [Greek: kriseos] (St. Mark iii. 29) which the Revisers
+have adopted in compliance with [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] and
+three Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads [Greek:
+hamartias] 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 [Greek:
+kriseos] is made up of A, C under the first reading and the second
+correction, [Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] 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 [Greek: enochos], and the natural
+meaning given by [Greek: kriseos]. [Greek: Hamartematos] has clearly
+crept in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be found in
+the well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 ([Greek: tou heliou eklipontos]), St.
+Matt. xi. 27 ([Greek: bouletai apokalypsai]), St. Matt. xxvii. 34
+([Greek: oinon] for [Greek: oxos]), St. Mark i. 2 ([Greek: Hesaia] for
+[Greek: tois prophetais]), St. John i. 18 ([Greek: ho Monogenes Theos]
+being a substitution made by heretics for [Greek: ho Monogenes Huios]),
+St. Mark vii. 31 ([Greek: dia Sidonos] for [Greek: kai Sidonos]). 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.]
+
+
+Sec. 5.
+
+[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[348]. 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.
+
+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):--
+
+'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."'
+
+And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. xx. 28), which occurs
+under a worse form in D.
+
+'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.'
+
+Who does not see that there is in these two passages no real 'ring of
+genuineness'?
+
+Take next some instances of lesser insertions.]
+
+
+Sec. 6.
+
+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 significant statement, that when they who had been sent
+returned to the house, 'they found the servant whole that had been
+sick[349],' recognize by implication the assurance that the Centurion,
+because he needed no such confirmation of his belief, went _not_ with
+them; but enjoyed the twofold blessedness of remaining with Christ, 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[350], 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[351].
+
+[Another and that a most remarkable Addition may be found in St. Matt.
+xxiv. 36, into which the words [Greek: oude ho Huios], '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 _neither the Son_.' 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.
+
+They are (_a_) of Uncials [Symbol: Aleph] (in the first reading and as
+re-corrected in the seventh century) BD; (_b_) five Cursives (for a
+present of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf); (_c_) ten Old Latin
+copies also the Aureus (Words.), some of the Vulgate (four according to
+Wordsworth), the Palestinian, Ethiopic, Armenian; (_d_) Origen (Lat.
+iii. 874), Hilary (733^{a}), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca,
+481), Ambrose (i. 1478^{f}). But Irenaeus (Lat. i. 386), Cyril (Zach.
+800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from St. Mark. So too, as
+Tischendorf admits, Amphilochius.
+
+On the other hand we have, (_a_) the chief corrector of [Symbol:
+Aleph](c^{a})[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] with thirteen other Uncials
+and the Greek MSS. of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome[352];
+(_b_) all the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed);
+(_c_) the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkletan, Lewis, Bohairic, and
+the Sahidic; (_d_) 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^{a}), and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne,
+lxxxix. 941).
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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,'
+[Greek: kai epoiese dodeka]; but because [Symbol: Aleph]B[Symbol: Delta]
+and C (which was corrected in the ninth century with a MS. of the
+Ethiopic) reiterate these words two verses 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 A[Symbol:
+Phi][Symbol: Sigma] 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.
+
+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 [Greek: ho Iesous] 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
+[Greek: en to phanero] 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 [Greek: en he ho huios tou anthropou erchetai] seemed
+to him to be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in St.
+Matt. xxvii. 35, where the quotation ([Greek: hina plerothe ... ebalon
+kleron]) must be taken for similar reasons to have been originally a
+gloss.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[338] [Greek: prosengisai] is transitive here, like [Greek: engizo] in
+Gen. xlviii. 10, 13: 2 Kings iv. 6: Isaiah xlvi. 13.
+
+[339] 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.
+
+[340] Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i.
+348): Cyril (Mai, ii. 438): John Thess. (Gall. xiii. 188).
+
+[341] St. John v. 26, in [Symbol: Aleph]
+
+[342] St. Mark ii. 12, in D.
+
+[343] St. Luke xiv. 13, in [Symbol: Aleph]B.
+
+[344] St. John v. 27.
+
+[345] 'Nec aliter' (says Tischendorf) 'Tertull.' (Prax. 21),--'_et
+judicium dedit illi facere in potestate_.' But this (begging the learned
+critic's pardon) is quite a different thing.
+
+[346] See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in
+The Revision Revised, pp. 424-501.
+
+[347] The numbers are:--
+
+    B, substitutions, 935; modifications, 1,132; total, 2,067.
+    [Symbol: Aleph], " 1,114; " 1,265; " 2,379.
+    D, " 2,121; " 1,772; " 3,893.
+
+Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13.
+
+[348] 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.
+
+[349] St. Luke vii. 10.
+
+[350] Theoph. p. 212.
+
+[351] An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause in
+the same narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead
+of [Greek: oude en to Israel tosauten pistin euron] (St. Matt. viii.
+10), we are invited henceforth to read [Greek: par' oudeni tosauten
+pistin en to Israel euron];--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.
+
+For when our Saviour 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.)
+
+It is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin (Augustine _once_
+(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?
+
+[352] 'In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, _neque Filius_: 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.
+
+In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+VIII. Glosses.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+'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 _every_ 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
+Spirit. Thus I do not call the clause [Greek: nekrous egeirete] in St.
+Matt. x. 8 'a gloss.' It is a gratuitous and unwarrantable
+interpolation,--nothing else but a clumsy encumbrance of the text[353].
+
+[Glosses, or _scholia_, 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[354], which may perhaps
+appear to modern taste to be hardly wanted, must not therefore be taken
+to be a gloss.]
+
+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:--
+
+1. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 36), requested
+our Lord to 'explain' to them ([Greek: PHRASON hemin], '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[355],--
+Basil[356],--J. Damascene[357]. And so _all_ the Versions[358]. But
+because B-[Symbol: Aleph], instead of [Greek: phrason], exhibit [Greek:
+DIASAPHESON] ('make clear to us'),--which is also _once_ the reading of
+Origen[359], 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 [Greek: diasapheson] (a palpable gloss) stood in the
+inspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore thrust out [Greek:
+phrason] and thrust in [Greek: diasapheson]. I am wholly unable to
+discern any connexion between the premisses of these critics and their
+conclusions[360].
+
+2. Take another instance. [Greek: Pygme],--the obscure expression
+([Symbol: Delta] 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 [Greek: pykna], which last word is of course
+nothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf degrades [Greek: pygme]
+and promotes [Greek: pykna] 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 [Greek:
+pygme]. It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere waste of
+time that we should argue out a point like this[361].
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+A gloss little suspected, which--not without a pang of regret--I proceed
+to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the expression 'daily' ([Greek: kath'
+hemeran]) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found in the Peshitto and in Cureton's
+Syriac,--but only in some Copies of the Harkleian version[362]: found in
+most Copies of the Vulgate,--but largely disallowed by copies of the Old
+Latin[363]: found also in Ephraem Syrus[364],--but clearly not
+recognized by Origen[365]: 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 [Greek: kath'
+hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[366]; but then he elsewhere twice quotes St.
+Luke ix. 23 in Greek without it[367]. Timotheus of Antioch, of the fifth
+century, omits the phrase[368]. Jerome again, although he suffered
+'_quotidie_' to stand in the Vulgate, yet, when for his own purposes he
+quotes the place in St. Luke[369],--ignores the word. All this is
+calculated to inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, [Greek: kath'
+hemeran] enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions,--of the
+Gothic,--of the Armenian,--of the Ethiopic. And this, in the present
+state of our knowledge, must be allowed to be a weighty piece of
+evidence in its favour.
+
+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 [Greek: kath hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[370]. 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[371]. 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 _locus_ of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty.
+Cyril once makes it part of St. Matt. x. 38[372]. Chrysostom twice
+connects it with St. Matt. xvi. 24[373]. Jerome, evidently regarding the
+phrase as a curiosity, informs us that 'juxta antiqua exemplaria' it was
+met with in St. Luke xiv. 27[374]. All this is in a high degree
+unsatisfactory. We suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slight
+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 [Greek: kath hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[375].
+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?
+
+Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain place, after
+quoting our Lord's 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"[376].' The same Father, in
+the two other places already quoted from his writings, is observed
+similarly to connect the Saviour's mention of 'bearing the Cross' with
+the Apostle's announcement--'I die daily.' Add, that Ephraem Syrus[377],
+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[378] and Matthaei[379] long since suggested.
+
+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 [Greek: kath hemeran] into the Received 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.
+
+[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.]
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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 [Greek: pheugei]
+for [Greek: anechoresen] 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[380]: though Tregelles ignores its very existence. That our
+Lord's 'withdrawal' to the mountain on that occasion was of the nature
+of 'flight,' or 'retreat' is obvious. Hence Chrysostom and Cyril remark
+that He '_fled_ to the mountain.' And yet both Fathers (like Origen and
+Epiphanius before them) are found to have read [Greek: anechoresen].
+
+Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse might
+Tischendorf (with [Symbol: Aleph]) have substituted [Greek:
+anadeiknynai] for [Greek: hina poiesosin auton], on the plea that
+Cyril[381] says, [Greek: zetein auton anadeixai kai basilea]. 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 will never be
+safe. A patent gloss,--rather an interpretation,--acquires no claim to
+be regarded as the genuine utterance of the Holy Spirit 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.
+
+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 _actually saying_ 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 _oratio obliqua_ 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 Lord'
+(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.'
+
+Take another example. The Hebraism [Greek: meta salpingos phones
+megales] (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:--(_a_) Since 'a trumpet of great sound' means nothing else but
+'a loud trumpet,' and since this can be as well expressed by [Greek:
+salpingos megales], the scribes at a very remote period are found to
+have omitted the word [Greek: phones]. The Peshitto and Lewis
+(interpreting rather than translating) so deal with the text.
+Accordingly, [Greek: phones] is not found in [Symbol: Aleph]L[Symbol:
+Delta] and five cursives. Eusebius[382], Cyril Jerus.[383],
+Chrysostom[384], Theodoret[385], and even Cyprian[386] are also without
+the word. (_b_) A less violent expedient was to interpolate [Greek: kai]
+before [Greek: phones]. This is accordingly the reading of the best
+Italic copies, of the Vulgate, and of D. So Hilary[387] and Jerome[388],
+Severianus[389], Asterius[390], ps.-Caesarius[391], Damascene[392] 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[393], Hesychius[394],
+Theophylact[395]. 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.
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+Recent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read in St. John
+xviii. 14 [Greek: apothanein] instead of [Greek: apolesthai]:--'Now
+Caiaphas was he who counselled the Jews that it was expedient that one
+man should _die_' (instead of '_perish_') '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 [Greek: apolesthai] 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
+[Greek: apothanein] 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 [Greek: apolesthai] before them.
+
+Many of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such is the
+substitution (St. Mark vi. 11) of [Greek: hos an topos me dexetai hymas]
+by [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] for [Greek: hosoi an me dexontai
+hymas],--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
+_thence_,' imply that _place_, not _persons_, should have gone before.
+Accordingly, he substituted 'whatsoever place' for '_whosoever_[396]':
+another has bequeathed to us in four uncial MSS. a lasting record of his
+rashness and incompetency. Since however he left behind the words
+[Greek: mede akousosin hymon], 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]BL[Symbol: Delta] (with
+two others, CD) we find the woe denounced in the same verse on the
+unbelieving city erased ([Greek: amen lego hymin, anektoteron estai
+Sodomois e Gomorrois en hemerai kriseos, e te polei ekeine]). 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 _all_ the copies is religiously
+maintained, viz. [Greek: Sodomois e Gomorrois], in St. Mark: [Greek: ge
+Sodomon kai Gomorron], 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.
+
+
+Sec. 5.
+
+The word [Greek: apechei] in St. Mark xiv. 41 has proved a
+stumbling-block. The most obvious explanation is probably the truest.
+After a brief pause[397], during which the Saviour 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, [Greek: Apechei],--'It is enough;' or, 'It is
+sufficient;' i.e. _The season for repose is over._
+
+But the 'Revisers' of the second century did not perceive that [Greek:
+apechei] is here used impersonally[398]. They understood the word to
+mean 'is fully come'; and supplied the supposed nominative, viz. [Greek:
+to telos][399]. Other critics who rightly understood [Greek: apechei] to
+signify 'sufficit,' still subjoined 'finis.' The Old Latin and the
+Syriac versions must have been executed from Greek copies which
+exhibited,--[Greek: apechei to telos]. This is abundantly proved by the
+renderings _adest finis_ (f),--_consummatus est finis_ (a); from which
+the change to [Greek: apechei to telos KAI he hora] (the reading of D)
+was obvious: _sufficit finis et hora_ (d q); _adest enim consummatio;
+et_ (ff^{2} _venit_) _hora_ (c); or, (as the Peshitto more fully gives
+it), _appropinquavit finis, et venit hora_[400]. Jerome put this matter
+straight by simply writing _sufficit_. But it is a suggestive
+circumstance, and an interesting proof how largely the reading [Greek:
+apechei to telos] must once have prevailed, that it is frequently met
+with in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour[401]. Happily it is
+an 'old reading' which finds no favour at the present day. It need not
+therefore occupy us any longer.
+
+As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help out the sense,
+the reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly [Greek: hina ean tis auton
+homologesei Christon]. So all the MSS. but one, and so the Old Latin. So
+indeed all the ancient versions except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds
+[Greek: einai]: but [Greek: einai] must once have been a familiar gloss:
+for Jerome retains it in the Vulgate: and indeed Cyril, whenever he
+quotes the place[402], exhibits [Greek: ton Christon einai]. Not so
+however Chrysostom[403] and Gregory of Nyssa[404].
+
+
+Sec. 6.
+
+There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents immediately preceding
+our Saviour's 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 Christ 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 Lord's 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 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[405] however, and
+evidently Cyril Alex.[406], as well as Ammonius[407] convey though
+roughly a better sense by quoting the verse with [Greek: epoiese] for
+[Greek: tetereken]. Antiochus[408] 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[409]. So that the
+Traditional text enjoys in this passage the support of all the Notes of
+Truth.]
+
+In accordance with what has been said above, for [Greek: Aphes auten;
+eis ten hemeran tou entaphiasmou mou tetereken auto] (St. John xii. 7),
+the copies which it has recently become the fashion to adore, read
+[Greek: aphes auten hina ... terese auto]. This startling
+innovation,--which destroys the sense of our Saviour's words, and
+furnishes a sorry substitute which no one is able to explain[410],--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 Saviour 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 Lord. 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 '_anticipates_ to anoint'
+([Greek: proelabe myrisai], 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.
+
+
+Sec. 7.
+
+Our Lord, in His great Eucharistic address to the eternal Father, thus
+speaks:--'I have glorified Thee on the earth. I have perfected the work
+which Thou 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 Father's 'glory[411]': next, that the work which the Father
+had given the Son to do[412] was at last finished[413]. 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[414]
+and the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions[415]: besides a
+whole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus[416], Didymus[417],
+Eusebius[418], Athanasius[419], Basil[420], Chrysostom[421], Cyril[422],
+ps.-Polycarp[423], the interpolator of Ignatius[424], and the authors of
+the Apostolic Constitutions[425]: together with the following among the
+Latins:--Cyprian[426], Ambrose[427], Hilary[428], Zeno[429],
+Cassian[430], Novatian[431], certain Arians[432], Augustine[433].
+
+But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth Gospel) proving
+uncongenial to certain of old time, D inserted [Greek: kai]. A more
+popular device was to substitute the participle ([Greek: teleiosas]) for
+[Greek: eteleiosa]: whereby our Lord is made to say that He had
+glorified His Father's Name 'by perfecting' or 'completing'--'in that He
+had finished'--the work which the Father 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, _having accomplished_ ([Greek: teleiosas]) 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.
+
+When some came with the message 'Thy daughter is dead: why troublest
+thou the Master further?' the Evangelist relates that Jesus '_as soon as
+He heard_ ([Greek: eutheos akousas]) what was being spoken, said to the
+ruler of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe.' (St. Mark v. 36.) For
+this, [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] substitute 'disregarding ([Greek:
+parakousas]) 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 [Greek: parakousas] find favour with Teschendorf,
+Tregelles, and others.
+
+
+Sec. 8.
+
+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,--[Greek: ti apa to
+paidion touto estai], extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's
+record,--[Greek: kai cheir Kyriou en met' autou]. To support this
+strange view, [Greek: kai] was altered into [Greek: kai gar], and
+[Greek: esti] was substituted for [Greek: en]. 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 Old Latin exhibit the place.
+Augustine[434] 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[435]. Unhappily,
+there survives a notable trace of the same misapprehension in [Symbol:
+Aleph]-BCL which, alone of MSS., read [Greek: kai gar ... en][436]. 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 Lord
+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.
+
+
+Sec. 9.
+
+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' ([Greek: hoste bythizesthai
+auta]) requires some qualification. Accordingly C inserts [Greek: ede]
+(were 'just' sinking); and D, [Greek: para ti] ('within a little'):
+while the Peshitto the Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of
+the Old Latin, exhibit 'ita ut _pene_.' 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, [Greek: bythizesthai], as the
+Bohairic translators perceived and 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[437] of any additional word.
+
+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 [Greek: Pyrou]
+(or [Greek: Pyrrou]) out of [Greek: Beroiaios] (or [Greek: Berroiaios])
+which follows. The Latin form of this was 'Pyrus[438],' 'Pyrrhus,' or
+'Pirrus[439].' In the Sahidic version he is called the 'son of Berus'
+([Greek: huios Berou]),--which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed,
+if it was with some _Beraean_ 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 _p_ and _b_
+sounds[440].... 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 [Greek: Sopatros
+Pyrrou Beroiaios], why at the present day should five copies out of six
+record nothing of that second word?
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.
+
+[354] St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.
+
+[355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the [Greek: rhesis]
+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.
+
+[356] ii. 345.
+
+[357] ii. 242.
+
+[358] The Latin is _edissere_ or _dissere_, _enarra_ or _narra_, both
+here and in xv. 15.
+
+[359] iv. 254 a.
+
+[360] 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 _no_ various reading in either of these two passages.
+
+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., [Greek: diasaphein] occurs, viz. St.
+Matt. xviii. 31, they render [Greek: diesaphesan] by [Syriac
+letters]--they made known.
+
+Since [Greek: phrazein] 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
+[Greek: phrazein], e.g.
+
+    of [Greek: epiluein], St. Mark iv. 34;
+    of [Greek: diermeneuein], St. Luke xxiv. 27;
+    of [Greek: dianoigein], St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.
+
+On the whole I have _no doubt_ (though it is not susceptible of _proof_)
+that the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, [Greek:
+phrason].
+
+[361] 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 [Greek: spoudaios], St.
+Luke vii. 4; [Greek: epimelos], St Luke xv. 8.
+
+The Root means 'to cease'; thence 'to have leisure for a thing': it has
+nothing to do with 'Fist.' [Rev. G.H. Gwilliam.]
+
+[362] Harkl. Marg. _in loc._, and Adler, p. 115.
+
+[363] Viz. a b c e ff^{2} l q.
+
+[364] [Greek: 'Opheilei psyche, en to logo tou Kyriou katakolouthousa,
+ton stauron autou kath' hemeran airein, hos gegraptai; tout' estin,
+hetoimos echousa hypomenein dia Christon pasan thlipsin kai peirasmon,
+k.t.l.] (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further on, he exhorts to
+constancy and patience,--[Greek: ton epi tou Kyriou thanaton en
+epithymiai pantote pro ophthalmon echontes, kai (kathos eiretai hypo tou
+Kyriou) kath' hemeran ton stauron airontes, ho esti thanatos] (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.
+
+[365] [Greek: Akoue Louka legontos],--i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.
+
+[366] Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.
+
+[367] ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)--the proof that these quotations are
+from St. Luke; that Cyril exhibits [Greek: arnesastho] instead of
+[Greek: aparn]. (see Tischendorf's note on St. Luke ix. 23). The
+quotation in i. 40 (Glaph.) _may_ be from St. Matt. xvi. 24.
+
+[368] Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.
+
+[369] After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,--'aut juxta Lucam, _dicebat ad
+cunctos: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat
+crucem suam, et sequetur me_.'--i. 852 c.
+
+This is found in his solution of _XI Quaestiones_, '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:--'_Quotidie_ credens in Christum _tollit crucem suam_, et
+negat seipsum.'
+
+[370] 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.
+
+[371] They are St. Matt. xvi. 24; St. Mark viii. 34.
+
+[372] 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.
+
+[373] In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24:--[Greek: Dia pantos tou
+biou touto dei poiein. Dienekos gar, phesi, periphere ton thanaton
+touton, kai kath hemeran hetoimos eso pros sphagen] (vii. 557 b). Again,
+commenting on ch. xix. 21,--[Greek: Dei proegoumenos akolouthein to
+Christo toutesti, panta ta par autou keleuomena poiein, pros sphgas
+einai hetoimon, kai thanaton kathemerinin] (p. 629 e):--words which
+Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a).
+
+[374] i. 949 b,--'_Quotidie_ (inquit Apostolus) _morior propter vestram
+salutem_. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, _Nisi quis tulerit
+crucem suam quotidie, et sequntus fuerit me, non potest meus esse
+discipulus_'--Commenting on St. Matt. x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome
+remarks,--'in alio Evangelio scribitur,--_Qui non accipit crucem suam
+quotidie_': but the corresponding place to St. Matt. x. 38, in the
+sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke xiv. 27.
+
+[375] Viz. Evan. 473 (2^{pe}).
+
+[376] ii. 66 c, d.
+
+[377] See above, p. 175, note 2.
+
+[378] Proleg. p. cxlvi.
+
+[379] N.T. (1803), i. 368.
+
+[380] Lewis here agrees with Peshitto.
+
+[381] iv. 745.
+
+[382] In Ps. 501.
+
+[383] 229 and 236.
+
+[384] vii. 736: xi. 478.
+
+[385] ii. 1209.
+
+[386] 269.
+
+[387] 577.
+
+[388] i. 881.
+
+[389] _Ap._ Chrys. vi. 460.
+
+[390] _Ap_. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258.
+
+[391] Galland. vi. 53.
+
+[392] ii. 346.
+
+[393] ii. 261, 324.
+
+[394] _Ap._ Greg. Nyss. iii. 429.
+
+[395] i. 132.
+
+[396] The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest
+how gracefully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this
+difficulty.
+
+[397] 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 Lord 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^{2}. 106 a, b. The passage in question
+runs thus:--[Greek: Katheidete to loipon kai anapauesthe. apechei;
+elthen he hora; idou, k.t.l.]
+
+[398] Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion
+(Anon. Vat.) in Possinus, p. 321:--[Greek: apechei, toutesti,
+peplerotai, telos echei to kat' eme]. Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.
+
+[399] 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 (_in
+loco_).
+
+[400] So Peshitto. Lewis, _venit hora, appropinquat finis_. Harkleian,
+_adest consummatio, venit hora._
+
+[401] [Greek: apechei]. Vg. _sufficit_. + [Greek: to telos], 13, 69,
+124, 2^{pe}, c^{scr}, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q,
+_sufficit finis et hora_. f, _adest finis, venit hora_. c, ff^{2},
+_adest enim consummatio, et_ (ff^{2} venit) _hora_. a, _consummatus est
+finis, advenit hora_. 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: [Greek:
+Deuteroproton]. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as [Greek: pygmei]. (3)
+Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, [Greek: to
+telos], as above.
+
+[402] iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614.
+
+[403] vi. 283.
+
+[404] i. 307.
+
+[405] viii. 392.
+
+[406] iv. 696.
+
+[407] Cramer's Cat. _in loc._
+
+[408] 1063.
+
+[409] E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert [Greek: ho Iesous],
+in order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus
+from the dead; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, [Greek: apo Karyotou] for
+[Greek: Iskariotes]; ver. 13, spells thus,--[Greek: hossana]; 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.
+
+[410] 'Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My
+burying' (Alford). But how _could_ 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^{c}Clellan). But [Greek: hina terese] could hardly mean
+that: and the day of His [Greek: entaphiasmos] had not yet arrived.
+
+[411] Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. i. 3.
+
+[412] Consider v. 36 and iv. 34.
+
+[413] Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37.
+
+[414] Lewis, 'and the work I have perfected': Harkleian, 'because the
+work,' &c., 'because' being obelized.
+
+[415] The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile.
+
+[416] i. 245 (= Constt. App. viii. 1; _ap._ Galland. iii. 199).
+
+[417] P. 419.
+
+[418] Mcell p. 157.
+
+[419] i. 534.
+
+[420] ii. 196, 238: iii. 39.
+
+[421] v. 256: viii. 475 _bis_.
+
+[422] iii. 542: iv. 954: v^{1}. 599, 601, 614: v^{2}. 152.--In the
+following places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the other
+reading,--iv. 879: v^{1}. 167, 366: vi. 124.
+
+[423] Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson).
+
+[424] Ps.-Ignat. 328.
+
+[425] _Ap._ Gall. iii. 215.
+
+[426] P. 285.
+
+[427] ii. 545.
+
+[428] Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But _opere constummato_, pp. 812, 815.--Jerome
+also once (iv. 563) has _opere completo._
+
+[429] _Ap._ Gall. v. 135.
+
+[430] P. 367.
+
+[431] _Ap._ Gall. iii. 308.
+
+[432] _Ap._ Aug. viii. 622.
+
+[433] iii^{2}. 761: viii. 640.
+
+[434] v. 1166.
+
+[435] Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a.
+
+[436] Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are
+disfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads 'is.'
+
+[437] Theoph. 216 note: [Greek: hos kindyneuein auta bythisthenai].
+
+[438] Cod. Amiat.
+
+[439] g,--at Stockholm.
+
+[440] Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. [Greek: Beroia].
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+IX. Corruption by Heretics.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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 _mala fides_ 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.
+
+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, 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.
+
+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?]
+
+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 God 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].
+
+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 Christ
+had not come in the flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Paul
+denounces it by name[441], and significantly condemns the wild fancies
+of its professors, their dangerous speculations as well as their absurd
+figments. Thus he predicts and condemns[442] their pestilential teaching
+in respect of meats and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle
+to Timothy[443] 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].
+
+The 'grievous wolves' whose assaults St. Paul predicted as imminent, and
+against which he warned the heads of the Ephesian Church[444], did not
+long 'spare the flock.' Already, while St. John was yet alive, had the
+Nicolaitans developed their teaching at Ephesus[445] and in the
+neighbouring Church of Pergamos[446]. Our risen Lord in glory announced
+to His servant John that in the latter city Satan had established his
+dwelling-place[447]. 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 Christ.
+
+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 Fathers:
+some Old Latin MSS.[448] 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?
+
+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 '_id verius
+quod prius_' does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer as
+we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows more and more
+corrupt?
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 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 Christ,' 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.
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+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 of the Son of Man: denied that He is
+essentially very and eternal God. 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 Son,--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.
+
+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
+invariably to enumerate together. Basilides[449] and Valentinus[450] 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[451]. 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[452],--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[453],' it is idle
+to dispute as to the limit of the 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[454], 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[455]. 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[456]. 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.
+
+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[457]. 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[458],
+and Epiphanius in the East, elaborately refuted his teaching, and give
+us large information as to his method of handling Scripture.
+
+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.
+
+But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity [appears to me
+to have caused alterations in the Sacred Text.]
+
+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 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.
+
+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 [Greek: ous kai apostolous onomasen].
+
+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.
+
+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 [Greek: ti me erotas
+peri tou agathou], 'Why do you ask me about that which is good?' is to
+be referred to some of these tamperers with the Divine Word.
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+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.
+
+(1) They taught that the world's artificer ('the Word') was Himself a
+creature of 'the Father[459].' Encountered on the threshold of the
+Gospel by the plain declaration that, 'In the beginning was the Word:
+and the Word was with God: and the Word was God': 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 Father' created: which
+He called 'Only begotten Son,' and also 'God': 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[460]. From which it is plain that, according to
+Valentinus, 'the Word' was distinct from 'the Son'; who was not the
+world's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged to be 'God[461]':
+but only, as we have seen already, using the term in an inferior sense.
+
+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[462].' 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[463]'; 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.'
+
+Of the change of [Greek: oude hen] into [Greek: ouden][464] traces
+survive in many of the Fathers[465]: but [Symbol: Aleph] and D are the
+only Uncial MSS. which are known to retain that corrupt reading.--The
+uncouth sentence which follows ([Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]),
+singular 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[466]. Occurring first
+in a fragment of Valentinus[467]: next, in the Commentary of
+Heracleon[468]: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the Gnostic (A.D.
+192)[469]: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of the
+Naaeseni[470], (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[471]: Origen[472] and Eusebius[473] 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[474].
+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[475], who insisted that the Holy Ghost is a creature.
+The former were refuted by Epiphanius, who points out that the sense is
+not complete until you have read the words [Greek: ho gegonen]. A fresh
+sentence (he says) begins at [Greek: En auto zoe en][476]. Chrysostom
+deals with the latter. 'Let us beware of putting the full stop' (he
+says) 'at the words [Greek: oude hen],--as do the heretics. In order to
+make out that the Spirit is a creature, they read [Greek: ho gegonen en
+auto zoe en]: by which means the Evangelist's meaning becomes
+unintelligible[477].'
+
+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, _is_ 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.
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+[We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the
+operations of Heretics.]
+
+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
+Father knoweth Me and I know the Father': 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 Father and the Son 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 Creator by slightly varying the expression,--thus
+leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed can be, on
+either side the same. God knoweth us with a perfect knowledge. Our
+so-called 'knowledge' of God is a thing different not only in degree,
+but in kind[478]. Hence the peculiar form which the sentence
+assumes[479]:--[Greek: ginosko ta ema, kai ginoskomai hypo ton emon].
+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[480], Gregory Naz.[481],
+Chrysostom[482], Cyril[483], Theodoret[484], Maximus[485]. 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'?
+
+But in fact it is discovered that these words of our Lord experienced
+depravation at the hands of the Manichaean heretics. Besides inverting
+the clauses, (and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on the
+side of Man.) Manes (A.D. 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. [Greek: ginoskei me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema]. This
+we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil[486]. 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[487].--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 Lord as
+saying, 'I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me
+and I know the Father'; 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[488], Nonnus, and
+even Basil[489] so read the place. But no token of this clearly corrupt
+reading survives in any known copy of the 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 God's
+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[490],
+may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives no
+notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers[491]].
+
+
+Sec. 5.
+
+Doctrinal.
+
+The question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics
+freely dogmatized. Saturninus[492] (A.D. 120) and his followers taught
+that marriage was a production of Hell.
+
+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 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[493].
+
+  St. Matt. xix. 29.
+  [Greek: e gynaika,]
+  --BD abc Orig.
+
+  St. Mark x. 29.
+  [Greek: e gynaika,]
+  --[Symbol: Aleph]BD[Symbol: Delta], abc, &c.
+
+  St. Luke xviii. 29.
+  [Greek: e gynaika],
+  all allow it.
+
+[Greek: hotan de lege; hoti "pas hostis apheke gynaika," ou touto
+phesin, hoste aplos diaspasthai tous gamous, k.t.l.] Chrys. vii. 636 E.
+
+[Greek: Paradeigmatisai] (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[494]' on the difference between [Greek:
+deigmatisai] and [Greek: paradeigmatisai]; 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 [Greek:
+paradeigmatisai] (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?
+
+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 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 Lord 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?
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[441] [Greek: pseudonymou gnoseos] 1 Tim. vi. 20.
+
+[442] 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.
+
+[443] ii. 17.
+
+[444] Acts xx. 29.
+
+[445] Rev. ii. 6.
+
+[446] Rev. ii. 15.
+
+[447] Rev. ii. 13.
+
+[448] Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. chap. vii. p.
+137.
+
+[449] '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.
+
+[450] 'Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra' (De
+Praescript., ad calcem).
+
+[451] Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) says,--[Greek: tauta de
+eiretai pros tois apo Oualentinou, kai Basilidou, kai tous apo
+Markionos. echousi gar kai autoi tas lexeis en toi kath' heautous
+euangelioi]. Opp. iii. 981 A.
+
+[452] '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.
+
+[453] '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.
+
+[454] See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. xiii; also c. iii.
+
+[455] '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 Matthaeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte
+praesumentes de Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam
+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 Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium; cum amore veritatis
+legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod
+est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes,' &c. Iren. iii. xi. 7.
+
+[456] [Greek: Herakleon, ho tes Oualentinou scholes dokimotatos]. 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 [Greek: egeneto oude en]) the words
+[Greek: ton en to kosmoi, kai te ktisei]. Heracleon clearly read [Greek:
+ho gegonen en auto zoe en]. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for
+[Greek: en trisi], he wrote [Greek: en trite]. He also read (St. John
+iv. 18) (for [Greek: pente]), [Greek: ex andras esches].
+
+[457] 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: [Greek: Metacharaxantas de to
+euangelion allous ouk oida, he tous apo Markionos, kai tous apo
+Oualentinou, oimai de kai tous apo Loukanou. touto de legomenon ou tou
+logou estin egklema, alla ton tolmesanton rhadiourgesai ta euangelia].
+Opp. i. 411 B.
+
+[458] De Praesc. Haer. c. 51.
+
+[459] [Greek: Outos de demiourgos kai poietes toude tou pantos kosmou
+kai ton en auto ... estai men katadeesteros tou teleiou Theou ... ate de
+kai gennetos on, kai ouk agennetos]. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. p. 217.
+Heracleon saw in the nobleman of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who,
+[Greek: basilikos onomasthe hoionei mikros tis basileus, hypo katholikou
+basileos tetagmenos epi mikras basileias], p. 373.
+
+[460] [Greek: O Ioannes ... boulomenos eipein ten ton holon genesin,
+kath' en ta panta proebalen ho Pater, archen tina hypotithetai, to
+proton gennethen hypo tou theou, hon de kai huion Monogene kai Theon
+kekleken, en ho ta panta ho Pater proebale spermatikos. Hypo de toutou
+phesi ton Logon probeblesthai, kai en auto ten holen ton Aionon ousian,
+en autos hysteron emorphosen ho Logos.... Panta di' autou egeneto, kai
+choris autou egeneto oude hen; pasi gar tois met' auton Aiosi morphes
+kai geneseos aitios ho Logos egeneto].
+
+[461] [Greek: En to Patri kai ek tou Patros he arche, kai ek tes arches
+ho Logos. Kalos oun eipen; en arche en ho Logos; en gar en to Huio. Kai
+ho Logos en pros ton Theon; kai gar he 'Arche; kai Theos en ho Logos,
+akolouthos. To gar ek Theou gennethen Theos estin].--Ibid. p. 102.
+Compare the Excerpt. Theod. _ap_. Clem. Al. c. vi. p. 968.
+
+[462] _Ap_. Orig. 938. 9.
+
+[463] So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (_ap._ Epiph. i. 217),
+and so Heracleon (_ap._ Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian
+(_ap._ Epiph. i. 882).
+
+[464] See The Traditional Text, p. 113.
+
+[465] Clem. Al. always has [Greek: oude hen] (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273,
+769, 787, 803, 812, 815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838)
+he has [Greek: ouden]. Cyril, while writing his treatise De Trinitate,
+read [Greek: ouden] in his copy. Eusebius, for example, has [Greek: oude
+hen], fifteen times; [Greek: ouden] only twice, viz. Praep. 322: Esai.
+529.
+
+[466] Opp. ii. 74.
+
+[467] _Ap._ Iren. 102.
+
+[468] Ibid. 940.
+
+[469] _Ap._ Clem. Al. 968, 973.
+
+[470] Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the
+Peratae: [Greek: oude hen, ho gegonen. en auto zoe estin. en auto de,
+phesin, he Eua gegonen, he Eua zoe]. Ibid. p. 134.
+
+[471] Opp. 114, 218, 1009.
+
+[472] Cels. vi. 5: Princip. II. ix. 4: IV. i. 30: In Joh. i. 22, 34: ii.
+6, 10, 12, 13 _bis_: In Rom. iii. 10, 15: Haer. v. 151.
+
+[473] Psalm. 146, 235, 245: Marcell. 237. Not so in Ecl. 100: Praep.
+322, 540.
+
+[474] [Greek: Anagkaios phesin, "ho gegonen, eni auto zoe en." ou monon
+phesi, "di autou ta panta egeneto," alla kai ei ti gegonen en en auto he
+zoe. tout' estin, ho monogenes tou Theo logos, he panton arche, kai
+systasis horaton te kai aoraton ... autos gar hyparchon he kata physin
+zoe, to einai kai zen kai kineisthai polytropos tois ousi charisetai].
+Opp. iv. 49 e.
+
+He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the [Greek: Logos],
+that, [Greek: panta di' autou egeneto, kai en en tois genomenois hos
+zoe]. Ibid. 60 c.
+
+[475] [Greek: Outoi de boulontai auto einai ktisma ktismatos. phasi gar,
+hoti panto di' autou gegone, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen. ara,
+phasi, kai to Pneuma ek ton poiematon hyparchei, epeide panta di' autou
+gegone]. Opp. i. 741. Which is the teaching of Eusebius, Marcell. 333-4.
+The Macedonians were an offshoot of the Arians.
+
+[476] i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80.
+
+[477] Opp. viii. 40.
+
+[478] 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], [Greek: kai
+proegno mallon he egnosthe par' hemon].
+
+[479] Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this:--[Greek: hina me tes
+gnoseos ison ton metron nomiseis, akouson pos diorthoutai auto tei
+epagogei; ginosko ta ema, phesi, kai ginoskomai hypo ton emon. all' ouk
+ise he gnosis, k.t.l.] viii. 353 d.
+
+[480] P. 38. (Gall. vii. 26.)
+
+[481] i. 298, 613.
+
+[482] viii. 351, 353 d and e.
+
+[483] iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.
+
+[484] i. 748: iv. 374, 550.
+
+[485] In Dionys. Ar. ii. 192.
+
+[486] [Greek: Phesi de ho autos Manes ... ta ema probata ginoskei me,
+kai ginosko ta ema probata]. (Epiphan. i. 697.)--Again,--[Greek:
+herpasen ho hairetikos pros ten idian kataskeuen tes blasphemias. idou,
+phesin, eiretai; hoti ginoasousi] (lower down, [Greek: ginoskei])
+[Greek: me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema]. (Basil ii. 188 a, b.)
+
+[487] [Greek: En taxei te oikeia kai prepodestate ton pragmaton ekasta
+titheis. ou gar ephe, ginoskei me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema, all'
+heauton egnokata proteron eispherei ta idia probata, eith' outos
+gnosthesesthai phesi par auton ... ouch hemeis auton epegnokamen protoi,
+epegno de hemas proton autos ... ouch hemeis erxametha tou pragmatos,
+all' ho ek Theou Theos monogenes].--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.)
+
+[488] In Ps. 489: in Es. 509: Theoph. 185, 258, 260.
+
+[489] ii. 188 a:--which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds
+exquisitely to shew (1886) that man's 'knowledge' of God consists in his
+keeping of God's Commandments. (1 John ii. 3, 4.) See p. 206, note 1.
+
+[490] So Jerome, iv. 484: vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor
+Augustine should quote the place.
+
+[491] See Revision Revised, p. 220.
+
+[492] Or Saturnilus--[Greek: to de gamein kai gennan apo tou Satana
+phesin einai]. p. 245, l. 38. So Marcion, 253.
+
+[493] [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.]
+
+[494] Mai, iv. 221.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
+
+X. Corruption by the Orthodox.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+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.
+
+He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the Lord's
+Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the record that our Saviour
+'wept.' We will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth.
+But when the same Father adds,--'In the uncorrected copies ([Greek: en
+tois adiorthotois antigraphois]) 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[495].' 'Nevertheless,'
+Epiphanius adds, 'the orthodox through fear erased the record.'
+
+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.'
+
+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
+[Greek: diorthotes].
+
+St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant Saviour 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[496], it was clearly the design of the Author of
+Scripture to teach that the Word '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 God' ([Greek: teleios Theos]), of whom it is
+related in respect of His spirit that he 'waxed strong[497]'? The
+consequence might have been foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were
+ill-advised enough to erase the word [Greek: pneumati] 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.
+
+But because it is [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, Origen[498], and the Latin, the
+Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word [Greek: pneumati],
+Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump to the
+conclusion that [Greek: pneumati] 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 ([Greek: pneumati]) 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 [Greek: ekrataiouto pneumati] 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?
+
+When then, and where did the work of depravation take place? It must
+have been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus[499]
+quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:--before
+the fifth, because, besides Cod. A, Cyril[500] Theodoret[501] and
+ps.-Caesarius[502] recognize the word:--before the fourth, because
+Epiphanius[503], Theodore of Mopsuestia[504], 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?
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St. John viii.
+40, when they pretended to shew from Scripture that Christ is mere
+Man[505]. I am persuaded that the reading 'of My Father[506],'--with
+which Origen[507], Epiphanius[508], Athanasius[509], Chrysostom[510],
+Cyril Alex.[511], and Theodoret[512] 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.
+
+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 God. 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 'God,' appeal to the words,--'the
+only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father[513],' &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 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.
+
+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 [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenes
+uios]: once, [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenes uios Theos]: once,
+[Greek: ho monogenes uios Theou][514]: Clemens Alex., [Greek: ho
+monogenes uios Theos monos][515]; which must be very nearly the reading
+of the Codex from which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin
+was derived[516]. Eusebius four times writes [Greek: ho monogenes
+uios][517]: twice, [Greek: monogenes Theos][518]: and on one occasion
+gives his reader the choice of either expression, explaining why both
+may stand[519]. Gregory Nyss.[520] and Basil[521], though they recognize
+the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more familiar with
+the reading [Greek: ho monogenes Theos][522]: for Basil adopts the
+expression thrice[523], and Gregory nearly thirty-three times as
+often[524]. This was also the reading of Cyril Alex.[525], whose usual
+phrase however is [Greek: ho monogenes tou Theou logos][526]. Didymus
+has only [? cp. context] [Greek: ho monogenes Theos],--for which he once
+writes [Greek: ho monogenes Theos logos][527]. Cyril of Jer. seems to
+have read [Greek: ho monogenes monos][528].
+
+[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[529]. 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.
+
+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 in the Arian controversy. Arius reads [Greek:
+Theos] (_ap._ Epiph. 73--Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read [Greek:
+Huios]. So Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and
+Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus[530]. 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[531]. None may read
+Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes them.]
+
+
+Sec. 3.
+
+All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. 47:--[Greek: ho
+protos anthropos ek ges choikos; ho deuteros anthropos ho Kyrios ex
+ouranou]. 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 'Jesus Christ had come in the flesh[532]'
+and who are known to have freely 'taken away from the words' of
+Scripture[533], 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 Christ took upon Himself human flesh[534]? And to
+bring out this contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate
+to remove as superfluous the word 'man' in the second clause of the
+sentence. There resulted,--'The first man [was] of the earth, earthy:
+[Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou][535].' It is thus that
+Marcion[536] (A.D. 130) and his followers[537] 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 [Greek: anthropos] in ver.
+47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining [Greek:
+anthropos], judged it expedient to leave out the expression [Greek: ho
+Kyrios], 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.
+
+(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that Christ
+was 'Man' _before_ He came into the World. This heresy came to a head in
+the persons of Apolinarius[538] and Photinus; in contending with whom,
+Greg. Naz.[539] and Epiphanius[540] are observed to argue with
+disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian[541], and Cyprian[542]
+after him, knew no other reading but 'secundus 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, _except nine_; and is vouched for by Basil[543],
+Chrysostom[544], Theodotus[545], Eutherius[546], Theodorus Mops.[547],
+Damascene[548], Petrus Siculus[549], and Theophylact[550]: and (2) The
+corrected (i.e. the maimed) text of the orthodox;--[Greek: ho deuteros;
+anthropos ex ouranou]: with which, besides the two Gregories[551],
+Photinus[552] 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[553], and (long after him) Cyril, employed _both_
+readings[554].
+
+(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
+[Greek: ho protos anthropos], St. Paul had set [Greek: ho deuteros
+anthropos]: against [Greek: ek ges]--[Greek: ex ouranou]: against [Greek:
+choikos]--[Greek: ho Kyrios]. Remove [Greek: ho Kyrios], and some
+substitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to [Greek:
+choikos]. Taking a hint from what is found in ver. 48, some one
+(plausibly enough,) suggested [Greek: epouranios]: and this gloss so
+effectually recommended itself to Western Christendom, that having been
+adopted by Ambrose[555], by Jerome[556] (and later by Augustine[557],)
+it established itself in the Vulgate[558], and is found in all the later
+Latin writers[559]. Thus then, _a third_ 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 (A.D. 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[560] lends his countenance to all the three readings.
+
+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 [Greek: ho Kyrios] be retained in
+the 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 [Greek: Adam] into the first
+clause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining [Greek: ho ouranios]. 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?
+
+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 (_a_) That all the changes which we have
+been considering belong to the earliest age of all:--(_b_) That the
+corrupt reading is retained by [Symbol: Aleph]BC and their following:
+the genuine text, in the great bulk of the copies:--(_c_) That the first
+mention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:--(_d_)
+That [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, as they
+fancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension of the nature and
+authority of the Word of God:--and (_e_) that under the Divine
+Providence that change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive
+witness is found on the other side].
+
+
+Sec. 4.
+
+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 Lord's 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). Christ '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
+Christ.' Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found to have
+read it without the final clause ([Greek: ho on en to ourano]); 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 [Greek: ho on en to ourano][561]. But the decisive circumstance is
+that,--besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which all witness to the
+existence of the clause,--the whole body of the uncials, four only
+excepted ([Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{b}), and every known cursive but one
+(33)--are for retaining it.
+
+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.
+
+
+Sec. 5[562].
+
+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.
+
+The first of these clauses ([Greek: hos kai Helias epoiese]), which
+claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, Mill
+rejected as an obvious interpolation. 'Res ipsa clamat. Quis enim sanus
+tam insignia deleverit[563]?' Griesbach retained it as probably
+genuine.--The second clause ([Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou
+pneumatos este hymeis]) he obelized as probably not genuine:--the third
+([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthropou ouk elthe psychas anthropon
+apolesai, alla sosai]) 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.--[Greek: Kyrie,
+theleis eipomen pyr katabenai apo tou ouranou, kai analosai autous;
+strapheis de epetimesen autois. kai eporeuthesan desan eis heteran
+komen].
+
+Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. [Symbol:
+Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] l g^{1} Cyr^{luc}[564], 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 with Clemens Alex. (A.D.
+190), and five Latin Fathers beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190):
+Cyprian's testimony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of
+Carthage, A.D. 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.
+
+(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 [Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou pneumatos
+este hymeis], 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 _prima facie_ 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.
+
+And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it is
+perceived that this disputed clause is recognized by Clemens[565] (A.D.
+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 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.
+
+(2) The third clause ([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthropou ouk elthe
+psychas anthropon apolesai, alla sosai]) 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,--[Greek:
+elthe gar ho huios tou anthropou zetesai kai][566] [Greek: sosai to
+apololos].
+
+(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, [Greek: hos kai Elias epoiesen]: 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 L[Symbol: Xi] 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 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.
+
+Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and depravation of
+Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]ABC(D) come about? I answer as follows:--
+
+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[567]. 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 Christ. 'I acknowledge the seventy of the judge,'
+Tertullian replies; 'but I recognize the same severity on the part of
+Christ towards His Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar
+calamity on a Samaritan village[568].' From all of which it 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.
+
+But then it is further discovered that at the same remote period (about
+A.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much fastened on by the enemies of
+the Gospel. The Manichaean heretics pressed believers with it[569]. 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 God's 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!
+
+Of these three clauses then, which are closely interdependent, and as
+Tischendorf admits[570] 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.
+
+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[571] 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[572],--it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set
+up.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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[573], ended thus,--[Greek: hos kai
+Elias epoiese; strapheis de epetimesen autois. kai eporeuthesan eis
+hetepan komen][574]. 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[575]. 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?
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[495] [Greek: Pros tois dokesei ton Christon pephenenai legontas].
+
+[496] [Greek: To de paidion euxane, kai ekrataiouto pneumati].
+
+[497] It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first
+Dialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).
+
+[498] Opp. iii. 953, 954,--with suspicious emphasis.
+
+[499] Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).
+
+[500] When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),--"[Greek: To
+de paidion euxane kai ekrataiouto PNEUMATI, pleroumenon SOPHIA kai
+CHARITI." kaitoi kata physin panteleios estin hos Theos kai ex idion
+pleromatos dianemei tois agiois ta PNEUMATIKA, kai autos estin e SOPHIA,
+kai tes CHARITOS ho doter],--it is clear that [Greek: pneumati] 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:--[Greek: ho Euangelistes
+epse "euxane kai ekrataiouto" KAI TA EXES]. Surely this constitutes no
+ground for supposing that he did not recognize the word [Greek:
+pneumati], 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 [Greek: pneumati] must be suspected of being an unauthorized
+addition to the text of Cyril's treatise, De Recta fide ad Pulcheriam et
+Eudociam.
+
+[501] ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times).
+
+[502] [Greek: Ei teleios esti Theos ho Christos, pos ho euangelistes
+legei, to de paidion Iesous euxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati];--S.
+Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (_ap._ Galland. vi. 17 c). And see
+Quaest. 30.
+
+[503] ii. 36 d.
+
+[504] Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53.--The only other Greek
+Fathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.
+
+[505] [Greek: Hen ekousa para tou Theou]. Epiph. i. 463.
+
+[506] Instead of [Greek: para tou Theou].
+
+[507] i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.
+
+[508] i. 260, 463: ii. 49.
+
+[509] i. 705.
+
+[510] viii. 365.
+
+[511] (Glaph.) i. 18.
+
+[512] 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 [Greek: para tou patros]
+wrong.
+
+[513] Excerpt. Theod. 968.--Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen
+with this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, [Greek: on de kai uion
+Monogene kai Theon kekleken].
+
+[514] Pp. 627, 630, 466.
+
+[515] P. 956.
+
+[516] '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,--[Greek: tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou Patrus, hon ho
+monoogenes huios Theos monos exegesato] (956), and in the Excerpt.
+Theod. we find [Greek: outos ton kolpon ton Patros exegesato ho Soter]
+(969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord
+is often spoken of by the Fathers as [Greek: he dexia tou hypsistou ...
+kolpos de tes dexias ho Pater]. (Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)
+
+[517] Ps. 440 (--[Greek: ho]): Marcell. 165, 179, 273.
+
+[518] Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.
+
+[519] Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.
+
+[520] Opp. ii. 466.
+
+[521] Opp. iii. 23, 358.
+
+[522] Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 ([Greek: Theos pantos ho monogenes,
+ho en tois kolpois on tou Patros, outos eipontos tou Ioannou]). Also ii.
+432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always [Greek: en tois kolpois]. Basil, Opp.
+iii. 12.
+
+[523] Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).
+
+[524] Contra Eunom. _I have noted_ ninety-eight places.
+
+[525] Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:--[Greek: autos
+gar Theos on ho monogenes, en kolpois on tou theou kai patros, tauten
+pros hemas epoiesato ten exegesin]. Presently (p. 105), he says that St.
+John [Greek: kai "monogene theon" apokalei ton huion, kai "en kolpois"
+einai phesi tou patros]. But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: [Greek:
+"ho monogenes," phesi, "Theos, ho on eis ton kolpon tou patros, ekeinos
+exegesato." epeide gar ephe "monogene" kai "Theon," tithesin euthys, "ho
+on en tois kolpois tou patros."]--So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads
+[Greek: huios] in v. 365, 437: vi. 90.
+
+[526] 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).
+
+[527] De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:--27.
+
+[528] P. 117.
+
+[529] Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.
+
+[530] Who quoted Arius' words:--'Subsistit ante tempora et aeones
+_plenus Deus, unigenitus,_ et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find
+Tischendorf's reference.
+
+[531] The reading [Greek: Huios] is established by unanswerable
+evidence.
+
+[532] 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.
+
+[533] Rev. xxii. 19.
+
+[534] [Greek: Epipedosin hemin hoi hairetikoi legontes; idou ouk anelabe
+sarka ho Christos; ho deut. gar phesin anthr. ho k. ex ouranou.] Chrys.
+iii. 114 b.
+
+[535] [Greek: Ten gar kata sarka gennesin tou Christou anelein
+boulomenoi, enellaxan to, ho deuteros anthropos; kai epoiesan, ho
+deuteros Kyrios.] Dial. [_ap._ Orig.] i. 868.--Marcion had in fact
+already substituted [Greek: Kyrios] for [Greek: anthropos] in ver. 45:
+('_the last Lord_ became a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. ii. 304]--a
+fabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's
+followers:--[Greek: ho eschatos Kyrios eis pn. zo.] Dial. _ubi supra_.
+[Greek: edei gar autous, ei ge ta euangelia etimon, me peritemnein ta
+euangelia, me mere ton euangelion exyphelein, me hetera prosthenai, mete
+logo, mete idia gnome ta euangelia prosgraphein.... prosgegraphekasi
+goun hosa beboulentai, kai exypheilanto hosa kekrikasi.] Titus of Bostra
+c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).
+
+[536] Tertull. ii. 304, (_Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus
+de Caelo_).
+
+[537] Dial [Orig. i.] 868, ([Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou]).
+
+[538] [Greek: To de panton chalepotaton en tais ekklesiastikais
+symphorais, he ton 'Apolinariston esti parresia.] Greg. Naz. ii. 167.
+
+[539] ii. 168,--a very interesting place. See also p. 87.
+
+[540] i. 831.
+
+[541] ii. 443, 531.
+
+[542] Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (_primus homo de terrae limo_, &c.).
+
+[543] iii. 40.
+
+[544] iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has [Greek: ho
+deut. anthr. ouranios ex ouranou].
+
+[545] iv. 1051.
+
+[546] _Ap._ Thdt. v. 1135.
+
+[547] _Ap._ Galland. viii. 626, 627.
+
+[548] i. 222 (where for [Greek: anthr.] he reads [Greek: Adam]), 563.
+Also ii. 120, 346.
+
+[549] 'Adversus Manichaeos,'--_ap._ Mai, iv. 68, 69.
+
+[550] ii. 228:--[Greek: ouch hoti ho anthropos, etoi to anthropinon
+proslemma, ex ouranou en, hos ho aphron Apolinarios elerei].
+
+[551] Naz. ii. 87 (=Thdt. iv. 62), 168.--Nyss. ii. 11.
+
+[552] _Ap._ Epiphan. i. 830.
+
+[553] 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.
+
+[554] 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 [Greek: tou deuterou ex ouranou
+anthropou] in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely
+pressed.
+
+[555] _Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo
+caelestis_.--i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437.
+
+[556] ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.
+
+[557] The places are given by Sabatier _in loc_.
+
+[558] Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this
+reading appear in Orig. _interp_. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546.
+
+[559] As Philastrius (_ap._ 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.
+
+[560] Vol. i. p. 1275,--[Greek: ho deuteros anthr. ho Kyrios ex ouranou
+ouranios]:--on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), [Greek: idou gar
+amphoterothen ouranios anthropos onomazetai]. And lower down,--[Greek:
+Kyrios, dia ten mian hypostasin; deut. men anthr., kata ten henomenen
+anthropoteta. ex ouranou de, kata ten theoteta].--P. 448,--[Greek: ho
+deuteros anthr. ex ouranou epouranios].--_Ap._ Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland.
+v. 167),--[Greek: ho deut. anthr. ex ouranou].--Note that Maximinus, an
+Arian bishop, A.D. 427-8 (_ap._ Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have
+possessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:--'Ait ipse
+Paulus, _Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de
+Caelo caelestis_ advenit.'
+
+[561] See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114.
+
+[562] This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877,
+and is therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.
+
+[563] Proleg. 418.
+
+[564] 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 _Textus
+Receptus_ 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:--[Greek: eidenai gar chre, hoti hos mepo tes
+neas kekratekotes charitos, all' eti tes proteras echomenoi synetheias,
+touto eipon, pros Elian aphorontes ton pyri kataphlexanta dis tous
+pentekonta kai tous egoumenous auton], (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf.
+Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. N. T. _in loc._, pp. 333-4.) Now
+the man who wrote _that_, must surely have read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as
+we do.
+
+[565] See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland.
+ii. 157. First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71.
+
+[566] In St. Matt. xviii. 11, the words [Greek: zetesai kai] do not
+occur.
+
+[567] 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 _spiritu_ miti').
+
+[568] Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And
+he discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139.
+
+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.
+
+[569] Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (_ap._ Galland. v. 329 b), leaving
+others to note the correspondences between the New and the Old
+Testament, proposes to handle the 'Contrasts': [Greek: pros autas tas
+antitheseis ton logion choresomen]. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms
+what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.
+
+[570] Verba [Greek: hos kai E. epoiese] cur quis addiderit, planum.
+Eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba [Greek: str. de epeti. autois]
+excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum [Greek: ho gar
+huios], &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.)
+
+[571] Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio
+circumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)
+
+[572] 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.
+
+Jerome.--Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, _et
+imitari Eliam_, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum _venerat_, sed _ad
+salvandum_, &c. ... increpat eos _quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et
+bonitatis Evangelicae_, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)
+
+Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.--'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum
+perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. A.D. 253.
+
+Tatian.--Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and
+Anim. c. 13.)
+
+Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the
+words twice,--x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.
+
+[Greek: Kai ho Kyrios pros tous apostolous eipontas en pyri kolasai tous
+me dexamenous autous kata ton Elian; Ouk oidate phesi poiou pneumatos
+este]. (p. 1019.)
+
+Theodoret, iii. 1119. ([Greek: poiou].)
+
+Epiph. ii. 31. ([Greek: hoiou].)
+
+Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.
+
+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.
+
+Cyril Al.--[Greek: Mepo tes neas kekratekotes charitos ... touto eipon,
+ton Elian aphorontes ton pyri k.t.l.] 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
+_some_ reproof finds record in the Gospel.
+
+Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c.
+
+Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.
+
+Didymus.--[Greek: Ouk oidate oiou pneumatos estin ho huios tou
+anthropou]. De Trin. p. 188.
+
+[573] Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).
+
+[574] See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.
+
+[575] [I have been unable to discover this Lection.]
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX I.
+
+PERICOPE DE ADULTERA.
+
+
+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 _pericope de adultera_, 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.
+
+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 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.
+
+And first, the case of the _pericope de adultera_ 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.
+
+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 _where_,--and
+to all intents and purposes _what_--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?
+
+'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,
+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.
+
+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 _pericope de
+adultera_, 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?
+
+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:
+
+    'and every man went to his own house: but Jesus 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.'
+
+Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is
+unmistakably not the beginning but the end 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[576]. 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[577].
+
+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 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.
+
+I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which
+some Critics in their eagerness have overlooked.
+
+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?
+
+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 Jesus 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.
+
+But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch.
+vii. 37 and 5a, and note--(_a_) That two hostile parties crowded the
+Temple courts (ver. 40-42): (_b_) That some were for laying violent
+hands on our Lord (ver. 44): (_c_) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled
+in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him
+prisoner, and disputing one against another[578] (ver. 45-52). How can
+the Evangelist have proceeded,--'Again therefore Jesus 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?
+
+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 Saviour 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--'Jesus 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[579],' prove to be even necessary
+for the logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand.
+
+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 _Pericope de
+adultera_ 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.
+
+The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our Saviour 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 Lord is observed to
+revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion.
+The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction[580], 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.
+
+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 Lord, 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.
+
+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 Jehovah 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[581] 'in an earthen vessel[582]'? 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'
+([Greek: to hydor tou elegmou]) as it is six times called, which _they_
+had been compelled to drink; whereupon, 'convicted ([Greek:
+elegchomenoi]) 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 Lord 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.'
+
+Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition--and I am not
+concerned to defend it in every detail,--on 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.
+
+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[583].' 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[584]. 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 retained to this hour before [Greek: lithon] in
+ver. 7. On completing our survey, as to the assertions that the
+_pericope de adultera_ '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[585],' (whatever _that_ 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. _Quousque
+tandem?_
+
+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[586].' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener)
+declares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the
+passage must needs be abandoned[587].' Tregelles is 'fully satisfied
+that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel[588].'
+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 God's written Word would be a joyless and an
+unprofitable task. According to Green, 'the genuineness of the passage
+cannot be maintained[589].' 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[590].' A yet more recent critic
+'sums up,' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to the
+genuineness of the passage[591].' 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[592].' 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 _less conspicuously_ 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 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.
+
+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]ABCLTX[Symbol: Delta], 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.
+
+Woide, the learned and accurate[593] editor of the Codex Alexandrinus,
+remarked (in 1785)--'Historia adulterae _videtur_ 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
+_omitting_ the _pericope de adultera_,)--was far too roughly made to be
+of any critical use[594].
+
+Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the word [Greek:
+katabainon] in vi. 50 to the word [Greek: legeis] in viii. 52: a
+_lacuna_ (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of 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 _Pericope de adultera_,
+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.
+
+As for L and [Symbol: Delta], 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 _for_,--not
+witnesses _against_,--the 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 _simply_ 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 _alone_ exhibit St. Mark's Gospel
+mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses.
+
+But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of later date are
+without the _pericope de adultera_: 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 _untrue_. 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.
+
+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 _pericope de adultera_ must be 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.
+
+Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition that,
+
+(1) _These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they
+now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the
+Gospels reaches._
+
+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 _in situ_ in Codd. b c e ff^{2} g h j. Jerome (A.D. 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[595]
+in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine
+times[596]; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as
+often[597]. It is quoted besides by Pacian[598], in the north of Spain
+(370),--by Faustus[599] the African (400),--by Rufinus[600] at Aquileia
+(400),--by Chrysologus[601] at Ravenna (433),--by Sedulius[602] a Scot
+(434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises[603] 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[604] (484)
+in North Africa,--by Gelasius[605], bp. of Rome (492),--by
+Cassiodorus[606] in Southern Italy,--by Gregory the Great[607], and by
+other Fathers of the Western Church.
+
+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 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 _pericope de adultera_ 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?
+
+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.
+
+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 _pericope de adultera_ 'is found in many copies
+both Greek and Latin[608].' He calls attention to the fact that what is
+rendered 'sine peccato' is [Greek: anamartetos] in the Greek: and lets
+fall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies
+which exhibited (in ver. 8) [Greek: egraphan enos ekastou auton tas
+amartias],--a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) and
+at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel[609]. Whence is
+it--let me ask in passing--that so many Critics fail to see that
+_positive_ testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse
+_negative_ 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.
+
+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[610]) 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 it is an afterthought of the
+Evangelist:--concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few
+words to offer by-and-by.
+
+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.
+
+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 _pericope de adultera_ 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[611]. Ambrose, a quarter of
+a century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularly
+apprehended from this quarter[612]: 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[613].
+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.
+
+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 Jesus 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 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.
+
+We may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition, which
+is
+
+(2) _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_.
+
+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 _all_ 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?
+
+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' ([Greek: arche]),
+and where its 'end' ([Greek: telos]). 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 [Greek: te eschate hemera te megale],
+and ending--[Greek: to phos tes zoes]: but _over-leaping_ the twelve
+verses now under discussion: viz. vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, the
+word 'over-leap' ([Greek: hyperba]) is written in _all_ 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 [Greek: kai
+meketi hamartane] in ch. viii. 11: after which he found himself
+instructed to 'recommence' ([Greek: arxai]). 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 _middle of the lesson for Pentecost_? 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.
+
+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, _pro hac vice_, abdicate her function
+of being 'a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ'? Was she all of a sudden
+forsaken by the inspiring Spirit, 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 Jesus 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? 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.
+
+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
+Lord 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
+canonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by the collective
+wisdom of the Church in the third or fourth century?
+
+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[614].
+
+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 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.'
+
+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.
+
+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 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 _pericope de adultera_--passes it by, I
+mean,--exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But will any one pretend that
+Theophylact,--writing in A.D. 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.
+
+The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers is
+therefore invalid. The argument _e silentio_--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.
+
+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 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 _is_ 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.
+
+To proceed however with what I was about to say.
+
+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?
+
+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 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 _a fact_: 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 _en bloc_ 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 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
+_pericope de adultera_ 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 [Greek: Prophetes ek tes Galilaias ouk eg.] 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 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?
+
+(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why _one_ 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
+_pericope_ de adultera: And so it may, no doubt. But then, once admit
+_this_, and the hypothesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory:
+fails even to _touch_ 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 _first_ 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[615]?
+
+(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 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.
+
+What chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary suggestion is its
+_irreverence_. 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 God the Holy Ghost: and I know of no reason for supposing
+that His works are imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands.
+
+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 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.
+
+1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but _the absence_ 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?
+
+2. So, concerning St. John v. 3, 4: to which there really attaches no
+manner of doubt, as I have elsewhere shewn[616]. 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 _all other copies_: are vouched for by the
+Syriac[617] 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.
+
+(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 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?
+
+[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.]
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[576] Compare 1 Sam. xxiv. 22:--'And Saul went home: _but David and his
+men gat them up into the hold_.' 1 Kings xviii. 42:--'So Ahab went up to
+eat and to drink: _and Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, and he cast
+himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees_.'
+Esther iii. 15:--'And the king and Haman sat down to drink; _but the
+city of Shushan was perplexed_.' Such are the idioms of the Bible.
+
+[577] Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it,
+remarks that our Lord's words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a
+_viaticum_ which all might take home with them, at the close of this,
+'the last, the great day of the feast.'
+
+[578] So Eusebius:--- [Greek: Ote kata to auto synachthentes hoi ton
+Ioudaion ethnous archontes epi tes Hierousalem, synedrion epoiesanto kai
+skepsin opos auton apolesosin en ho hoi men thanaton autou
+katepsephisanto; heteroi de antelegon, os ho Nikodemos, k.t.l.] (in
+Psalmos, p. 230 a).
+
+[579] Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text
+of the New Testament, p. xxvii.
+
+[580] So in the LXX. See Num. v. 11-31.
+
+[581] Ver. 17. So the LXX.
+
+[582] 2 Cor. iv. 7: v. 1.
+
+[583] Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. 11,
+28: xxi. 19.
+
+[584] 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. _passim_, especially i. 11, 19: ii. 1, &c.: x. 4: xiv. 13:
+xvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12, 15: xxi. 5, 27: xxii. 18, 19.
+
+[585] Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi.
+
+[586] Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829.
+
+[587] Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364.
+
+[588] Printed Texts, 1854, p. 341.
+
+[589] Developed Criticism, p. 82.
+
+[590] Outlines, &c., p. 103.
+
+[591] Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141.
+
+[592] Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368.
+
+[593] 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 _italicism_ was in fact all that
+had been overlooked in the course of many pages.
+
+[594] It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes.
+Praefat. p. xxx, Sec. 86.
+
+[595] ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9.
+
+[596] i. 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, 896-7.
+
+[597] i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii^{1}. 774: iii^{2}. 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.
+
+[598] Pacian (A.D. 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. (A.D. 372). _Ap._ Galland. vii.
+267.
+
+[599] _Ap._ Augustin. viii. 463.
+
+[600] In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53.
+
+[601] Chrysologus, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mystically
+explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. Sec. 5.
+
+[602] Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a
+whole chapter to it. _Ap._ Galland. ix. 553 and 590.
+
+[603] '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, A.D. 440), _ap._ 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.
+
+[604] Wrongly ascribed to Idacius.
+
+[605] Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Conc. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, 11.
+
+[606] Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. 11. See ii. p.
+96, 3, 5-180.
+
+[607] Dialogues, xiv. 15.
+
+[608] ii. 748:--In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et
+Latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud
+Dominum.
+
+[609] [Greek: henos hekastou auton tas hamartias]. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64,
+73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736.
+
+[610] Appendix, p. 88.
+
+[611] 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.
+
+[612] Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. xxii.
+29-30), _Terra, terra, scribe hos vivos abdicatos_.
+
+[613] Constt. App. (Gen. in. 49). Nicon (Gen. iii. 250). I am not
+certain about these two references.
+
+[614] 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+On the first Sabbath after Pentecost (All Saints'), the lesson consisted
+of St. Matt. x. 32, 33, 37-38: xix. 27-30.
+
+On the fifteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv.
+1-9, 13 (leaving out verses 10, 11, 12).
+
+On the sixteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv.
+34-37, 42-44 (leaving out verses 38-41).
+
+On the sixth Sabbath of St. Luke,--the lesson was ch. viii. 26-35
+followed by verses 38 and 39.
+
+[615] '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.
+
+[616] In an unpublished paper.
+
+[617] It is omitted in some MSS. of the Peshitto.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX II.
+
+CONFLATION AND THE SO-CALLED NEUTRAL TEXT.
+
+
+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.
+
+
+Sec. 1.
+
+CONFLATION.
+
+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 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[618].
+
+Perhaps I may present Dr. Hort's theory under the form of a diagram:--
+
+Western Readings. Other Readings.
+    |                   |
+    ---------------------
+               |
+            Syrian Text.
+
+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
+the original readings. Our diagram in rough presentation will therefore
+assume this character:--
+
+    Traditional Text.--|-
+                       |-Western Readings.
+                       |-w
+                       |-x
+                       |-y
+                       |-z
+                       |-etc.
+                       |-Alexandrian Readings.
+
+It should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c., denote forms of corruption. We
+do not recognize the 'Neutral' at all, believing it to be a Caesarean
+combination or recension, made from previous texts or readings of a
+corrupt character.
+
+The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's or ours?
+
+The general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Hort's theory
+are:--
+
+(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.
+
+(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.
+
+(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 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.
+
+But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon as we have seen has
+calculated the differences between 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 [Greek: ton siton kai ta
+agatha mou] which Dr. Hort[619] considers to be made by Conflation into
+[Greek: ta genemata mou kai ta agatha mou], because [Greek: ta genemata
+mou] 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
+now and then of the derivation attributed to the Received Text.
+
+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.
+
+(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 ([Greek:
+synedramon]) from all their cities to the point which He was making for
+([Greek: ekei]), and arrived there before the Lord and His followers
+([Greek: proelthon autous]), and on His approach came in a body to Him
+([Greek: synelthon pros auton]). And on disembarking ([Greek: kai
+exelthon]), i.e. ([Greek: ek tou ploiou], 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.
+
+Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause ([Greek: kai proelthon
+autous]) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers; another
+([Greek: kai synelthon autou] or [Greek: elthon autou], which is very
+different from the 'Syrian' [Greek: synelthon pros auton]) by some
+Western documents; and he argues that the entire form in the Received
+Text, [Greek: kai proelthon autous, kai synelthon pros auton], 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 [Symbol: delta] (the
+Received Text) is conflate from [Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and
+[Symbol: beta] (Western), or [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta] are
+independent simplifications of [Symbol: delta]'; and that 'there is
+nothing in the sense of [Symbol: delta] 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 [Greek: autou] and [Greek: pros auton] is really in
+his favour, chiefly because [Greek: autou] would very likely _if_ it had
+previously existed been changed into [Greek: pros auton]--which no one
+can doubt; and that '[Greek: synelthon pros auton] is certainly otiose
+after [Greek: synedramon ekei],' 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 [Greek:
+exelthon] 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 [Greek: ploion] is; nor can [Greek: ekei] 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.
+
+Accordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. 'The balance of
+Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from
+Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly' _not_ 'in favour of [Symbol: delta]
+from [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta],' _but_ 'of [Symbol: alpha] and
+[Symbol: beta] from [Symbol: delta].' The reading of the Traditional
+Text is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to the
+probability of its 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.
+
+(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.
+
+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, ([Symbol: alpha]) neither to enter into that
+place, [Greek: mede eis ten komen eiselthes], nor ([Symbol: beta]) to
+tell what had happened to any inhabitant of Bethsaida ([Greek: mede
+eipes tini en te kome]). Either some one who did not understand the
+Greek, or some matter-of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought or
+maintained that [Greek: tini en te kome] 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 ACN[Symbol: Sigma] and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except
+eight, of which six with [Symbol: Phi] 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.
+
+But what says Dr. Hort? 'Here [Symbol: alpha] is simple and vigorous,
+and it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar [Greek: Mede] has
+the terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but the softening
+into [Greek: Me] by [Symbol: Aleph]* shews that it might trouble
+scribes.' It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It may be said
+however that [Symbol: alpha] is bald as well as simple, and that the
+very difficulty in [Symbol: beta] makes it probable that that clause was
+not invented. To take [Greek: tini en te kome] Hebraistically for
+[Greek: tini ton en te kome], like the [Greek: tis en hymin] of St.
+James v. 19[620], need not trouble scholars, I think. Otherwise they can
+follow Meyer, according to Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate the
+second [Greek: mede] _nor even_. At all events, this is a poor pillar to
+support a great theory.
+
+(3) St. Mark ix. 38. 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name,
+([Symbol: beta]) who doth not follow us, and we forbad him ([Symbol:
+alpha]) because he followeth not us.'
+
+Here the authority for [Symbol: alpha] is [Symbol: Aleph]BCL[Symbol:
+Delta], four Cursives, f, Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis
+MS. For [Symbol: beta] there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but
+f and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage,
+A[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but
+six, the Harkleian (yet obelizes [Symbol: alpha]) and Gothic versions,
+Basil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact
+(i. 219): and Augustine quotes separately both omissions ([Symbol:
+alpha] ix. 533, and [Symbol: beta] III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so
+far as I can find, quote the passage.
+
+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.
+
+(4) St. Mark ix. 49. 'For ([Symbol: alpha]) every one shall be salted
+with fire, ([Symbol: beta]) and every sacrifice shall be salted with
+salt.' The authorities are--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta], fifteen
+    Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and
+    the Lewis.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of
+    the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).
+
+    Trad. Text. AC[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N 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).
+
+This evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the
+Traditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort.
+
+'A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 ... has created [Symbol: beta] out of
+[Symbol: alpha].' 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.
+
+(5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and withdrew privately
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. Into a city called Bethsaida [Greek: (eis polin
+    kaloumenen] B.).
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. Into a desert place ([Greek: eis topon eremon]),
+    or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida.
+
+    Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called
+    Bethsaida.'
+
+The evidence for these readings respectively is--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. BLX[Symbol: Xi], with one correction of
+    [Symbol: Aleph] (C^{a}), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic.
+    D reads [Greek: komen].
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. The first and later readings (C^{b}) of [Symbol:
+    Aleph], four Cursives?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin
+    ([Symbol: beta]^{2}), Peshitto also variant ([Symbol:
+    beta]^{3}).
+
+    Trad. Text. A (with [Greek: eremon topon]) C + twelve Uncials,
+    all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits
+    [Greek: eremon]), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact
+    (i. 33).
+
+Remark the curious character of [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta]. 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 ([Greek: kat' idian], which the Revisers shirking the difficulty
+translate inaccurately 'apart') _into the city called Bethsaida_. How
+could there have been privacy of life _in_ a city in those days? In
+fact, [Greek: kat' idian] necessitates the adoption of [Greek: topon
+eremon], as to which the Peshitto ([Symbol: beta]^{3}) 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 [Symbol: beta]
+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 _how_ the process he advocates
+might have arisen, not _that_ it did actually arise. Indeed, this
+position can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established
+that it _did_ so arise.
+
+(6) St. Luke xi. 54. 'The Scribes and Pharisees began to urge Him
+vehemently and to provoke Him to speak of many things ([Greek:
+enedreuontes thereusai]),
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of
+    His mouth.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. Seeking to get some opportunity ([Greek:
+    aphormen tina]) for finding out how to accuse Him ([Greek: hina
+    eurosin kategoresai]); or, for accusing Him ([Greek: hina
+    kategoresosin autou]).
+
+    Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, _and_ seeking to catch
+    something ([Greek: zetountes thereusai ti]) out of His mouth,
+    that they might accuse Him.'
+
+The evidence is--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril
+    Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not
+    accurately).
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.
+
+    Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except five which
+    omit [Greek: zetountes]), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission),
+    Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).
+
+As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading [Symbol: Alpha]
+is Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into the
+bargain, [Greek: enedreuontes thereusai] being very rough, and being
+probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the Greek language. If
+[Symbol: alpha] was the original, it is hard to see how [Symbol: beta]
+could have come from it. That the figurative language of [Symbol: alpha]
+was replaced in [Symbol: beta] by a simply descriptive paraphrase, as
+Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. On the other hand, the
+derivation of either [Symbol: alpha] or [Symbol: beta] 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 [Symbol:
+beta], the distinguishing [Greek: aphormen tina] would be a very natural
+gloss, requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying [Greek:
+labein]. 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.
+
+(7) St. Luke xii. 18. 'I will pull down my barns, and build greater, and
+there will I bestow all
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. My corn and my goods.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. My crops ([Greek: ta genemata mou]). My fruits
+    ([Greek: tous karpous mou]).
+
+    Trad. Text. My crops ([Greek: ta genemata mou]) and my goods.'
+
+This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, as Dr.
+Hort admitted, in [Symbol: alpha] of the more comprehensive word [Greek:
+genemata] for [Greek: siton], and a simple omission of [Greek: kai ta
+agatha mou] in [Symbol: beta]. And the admission of it into the selected
+eight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced in
+choosing his examples. The evidence is--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol:
+    Aleph](a^{c}), eight Cursives, Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic,
+    Armenian, Ethiopic.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. [Symbol: Aleph]*D, three Cursives, b ff i q,
+    Curetonian and Lewis, St. Ambrose (i. 573).
+
+    Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except twelve,
+    _f_, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. 294-5) _bis_,
+    Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus (Migne 52, 490-1) _bis_.
+
+No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are too common to
+require justification.
+
+(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. 'They were continually in the temple
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. Blessing God ([Greek: eulogountes]).
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. Praising God ([Greek: ainountes]).
+
+    Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.'
+
+The evidence is--
+
+    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian,
+    Lewis.
+
+    [Symbol: beta]. D, seven Old Latin.
+
+    Trad. Text. AC^{2} + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q,
+    Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Theophylact
+    (i. 497).
+
+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. [Greek: Ainos] is the set praise of God, drawn out in
+more or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him[621].
+[Greek: Eulogia] includes all speaking well of Him, especially when
+uttered before 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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, 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.
+
+A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, [Greek: autes ton prototokon] and
+[Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eike] and [Greek: to adelpho
+autou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios]
+and [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek:
+kophon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (he) ten
+metera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo ton kardion hymon] and [Greek:
+ta paraptomata auton]; and (8) xxvi. 3, [Greek: hoi presbyteroi (kai)
+hoi Grammateis]. 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.
+
+B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek:
+Iesou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro
+prosopou sou] (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous
+(kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek:
+agrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. 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 (_see_ Traditional
+Text, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on both
+sides.
+
+C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek:
+memnesteumene]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhemati Theou], or [Greek:
+ep' arto mono]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalon exo pantas (kai)], or
+[Greek: kratesas tes cheiros autes]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hemas
+apo tou ponerou], or [Greek: me eisenenkes hemas eis peirasmon]. 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 [Greek: memnesteumene] by the Lewis Codex.
+
+D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: me apoletai], or
+[Greek: eche zoen aionion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou me dipsese eis ton
+aiona], or [Greek: to hydor ho doso auto genesetai en auto pege hydatos,
+k.t.l.]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho soter tou
+kosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apengeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5)
+v. 16, [Greek: kai ezetoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediokon auton];
+(6) vi. 51, [Greek: hen ego doso], or [Greek: hou ego doso]; (7) ix. 1,
+25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithe]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek:
+ei ho Theos edoxasthe en auto], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthe en
+auto]. 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.
+
+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, 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.
+
+
+Sec. 2.
+
+THE NEUTRAL TEXT.
+
+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?
+
+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.
+
+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, [Symbol:
+Delta] in St. Mark, the fragmentary [Symbol: Xi] 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].
+
+2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral Text appears
+hardly in history except at the Semiarian 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.
+
+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.
+
+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[622]. This conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of the
+early versions.
+
+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.
+
+6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as 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.
+
+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.
+
+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, 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.
+
+    'Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret.'
+
+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.
+
+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 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.
+
+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
+
+THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[618] Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by [Symbol: alpha],
+Western by [Symbol: beta], as far as I can understand, 'other' by
+[Symbol: gamma], and 'Syrian' (=Traditional) by [Symbol: delta]. But he
+nowhere gives an example of [Symbol: gamma].
+
+[619] Introduction, p. 103.
+
+[620] Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. [Greek: Tis] is used with [Greek: ex],
+St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24; St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46;
+Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1, &c.
+
+[621] Thus [Greek: epainos] is used for a public encomium, or panegyric.
+
+[622] An attempt in the _Guardian_ 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.
+
+
+
+
+GENERAL INDEX.
+
+
+A.
+
+[Symbol: Aleph] or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196.
+
+Accident, 8; pure A., 34-35.
+
+Addition, 166-7, 270.
+
+Ages, earliest, 2.
+
+Alexandrian error, 45;
+  readings, App. II. 268, 284.
+
+Alford, _passim_.
+
+Ammonius, 200.
+
+Antiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5.
+
+Apolinarius, or-is (or Apoll.), 224, 257.
+
+Arians, 204, 218.
+
+Assimilation, 100-127;
+  what it was, 101-2;
+  must be delicately handled, 115
+
+Attraction, 123-7.
+
+
+B.
+
+B or Vatican MS., 2, 8, 196;
+  kakigraphy of, 64 note:
+  virtually with [Symbol: Aleph] the 'Neutral' text, 282.
+
+Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2.
+
+Blunder, history of a, 24-7.
+
+Bohairic Version, 249, and _passim_.
+
+
+C.
+
+Caesarea, library of, 284.
+
+Cerinthus, 201.
+
+Clement of Alexandria, 193.
+
+Conflation, 266-82.
+
+Correctors of MSS., 21.
+
+Corruption, first origin of, 3-8;
+  classes of 8-9, 23;
+  general, 10-23;
+  prevailed from the first, 12;
+  the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14;
+  in early Fathers, 193-4.
+
+Curetonian Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 283;
+  Ferrar group, 282.
+
+
+D.
+
+D or Codex Bezae, 8.
+
+[Symbol: Delta], or Sangallensis, 8.
+
+Damascus, 5.
+
+Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. _See_ Tatian.
+
+Doxology, in the Lord's Prayer, 81-8.
+
+
+E.
+
+Eclogadion, 69.
+
+Epiphanius, 305, 211-2.
+
+Erasmus, 10.
+
+Error, slight clerical, 37-31.
+
+Euroclydon, 46.
+
+Evangelistaria (the right name), 67.
+
+
+F.
+
+Falconer's St. Paul's voyage, 46-7.
+
+Fathers, _passim_; earliest, 193.
+
+Faustinus, 218.
+
+Ferrar group of Cursives, 282.
+
+Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2.
+
+
+G.
+
+Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5.
+
+Genealogy, 22. _See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Glosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90;
+  described, 172.
+
+Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7.
+
+Guardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 283 note.
+
+Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., 115 note.
+
+
+H.
+
+Harmonistic influence, 89-99.
+
+Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2.
+
+Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210;
+  not always dishonest, 191;
+  very numerous, 199 &c.
+
+Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 8
+
+I.
+
+Inadvertency, 21, 23.
+
+Internal evidence, Pref.
+
+Interpolations, 166-7.
+
+Irenaeus, St., 193.
+
+Itacism, 8, 56-86.
+
+
+J.
+
+Justin Martyr, St., 193.
+
+
+L.
+
+L or Codex Regius, 8.
+
+Lachmann, _passim_.
+
+Last Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30.
+
+Latin MSS., Old, _passim_; Low-Latin, 8. _See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Lectionaries, 67-81;
+  ecclesiastical prefaces to, 71.
+
+Lewis MS., _passim_, 194.
+
+Liturgical influence, 67-88.
+
+
+M.
+
+Macedonians, 204.
+
+Manes, 207.
+
+Manichaeans, 206.
+
+Manuscripts, six classes of, 12;
+  existing number of, 12;
+  frequent inaccuracies in, 12;
+  more serious faults, 20-1; and _passim_.
+
+Marcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219.
+
+Matrimony, 208.
+
+Menologion, 69.
+
+
+N.
+
+Naaseni, 204.
+
+'Neutral Text,' 267, 282-6.
+
+
+O.
+
+Omissions, 128-156;
+  the largest of all classes, 128;
+  not 'various readings,' 128;
+  prejudice in favour of, 130-1;
+  proof of, 131-2;
+  natural cause of corruption, 270.
+
+Origen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 190, 193, 209.
+
+Orthodox, corruption by, 211-31,
+  misguided, 211.
+
+
+P.
+
+Papyrus MSS., 2. _See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Parallel passages, 95.
+
+Pella, 7.
+
+Pericope de Adultera, 232-65.
+
+Peshitto Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text.
+
+Porphyry, 114.
+
+
+R.
+
+Revision, 10-13.
+
+Rose, Rev. W. F., 61 note 3.
+
+
+S.
+
+[Greek: Sabbatokuriakai], 68.
+
+Sahidic Version, 194.
+
+Saturninue, or Saturnilus, 208 and note 3.
+
+Scrivener's Introduction (4th Ed.), Miller's, _passim_.
+
+Semiarianism, 2.
+
+Substitution, 164-5, 270, 277.
+
+Synaxarion, 69.
+
+
+T.
+
+Tatian's Diatessaron, 8, 98, 101, 196, 200.
+
+Textualism of the Gospels, different from T. of profane writings, 14.
+
+Theodotus, 205, 214.
+
+Tischendorf, 112-3, 176, 182, and _passim_;
+  misuse of Assimilation, 118.
+
+Traditional Text, 1-4;
+  not = Received Text, 1. _See_ Volume on it.
+
+Transcriptional Mistakes, 55.
+
+Transposition, 157-63;
+  character of, 163, 270.
+
+Tregelles, 34, 136, 138.
+
+
+U.
+
+Uncials, 42-55.
+
+
+V.
+
+Valentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 215, 218 note 2.
+
+Various readings, 14-16.
+
+Vellum, 2.
+
+Vercellone, 47 note.
+
+Versions, _passim_.
+
+Victorinus Afer, 218.
+
+
+W.
+
+Western Readings or Text, 6, 266-85.
+
+
+Z.
+
+Z or Dublin palimpsest, 8.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX II.
+
+PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED.
+
+
+St. Matthew:
+    i. 19 209
+  iii. 6 102
+       16 170-1
+   iv. 23 51-2
+    v. 44 144-53
+   vi. 13 81-8
+       18 171
+  vii. 4 102
+ viii. 9 102
+       13 167-8
+       26 103
+       29 102
+   ix. 24 104
+       35 74
+    x. 12 103
+   xi. 23 27
+  xii. 10 117
+ xiii. 36 173
+       44 80-1
+   xv. 8 136-44
+  xvi. 8 103
+  xix. 9 39
+       16 103
+   xx. 24 103
+       28 175
+  xxi. 9 99
+       44 134-6
+ xxii. 23 49-50
+xxiii. 14 38
+ xxiv. 15 116
+       31 179-80
+       36 169-70
+  xxv. 13 171
+xxvii. 15 103
+       17 53-5
+     25-6 91
+       35 171
+
+St. Mark:
+    i. 2 111-5
+        5 157-8
+   ii. 3 158-9
+   iv. 6 63-4
+    v. 36 188
+   vi. 11 118-9, 181-2
+       32 32-3
+       33 271-3
+  vii. 14 35
+       19 61-3
+       31 73-3
+ viii. 1 34
+       26 273-4
+   ix. 38 271
+       49 275
+    x. 16 48
+  xii. 17 48
+  xiv. 40 48
+       41 182-3
+       70 119-22
+   xv. 6 32
+       28 75-8
+  xvi. 9-20 72, 129-30
+
+St. Luke:
+    i. 66 188-9
+   ii. 14 21-2, 31-2
+       15 36
+  iii. 14 201
+       29 165
+   iv. 1-13 94
+    v. 7 108
+       14 104
+   vi. 1 132-3
+        4 167
+       26 153
+  vii. 3 174
+       21 50
+   ix. 1 74
+       10 275-6
+     54-6 224-31
+    x. 15 28
+       25 75
+   xi. 54 276-7
+  xii. 18 277-8
+       39 155
+ xiii. 9 160-1
+  xiv. 3 117
+   xv. 16 117
+       17 43-5
+       24 61
+       32 61
+  xvi. 21 40
+       25 60
+ xvii. 37 48-9
+  xix. 21 103
+       41 212
+ xxii. 67-8 210
+xxiii. 11 50-1
+       27 51
+       42 57
+ xxiv. 1 92-4
+        7 161
+       53 278
+
+St. John:
+    i. 3-4 203
+       18 215-8, 165
+   ii. 40 212-4
+  iii. 13 223-4
+   iv. 15 48
+    v. 4 50
+       27 162
+    v. 44 45
+   vi. 11 37-8
+       15 38, 178
+       55 153-4
+       71 124
+ viii. 40 214-5
+   ix. 22 183
+    x. 14-15 206-8
+       29 24-7
+  xii. 1, 2 57-9
+        7 184-6
+       13 99
+ xiii. 21-5 106-11
+       24 179
+       25 60
+       26 124
+       37 35
+  xvi. 16 105
+ xvii. 4 186-8
+xviii. 14 180-1
+   xx. 11 90-2
+
+Acts:
+   ii. 45-6 159
+  iii. 1 78-80
+xviii. 6 27
+   xx. 4 190
+       24 28, 124-5
+xxvii. 14 46-7
+       37 27
+xxviii. 1 28
+
+
+1 Cor.:
+   xv. 47 219-23
+
+2 Cor.:
+  iii. 3 125-7
+
+Titus:
+   ii. 5 65-6
+
+Heb.:
+  vii. 1 53
+
+2 Pet.:
+    i. 21 52-3
+
+Rev.
+    i. 5 59-60
+
+THE END.
+
+
+
+
+
+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.txt or 21112.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.
diff --git a/21112.zip b/21112.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d7cc6b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/21112.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..508209c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #21112 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21112)