diff options
Diffstat (limited to '36722-tei')
| -rw-r--r-- | 36722-tei/36722-tei.tei | 26665 |
1 files changed, 26665 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/36722-tei/36722-tei.tei b/36722-tei/36722-tei.tei new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ea5bd73 --- /dev/null +++ b/36722-tei/36722-tei.tei @@ -0,0 +1,26665 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> + +<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "http://www.gutenberg.org/tei/marcello/0.4/dtd/pgtei.dtd" [ + +<!ENTITY u5 "http://www.tei-c.org/Lite/"> + +]> + +<TEI.2 lang="en"> +<teiHeader> + <fileDesc> + <titleStmt> + <title>The Revision Revised</title> + <author><name reg="Burgon, John William">John William Burgon</name></author> + </titleStmt> + <editionStmt> + <edition n="1">Edition 1</edition> + </editionStmt> + <publicationStmt> + <publisher>Project Gutenberg</publisher> + <date>July 13, 2011</date> + <idno type="etext-no">36722</idno> + <availability> + <p>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 online at www.gutenberg.org/license</p> + </availability> + </publicationStmt> + <sourceDesc> + <bibl> + Created electronically. + </bibl> + </sourceDesc> + </fileDesc> + <encodingDesc> + </encodingDesc> + <profileDesc> + <langUsage> + <language id="en"></language> + <language id="la"></language> + <language id="fr"></language> + </langUsage> + </profileDesc> + <revisionDesc> + <change> + <date value="2011-07-13">July 13, 2011</date> + <respStmt> + <name> + Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan, David King, and the Online + Distributed Proofreading Team at <http://www.pgdp.net/>. + </name> + </respStmt> + <item>Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1</item> + </change> + </revisionDesc> +</teiHeader> + +<pgExtensions> + <pgStyleSheet> + .boxed { x-class: boxed } + .shaded { x-class: shaded } + .rules { x-class: rules; rules: all } + .indent { margin-left: 2 } + .bold { font-weight: bold } + .italic { font-style: italic } + .smallcaps { font-variant: small-caps } + </pgStyleSheet> + + <pgCharMap formats="txt.iso-8859-1"> + <char id="U0x2014"> + <charName>mdash</charName> + <desc>EM DASH</desc> + <mapping>--</mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2003"> + <charName>emsp</charName> + <desc>EM SPACE</desc> + <mapping> </mapping> + </char> + <char id="U0x2026"> + <charName>hellip</charName> + <desc>HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS</desc> + <mapping>...</mapping> + </char> + </pgCharMap> +</pgExtensions> + +<text lang="en"> + <front> + <div> + <divGen type="pgheader" /> + </div> + <div> + <divGen type="encodingDesc" /> + </div> + + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <p rend="font-size: xx-large; text-align: center">The Revision Revised.</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Three Articles</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Reprinted From The <q>Quarterly Review.</q></p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">I. The New Greek Text.</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">II. The New English Version.</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">III. Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory.</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">To Which is Added A</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">Reply to Bishop Ellicott's Pamphlet</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">In Defence Of</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">The Revisers and Their Greek Text of the New Testament:</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16.</p> + <p rend="font-size: x-large; text-align: center">By John William Burgon, B.D.</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center">Dean of Chichester.</p> + <p rend="font-size: large; text-align: center"><q>Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.</q>—1 John v. 21.</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">Dover Publications, Inc.</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">New York</p> + <p rend="text-align: center">1971</p> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: always"> + <head>Contents</head> + <divGen type="toc" /> + </div> + + </front> +<body> + +<pb n='iv'/><anchor id='Pgiv'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> + +<p> +[Transcriber's Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be +well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much use of +Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters to indicate +abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book does not have such an +<q>overline</q>, they are rendered here with underlines. It also contains some text +in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for the sake of different transcription +methods, it is transcribed here in both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that +regardless of the medium of this E-book, one or the other should be readable.] +</p> + +<p> +The following is <hi rend='smallcaps'>Prebendary Scrivener's</hi> recently published +estimate of the System on which <hi rend='smallcaps'>Drs. Westcott and Hort</hi> +have constructed their <q><hi rend='italic'>Revised Greek Text of the New +Testament</hi></q> (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the +Revising Body (<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop Ellicott</hi>) has entirely adopted (see +below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>The Revisers</hi> and their <q><hi rend='italic'>New Greek Text.</hi></q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +(1.) <q>There is little hope for the stability of their imposing +structure, if <emph>its foundations have been laid on the sandy +ground of ingenious conjecture</emph>. And, since barely the +smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been +alleged in support of the views of these accomplished +Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively +true, or <emph>dismissed from our consideration as +precarious and even visionary</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(2.) <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Dr. Hort's</hi> System <emph>is entirely destitute of historical +foundation</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(3.) <q>We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our +strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he +has devoted so many laborious years, <emph>is destitute not only +of historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from +the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would +force upon us</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(4.) <q><q>We cannot doubt</q> (says <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dr. Hort</hi>) <q>that S. Luke +xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.</q> [<hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, +p. 68.]—<emph>Nor can we, on our part, doubt</emph>,</q> (rejoins <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dr. +Scrivener</hi>,) <q><emph>that the System which entails such consequences +is hopelessly self-condemned</emph>.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Scrivener's</hi> <q>Plain Introduction,</q> &c. [ed. 1883]: +pp. 531, 537, 542, 604. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='v'/><anchor id='Pgv'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Dedication.</head> + +<p> +To The<lb/> +Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, G.C.S.I.,<lb/> +&c., &c., &c. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>My dear Lord Cranbrook</hi>, +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Allow me the gratification of dedicating the present +Volume to yourself; but for whom—(I reserve the explanation +for another day)—it would never have been written.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>This is not, (as you will perceive at a glance,) the Treatise +which a few years ago I told you I had in hand; and which, +but for the present hindrance, might by this time have been +completed. It has however</hi> grown out <hi rend='italic'>of that other work in +the manner explained at the beginning of my Preface. Moreover +it contains not a few specimens of the argumentation of +which the work in question, when at last it sees the light, will +be discovered to be full.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt +which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and +Realm a Revision of the Sacred Text, which—recommended +though it be by eminent names—I am thoroughly convinced, +and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end.</hi> +</p> + +<pb n='vi'/><anchor id='Pgvi'/> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>The reason is plain. It has been constructed throughout on +an utterly erroneous hypothesis. And I inscribe this Volume +to you, my friend, as a conspicuous member of that body of +faithful and learned Laity by whose deliberate verdict, when +the whole of the evidence has been produced and the case +has been fully argued out, I shall be quite willing that my +contention may stand or fall.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>The</hi> English <hi rend='italic'>(as well as the Greek) of the newly <q>Revised +Version</q> is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible +how a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in +elaborating such a very unsatisfactory production. Their +uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences, their pedantic +obscurity and their unidiomatic English, contrast painfully +with <q>the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, +the felicities of the rhythm</q> of our Authorized Version. The +transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln +remarks, is like exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle +without springs, in which you get jolted to death on a newly-mended +and rarely-traversed road. But the <q>Revised Version</q> +is inaccurate as well; exhibits defective scholarship, I +mean, in countless places.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>It is, however, the</hi> systematic depravation of the underlying +Greek <hi rend='italic'>which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing +else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. +Our Revisers, (with the best and purest intentions, no doubt,) +stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of +<pb n='vii'/><anchor id='Pgvii'/> +Inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them +fabricated Readings which the Church has long since refused to +acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence; and which +only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of +the most depraved type.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>As Critics they have had abundant warning. Twelve years +ago (1871) a volume appeared on</hi> the <q>last Twelve Verses of +the Gospel according to S. Mark,</q>—<hi rend='italic'>of which the declared +object was to vindicate those Verses against certain critical +objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive argumentative +process. Up to this hour, for a very obvious reason, no answer +to that volume has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten +years (1881),—not only in the Revised English but also in the +volume which professes to exhibit the underlying Greek, (which +at least is indefensible,)—the Revisers are observed to separate +off those Twelve precious Verses from their context, in token that +they are no part of the genuine Gospel. Such a deliberate preference +of</hi> <q>mumpsimus</q> <hi rend='italic'>to</hi> <q>sumpsimus</q> <hi rend='italic'>is by no means calculated +to conciliate favour, or even to win respect. The Revisers +have in fact been the dupes of an ingenious Theorist, concerning +whose extraordinary views you are invited to read what Dr. +Scrivener has recently put forth. The words of the last-named +writer (who is</hi> facile princeps <hi rend='italic'>in Textual Criticism) will be +found facing the beginning of the present Dedication.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my +opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that <q>to everything +<pb n='viii'/><anchor id='Pgviii'/> +there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the +sun</q>: <q>a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing</q>: +a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for +speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are +seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for +one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its +integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. In handling +certain recent utterances of Bishop Ellicott, I considered +throughout that it was the</hi> <q>Textual Critic</q>—<hi rend='italic'>not the Successor +of the Apostles,—with whom I had to do.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>And thus I commend my Volume, the fruit of many years +of incessant anxious toil, to your indulgence: requesting that +you will receive it as a token of my sincere respect and admiration; +and desiring to be remembered, my dear Lord +Cranbrook, as</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Your grateful and affectionate<lb/> +Friend and Servant,<lb/> +John W. Burgon.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Deanery, Chichester,</hi><lb/> +All Saints' Day., 1883. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='ix'/><anchor id='Pgix'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Preface.</head> + +<p> +The ensuing three Articles from the <q>Quarterly Review,</q>—(wrung +out of me by the publication [May 17th, 1881] +of the <q>Revision</q> of our <q>Authorized Version of the New +Testament,</q>)—appear in their present form in compliance +with an amount of continuous solicitation that they should +be separately published, which it would have been alike unreasonable +and ungracious to disregard. I was not prepared +for it. It has caused me—as letter after letter has reached +my hands—mixed feelings; has revived all my original +disinclination and regret. For, gratified as I cannot but feel +by the reception my labours have met with,—(and only the +Author of my being knows what an amount of antecedent +toil is represented by the ensuing pages,)—I yet deplore +more heartily than I am able to express, the injustice done +to the cause of Truth by handling the subject in this fragmentary +way, and by exhibiting the evidence for what is +most certainly true, in such a very incomplete form. A +systematic Treatise is the indispensable condition for securing +cordial assent to the view for which I mainly contend. The +cogency of the argument lies entirely in the cumulative +character of the proof. It requires to be demonstrated by +induction from a large collection of particular instances, as +well as by the complex exhibition of many converging lines +of evidence, that the testimony of one small group of +documents, or rather, of one particular manuscript,—(namely +<pb n='x'/><anchor id='Pgx'/> +the Vatican Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, which, for some unexplained reason, it +is just now the fashion to regard with superstitious deference,)—is +the reverse of trustworthy. Nothing in fact but a +considerable Treatise will ever effectually break the yoke of +that iron tyranny to which the excellent Bishop of Gloucester +and Bristol and his colleagues have recently bowed their +necks; and are now for imposing on all English-speaking +men. In brief, if I were not, on the one hand, thoroughly +convinced of the strength of my position,—(and I know it +to be absolutely impregnable);—yet more, if on the other +hand, I did not cherish entire confidence in the practical +good sense and fairness of the English mind;—I could +not have brought myself to come before the public in the +unsystematic way which alone is possible in the pages of +a Review. I must have waited, at all hazards, till I had +finished <q>my Book.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But then, delay would have been fatal. I saw plainly +that unless a sharp blow was delivered immediately, the +Citadel would be in the enemy's hands. I knew also that it +was just possible to condense into 60 or 70 closely-printed +pages what must <emph>logically</emph> prove fatal to the <q>Revision.</q> So +I set to work; and during the long summer days of 1881 +(June to September) the foremost of these three Articles was +elaborated. When the October number of <q>the Quarterly</q> +appeared, I comforted myself with the secret consciousness +that enough was by this time on record, even had my life +been suddenly brought to a close, to secure the ultimate rejection +of the <q>Revision</q> of 1881. I knew that the <q>New +Greek Text,</q> (and therefore the <q>New English Version</q>), +<pb n='xi'/><anchor id='Pgxi'/> +had received its death-blow. It might for a few years drag +out a maimed existence; eagerly defended by some,—timidly +pleaded for by others. But such efforts could be of no avail. +Its days were already numbered. The effect of more and +yet more learned investigation,—of more elaborate and more +extended inquiry,—<emph>must</emph> be to convince mankind more and +yet more thoroughly that the principles on which it had been +constructed were radically unsound. In the end, when partisanship +had cooled down, and passion had evaporated, and +prejudice had ceased to find an auditory, the <q>Revision</q> of +1881 must come to be universally regarded as—what it most +certainly is,—<emph>the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous +literary blunder of the Age</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +I. I pointed out that <q>the <hi rend='smallcaps'>New Greek Text</hi>,</q>—which, in +defiance of their instructions,<note place='foot'>Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to read +from page <ref target='Pg399'>399</ref> to page 413 of what follows.</note> the Revisionists of <q>the +Authorized English Version</q> had been so ill-advised as to +spend ten years in elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy +performance: was full of the gravest errors from beginning +to end: had been constructed throughout on an entirely +mistaken Theory. Availing myself of the published confession +of one of the Revisionists,<note place='foot'>Dr. Newth. See pp. <ref target='Pg037'>37-9</ref>.</note> I explained the nature of +the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I traced the +mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott and Hort; +a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the most +vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under +pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every +<pb n='xii'/><anchor id='Pgxii'/> +member of the revising Body.<note place='foot'>See pp. <ref target='Pg024'>24-9</ref>: <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, &c.</note> I called attention to the +fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science +of Textual Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, +surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred +his counsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely +more trustworthy guide): and that the work before the +public was the piteous—but <emph>inevitable</emph>—result. All this I +explained in the October number of the <q>Quarterly Review</q> +for 1881.<note place='foot'>See below, pp. 1 to 110.</note> +</p> + +<p> +II. In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the <q>New +Greek Text</q> of the Revisionists, I considered that I had +destroyed the key of their position. And so perforce I +had: for if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what +else but incorrect must the English Translation be? But on +examining the so-called <q>Revision of the Authorized Version,</q> +I speedily made the further discovery that the Revised +English would have been in itself intolerable, even had the +Greek been let alone. In the first place, to my surprise and +annoyance, it proved to be a <emph>New Translation</emph> (rather than a +Revision of the Old) which had been attempted. Painfully +apparent were the tokens which met me on every side +that the Revisionists had been supremely eager not so much +to correct none but <q>plain and clear errors,</q>—as to introduce +as many changes into the English of the New Testament +Scriptures as they conveniently could.<note place='foot'>This will be found more fully explained from pp. <ref target='Pg127'>127</ref> to 130: pp. <ref target='Pg154'>154</ref> +to 164: also pp. <ref target='Pg400'>400</ref> to 403. See also the quotations on pp. <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref> and <ref target='Pg368'>368</ref>.</note> A skittish impatience +of the admirable work before them, and a strange inability +<pb n='xiii'/><anchor id='Pgxiii'/> +to appreciate its manifold excellences:—a singular imagination +on the part of the promiscuous Company which met in +the Jerusalem Chamber that they were competent to improve +the Authorized Version in every part, and an unaccountable +forgetfulness that the fundamental condition under which +the task of Revision had been by themselves undertaken, +was that they should abstain from all but <q><emph>necessary</emph></q> +changes:—<emph>this</emph> proved to be only part of the offence which +the Revisionists had committed. It was found that they had +erred through <emph>defective Scholarship</emph> to an extent, and with a +frequency, which to me is simply inexplicable. I accordingly +made it my business to demonstrate all this in a second +Article which appeared in the next (the January) number +of the <q>Quarterly Review,</q> and was entitled <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>The New +English Translation</hi>.</q><note place='foot'>See below, pp. <ref target='Pg112'>113</ref> to 232.</note> +</p> + +<p> +III. Thereupon, a pretence was set up in many quarters, +(<emph>but only by the Revisionists and their friends</emph>,) that all my +labour hitherto had been thrown away, because I had omitted +to disprove the principles on which this <q>New Greek Text</q> +is founded. I flattered myself indeed that quite enough had +been said to make it logically certain that the underlying +<q>Textual Theory</q> <emph>must be</emph> worthless. But I was not suffered +to cherish this conviction in quiet. It was again and again +cast in my teeth that I had not yet grappled with Drs. Westcott +and Hort's <q>arguments.</q> <q>Instead of condemning <emph>their +Text</emph>, why do you not disprove <emph>their Theory</emph>?</q> It was tauntingly +insinuated that I knew better than to cross swords +<pb n='xiv'/><anchor id='Pgxiv'/> +with the two Cambridge Professors. This reduced me to the +necessity of either leaving it to be inferred from my silence +that I had found Drs. Westcott and Hort's <q>arguments</q> +unanswerable; or else of coming forward with their book in +my hand, and demonstrating that in their solemn pages an +attentive reader finds himself encountered by nothing but a +series of unsupported assumptions: that their (so called) +<q>Theory</q> is in reality nothing else but a weak effort of the +Imagination: that the tissue which these accomplished +scholars have been thirty years in elaborating, proves on +inspection to be as flimsy and as worthless as any spider's +web. +</p> + +<p> +I made it my business in consequence to expose, somewhat +in detail, (in a third Article, which appeared in the +<q>Quarterly Review</q> for April 1882), the absolute absurdity,—(I +use the word advisedly)—of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Westcott and Hort's +New Textual Theory</hi>;</q><note place='foot'>See below, pp. <ref target='Pg235'>235</ref> to 366.</note> and I now respectfully commend +those 130 pages to the attention of candid and unprejudiced +readers. It were idle to expect to convince any others. We +have it on good authority (Dr. Westcott's) that <q>he who has +long pondered over a train of Reasoning, <emph>becomes unable to +detect its weak points</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Gospel of the Resurrection</hi>, p. viii.</note> A yet stranger phenomenon is, that +those who have once committed themselves to an erroneous +Theory, seem to be incapable of opening their eyes to the +untrustworthiness of the fabric they have erected, even when +it comes down in their sight, like a child's house built with +playing-cards,—and presents to every eye but their own the +appearance of a shapeless ruin. +</p> + +<pb n='xv'/><anchor id='Pgxv'/> + +<p> +§ 1. Two full years have elapsed since the first of these +Essays was published; and my Criticism—for the best of +reasons—remains to this hour unanswered. The public +has been assured indeed, (in the course of some hysterical +remarks by Canon Farrar<note place='foot'><p>Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the <q><hi rend='italic'>Contemporary Review</hi></q> +for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Archdeacon) +Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having +written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer +is in consequence for ever denouncing those <q><hi rend='italic'>last Twelve Verses</hi>.</q> In +March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the <q>Quarterly,</q>) he +says:—<q>In spite of Dean Burgon's Essay on the subject, the minds of +most scholars are <emph>quite unalterably made up</emph> on such questions as the +authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.</q> [<hi rend='italic'>Contemporary Review</hi>, +vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the ensuing October,—<q>If, among <emph>positive +results</emph>, any one should set down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... +<emph>formed no part of the original apostolic autograph</emph> ... He, I say, who +should enumerate these points as being <emph>beyond the reach of serious dispute</emph> ... +would be expressing the views which are <emph>regarded as indisputable</emph> by +the vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to +serious attention.</q> [<hi rend='italic'>Expositor</hi>, p. 173.] +</p> +<p> +It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be +reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such language +as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is surprised to +have to tell a <q>fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,</q> so obvious a truth +as that by such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. +By proclaiming that his mind is <q><emph>quite unalterably made up</emph></q> that the +end of S. Mark's Gospel is not authentic, he admits that he is impervious +to argument and therefore incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere +waste of time to reason with an unfortunate who announces that he +is beyond the reach of conviction.</p></note>), that <q>the <q>Quarterly Reviewer</q> +can be refuted as fully as he desires as soon as any scholar +has the leisure to answer him.</q> The <q>Quarterly Reviewer</q> +can afford to wait,—if the Revisers can. But they are +reminded that it is no answer to one who has demolished +their master's <q>Theory,</q> for the pupils to keep on reproducing +fragments of it; and by their mistakes and exaggerations, to +make both themselves and him, ridiculous. +</p> + +<pb n='xvi'/><anchor id='Pgxvi'/> + +<p> +§ 2. Thus, a writer in the <q>Church Quarterly</q> for January +1882, (whose knowledge of the subject is entirely derived +from what Dr. Hort has taught him,)—being evidently +much exercised by the first of my three Articles in the +<q>Quarterly Review,</q>—gravely informs the public that <q>it is +useless to parade such an array of venerable witnesses,</q> +(meaning the enumerations of Fathers of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>iii</hi>rd, <hi rend='smallcaps'>iv</hi>th, and +<hi rend='smallcaps'>v</hi>th centuries which are given below, at pp. <ref target='Pg042'>42-4</ref>: <ref target='Pg080'>80-1</ref>: +<ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>: <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>: <ref target='Pg212'>212-3</ref>: <ref target='Pg359'>359-60</ref>: <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>: <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>: <ref target='Pg486'>486-90</ref>:)—<q><emph>for they +have absolutely nothing to say which deserves a moment's hearing</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching +was which the writer in the <q>Church Quarterly</q> was intending to reproduce, +he is invited to read from p. <ref target='Pg296'>296</ref> to p. 300 of the present volume.</note>—What +a pity it is, (while he was about it), that +the learned gentleman did not go on to explain that the +moon is made of green cheese! +</p> + +<p> +§ 3. Dr. Sanday,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Contemporary Review</hi>, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.</note> in a kindred spirit, delivers it as his +opinion, that <q>the one thing</q> I lack <q>is a grasp on the +central condition of the problem:</q>—that I do <q>not seem to +have the faintest glimmering of the principle of <q>Genealogy:</q></q>—that +I am <q>all at sea:</q>—that my <q>heaviest batteries are +discharged at random:</q>—and a great deal more to the same +effect. The learned Professor is quite welcome to think such +things of me, if he pleases. Οὐ φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ. +</p> + +<p> +§ 4. At the end of a year, a Reviewer of quite a different +calibre made his appearance in the January number (1883) +of the <q>Church Quarterly:</q> in return for whose not very +<pb n='xvii'/><anchor id='Pgxvii'/> +encouraging estimate of my labours, I gladly record my +conviction that if he will seriously apply his powerful and +accurate mind to the department of Textual Criticism, he +will probably produce a work which will help materially to +establish the study in which he takes such an intelligent +interest, on a scientific basis. But then, he is invited to +accept the friendly assurance that the indispensable condition +of success in this department is, that a man should give +to the subject, (which is a very intricate one and abounds in +unexplored problems), his undivided attention for an extended +period. I trust there is nothing unreasonable in the suggestion +that one who has not done this, should be very circumspect +when he sits in judgment on a neighbour of his who, for +very many years past, has given to Textual Criticism the +whole of his time;—has freely sacrificed health, ease, relaxation, +even necessary rest, to this one object;—has made +it his one business to acquire such an independent mastery +of the subject as shall qualify him to do battle successfully +for the imperilled letter of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> Word. My friend however +thinks differently. He says of me,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>In his first Article there was something amusing in the +simplicity with which <q>Lloyd's Greek Testament</q> (which is +only a convenient little Oxford edition of the ordinary kind) +was put forth as the final standard of appeal. It recalled to +our recollection Bentley's sarcasm upon the text of Stephanus, +which <q>your learned Whitbyus</q> takes for the sacred original in +every syllable.</q> (P. 354.) +</quote> + +<p> +§ 5. On referring to the passage where my <q>simplicity</q> +has afforded amusement to a friend whose brilliant conversation +is always a delight to <emph>me</emph>, I read as follows,— +</p> + +<pb n='xviii'/><anchor id='Pgxviii'/> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of a copy +of Lloyd's Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts +are collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,—the +serious deflections of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> from the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> amount +in all to only 842: whereas in <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> they amount to 1798: in <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, to +2370: in א, to 3392: in <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, to 4697. The readings <emph>peculiar to</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> +within the same limits are 133: those peculiar to <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> are 170. But +those of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> amount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings +peculiar to <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> (within the same limits), are no fewer than +1829.... We submit that these facts are not altogether +calculated to inspire confidence in codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>.</q><note place='foot'>Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below +(at p. <ref target='Pg014'>14</ref>),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against the risk +of <emph>future</emph> misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other places. He will +find that my only object in them all was to prove that codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi> +<emph>yield divergent testimony</emph>; and therefore, so habitually <emph>contradict</emph> one +another, as effectually to invalidate their own evidence throughout. This +has never been <emph>proved</emph> before. It can <emph>only</emph> be proved, in fact, by one who +has laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to the +drudgery of exactly tabulating the result.</note> +</quote> + +<p> +§ 6. But how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that +I have <q>put forth Lloyd's Greek Testament as the <emph>final +standard of Appeal</emph></q>? True, that, in order to exhibit clearly +their respective divergences, I have referred five famous +codices (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>)—certain of which are found to have +turned the brain of Critics of the new school—<emph>to one and the +same familiar exhibition of the commonly received Text of the +New Testament</emph>: but by so doing I have not by any means +assumed <emph>the Textual purity</emph> of that common standard. In +other words I have not made it <q><emph>the final standard of +Appeal</emph>.</q> <emph>All</emph> Critics,—wherever found,—at all times, have +collated with the commonly received Text: but only as the +most convenient <emph>standard of Comparison</emph>; not, surely, as the +<pb n='xix'/><anchor id='Pgxix'/> +absolute <emph>standard of Excellence</emph>. The result of the experiment +already referred to,—(and, I beg to say, it was an exceedingly +laborious experiment,)—has been, to demonstrate that +the five Manuscripts in question stand apart from one another +in the following proportions:— +</p> + +<p> +842 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>) : 1798 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>) : 2370 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) : 3392 (א) : 4697 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +But would not the same result have been obtained if the +<q>five old uncials</q> had been <emph>referred to any other common +standard which can be named</emph>? In the meantime, what else +is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon but that +four out of the five <emph>must</emph> be—while all the five <emph>may</emph> be—outrageously +depraved documents? instead of being fit to be +made our exclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,—as +Critics of the school of Tischendorf and Tregelles would have +us believe that they are? +</p> + +<p> +§ 7. I cited a book which is in the hands of every schoolboy, +(Lloyd's <q>Greek Testament,</q>) <emph>only</emph> in order to facilitate +reference, and to make sure that my statements would be +at once understood by the least learned person who could +be supposed to have access to the <q>Quarterly.</q> I presumed +every scholar to be aware that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to +reproduce Mill's text; and that Mill (1707) reproduces the +text of Stephens;<note place='foot'><q>Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum <emph>idem profecto</emph>, quod ad +textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,</q>—are the well known opening words +of the <q>Monitum</q> prefixed to Lloyd's N. T.—And Mill, according to +Scrivener, [<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 399,] <q>only aims at reproducing Stephens' +text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whether by accident +or design.</q> Such places are found to amount in all to <emph>twenty-nine</emph>.</note> and that Stephens (1550) exhibits with +sufficient accuracy the Traditional text,—which is confessedly +<pb n='xx'/><anchor id='Pgxx'/> +at least 1530 years old.<note place='foot'>See below, pp. <ref target='Pg257'>257-8</ref>: also p. <ref target='Pg390'>390</ref>.</note> Now, if a tolerable approximation +to the text of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350 may <emph>not</emph> be accepted as <emph>a standard of +Comparison</emph>,—will the writer in the <q>Church Quarterly</q> be +so obliging as to inform us <emph>which</emph> exhibition of the sacred +Text <emph>may</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +§ 8. A pamphlet by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament</hi>, &c.—Macmillan, +pp. 79.</note> +which appeared in April 1882, remains to be considered. +Written expressly in defence of the Revisers and their New +Greek Text, this composition displays a slenderness of +acquaintance with the subject now under discussion, for +which I was little prepared. Inasmuch however as it is the +production of the Chairman of the Revisionist body, and +professes to be a reply to my first two Articles, I have +bestowed upon it an elaborate and particular rejoinder +extending to an hundred-and-fifty pages.<note place='foot'>See below, pp. <ref target='Pg369'>369</ref> to 520.</note> I shall in +consequence be very brief concerning it in this place. +</p> + +<p> +§ 9. The respected writer does nothing else but reproduce +Westcott and Hort's theory <emph>in Westcott and Hort's words</emph>. +He contributes nothing of his own. The singular infelicity +which attended his complaint that the <q>Quarterly Reviewer</q> +<q>censures their [Westcott and Hort's] Text,</q> but, <q>has not +attempted <emph>a serious examination of the arguments which they +allege in its support</emph>,</q> I have sufficiently dwelt upon elsewhere.<note place='foot'>Pages <ref target='Pg371'>371-2</ref>.</note> +The rest of the Bishop's contention may be summed +<pb n='xxi'/><anchor id='Pgxxi'/> +up in two propositions:—The first, (I.) That if the Revisionists +are wrong in their <q>New Greek Text,</q> then (not only +Westcott and Hort, but) Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles +must be wrong also,—a statement which I hold to be incontrovertible.—The +Bishop's other position is also undeniable: +viz. (II.) That in order to pass an equitable judgment on +ancient documents, they are to be carefully studied, closely +compared, and tested by a more scientific process than rough +comparison with the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi>.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Pamphlet</hi>, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.</note>... Thus, on both +heads, I find myself entirely at one with Bp. Ellicott. +</p> + +<p> +§ 10. And yet,—as the last 150 pages of the present +volume show,—I have the misfortune to be at issue with the +learned writer on almost every particular which he proposes +for discussion. Thus, +</p> + +<p> +§ 11. At page 64 of his pamphlet, he fastens resolutely +upon the famous problem whether <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Θεός), or <q>who</q> +(ὅς), is to be read in 1 Timothy iii. 16. I had upheld +the former reading in eight pages. He contends for the +latter, with something like acrimony, in twelve.<note place='foot'>See below, p. <ref target='Pg425'>425</ref>.</note> I have +been at the pains, in consequence, to write a <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Dissertation</hi></q> +of seventy-six pages on this important subject,<note place='foot'>Pages <ref target='Pg424'>424-501</ref>.</note>—the preparation +of which (may I be allowed to record the circumstance +in passing?) occupied me closely for six months,<note place='foot'>From January till June 1883.</note> and taxed +me severely. Thus, the only point which Bishop Ellicott +has condescended to discuss argumentatively with me, will +be found to enjoy full half of my letter to him in reply. +</p> + +<pb n='xxii'/><anchor id='Pgxxii'/> + +<p> +The <q>Dissertation</q> referred to, I submit with humble confidence +to the judgment of educated Englishmen. It requires +no learning to understand the case. And I have particularly +to request that those who will be at the pains to look into +this question, will remember,—(1) That the place of Scripture +discussed (viz. 1 Tim. iii. 16) was deliberately selected +for a trial of strength by the Bishop: (I should not have +chosen it myself):—(2) That on the issue of the contention +which he has thus himself invited, we have respectively +staked our critical reputation. The discussion exhibits very +fairly our two methods,—his and mine; and <q>is of great +importance as an example,</q> <q>illustrating in a striking +manner</q> our respective positions,—as the Bishop himself +has been careful to remind his readers.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Pamphlet</hi>, p. 76.</note> +</p> + +<p> +§ 12. One merely desirous of taking a general survey of +this question, is invited to read from page <ref target='Pg485'>485</ref> to 496 of the +present volume. To understand the case thoroughly, he +must submit to the labour of beginning at p. <ref target='Pg424'>424</ref> and reading +down to p. 501. +</p> + +<p> +§ 13. A thoughtful person who has been at the pains to do +this, will be apt on laying down the book to ask,—<q>But is +it not very remarkable that so many as five of the ancient +Versions should favour the reading <q>which,</q> (μυστήριον; ὃ +ἐφανερώθη,) instead of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Θεός)</q>?—<q>Yes, it is very +remarkable,</q> I answer. <q>For though the Old Latin and the +two Egyptian Versions are constantly observed to conspire +<pb n='xxiii'/><anchor id='Pgxxiii'/> +in error, they rarely find allies in the Peschito and the +Æthiopic. On the other hand, you are to remember that +besides <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi> have to be inquired after: +while more important than either is the testimony of the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>. Now, the combined witness to <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Θεός),—so +multitudinous, so respectable, so varied, so unequivocal,—of +the Copies and of the Fathers (in addition to three of the +Versions) is simply overwhelming. It becomes undeniable +that Θεός is by far the best supported reading of the present +place.</q> +</p> + +<p> +§ 14. When, however, such an one as Tischendorf or +Tregelles,—Hort or Ellicott,—would put me down by reminding +me that half-a-dozen of the oldest Versions are +against me,—<q><emph>That</emph> argument</q> (I reply) <q>is not allowable +on <emph>your</emph> lips. For if the united testimony of <emph>five</emph> of the +Versions really be, in your account, decisive,—Why do you +deny the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's +Gospel, <emph>which are recognized by every one of the Versions</emph>? +Those Verses are besides attested <emph>by every known Copy</emph>, except +two of bad character: <emph>by a mighty chorus of Fathers</emph>: <emph>by the +unfaltering Tradition of the Church universal</emph>. First remove +from S. Mark xvi. 20, your brand of suspicion, and then +come back to me in order that we may discuss together how +1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read. And yet, when you come back, +it must not be to plead in favour of <q>who</q> (ὅσ), in place of +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Θεός). For <emph>not</emph> <q>who</q> (ὅς), remember, but <q>which</q> (ὅ) +is the reading advocated by those five earliest Versions.</q> ... +In other words,—the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, which the +Revisers have adopted, enjoys, (as I have shown from page +<ref target='Pg428'>428</ref> to page 501), <emph>the feeblest attestation of any</emph>; besides +<pb n='xxiv'/><anchor id='Pgxxiv'/> +being condemned by internal considerations and the universal +Tradition of the Eastern Church. +</p> + +<p> +§ 15. I pass on, after modestly asking,—Is it too much to +hope, (I covet no other guerdon for my labour!) that we +shall hear no more about substituting <q>who</q> for <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> in +1 Tim. iii. 16? We may not go on disputing for ever: and +surely, until men are able to produce some more cogent +evidence than has yet come to light in support of <q>the +mystery of godliness, <emph>who</emph></q> (τὸ τῆς εὐσβείας μυστήριον: +ὅς),—all sincere inquirers after Truth are bound to accept +<emph>that</emph> reading which has been demonstrated to be by far the +best attested. Enough however on this head. +</p> + +<p> +§ 16. It was said just now that I cordially concur with +Bp. Ellicott in the second of his two propositions,—viz. That +<q>no equitable judgment can be passed on ancient documents +until they are carefully studied, and closely compared with +each other, and tested by a more scientific process than rough +comparison with</q> the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi>. I wish to add a few +words on this subject: the rather, because what I am about +to say will be found as applicable to my Reviewer in the +<q>Church Quarterly</q> as to the Bishop. Both have misapprehended +this matter, and in exactly the same way. Where +such accomplished Scholars have erred, what wonder if +ordinary readers should find themselves all a-field? +</p> + +<p> +§ 17. In Textual Criticism then, <q>rough comparison</q> can +seldom, if ever, be of any real use. On the other hand, the +exact <emph>Collation</emph> of documents whether ancient or modern with +<pb n='xxv'/><anchor id='Pgxxv'/> +the received Text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific +Criticism. I employ that Text,—(as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein; +Griesbach, Matthæi, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, +employed it before me,)—not as a criterion of <emph>Excellence</emph>, but +as a standard of <emph>Comparison</emph>. All this will be found fully +explained below, from page <ref target='Pg383'>383</ref> to page 391. Whenever I +would judge of <emph>the authenticity</emph> of any particular reading, I +insist on bringing it, wherever found,—whether in Justin +Martyr and Irenæus, on the one hand; or in Stephens and +Elzevir, on the other;—to the test of <emph>Catholic Antiquity</emph>. If +that witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or +against any given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no +other system of arbitration will I submit myself. I decline +to recognise any other criterion of Truth. +</p> + +<p> +§ 18. What compels me to repeat this so often, is the +impatient self-sufficiency of these last days, which is for +breaking away from the old restraints; and for erecting the +individual conscience into an authority from which there +shall be no appeal. I know but too well how laborious is +the scientific method which <emph>I</emph> advocate. A long summer day +disappears, while the student—with all his appliances about +him—is resolutely threshing out some minute textual problem. +Another, and yet another bright day vanishes. Comes Saturday +evening at last, and a page of illegible manuscript is all that +he has to show for a week's heavy toil. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Quousque tandem?</foreign> +And yet, it is the indispensable condition of progress in an +unexplored region, that a few should thus labour, until a +path has been cut through the forest,—a road laid down,—huts +built,—a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>modus vivendi</foreign> established. In this department +<pb n='xxvi'/><anchor id='Pgxxvi'/> +of sacred Science, men have been going on too long inventing +their facts, and delivering themselves of oracular decrees, on +the sole responsibility of their own inner consciousness. +There is great convenience in such a method certainly,—a +charming simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to +flesh and blood. It dispenses with proof. It furnishes no +evidence. It asserts when it ought to argue.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>E.g.</hi> pages <ref target='Pg252'>252-268</ref>: <ref target='Pg269'>269-277</ref>: <ref target='Pg305'>305-308</ref>.</note> It reiterates +when it is called upon to explain.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>E.g.</hi> pages <ref target='Pg302'>302-306</ref>.</note> <q>I am sir Oracle.</q> ... +This,—which I venture to style the <emph>unscientific</emph> method,—reached +its culminating point when Professors Westcott and +Hort recently put forth their Recension of the Greek Text. +Their work is indeed quite a psychological curiosity. +Incomprehensible to me is it how two able men of +disciplined understandings can have seriously put forth +the volume which they call <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Introduction</hi>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi>.</q> +It is the very <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Reductio ad absurdum</foreign> of the uncritical +method of the last fifty years. And it is especially in +opposition to this new method of theirs that I so strenuously +insist that <emph>the consentient voice of Catholic Antiquity</emph> is to be +diligently inquired after and submissively listened to; for +that <emph>this</emph>, in the end, will prove our <emph>only</emph> safe guide. +</p> + +<p> +§ 19. Let this be a sufficient reply to my Reviewer in +the <q>Church Quarterly</q>—who, I observe, notes, as a fundamental +defect in my Articles, <q>the want of a consistent working +Theory, such as would enable us to weigh, as well as +count, the suffrages of MSS., Versions, and Fathers.</q><note place='foot'>Page 354.</note> He is +reminded that it was no part of my business to propound a +<pb n='xxvii'/><anchor id='Pgxxvii'/> +<q>Theory.</q> My <emph>method</emph> I have explained often and fully enough. +My business was to prove that the theory of Drs. Westcott +and Hort,—which (as Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet proves) has +been mainly adopted by the Revisionists,—is not only a +worthless, but an utterly absurd one. And I have proved +it. The method I persistently advocate in every case of a +supposed doubtful Reading, (I say it for the last time, and +request that I may be no more misrepresented,) is, that +<emph>an appeal shall be unreservedly made to Catholic Antiquity</emph>; +and that the combined verdict of Manuscripts, Versions, +Fathers, shall be regarded as decisive. +</p> + +<p> +§ 20. I find myself, in the mean time, met by the scoffs, +jeers, misrepresentations of the disciples of this new School; +who, instead of producing historical facts and intelligible +arguments, appeal to the decrees of their teachers,—which <emph>I</emph> +disallow, and which <emph>they</emph> are unable to substantiate. They +delight in announcing that Textual Criticism made <q><emph>a fresh +departure</emph></q> with the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort: that +the work of those scholars <q><emph>marks an era</emph>,</q> and is spoken of +in Germany as <q><emph>epoch-making</emph>.</q> My own belief is, that the +Edition in question, if it be epoch-making at all, marks <emph>that</emph> +epoch at which the current of critical thought, reversing +its wayward course, began once more to flow in its ancient +healthy channel. <q>Cloud-land</q> having been duly sighted on +the 14th September 1881,<note place='foot'>On that day appeared Dr. Hort's <q><hi rend='italic'>Introduction and Appendix</hi></q> to the +N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.</note> <q>a fresh departure</q> was insisted +upon by public opinion,—and a deliberate return was made,—to +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>terra firma</foreign>, and <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>terra cognita</foreign>, and common sense. So +<pb n='xxviii'/><anchor id='Pgxxviii'/> +far from <q>its paramount claim to the respect of future +generations,</q> being <q>the restitution of a more ancient and +a purer Text,</q>—I venture to predict that the edition of the +two Cambridge Professors will be hereafter remembered as +indicating the furthest point ever reached by the self-evolved +imaginations of English disciples of the school of Lachmann, +Tischendorf, Tregelles. The recoil promises to be complete. +English good sense is ever observed to prevail in the long +run; although for a few years a foreign fashion may acquire +the ascendant, and beguile a few unstable wits. +</p> + +<p> +§ 21. It only remains to state that in republishing these +Essays I have availed myself of the opportunity to make +several corrections and additions; as well as here and there +to expand what before had been too briefly delivered. My +learned friend and kind neighbour, the Rev. R. Cowley +Powles, has ably helped me to correct the sheets. Much +valuable assistance has been zealously rendered me throughout +by my nephew, the Rev. William F. Rose, Vicar of +Worle, Somersetshire. But the unwearied patience and consummate +skill of my Secretary (M. W.) passes praise. Every +syllable of the present volume has been transcribed by her +for the press; and to her I am indebted for two of my Indices.—The +obligations under which many learned men, both +at home and abroad, have laid me, will be found faithfully +acknowledged, in the proper place, at the foot of the page. I +am sincerely grateful to them all. +</p> + +<p> +§ 22. It will be readily believed that I have been sorely +tempted to recast the whole and to strengthen my position +<pb n='xxix'/><anchor id='Pgxxix'/> +in every part: but then, the work would have no longer been,—<q>Three +Articles reprinted from the Quarterly Review.</q> +Earnestly have I desired, for many years past, to produce +a systematic Treatise on this great subject. My aspiration +all along has been, and still is, in place of the absolute +Empiricism which has hitherto prevailed in Textual inquiry +to exhibit the logical outlines of what, I am persuaded, is +destined to become a truly delightful Science. But I more +than long,—I fairly <emph>ache</emph> to have done with Controversy, and +to be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. +My apology for bestowing so large a portion of my time on +Textual Criticism, is David's when he was reproached by his +brethren for appearing on the field of battle,—<q>Is there not +a cause?</q> +</p> + +<p> +§ 23. For,—let it clearly be noted,—it is no longer the +case that critical doubts concerning the sacred Text are +confined to critical Editions of the Greek. So long as scholars +were content to ventilate their crotchets in a little arena of +their own,—however mistaken they might be, and even +though they changed their opinions once in every ten years,—no +great harm was likely to come of it. Students of the +Greek Testament were sure to have their attention called +to the subject,—which must always be in the highest degree +desirable; and it was to be expected that in this, as in every +other department of learning, the progress of Inquiry would +result in gradual accessions of certain Knowledge. After +many years it might be found practicable to put forth by +authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly +received Greek Text. +</p> + +<pb n='xxx'/><anchor id='Pgxxx'/> + +<p> +§ 24. But instead of all this, a Revision of the <emph>English +Authorised Version</emph> having been sanctioned by the Convocation +of the Southern Province in 1871, the opportunity was +eagerly snatched at by two irresponsible scholars of the +University of Cambridge for obtaining the general sanction +of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation, for +a private venture of their own,—their own privately devised +Revision of the <emph>Greek Text</emph>. On that Greek Text of theirs, +(which I hold to be the most depraved which has ever +appeared in print), with some slight modifications, our +Authorised English Version has been silently revised: silently, +I say, for in the margin of the English no record is preserved +of the underlying Textual changes which have been introduced +by the Revisionists. On the contrary. Use has been made +of that margin to insinuate suspicion and distrust in countless +particulars as to the authenticity of the Text which +has been suffered to remain unaltered. In the meantime, +the country has been flooded with two editions of the New +Greek Text; and thus the door has been set wide open for +universal mistrust of the Truth of Scripture to enter. +</p> + +<p> +§ 25. Even schoolboys, it seems, are to have these crude +views thrust upon them. Witness the <q>Cambridge Greek +Testament for Schools,</q> edited by Dean Perowne,—who informs +us at the outset that <q><emph>the Syndics of the Cambridge +University Press</emph> have not thought it desirable to reprint the +text in common use.</q> A consensus of Drs. Tischendorf and +Tregelles,—who confessedly employed <emph>the self-same mistaken +major premiss</emph> in remodelling the Sacred Text,—seems, in a +general way, to represent those Syndics' notion of Textual +<pb n='xxxi'/><anchor id='Pgxxxi'/> +purity. By this means every most serious deformity in the +edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort, becomes promoted to +honour, and is being thrust on the unsuspecting youth of +England as the genuine utterance of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>. +Would it not have been the fairer, the more faithful as well +as the more judicious course,—seeing that in respect of this +abstruse and important question <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>adhuc sub judice lis est</foreign>,—to +wait patiently awhile? Certainly not to snatch an opportunity +<q>while men slept,</q> and in this way indirectly to prejudge +the solemn issue! Not by such methods is the cause +of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> Truth on earth to be promoted. Even this however +is not all. Bishop Lightfoot has been informed that <q>the +Bible Society has permitted its Translators to adopt the Text +of the Revised Version <emph>where it commends itself to their +judgment</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><q><hi rend='italic'>Charge</hi>,</q> published in the <hi rend='italic'>Guardian</hi>, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.</note> In other words, persons wholly unacquainted +with the dangers which beset this delicate and difficult +problem are invited to determine, by the light of Nature +and on the <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>solvere ambulando</foreign></q> principle, what <emph>is</emph> inspired +Scripture, what <emph>not</emph>: and as a necessary consequence are encouraged +to disseminate in heathen lands Readings which, a +few years hence,—(so at least I venture to predict,)—will +be universally recognized as worthless. +</p> + +<p> +§ 26. If all this does not constitute a valid reason for +descending into the arena of controversy, it would in my +judgment be impossible to indicate an occasion when the +Christian soldier <emph>is</emph> called upon to do so:—the rather, because +certain of those who, from their rank and station in the +<pb n='xxxii'/><anchor id='Pgxxxii'/> +Church, ought to be the champions of the Truth, are at this +time found to be among its most vigorous assailants. +</p> + +<p> +§ 27. Let me,—(and with this I conclude),—in giving the +present Volume to the world, be allowed to request that it may +be accepted as a sample of how Deans employ their time,—the +use they make of their opportunities. Nowhere but +under the shadow of a Cathedral, (or in a College,) can such +laborious endeavours as the present <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>pro Ecclesiâ</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dei</hi> be +successfully prosecuted. +</p> + +<p> +J. W. B. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Deanery, Chichester,<lb/> +All Saints' Day, 1883.</hi> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='001'/><anchor id='Pg001'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Article I. The New Greek Text.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have purposely +neglected. It seemed useless to discuss its <hi rend='smallcaps'>Revision</hi>. <emph>The Revision +of the original Texts must precede the Revision of the Translation</emph>: and +<emph>the time for this, even in the New Testament, has not yet fully come</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Dr. +Westcott.</hi><note place='foot'>Preface to <hi rend='italic'>History of the English Bible</hi> (p. ix.),—1868.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>It is my honest conviction that for any authoritative <hi rend='smallcaps'>Revision</hi>, we +are not yet mature; <emph>either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship</emph>. +There is good scholarship in this country, ... but <emph>it has certainly not +yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament</emph> ... to +render any national attempt at <hi rend='smallcaps'>Revision</hi> either hopeful or lastingly profitable.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop +Ellicott.</hi><note place='foot'>Preface to <hi rend='italic'>Pastoral Epistles</hi> (p. xiv.),—1861.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>I am persuaded that a <hi rend='smallcaps'>Revision</hi> ought to come: I am convinced that +it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; for <emph>we are not as yet +in any respect prepared for it</emph>. <emph>The Greek and the English</emph> which should +enable us to bring this to a successful end, <emph>might, it is feared, be wanting +alike</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Archbishop Trench.</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The Authorized Version of the N. T.</hi> (p. 3),—1858.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>It is happened unto them according to the true proverb, Κύων ἐπιστρέψας +ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα; and Ὕς λουσαμένη εἰς κύλισμα βορβόρου.</q>—2 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Peter</hi> ii. 22. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.</q>—1 <hi rend='smallcaps'>John</hi> v. 21. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +At a period of extraordinary intellectual activity like the +present, it can occasion no surprise—although it may +reasonably create anxiety—if the most sacred and cherished +of our Institutions are constrained each in turn to submit to +the ordeal of hostile scrutiny; sometimes even to bear the +brunt of actual attack. When however at last the very +citadel of revealed Truth is observed to have been reached, +and to be undergoing systematic assault and battery, +lookers-on may be excused if they show themselves more +than usually solicitous, <q>ne quid detrimenti Civitas DEI +capiat.</q> A Revision of the Authorized Version of the New +Testament,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus Christ</hi> translated +out of the Greek: being the Version set forth <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1611, compared with the +most ancient Authorities, and Revised <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1881.</hi> Printed for the Universities +of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.</note> purporting to have been executed by authority +of the Convocation of the Southern Province, and declaring +itself the exclusive property of our two ancient Universities, +has recently (17th May, 1881) appeared; of which the +essential feature proves to be, that it is founded on an +<pb n='002'/><anchor id='Pg002'/> +<emph>entirely New Recension of the Greek Text</emph>.<note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text +followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted +in the Revised Version.</hi> Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge +University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary +of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881. +</p> +<p> +Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. <hi rend='italic'>The Greek Testament, with the Readings +adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.</hi> [Edited by the Ven. +Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.</p></note> A claim is at +the same time set up on behalf of the last-named production +that it exhibits a closer approximation to the inspired Autographs +than the world has hitherto seen. Not unreasonable +therefore is the expectation entertained by its Authors that +the <q>New English Version</q> founded on this <q>New Greek +Text</q> is destined to supersede the <q>Authorized Version</q> of +1611. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Quæ cum ita sint</foreign>, it is clearly high time that every +faithful man among us should bestir himself: and in +particular that such as have made Greek Textual Criticism +in any degree their study should address themselves to the +investigation of the claims of this, the latest product of the +combined Biblical learning of the Church and of the sects. +</p> + +<p> +For it must be plain to all, that the issue which has been +thus at last raised, is of the most serious character. The +Authors of this new Revision of the Greek have either entitled +themselves to the Church's profound reverence and abiding +gratitude; or else they have laid themselves open to her +gravest censure, and must experience at her hands nothing +short of stern and well-merited rebuke. No middle course +presents itself; since assuredly <emph>to construct a new Greek Text</emph> +formed no part of the Instructions which the Revisionists +received at the hands of the Convocation of the Southern +Province. Rather were they warned against venturing on +such an experiment; the fundamental principle of the entire +undertaking having been declared at the outset to be—That +<pb n='003'/><anchor id='Pg003'/> +<q>a Revision of the <hi rend='italic'>Authorized Version</hi></q> is desirable; and the +terms of the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, +that the removal of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>plain and clear errors</hi></q> was alone +contemplated,—<q>whether in the Greek Text originally adopted +by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the +same.</q> Such were in fact <emph>the limits formally imposed by Convocation</emph>, +(10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) <emph>on the work of +Revision</emph>. Only <hi rend='smallcaps'>necessary</hi> changes were to be made. The +first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in +character: viz.—<q><emph>To introduce as few alterations as possible +into the Text of the Authorized Version</emph>, consistently with faithfulness.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But further, we were reconciled to the prospect of a +Revised Greek Text, by noting that a limit was prescribed to +the amount of licence which could by possibility result, by +the insertion of a proviso, which however is now discovered +to have been entirely disregarded by the Revisionists. The +condition was enjoined upon them that whenever <q><emph>decidedly +preponderating evidence</emph></q> constrained their adoption of some +change in <q>the Text from which the Authorized Version was +made,</q> <emph>they should indicate such alteration in the margin</emph>. +Will it be believed that, this notwithstanding, <emph>not one</emph> of the +many alterations which have been introduced into the +original Text is so commemorated? On the contrary: singular +to relate, the Margin is disfigured throughout with +ominous hints that, had <q>Some ancient authorities,</q> <q>Many +ancient authorities,</q> <q>Many very ancient authorities,</q> been +attended to, a vast many more changes might, could, would, +or should have been introduced into the Greek Text than +have been actually adopted. And yet, this is precisely the +kind of record which we ought to have been spared:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) First,—Because it was plainly external to the province +of the Revisionists to introduce any such details into their +margin <emph>at all</emph>: their very function being, on the contrary, to +<pb n='004'/><anchor id='Pg004'/> +investigate Textual questions in conclave, and to present the +ordinary Reader with <emph>the result</emph> of their deliberations. Their +business was to correct <q><emph>plain and clear errors</emph>;</q> not, +certainly, to invent a fresh crop of unheard-of doubts and +difficulties. This first.—Now, +</p> + +<p> +(2) That a diversity of opinion would sometimes be found +to exist in the revising body was to have been expected, but +when once two-thirds of their number had finally <q>settled</q> +any question, it is plainly unreasonable that the discomfited +minority should claim the privilege of evermore parading +their grievance before the public; and in effect should be +allowed to represent <emph>that</emph> as a corporate doubt, which was in +reality the result of individual idiosyncrasy. It is not +reasonable that the echoes of a forgotten strife should be +thus prolonged for ever; least of all in the margin of <q>the +Gospel of peace.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(3) In fact, the privilege of figuring in the margin of +the N. T., (instead of standing in the Text,) is even attended +by a fatal result: for, (as Bp. Ellicott remarks,) <q>the judgment +commonly entertained in reference to our present +margin,</q> (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the margin of the A. V.) is, that <emph>its contents are</emph> +<q>exegetically or critically <emph>superior to the Text</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>,—pp. 215-6.</note> It will +certainly be long before this popular estimate is unconditionally +abandoned. But, +</p> + +<p> +(4) Especially do we deprecate the introduction into the +margin of all this strange lore, because we insist on behalf +of unlearned persons that they ought not to be molested +with information which cannot, by possibility, be of the +slightest service to them: with vague statements about +<q>ancient authorities,</q>—of the importance, or unimportance, +of which they know absolutely nothing, nor indeed ever can +know. Unlearned readers on taking the Revision into their +hands, (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> at least 999 readers out of 1000,) will <emph>never</emph> be +<pb n='005'/><anchor id='Pg005'/> +aware whether these (so-called) <q>Various Readings</q> are to be +scornfully scouted, as nothing else but ancient perversions +of the Truth; or else are to be lovingly cherished, as <q><emph>alternative</emph></q> +[see the Revisers' <hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi> (iii. 1.)] exhibitions of the +inspired Verity,—to their own abiding perplexity and infinite +distress. +</p> + +<p> +Undeniable at all events it is, that the effect which these +ever-recurring announcements produce on the devout reader +of Scripture is the reverse of edifying: is never helpful: is +always bewildering. A man of ordinary acuteness can but +exclaim,—<q>Yes, very likely. <emph>But what of it</emph>? My eye +happens to alight on <q>Bethesda</q> (in S. John v. 2); against +which I find in the margin,—<q>Some ancient authorities read +<hi rend='italic'>Bethsaida</hi>, others <hi rend='italic'>Bethzatha</hi>.</q> Am I then to understand that +in the judgment of the Revisionists it is uncertain <emph>which</emph> of +those three names is right?</q>... Not so the expert, who is +overheard to moralize concerning the phenomena of the case +after a less ceremonious fashion:—<q><q><hi rend='italic'>Bethsaida</hi></q>! Yes, the +old Latin<note place='foot'>Tertullian, <hi rend='italic'>bis.</hi></note> and the Vulgate,<note place='foot'>Hieron. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 177 c (see the note).</note> countenanced by <emph>one</emph> manuscript +of bad character, so reads. <hi rend='italic'><q>Bethzatha</q>!</hi> Yes, the blunder +is found in <emph>two</emph> manuscripts, both of bad character. Why do +you not go on to tell us that <emph>another</emph> manuscript exhibits +<q><hi rend='italic'>Belzetha</hi></q>?—another (supported by Eusebius<note place='foot'>Apud Hieron. iii. 121.</note> and [in one +place] by Cyril<note place='foot'>iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).</note>), <q><hi rend='italic'>Bezatha</hi></q>? Nay, why not say plainly that +there are found to exist <emph>upwards of thirty</emph> blundering representations +of this same word; but that <q><hi rend='italic'>Bethesda</hi></q>—(the +reading of sixteen uncials and the whole body of the cursives, +besides the Peschito and Cureton's Syriac, the Armenian, +Georgian and Slavonic Versions,—Didymus,<note place='foot'>P. 272.</note> Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.</note> +and Cyril<note place='foot'>iv. 205.</note>),—is the only reasonable way of exhibiting it? To +<pb n='006'/><anchor id='Pg006'/> +speak plainly, <emph>Why encumber your margin with such a note at +all?</emph></q>... But we are moving forward too fast. +</p> + +<p> +It can never be any question among scholars, that a fatal +error was committed when a body of Divines, appointed <emph>to +revise the Authorized English Version</emph> of the New Testament +Scriptures, addressed themselves to the solution of an entirely +different and far more intricate problem, namely <emph>the re-construction +of the Greek Text</emph>. We are content to pass over +much that is distressing in the antecedent history of their +enterprise. We forbear at this time of day to investigate, by +an appeal to documents and dates, certain proceedings in and +out of Convocation, on which it is known that the gravest +diversity of sentiment still prevails among Churchmen.<note place='foot'>A reference to the <hi rend='italic'>Journal of Convocation</hi>, for a twelvemonth after the +proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously entertained, +will reveal more than it would be convenient in this place even to allude to.</note> +This we do, not by any means as ourselves <q>halting between +two opinions,</q> but only as sincerely desirous that the work +before us may stand or fall, judged by its own intrinsic +merits. Whether or no Convocation,—when it <q>nominated +certain of its own members to undertake the work of Revision,</q> +and authorized them <q>to refer when they considered it +desirable to Divines, Scholars, and Literary men, at home or +abroad, <emph>for their opinion</emph>;</q>—whether Convocation intended +thereby to sanction the actual <emph>co-optation</emph> into the Company +appointed by themselves, of members of the Presbyterian, +the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the Socinian +body; <emph>this</emph> we venture to think may fairly be doubted.—Whether +again Convocation can have foreseen that of the +ninety-nine Scholars in all who have taken part in this work +of Revision, only forty-nine would be Churchmen, while the +remaining fifty would belong to the sects:<note place='foot'>We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr. +Newth,—<hi rend='italic'>Lectures on Bible Revision</hi> (1881), p. 116.</note>—<emph>this</emph> also we +<pb n='007'/><anchor id='Pg007'/> +venture to think may be reasonably called in question.—Whether +lastly, the Canterbury Convocation, had it been +appealed to with reference to <q>the Westminster-Abbey +scandal</q> (June 22nd, 1870), would not have cleared itself of +the suspicion of complicity, by an unequivocal resolution,—we +entertain no manner of doubt.—But we decline to enter +upon these, or any other like matters. Our business is exclusively +with the <emph>result</emph> at which the Revisionists of the New +Testament have arrived: and it is to this that we now +address ourselves; with the mere avowal of our grave anxiety +at the spectacle of an assembly of scholars, appointed to +revise <emph>an English Translation</emph>, finding themselves called +upon, as every fresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill +requisite for <emph>critically revising the original Greek Text</emph>. What +else is implied by the very endeavour, but a singular expectation +that experts in one Science may, at a moment's +notice, show themselves proficients in another,—and <emph>that</emph> one +of the most difficult and delicate imaginable? +</p> + +<p> +Enough has been said to make it plain why, in the ensuing +pages, we propose to pursue a different course from that +which has been adopted by Reviewers generally, since the +memorable day (May 17th, 1881) when the work of the +Revisionists was for the first time submitted to public +scrutiny. The one point which, with rare exceptions, has +ever since monopolized attention, has been the merits or +demerits of <emph>their English rendering</emph> of certain Greek words +and expressions. But there is clearly a question of prior +interest and infinitely greater importance, which has to be +settled first: namely, the merits or demerits of <emph>the changes +which the same Scholars have taken upon themselves to introduce +into the Greek Text</emph>. Until it has been ascertained that +the result of their labours exhibits a decided improvement +upon what before was read, it is clearly a mere waste of time +to enquire into the merits of their work as <emph>Revisers of a +<pb n='008'/><anchor id='Pg008'/> +Translation</emph>. But in fact it has to be proved that the +Revisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of +<q>plain and clear <emph>errors</emph></q> from the commonly received Text. +We are distressed to discover that, on the contrary, they +have done something quite different. The treatment which +the N. T. has experienced at the hands of the Revisionists +recals the fate of some ancient edifice which confessedly +required to be painted, papered, scoured,—with a minimum +of masons' and carpenters' work,—in order to be inhabited +with comfort for the next hundred years: but those entrusted +with the job were so ill-advised as to persuade themselves that +it required to be to a great extent rebuilt. Accordingly, in an +evil hour they set about removing foundations, and did so +much structural mischief that in the end it became necessary +to proceed against them for damages. +</p> + +<p> +Without the remotest intention of imposing views of our +own on the general Reader, but only to enable him to give +his intelligent assent to much that is to follow, we find ourselves +constrained in the first instance,—before conducting +him over any part of the domain which the Revisionists have +ventured uninvited to occupy,—to premise a few ordinary +facts which lie on the threshold of the science of Textual +Criticism. Until these have been clearly apprehended, no +progress whatever is possible. +</p> + +<p> +(1) The provision, then, which the Divine Author of +Scripture is found to have made for the preservation in its +integrity of His written Word, is of a peculiarly varied and +highly complex description. First,—By causing that a vast +multiplication of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi> should be required all down the ages,—beginning +at the earliest period, and continuing in an ever-increasing +ratio until the actual invention of Printing,—He +provided the most effectual security imaginable against fraud. +True, that millions of the copies so produced have long since +<pb n='009'/><anchor id='Pg009'/> +perished: but it is nevertheless a plain fact that there +survive of the Gospels alone upwards of one thousand copies +to the present day. +</p> + +<p> +(2) Next, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>. The necessity of translating the Scriptures +into divers languages for the use of different branches +of the early Church, procured that many an authentic record +has been preserved of the New Testament as it existed in the +first few centuries of the Christian era. Thus, the Peschito +Syriac and the old Latin version are believed to have been +executed in the IInd century. <q>It is no stretch of imagination</q> +(wrote Bp. Ellicott in 1870,) <q>to suppose that portions +of the Peschito might have been in the hands of S. John, or +that the Old Latin represented the current views of the +Roman Christians of the IInd century.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>, pp. 26-7.</note> The two Egyptian +translations are referred to the IIIrd and IVth. The Vulgate +(or revised Latin) and the Gothic are also claimed for the +IVth: the Armenian, and possibly the Æthiopic, belong to +the Vth. +</p> + +<p> +(3) Lastly, the requirements of assailants and apologists +alike, the business of Commentators, the needs of controversialists +and teachers in every age, have resulted in a vast +accumulation of additional evidence, of which it is scarcely +possible to over-estimate the importance. For in this way it +has come to pass that every famous Doctor of the Church in +turn has quoted more or less largely from the sacred writings, +and thus has borne testimony to the contents of the codices +with which he was individually familiar. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Patristic Citations</hi> +accordingly are a third mighty safeguard of the integrity +of the deposit. +</p> + +<p> +To weigh these three instruments of Criticism—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>—one against another, is obviously impossible +<pb n='010'/><anchor id='Pg010'/> +on the present occasion. Such a discussion would +grow at once into a treatise.<note place='foot'>Dr. Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New +Testament</hi>, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently recommended +to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual Criticism under +the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and thoroughly competent guide. A +new and revised edition of this excellent treatise will appear shortly.</note> Certain explanatory details, +together with a few words of caution, are as much as may be +attempted. +</p> + +<p> +I. And, first of all, the reader has need to be apprised +(with reference to the first-named class of evidence) that most +of our extant <hi rend='smallcaps'>copies</hi> of the N. T. Scriptures are comparatively +of recent date, ranging from the Xth to the XIVth century of +our era. That these are in every instance copies of yet older +manuscripts, is self-evident; and that in the main they +represent faithfully the sacred autographs themselves, no +reasonable person doubts.<note place='foot'>Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Full and +exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels +(hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepiscopal +Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical Introduction</hi>. (Pp. +lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter deserves very +attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to recommend his +<hi rend='italic'>Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a Græco-Latin Manuscript +of S. Paul's Epistles, deposited in the Library of Trinity College, +Cambridge; to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, +containing various portions of the Greek New Testament, in the Libraries +of Cambridge, Parham, Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, +&c. With a Critical Introduction</hi> (which must also be carefully studied). +(Pp. lxxx. and 563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to +be told of the same learned scholar's <hi rend='italic'>Novum Testamentum Textûs +Stephanici, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri, +Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii.</hi> Curante F. H. A. Scrivener, +A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior. 1877.—Those +who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the subject +may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener's Six <hi rend='italic'>Lectures on the Text of +the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it, chiefly addressed to +those who do not read Greek</hi>. 1875.</note> Still, it is undeniable that +<pb n='011'/><anchor id='Pg011'/> +they <emph>are</emph> thus separated by about a thousand years from their +inspired archetypes. Readers are reminded, in passing, that +the little handful of copies on which we rely for the texts of +Herodotus and Thucydides, of Æschylus and Sophocles, are +removed from <emph>their</emph> originals by full 500 years more: and +that, instead of a thousand, or half a thousand copies, we are +dependent for the text of certain of these authors on as many +copies as may be counted on the fingers of one hand. In +truth, the security which the Text of the New Testament +enjoys is altogether unique and extraordinary. To specify +one single consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly +the amount of attention it deserves,—<q>Lectionaries</q> abound, +which establish the Text which has been publicly read in the +churches of the East, from <emph>at least</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 400 until the time of +the invention of printing. +</p> + +<p> +But here an important consideration claims special attention. +We allude to the result of increased acquaintance with +certain of the oldest extant codices of the N. T. Two of +these,—viz. a copy in the Vatican technically indicated by +the letter <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, and the recently-discovered Sinaitic codex, styled +after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet א,—are thought +to belong to the IVth century. Two are assigned to the Vth, +viz. the Alexandrian (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>) in the British Museum, and the +rescript codex preserved at Paris, designated <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>. One is probably +of the VIth, viz. the codex Bezæ (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>) preserved at +Cambridge. Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and +fifth of these codices (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>), but especially <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, have +within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency +over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be +fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing +that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ +essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of +<pb n='012'/><anchor id='Pg012'/> +the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even <emph>from one +another</emph>. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their +corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And +yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that +<emph>in different degrees</emph> they all five exhibit a fabricated text. +Between the first two (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א) there subsists an amount of +sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been +derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt +original. Tischendorf insists that they were partly written +by the same scribe. Yet do they stand asunder in every +page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received +Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On +being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> is +found to omit at least 2877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, +935: to transpose, 2098: to modify, 1132 (in all 7578):—the +corresponding figures for א being severally 3455, 839, +1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that +the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and +modifications, <emph>are by no means the same</emph> in both. It is in +fact <emph>easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two +MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses +in which they entirely agree</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited +by codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. <q>No known manuscript contains so many +bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from +the sacred Text are beyond all other example.</q><note place='foot'>Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Plain Introduction</hi>,—p. 118.</note> This, +however, is not the result of its being the most recent of +the five, but (singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite +cause. It is thought (not without reason) to exhibit a +IInd-century text. <q>When we turn to the Acts of the +<pb n='013'/><anchor id='Pg013'/> +Apostles,</q> (says the learned editor of the codex in question, +Dr. Scrivener,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type, +of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels and +Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and presented to +the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1581. Edited, with +a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and Facsimiles, by Frederick H. +Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans, Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) +Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires to a competent acquaintance with +Textual Criticism can afford to be without this book.</note>)— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>We find ourselves confronted with a text, the like to which we +have no experience of elsewhere. It is hardly an exaggeration +to assert that codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> reproduces the <hi rend='italic'>Textus receptus</hi> much in +the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the +Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in +the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding +the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom +recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of +internal probability.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Vix dici potest</foreign></q> (says Mill) <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quam supra omnem modum +licenter se gesserit, ac plane lasciverit Interpolator</foreign>.</q> Though +a large portion of the Gospels is missing, in what remains +(tested by the same standard) we find 3704 words omitted: +no less than 2213 added, and 2121 substituted. The words +transposed amount to 3471: and 1772 have been modified: +the deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all +to 13,281.—Next to <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, the most untrustworthy codex is א, +which bears on its front a memorable note of the evil repute +under which it has always laboured: viz. it is found that at +least <emph>ten</emph> revisers between the IVth and the XIIth centuries +busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and +extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture.<note place='foot'>On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to +Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text +of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical Introduction.</hi> +[1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.) 1867.</note>—Next in +<pb n='014'/><anchor id='Pg014'/> +impurity comes <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>:—then, the fragmentary codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>: our own +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> being, beyond all doubt, disfigured by the fewest blemishes +of any. +</p> + +<p> +What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical +illustration. It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) +pages of an ordinary copy of the Greek Testament, in which +alone these five manuscripts are collectively available for +comparison in the Gospels,—the serious deflections of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> from +the <hi rend='italic'>Textus receptus</hi> amount in all to only 842: whereas in <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> +they amount to 1798: in <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, to 2370: in א, to 3392: in <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, to +4697. The readings <emph>peculiar to</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> within the same limits are +133: those peculiar to <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> are 170. But those of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> amount to +197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> +(within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We +submit that these facts—<emph>which result from merely referring +five manuscripts to one and the same common standard</emph>—are +by no means calculated to inspire confidence in codices +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>:—codices, be it remembered, which come to us without +a character, without a history, in fact without antecedents +of <emph>any</emph> kind. +</p> + +<p> +But let the learned chairman of the New Testament company +of Revisionists (Bp. Ellicott) be heard on this subject. +He is characterizing these same <q>old uncials,</q> which it is just +now the fashion—or rather, the <emph>craze</emph>—to hold up as oracular, +and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached +as any of his neighbours:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The <emph>simplicity and dignified conciseness</emph></q> (he says) <q>of the +Vatican manuscript (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>): the <emph>greater expansiveness</emph> of our own +Alexandrian (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>): the <emph>partially mixed characteristics</emph> of the Sinaitic +(א): the <emph>paraphrastic tone</emph> of the <emph>singular</emph> codex Bezæ (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>), are now +brought home to the student.</q><note place='foot'>Bishop Ellicott's <hi rend='italic'>Considerations on Revision</hi>, &c. (1870), p. 40.</note> +</quote> + +<p> +Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a +<pb n='015'/><anchor id='Pg015'/> +description of four professing <emph>transcripts</emph> of a book; and <emph>that</emph> +book, the everlasting Gospel itself?—transcripts, be it +observed in passing, on which it is just now the fashion to +rely implicitly for the very orthography of proper names,—the +spelling of common words,—the minutiæ of grammar. +What (we ask) would be thought of four such <q><emph>copies</emph></q> of +Thucydides or of Shakspeare? Imagine it gravely proposed, +by the aid of four such conflicting documents, to re-adjust +the text of the funeral oration of Pericles, or to re-edit +<q>Hamlet.</q> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Risum teneatis amici?</foreign> Why, some of the poet's +most familiar lines would cease to be recognizable: <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>,—<q><hi rend='italic'>Toby +or not Toby; that is the question</hi>:</q> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,—<q><hi rend='italic'>Tob or not, +is the question</hi>:</q> א,—<q><hi rend='italic'>To be a tub, or not to be a tub; the question +is that</hi>:</q> <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>,—<q><hi rend='italic'>The question is, to beat, or not to beat +Toby?</hi></q>: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> (the <q>singular codex</q>),—<q><hi rend='italic'>The only question is +this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tub?</hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +And yet—without by any means subscribing to the precise +terms in which the judicious Prelate characterizes those <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ignes +fatui</foreign> which have so persistently and egregiously led his lordship +and his colleagues astray—(for indeed one seems rather +to be reading a description of four styles of composition, or +of as many fashions in ladies' dress, than of four copies of +the Gospel)—we have already furnished indirect proof that +his estimate of the codices in question is in the main correct. +Further acquaintance with them does but intensify the bad +character which he has given them. Let no one suppose +that we deny their extraordinary value,—their unrivalled +critical interest,—nay, their actual <emph>use</emph> in helping to settle +the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting upon +is only the <emph>depraved text</emph> of codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d</hi>,—especially of +א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of +the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that +there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on +<pb n='016'/><anchor id='Pg016'/> +<emph>this</emph> part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and +again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents +of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been +alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of +hesitation, that א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi> are <emph>three of the most scandalously +corrupt copies extant</emph>:—exhibit <emph>the most shamefully mutilated</emph> +texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by +whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the +depositories of the largest amount of <emph>fabricated readings</emph>, +ancient <emph>blunders</emph>, and <emph>intentional perversions of Truth</emph>,—which +are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +But in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the +Greek Testament,—Bp. Lloyd's edition, suppose. Turn to page +184. It contains ten verses of S. Luke's Gospel, ch. viii. 35 to +44. Now, proceed to collate those ten verses. You will make +the notable discovery that, within those narrow limits, by codex +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> alone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no +less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 <emph>of which are found only in</emph> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. The words omitted by <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> are 40: the words added are 4. +Twenty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 +transposed. Variations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and +the phrase of the Evangelist has been departed from 11 times. +Happily, the other four <q>old uncials</q> are here available. And +it is found that (within the same limits, and referred to the +same test,) <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> exhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which are <emph>peculiar to</emph> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> omits 12 words, 6 of which are <emph>peculiar to</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>: substitutes +3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes—2 +of them being its own peculiar property.—א has 5 readings +(affecting 8 words) <emph>peculiar to itself</emph>. Its omissions are 7: +its additions, 2: its substitutions, 4: 2 words are transposed; +and it exhibits 4 lesser discrepancies.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> has 7 readings +(affecting 15 words) <emph>peculiar to itself</emph>. Its omissions are 4: +<pb n='017'/><anchor id='Pg017'/> +its additions, 7: its substitutions, 7: its words transposed, 7. +It has 2 lesser discrepancies, and it alters the Evangelist's +phrase 4 times. +</p> + +<p> +But (we shall be asked) what amount of <emph>agreement</emph>, in +respect of <q>Various Readings,</q> is discovered to subsist between +these 5 codices? for <emph>that</emph>, after all, is the practical question. +We answer,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> has been already shown to stand alone +twice: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, 6 times: א, 8 times: <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, 15 times; <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, 93 times.—We +have further to state that <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> stand together by themselves +once: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א, 4 times: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c</hi>, 1: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>, 1: א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, 1: <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>, 1.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> +א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> conspire 1: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, 1: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, 1: <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, <emph>once</emph> (viz. in +reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to be a corrupt +reading): <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>, also <emph>once</emph>.—The 5 <q>old uncials</q> therefore +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>) combine, and again stand apart, with singular +impartiality.—Lastly, they are <emph>never once</emph> found to be in +accord in respect of <emph>any single <q>various Reading</q></emph>.—Will any +one, after a candid survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, +if we avow that such a specimen of the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>concordia +discors</foreign> which everywhere prevails between the oldest +uncials, but which especially characterizes א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>, indisposes +us greatly to suffer their unsupported authority to determine +for us the Text of Scripture? +</p> + +<p> +Let no one at all events obscure the one question at +issue, by asking,—<q>Whether we consider the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> +infallible?</q> The merit or demerit of the Received Text has +absolutely <emph>nothing whatever to do with the question</emph>. We care +nothing about it. <emph>Any</emph> Text would equally suit our present +purpose. <emph>Any</emph> Text would show the <q>old uncials</q> perpetually +at discord <emph>among themselves</emph>. To raise an irrelevant +discussion, at the outset, concerning the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi>:—to +describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first +published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the +<pb n='018'/><anchor id='Pg018'/> +copies which he employed:—all this kind of thing is the +proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers:—to throw +dust into their eyes:—to divert their attention from the problem +actually before them:—<emph>not</emph>—(as we confidently expect +when we have to do with such writers as these)—the method +of a sincere lover of Truth. To proceed, however. +</p> + +<p> +II. and III. Nothing has been said as yet concerning the +Text exhibited by the earliest of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi> and by the +most ancient of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>. But, for the purpose we have +just now in hand, neither are such details necessary. We +desire to hasten forward. A somewhat fuller review of +certain of our oldest available materials might prove even +more discouraging. But <emph>that</emph> would only be because it is +impossible, within such narrow limits as the present, to give +the reader any idea at all of the wealth of our actual +resources; and to convince him of the extent to which the +least trustworthy of our guides prove in turn invaluable +helps in correcting the exorbitances of their fellows. The +practical result in fact of what has been hitherto offered is +after all but this, that we have to be on our guard against +pinning our faith exclusively on two or three,—least of all +on one or two ancient documents; and of adopting <emph>them</emph> +exclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, +that it is utterly out of the question to rely on any single +<emph>set</emph> or <emph>group</emph> of authorities, much less on any single document, +for the determination of the Text of Scripture. +Happily, our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Manuscripts</hi> are numerous: most of them are +in the main trustworthy: <emph>all</emph> of them represent far older +documents than themselves. Our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi> (two of which +are more ancient by a couple of centuries than any sacred +codex extant) severally correct and check one another. +Lastly, in the writings of a host of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>,—the principal +being Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus, +<pb n='019'/><anchor id='Pg019'/> +Epiphanius, Chrysostom, the Cyrils, Theodoret,—we are provided +with contemporaneous evidence which, whenever it +can be had, becomes an effectual safeguard against the unsupported +decrees of our oldest codices, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>, as well as +the occasional vagaries of the Versions. In the writings of +Irenæus, Clemens Alex., Origen, Dionysius Alex., Hippolytus, +we meet with older evidence still. No more precarious +foundation for a reading, in fact, can be named, than the +unsupported advocacy of a single Manuscript, or Version, or +Father; or even of two or three of these combined. +</p> + +<p> +But indeed the principle involved in the foregoing remarks +admits of being far more broadly stated. It even stands +to reason that we may safely reject any reading which, out +of the whole body of available authorities,—Manuscripts, +Versions, Fathers,—finds support nowhere save in one and +the same little handful of suspicious documents. For we +resolutely maintain, that <emph>external Evidence</emph> must after all be +our best, our only safe guide; and (to come to the point) we +refuse to throw in our lot with those who, disregarding the +witness of <emph>every other</emph> known Codex—<emph>every other</emph> Version—<emph>every +other</emph> available Ecclesiastical Writer,—insist on following +the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing +whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, +when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of +codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> or א or <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>; the IXth-century codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi>, and such +cursives<note place='foot'>The epithet <q><hi rend='italic'>cursive</hi>,</q> is used to denote manuscripts written in +<q>running-hand,</q> of which the oldest known specimens belong to the IXth +century. <q><hi rend='italic'>Uncial</hi></q> manuscripts are those which are written in capital +letters. A <q><hi rend='italic'>codex</hi></q> popularly signifies a <hi rend='italic'>manuscript</hi>. A <q>version</q> is <hi rend='italic'>a +translation</hi>. A <q>recension</q> is <hi rend='italic'>a revision</hi>. (We have been requested to +explain these terms.)</note> as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and +one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory +<pb n='020'/><anchor id='Pg020'/> +therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved +assertion:—not any single codex, and <emph>certainly</emph> not codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>:—not +an imaginary <q>Antiochene Recension</q> of another +imaginary <q>Pre-Syrian Text:</q>—not antecedent fancies about +the affinity of documents:—neither <q>the [purely arbitrary] +method of genealogy,</q>—nor one man's notions (<emph>which may be +reversed by another man's notions</emph>) of <q>Transcriptional Probability:</q>—not +<q>instinctive processes of Criticism,</q>—least of +all <q>the individual mind,</q> with its <q>supposed power of +divining the Original Text</q>—of which no intelligible account +can be rendered:—nothing of this sort,—(however specious +and plausible it may sound, especially when set forth in +confident language; advocated with a great show of unintelligible +learning; supported by a formidable array of +cabalistic symbols and mysterious contractions; above all +when recommended by justly respected names,)—nothing of +this sort, we say, must be allowed to determine for us the +Text of Scripture. The very proposal should set us on our +guard against the <emph>certainty</emph> of imposition. +</p> + +<p> +We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt +or difficulty—supposed or real—our critical method must +be the same: namely, after patiently collecting <emph>all</emph> the +available evidence, then, without partiality or prejudice, to +adjudicate between the conflicting authorities, and loyally to +accept that verdict for which there is clearly the preponderating +evidence. <emph>The best supported Reading</emph>, in other words, +must always be held to be <emph>the true Reading</emph>: and nothing +may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on +evidence which shall <emph>clearly</emph> outweigh the evidence for +retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far at least, we +once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that +the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, <q><emph>to +make the Textus Receptus the standard</emph>,—departing from it +<pb n='021'/><anchor id='Pg021'/> +<emph>only when</emph> critical or grammatical considerations <emph>show that it +is clearly necessary</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Considerations on Revision</hi>, p. 30.</note> We ourselves mean no more. Whenever +the evidence is about evenly balanced, few it is hoped +will deny that the Text which has been <q>in possession</q> for +three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely +better manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work +which can be named,—should, for every reason, be let +alone.<note place='foot'>Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, +by any means, claim <emph>perfection</emph> for the Received Text. We entertain no +extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have +occasion to point out (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> at page <ref target='Pg107'>107</ref>) that the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> needs +correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text +than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: +infinitely preferable to the <q>New Greek Text</q> of the Revisionists. +And, (2) That to be improved, the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> will have to be revised +on entirely different <q>principles</q> from those which are just now in fashion. +Men must begin by unlearning the <emph>German prejudices</emph> of the last fifty +years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of <emph>facts</emph>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But, (we shall perhaps be asked,) has any critical Editor +of the N. T. seriously taught the reverse of all this? Yes +indeed, we answer. Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,—the +most recent and most famous of modern editors,—have all +three adopted a directly opposite theory of textual revision. +With the first-named, fifty years ago (1831), virtually originated +the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient +documents to the exclusion of the many. <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Lachmann's</hi> text +seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on +three, not unfrequently on two, <emph>sometimes on only one</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, pp. 342-4.</note> +Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as <q>a text composed <emph>on the +narrowest and most exclusive principles</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against Lachmann, +Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.</note> Of the Greek +<pb n='022'/><anchor id='Pg022'/> +Fathers (Lachmann says) he employed <emph>only Origen</emph>.<note place='foot'><q>Ex scriptoribus Græcis <emph>tantisper Origene solo</emph> usi sumus.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Præfatio</hi>, +p. xxi.</note> Paying +extraordinary deference to the Latin Version, he entirely +disregarded the coëval Syriac translation. The result of such +a system must needs prove satisfactory to no one except its +author. +</p> + +<p> +Lachmann's leading fallacy has perforce proved fatal to +the value of the text put forth by <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dr. Tregelles</hi>. Of the +scrupulous accuracy, the indefatigable industry, the pious +zeal of that estimable and devoted scholar, we speak not. +All honour to his memory! As a specimen of conscientious +labour, his edition of the N. T. (1857-72) passes praise, and +will <emph>never</emph> lose its value. But it has only to be stated, that +Tregelles effectually persuaded himself that <q><emph>eighty-nine +ninetieths</emph></q> of our extant manuscripts and other authorities +may safely be rejected and lost sight of when we come to +amend the text and try to restore it to its primitive purity,<note place='foot'>Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Plain Introd.</hi> p. 397.</note>—to +make it plain that in Textual Criticism he must needs +be regarded as an untrustworthy teacher. <emph>Why</emph> he should +have condescended to employ no patristic authority later +than Eusebius [fl. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 320], he does not explain. <q>His +critical principles,</q> (says Bishop Ellicott,) <q>especially his +general principles of estimating and regarding modern manuscripts, +are now perhaps justly called in question.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. 48.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>The case of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dr. Tischendorf</hi></q> (proceeds Bp. Ellicott) <q>is +still more easily disposed of. <emph>Which</emph> of this most inconstant +Critic's texts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which +an exaggerated preference for a single Manuscript which he +has had the good fortune to discover, has betrayed him into +<pb n='023'/><anchor id='Pg023'/> +an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment. Surely +also not his seventh edition, which ... exhibits all the +instability which a comparatively recent recognition of the +authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to +introduce.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. 47.</note> With Dr. Tischendorf,—(whom one vastly his +superior in learning, accuracy, and judgment, has generously +styled <q>the first Biblical Critic in Europe</q><note place='foot'>Prebendary Scrivener, <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> (ed. 1874), p. 429.</note>)—<q><emph>the evidence +of codex</emph> א, supported or even unsupported by one or two +other authorities of any description, is sufficient to outweigh +any other witnesses,—whether Manuscripts, Versions, or +ecclesiastical Writers.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 470.</note> We need say no more. Until the +foregoing charge has been disproved, Dr. Tischendorf's last +edition of the N. T., however precious as a vast storehouse of +materials for criticism,—however admirable as a specimen +of unwearied labour, critical learning, and first-rate ability,—must +be admitted to be an utterly unsatisfactory exhibition +of the inspired Text. It has been ascertained that +his discovery of codex א caused his 8th edition (1865-72) +to differ from his 7th in no less than 3505 places,—<q>to the +scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to +his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi></note> +But, in fact, what is to be thought of a Critic who,—because +the last verse of S. John's Gospel, in א, seemed to himself to +be <emph>written with a different pen</emph> from the rest,—has actually +<emph>omitted that verse</emph> (xxi. 25) entirely, in defiance of <emph>every +known Copy, every known Version</emph>, and the explicit testimony +of <emph>a host of Fathers</emph>? Such are Origen (in 11 places),—Eusebius +(in 3),—Gregory Nyss. (in 2),—Gregory Nazian.,—ps.-Dionys. +Alex.,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, i. 852.</note>—Nonnus,—Chrysostom (in 6 places),—Theodoras +Mops. (in 2),—Isidorus,—Cyril Alex. (in 2),—Victor +Ant.,—Ammonius,—Severus,—Maximus,—Andreas +<pb n='024'/><anchor id='Pg024'/> +Cretensis,—Ambrose,—Gaudentius,—Philastrius,— Sedulius,—Jerome,—Augustine +(in 6 places). That Tischendorf was +a critic of amazing research, singular shrewdness, indefatigable +industry; and that he enjoyed an unrivalled familiarity +with ancient documents; no fair person will deny. But (in +the words of Bishop Ellicott,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. 47.</note> whom we quote so perseveringly +for a reason not hard to divine,) his <q>great inconstancy,</q>—his +<q>natural want of sobriety of critical judgment,</q>—and his +<q>unreasonable deference to the readings found in his own +codex Sinaiticus;</q>—to which should be added <q><emph>the utter +absence in him of any intelligible fixed critical principles</emph>;</q>—all +this makes Tischendorf one of the worst of guides to +the true Text of Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +The last to enter the field are <hi rend='smallcaps'>Drs. Westcott</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>Hort</hi>, +whose beautifully-printed edition of <q>the New Testament in +the original Greek</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The New Testament in the Original Greek.</hi> The Text revised by +Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. +Cambridge and London, 1881.</note> was published <emph>within five days</emph> of the +<q>Revised Authorized Version</q> itself; a <q>confidential</q> copy of +their work having been already entrusted to every member +of the New Test. company of Revisionists to guide them in +their labours,—under pledge that they should neither show +nor communicate its contents to any one else.—The learned +Editors candidly avow, that they <q>have deliberately chosen +on the whole to rely for documentary evidence on the stores +accumulated by their predecessors, and to confine themselves +to their proper work of editing the text itself.</q><note place='foot'>From the Preface prefixed to the <q>limited and private issue</q> of 1870, +p. vi.</note> Nothing +therefore has to be enquired after, except the critical principles +on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring +<pb n='025'/><anchor id='Pg025'/> +us that <q>the study of Grouping is the foundation of all +enduring Criticism,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ut suprà</hi>, p. xv.</note> they produce their secret: viz. That in +<q>every one of our witnesses</q> <emph>except codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, the <q>corruptions +are innumerable;</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. xviii.</note> and that, in the Gospels, the one <q>group +of witnesses</q> <emph>of <q>incomparable value</q></emph>, is codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> in <q>combination +with another primary Greek manuscript, as א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c</hi>, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b t</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> Ξ, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b z</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> 33, and in S. Mark <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> Δ.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. xvi.</note> This is +<q>Textual Criticism made easy,</q> certainly. Well aware of the +preposterous results to which such a major premiss must +inevitably lead, we are not surprised to find a plea straightway +put in for <q><emph>instinctive processes of Criticism</emph></q> of which <emph>the +foundation <q>needs perpetual correction and recorrection</q></emph>. But +our confidence fairly gives way when, in the same breath, the +accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—<q>But <emph>we are +obliged to come to the individual mind</emph> at last; and canons of +Criticism are useful only as warnings against <emph>natural illusions</emph>, +and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute +rules to prescribe the final decision. It is true that no <emph>individual +mind</emph> can ever work with perfect uniformity, or free +itself completely from <emph>its own idiosyncrasies</emph>. Yet a clear +sense of the danger of <emph>unconscious caprice</emph> may do much +towards excluding it. We trust also that the present Text +has escaped some risks of this kind by being the joint production +of two Editors of different habits of mind</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> pp. xviii., xix.</note> ... A +somewhat insecure safeguard surely! May we be permitted +without offence to point out that the <q>idiosyncrasies</q> of an +<q>individual mind</q> (to which we learn with astonishment <q>we +are obliged to come at last</q>) are probably the very worst +foundation possible on which to build the recension of an +inspired writing? With regret we record our conviction, +that these accomplished scholars have succeeded in producing +a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of +<pb n='026'/><anchor id='Pg026'/> +the Evangelists than any which has appeared since the +invention of printing. When full Prolegomena have been +furnished we shall know more about the matter;<note place='foot'><p>[<hi rend='italic'>Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the +ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within brackets] +those printed portions of it for which there really was no room. The third +Article in the present volume will be found to supply an ample exposure +of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory.</hi>] +</p> +<p> +While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long-expected +volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves +to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly <emph>this</emph>:—Fastening on the two +oldest codices extant (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, both of the IVth century), they invent the +following hypothesis:—<q>That the ancestries of those two manuscripts +<emph>diverged from a point near the autographs, and never came into contact +subsequently</emph>.</q> [No reason is produced for this opinion.] +</p> +<p> +Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the +sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the <emph>coincidence</emph> of א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> must +<q>mark those portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate +lines of transmission had not come to differ from each other through +independent corruption:</q> and therefore that, <q>in the absence of specially +strong internal evidence to the contrary,</q> <q>the readings of א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> combined +<emph>may safely be accepted as genuine</emph>.</q> +</p> +<p> +But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge <emph>one from the +other</emph>?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any <q>binary +combination</q> of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> are to be preferred; because <q>on the closest scrutiny,</q> +they generally <q>have the <emph>ring of genuineness</emph>;</q> hardly ever <q><emph>look suspicious</emph> +after full consideration.</q> <q>Even when <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> stands quite alone, its +readings must never be lightly rejected.</q> [We are not told why.] +</p> +<p> +But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, has +arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What is to be +done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a reading of B? +How is <q><hi rend='italic'>mumpsimus</hi></q> for example to be treated?—<q><hi rend='italic'>Mumpsimus</hi></q> (the +Editors solemnly reply) as <q>the better attested reading</q>—(by which they +mean the reading attested by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,)—we place in our margin. <q><hi rend='italic'>Sumpsimus</hi>,</q> +apparently the <emph>right</emph> reading, we place in the text within ††; in token that +it is probably <q><emph>a successful ancient conjecture</emph>.</q> +</p> +<p> +We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that +the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century +Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and +who must have employed codices fully as old as <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א: how is it, we +ask, that the text of all these, including codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, differs essentially from +the text exhibited by codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א?—The editors reply,—The text of +Chrysostom and the rest, we designate <q>Syrian,</q> and assume to have been +the result of an <q>editorial Revision,</q> which we conjecturally assign to the +second half of the IIIrd century. It is the <q><emph>Pre-Syrian</emph></q> text that we are +in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. +</p> +<p> +We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we +rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive <emph>Syriac</emph>, which is older by full a +century and a half than the last-named date, is practically still the same +text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the learned Editors) +they encounter with another conjectural assumption. <q><hi rend='italic'>A Revision</hi></q> (say +they) <q>of the Old Syriac version appears to have taken place early in the +IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in some connexion with the +Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great +extent coincident.</q> +</p> +<p> +And pray, where <emph>is</emph> <q>the <emph>Old Syriac</emph> version</q> of which you speak?—It +is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac MS. +commonly known as <q>Cureton's.</q>—Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating +facts, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is +the most extraordinary, imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a +grave enquiry like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different +opinion from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing +upon your imagination for every one of your facts? +</p> +<p> +We decline in short on the mere conjectural <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ipse dixit</foreign> of these two +respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revision of +Cureton's Syriac Version;—or that it was executed about <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 325;—or +that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IVth-century Fathers +is the result of an unrecorded <q>Antiochian Revision</q> which took place +about the year <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 275. +</p> +<p> +[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of +the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a house +which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin by +removing the basement-story, which brings the entire superstructure in +an instant to the ground.] +</p> +<p> +For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א can have +<q>diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come into +contact subsequently.</q> We are able to show, on the contrary, that the +readings they jointly embody afford the strongest presumption that the +MSS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those <q>corrected,</q> +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <emph>corrupted</emph> copies, which are known to have abounded in the +earliest ages of the Church. From the prevalence of identical depravations +in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same +not very remote depraved original: and therefore, that their coincidence, +when they differ from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking +<q>two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission</q> of the inspired +autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same corrupt +common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the +Evangelic verity become resolved into <emph>a single witness to a fabricated text +of the IIIrd century</emph>. +</p> +<p> +It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and +excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the tribute of +our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and constant distress +to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced them. The Nemesis +of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general +mistrust of <emph>all</emph> evidence, is the inevitable sequel and +penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother +Revisionists that <q>the prevalent assumption, that throughout the N. T. the +true text is to be found <emph>somewhere</emph> among recorded readings, <emph>does not stand +the test of experience</emph>;</q>[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the same +spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner. +<q>The Art of <emph>Conjectural Emendation</emph></q> (says Dr. Hort) <q>depends for its +success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first +instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce +in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character +as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.</q>[<hi rend='italic'>Introd.</hi> p. 71.] Specimens of +the writer's skill in this department abound. <emph>One</emph> occurs at p. 135 (<hi rend='italic'>App.</hi>) +where, <emph>in defiance of every known document</emph>, he seeks to evacuate S. Paul's +memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of all its significance. +[A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort's handling of this important text will be +found later in the present volume.] May we be allowed to assure the +accomplished writer that <hi rend='smallcaps'>in Biblical Textual Criticism, <q>Conjectural +Emendation</q> has no place</hi>?</p></note> but to +<pb n='027'/><anchor id='Pg027'/> +judge from the Remarks (in pp. 541-62) which the learned +Editors (Revisionists themselves) have subjoined to their +elegantly-printed volume, it is to be feared that the fabric +<pb n='028'/><anchor id='Pg028'/> +will be found to rest too exclusively on vague assumption +and unproved hypothesis. In other words, a painful apprehension +is created that their edition of <q>The New Testament +in the original Greek</q> will be found to partake inconveniently +<pb n='029'/><anchor id='Pg029'/> +of the nature of a work of the Imagination. As +codex א proved fatal to Dr. Tischendorf, so is codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> evidently +the rock on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have split. +Did it ever occur to those learned men to enquire how the +Septuagint Version of the <emph>Old</emph> Testament has fared at the +hands of codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>? They are respectfully invited to address +themselves to this very damaging enquiry. +</p> + +<p> +But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to +these studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c d</hi>) <emph>must</emph> +exhibit the purest text! Is it not so? +</p> + +<p> +It <emph>ought</emph> to be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainly +<emph>need not</emph> be the case. +</p> + +<p> +We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, +Hesychius in Egypt, <q>revised</q> the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, +they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension +prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will +have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>monstra</foreign> into +the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such +spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 168), +Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very +many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, +we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter +of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which +anciently abounded; notably the <hi rend='italic'>Gospel of the Hebrews</hi>, +about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he +says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely +grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the +orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths +which the early heretics (Basilides, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 134, Valentinus, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> +140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150, and the +rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently +explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices +of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which +<pb n='030'/><anchor id='Pg030'/> +were even scandalously corrupt. <q>It is no less true to fact +than paradoxical in sound,</q> writes the most learned of the +Revisionist body, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has +ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it +was composed: that Irenæus [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150] and the African Fathers, +and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, +used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or +Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding +the Textus Receptus.</q><note place='foot'>Scrivener, <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered, was +the chief editor of the Complutensian, or <emph>first printed</emph> edition of the New +Testament, (1514).</note> +</quote> + +<p> +And what else are codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d</hi> but <emph>specimens</emph>—<emph>in vastly</emph> +<emph>different degrees</emph>—<emph>of the class thus characterized</emph> by Prebendary +Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those +codices are indebted for their preservation <emph>solely</emph> to the circumstance, +that they were long since recognized as the +depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy? +</p> + +<p> +Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, +and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at +the hands of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d</hi>,—to the last four of which it is just +now the fashion to bow down as to an oracular voice from +which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become +aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text +of the N. T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively +supply. Let us this time take S. Mark's account of +the healing of <q>the paralytic borne of four</q> (ch. ii. 1-12),—and +confront their exhibition of it, with that of the commonly +received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not reckoning +4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) +there will be found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which +<pb n='031'/><anchor id='Pg031'/> +55 are nothing else but depravations of the text, the result +of inattention or licentiousness. Westcott and Hort adopt +23 of these:—(18, in which א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> conspire to vouch for a +reading: 2, where א is unsupported by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>: 2, where +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +is unsupported by א: 1, where <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi> +are supported by +neither א nor <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>). Now, in the present instance, the <q>five +old uncials</q> <emph>cannot be</emph> the depositories of a tradition,—whether +Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent +testimony <emph>in every verse</emph>. It must further be admitted, +(for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain +matter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in +such documents. What would be thought in a Court of Law +of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination, who +should be observed to bear contradictory testimony <emph>every time</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie +on the surface. All that <emph>appears</emph> is that the five oldest +uncials are not trustworthy witnesses; which singly, in the +course of 12 verses separate themselves from their fellows +33 times: viz. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, twice;—א, 5 times;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, 6 times;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, thrice;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, +17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following +combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary +Text:—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a c</hi>, twice;—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, 10 times;—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, once;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>, 3 times;—א +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b c</hi>, once;—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>, 5 times;—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>, once;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d</hi>, once;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> +א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>, once;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d</hi>, once;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d</hi>, once. (Note, that +on this last occasion, which is the <emph>only</emph> time when they all 5 +agree, <emph>they are certainly all 5 wrong</emph>.) But this, as was observed +before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is +further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of +their origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, +the delicate precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ +ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that <q><hi rend='italic'>He has gone in</hi></q>), disappears from א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>:—as +well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance that it became the +signal for many <q><hi rend='italic'>immediately</hi></q> (א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) to assemble about the +door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor's concise +<pb n='032'/><anchor id='Pg032'/> +statement that the paralytic was <q>brought to</q> our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi>,<note place='foot'>προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.</note> +by remarking that the thing was <q><emph>impossible</emph></q> by the ordinary +method of approach. Accordingly, his account of the expedient +resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (ver. 4) +of his Gospel. In the mean time, א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> by exhibiting (in +S. Mark ii. 3,) <q>bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy</q> +(φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless +transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν, παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their +best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second +Evangelist's method.—In the next verse, the perplexity of +the bearers, who, because they could not <q><emph>come nigh</emph> Him</q> +(προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,—whose +προσενέγκαι has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else +from Luke v. 18, 19 (εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν). <q>The bed +<hi rend='smallcaps'>where was</hi> the paralytic</q> (τὸν κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), +in imitation of <q>the roof <hi rend='smallcaps'>where was</hi></q> Jesus (τὴν +στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), +is just one of those tasteless depravations, for which +א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, and especially <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In +the last verse, the <emph>instantaneous rising</emph> of the paralytic, +noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted upon by +S. Luke (<q><emph>and immediately he rose up</emph> before them,</q>—καὶ +παραχρῆμα ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by +shifting εὐθέως in א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> to a place where εὐθέως is not +wanted, and where its significancy disappears. +</p> + +<p> +Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must +see that, in ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c</hi>) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 +and Luke v. 20: as well as that <q>Son, <emph>be of good cheer</emph></q> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>) is +imported hither from Matt. ix. 2. <q><emph>My</emph> son,</q> on the other hand +(א), is a mere effort of the imagination. In the same verse, +σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>) is either from Matt. ix. 5 (<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>); or +<pb n='033'/><anchor id='Pg033'/> +else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark's narrative. Λέγοντες, +in ver. 6 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in ver. 9, and +ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>), are clearly importations from +ver 11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—<q><emph>Because this man +thus speaketh, he blasphemeth</emph></q> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>),—and <q><emph>Why doth this man +thus speak? He blasphemeth</emph></q> (א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while +the appendix proposed by א as a substitute for <q>We +never saw it on this fashion</q> (οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν), in +ver 12 (viz. <q>It was never so seen in Israel,</q> οὐδέποτε οὕτως +ἐφάνη ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from +S. Matt. ix. 33. +</p> + +<p> +We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the +text of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d</hi> hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown +as yet for suspecting that <emph>heretical</emph> depravation ever had +anything to do with such phenomena. <emph>That</emph> (we answer) is +only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators +of Gospels have universally perished. From the +slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have +survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger +on a foul blot and to say, <q><emph>This</emph> came from Tatian's Diatessaron; +and <emph>that</emph> from Marcion's mutilated recension of the +Gospel according to S. Luke.</q> The piercing of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> +side, transplanted by codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c</hi> from S. John xix. 34 into +S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former,—which it +may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott +and Hort (<emph>alone among Editors</emph>) have nevertheless +admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last +12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger +sentiment than surprise to discover that this, <q>the gravest +interpolation yet laid to the charge of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,</q>—this <q>sentence +which neither they nor any other competent scholar can +possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,</q><note place='foot'>Scrivener, <hi rend='italic'>Plain Introd</hi>. p. 472.</note>—has been +<pb n='034'/><anchor id='Pg034'/> +actually foisted into the margin of <hi rend='italic'>the Revised Version</hi> of +S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that +such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work? <emph>For +whose</emph> benefit is the information volunteered that <q>many +ancient authorities</q> are thus grossly interpolated? +</p> + +<p> +An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can +be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of S. Luke's +Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader's +sustained attention to the license with which the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> +Prayer as given in S. Luke's Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by +codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d</hi>. For every reason one would have expected +that so precious a formula would have been found enshrined +in the <q>old uncials</q> in peculiar safety; handled by copyists +of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries with peculiar reverence. +Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> introduces the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> Prayer by interpolating the +following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—<q><hi rend='italic'>Use not vain +repetitions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be +heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray</hi></q> ... After +which portentous exordium, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א omit the 5 words, <q><hi rend='italic'>Our</hi></q> <q><hi rend='italic'>which art in heaven</hi>,</q> Then, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> omits the article (τό) before <q>name:</q> and supplements +the first petition with the words <q>upon us</q> (ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). +It must needs also transpose the words <q><hi rend='italic'>Thy Kingdom</hi></q> (ἡ +βασιλεία σου). +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> in turn omits the third petition,—<q><hi rend='italic'>Thy will be done, +as in heaven, also on the earth;</hi></q> which 11 words א retains, but +adds <q><hi rend='italic'>so</hi></q> before <q><hi rend='italic'>also</hi>,</q> and omits the article (τῆς); finding for +once an ally in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c d</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> for δίδου write δός (from Matt.). +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) א omits the article (τό) before <q><hi rend='italic'>day by day.</hi></q> And, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes <q><hi rend='italic'>this day</hi></q> +(from Matt.): substitutes <q><hi rend='italic'>debts</hi></q> (τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for <q><hi rend='italic'>sins</hi></q> (τὰ +<pb n='035'/><anchor id='Pg035'/> +ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of <q><hi rend='italic'>for [we] +ourselves</hi></q> (καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί) writes <q><hi rend='italic'>as also we</hi></q> (ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, +again from Matt.).—But, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) א shows its sympathy with <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> by accepting two-thirds +of this last blunder: exhibiting <q><hi rend='italic'>as also [we] ourselves</hi></q> (ὡς καὶ +αὐτοί). +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>i</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> consistently reads <q><hi rend='italic'>our debtors</hi></q> (τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) +in place of <q><hi rend='italic'>every one that is indebted to us</hi></q> (παντὶ ὀφείλοντι +ἡμῖν).—Finally, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>j</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א omit the last petition,—<q><hi rend='italic'>but deliver us from evil</hi></q> +(ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c</hi> or <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. +Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account. +</p> + +<p> +So then, these five <q>first-class authorities</q> are found to +throw themselves into <emph>six different combinations</emph> in their +departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> +Prayer,—which, among them, they contrive to falsify in +respect of no less than 45 words; and yet <emph>they are never able +to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:</emph> +while <emph>only once</emph> are more than two of them observed to stand +together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. +In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words, <emph>they bear in turn solitary +evidence</emph>. What need to declare that it is <emph>certainly false</emph> +in every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the +Critics, that the vagaries of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>are all taken for gospel. Besides +omitting the 11 words which <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> omits jointly with א, Drs. Westcott +and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 +precious words which are omitted by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> only. And in this +way it comes to pass that the mutilated condition to which +the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> Prayer +some 1730 years ago,<note place='foot'>The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς +οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ... +ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.</note> (for the mischief can all be traced back +<pb n='036'/><anchor id='Pg036'/> +to <emph>him!</emph>), is palmed off on the Church of England by the +Revisionists as the work of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>! +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>) We may now proceed with our examination of their +work, beginning—as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) +does, when explaining the method and results of their labours—with +what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks +of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve +verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian +anticipate that— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long +paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, +it is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the +Gospel. A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief +explanation of this.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Companion to the Revised Version</hi>, p. 61.</note> +</quote> + +<p> +A <emph>very</emph> brief <q>explanation</q> certainly: for the note <emph>explains</emph> +nothing. Allusion is made to the following words— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, +omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have +a different ending to the Gospel.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +But now,—For the use of <emph>whom</emph> has this piece of information +been volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: +it being familiarly known to all, that codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א <emph>alone of +manuscripts</emph> (to their own effectual condemnation) omit these +12 verses. But then scholars know something more about +the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been +made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards +of 300 pages,—which treatise has now been before the world +for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons has +never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its title-page, +was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to +<pb n='037'/><anchor id='Pg037'/> +establish <q>the last Twelve Verses</q> of S. Mark's Gospel.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, vindicated +against recent critical Objectors and established</hi>, by the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. +334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.</note> +Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author +had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.<note place='foot'>As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of +Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott <q><emph>considers the +passage doubtful</emph>.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>, p. 36.) Dr. Scrivener (it is well known) +differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on this important point.</note> <emph>Can</emph> it +then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into +unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the +everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be +as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named? +</p> + +<p> +The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that +such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem +Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two +of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, +Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to +describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. +The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of +Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Whether any <emph>Textual</emph> Changes are proposed? The evidence +for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. +The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved +upon (<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>) two members of the Company, who from their previous +studies are specially entitled to speak with authority upon +such questions,—Dr. Scrivener and <emph>Dr. Hort</emph>,—and who come +prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either +side. Dr. Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of +the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the +evidence. Dr. Hort follows, and mentions any additional +matters that may call for notice; and, if differing from Dr. +Scrivener's estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his +<pb n='038'/><anchor id='Pg038'/> +reasons and states his own view. After discussion, the vote of +the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or +rejected. <emph>The Text being thus settled</emph>, the Chairman asks for +proposals on the Rendering.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Lectures on Bible Revision</hi>, pp. 119-20.</note> +</quote> + +<p> +And thus, the men who were appointed to improve <emph>the +English Translation</emph> are exhibited to us remodelling <emph>the +original Greek</emph>. At a moment's notice, as if by intuition,—by +an act which can only be described as the exercise of +instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which +shall be deemed the genuine utterances of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>,<note place='foot'>τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.</note>—which +<emph>not</emph>. Each is called upon to give his vote, and he +gives it. <q><emph>The Text being thus settled</emph></q> they proceed to do the +only thing they were originally appointed to do; viz. to try +their hands at improving our Authorized Version. But we +venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such <q>rough and +ready</q> process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical +problems—the truth of Scripture—to be <q>settled.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above +given <q>of the process by which the Revisionists <q>settled</q> the +Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to +<q>settle</q> this Revised Greek Testament in a very different +sense.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?</hi>—p. 42.</note> And so, in truth, it clearly is.—<q>Such a proceeding +appeared to me so strange,</q> (writes the learned and judicious +Editor of the <hi rend='italic'>Speaker's Commentary</hi>,) <q>that I fully expected +that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation +would be given which might remove the very unpleasant +impression.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,</hi>—by Canon +Cook,—pp. 221-2.</note> We have since heard on the best authority, +<pb n='039'/><anchor id='Pg039'/> +<emph>that</emph> namely of Bishop Ellicott himself,<note place='foot'>At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present +Articles.</note> that Dr. Newth's +account of the method of <q>settling</q> the text of the N. T., +pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct. +</p> + +<p> +But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, +a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the +Revisionist body, Bishop Ellicott,—when he had <q>to consider +the practical question,</q>—whether <q>(1), to construct a critical +Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, +some current Text: or (3), <emph>simply to proceed onward</emph> with the +work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the +current <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> the standard, and departing from it +only when critical or grammatical considerations show that +it is clearly necessary,—in fact, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>solvere ambulando</foreign>;</q> announces, +at the end of 19 pages,—<q>We are driven then to the third +alternative.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>, pp. 30 and 49.</note> +</p> + +<p> +We naturally cast about for some evidence that the +members of the New Testament company possess that mastery +of the subject which alone could justify one of their +number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 +verses are <q><emph>not from the pen of S. Mark himself</emph>;</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Words of the N. T.</hi> p. 193.</note> and another +(Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that <q>the passage is <emph>not the +immediate production of S. Mark</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Companion to the Revised Version</hi>, p. 63.</note> Dr. Roberts assures us +that— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of +Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, +testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not +found in the best copies.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 62.</note> +</quote> + +<p> +Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in +return that he is entirely mistaken? He is requested to +believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort—<emph>says +<pb n='040'/><anchor id='Pg040'/> +nothing at all</emph> concerning these verses: that Victor of Antioch +vouches emphatically for their <emph>genuineness</emph>: that Severus does +but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random +expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himself <emph>nowhere</emph> +<q>testifies that these verses were not written by S. Mark.</q> So +far from it, Eusebius actually <emph>quotes the verses</emph>, quotes them +as <emph>genuine</emph>. Dr. Roberts is further assured that there are <emph>no</emph> +<q>other writers</q> whether Greek or Latin, who insinuate doubt +concerning these verses. On the contrary, besides <emph>both</emph> the Latin +and <emph>all</emph> the Syriac—besides the Gothic and the <emph>two</emph> Egyptian +versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd century;—as +many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as +many of the VIIth;—together with <emph>at least ten</emph> of the IVth<note place='foot'>Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the +Syriac <hi rend='italic'>Acts of the App.</hi>,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. +It happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 300-350) with a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to +light, contains an elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the +curious story related by the author of the <hi rend='italic'>Paschal Chronicle</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 628) +concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 348),—p. 289. This has +been hitherto overlooked.</note> +(<emph>contemporaries therefore of codices</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and</emph> א);—which actually +<emph>recognize</emph> the verses in question. Now, when to <emph>every known +Manuscript but two</emph> of bad character, besides <emph>every ancient +Version, some one-and-thirty Fathers</emph> have been added, 18 of +whom must have used copies at least as old as either <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> or א,—Dr. +Roberts is assured that an amount of external authority +has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in +discussions of this nature. +</p> + +<p> +But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, +of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone +sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact +that <emph>in every part of Eastern Christendom</emph> these same 12 verses—neither +more nor less—have been from the earliest recorded +period, and still are, a <emph>proper lesson both for the Easter season +and for Ascension Day</emph>. +</p> + +<pb n='041'/><anchor id='Pg041'/> + +<p> +We pass on. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture +is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised +exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike; +for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις +εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists +(<q><hi rend='italic'>peace among men in whom he is well pleased</hi></q>) <q>can be +arrived at</q> (as one of themselves has justly remarked) <q>only +through some process which would make any phrase bear +almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon +it.</q><note place='foot'>Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 515.</note> More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part +hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the +Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry +destroyed, by the welding of the second and third +members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the +addition of <emph>a single final letter</emph> (ς) has done all this mischief. +Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end +of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its +calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid +of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin +copies <emph>all</emph> read <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis</foreign>,</q>) the preposition +ἐν was evidently away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν +which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a +sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are +simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It +is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there +exists <emph>no</emph> Greek copy of the Gospels which <emph>omits</emph> the ἐν, there +is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which +contains it.<note place='foot'>Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946 <hi rend='italic'>f.</hi>), Jerome (vii. 282), +and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations discoverable.</note> To return however to the genuine clause,—<q>Good-will +towards men</q> (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία). +</p> + +<pb n='042'/><anchor id='Pg042'/> + +<p> +Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively +of internal considerations—ought to be the +consideration that it is vouched for <emph>by every known copy</emph> of +the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b d</hi>: the +first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected +and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while +the second (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, +that in the primitive <q>Morning-hymn</q> (given in +another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation +of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found. +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>'s complicity in error is the less important, because of the +ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. +In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off +against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the +Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than +neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version +from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, +Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the +Received Text. It therefore comes to this:—We are invited +to make our election between every other copy of the +Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) +the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church +from the beginning,—on the one hand: and the testimony of +four Codices without a history or a character, which concur +in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one +hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger +claim on his allegiance? +</p> + +<p> +Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, +it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic +authority which is available on the present occasion:— +</p> + +<p> +In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) +Irenæus.<note place='foot'>i. 459</note> +</p> + +<pb n='043'/><anchor id='Pg043'/> + +<p> +In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen<note place='foot'>i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.</note> in 3 places,—and of (3) +the <hi rend='italic'>Apostolical Constitutions</hi><note place='foot'>vii. 47; viii. 13.</note> in 2. +</p> + +<p> +In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dem. Ev.</hi> pp. 163, 342.</note>—(5) Aphraates the Persian,<note place='foot'>i. 180, 385.</note>—(6) +Titus of Bostra,<note place='foot'>In loc. Also <hi rend='italic'>in Luc.</hi> xix. 29 (<hi rend='italic'>Cat. Ox.</hi> 141).</note> each twice;—(7) Didymus<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>De Trin.</hi> p. 84; Cord. <hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Ps.</hi> ii. 450, 745.</note> in 3 +places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,<note place='foot'>i. 845,—which is reproduced in the <hi rend='italic'>Paschal Chronicle</hi>, p. 374.</note>—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,<note place='foot'>P. 180; cf. p. 162.</note>—(10) +Epiphanius<note place='foot'>i. 154, 1047.</note> twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa<note place='foot'>i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.</note> 4 +times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,<note place='foot'>Gr. iii. 434.</note>—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. ix. 754.</note>—(14) +Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347. Also +<hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Ps.</hi> iii. 139.</note> in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless +preacher at Antioch,<note place='foot'>Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.</note>—all these, <emph>contemporaries (be +it remembered) of</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and</emph> א, are found to bear concurrent +testimony in favour of the commonly received text. +</p> + +<p> +In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>In Luc.</hi> pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343, <hi rend='italic'>Hom. de +Incarn.</hi> p. 109. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 593; v.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>1</hi> 681, 30, 128, 380, 402, 154; vi. 398. +Maii, iii.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> 286.</note> on no +less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret<note place='foot'>i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.</note> +on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476. <hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> iii. 1001, 1023.</note> on 5 (once<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> iii. 1002.</note> in a homily +preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 431);—(19) Proclus<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. ix. 629.</note> archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) +Paulus<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> iii. 1095.</note> bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before +Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 431);—(21) the +Eastern bishops<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> iii. 829 = Cyr. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vi. 159.</note> at Ephesus collectively, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 431 (an +unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil +<pb n='044'/><anchor id='Pg044'/> +of Seleucia.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Nov. Auctar.</hi> i. 596.</note> Now, let it be remarked that <emph>these were contemporaries +of codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) +Cosmas, the voyager,<note place='foot'>Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.</note> 5 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Hexaem.</hi> ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.</note>—(25) +Eulogius<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. xii. 308.</note> archbishop of Alexandria: <emph>contemporaries, +be it remembered, of codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete<note place='foot'>Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.</note> twice. +</p> + +<p> +And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.</note> bishop of Maiuma +near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,<note place='foot'>ii. 836.</note>—and +(29) Germanus<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.</note> archbishop of Constantinople. +</p> + +<p> +To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown +writers of uncertain date, but <emph>all</emph> of considerable antiquity; +and some<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>E.g.</hi> Chrys. <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> viii.; <hi rend='italic'>Append.</hi> 214.</note> are proved by internal evidence to belong to +the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of +the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but +among whose genuine works their productions are probably +<emph>not</emph> to be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken +for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:<note place='foot'>P. 6 <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>.</note> a second, for (31) Methodius:<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. iii. 809.</note> +a third, for (32) Basil.<note place='foot'>ii. 602.</note> Three others, with different +degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, +35) Athanasius.<note place='foot'>ii. 101, 122, 407.</note> One has passed for (36) Gregory of +Nyssa;<note place='foot'>iii. 447.</note> another for (37) Epiphanius;<note place='foot'>ii. 298.</note> while no less than +eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.</note> some +of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one +anonymous Father,<note place='foot'>Cord. <hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Ps.</hi> ii. 960.</note> and (47) the author of the apocryphal +<pb n='045'/><anchor id='Pg045'/> +<hi rend='italic'>Acta Pilati</hi>,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient +authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent +to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time +when <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius +or Chrysostom themselves.<note place='foot'>Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of only +<emph>eleven</emph>, Tregelles adduces only <emph>six</emph>.—Neither critic seems to have been +aware that <q>Gregory Thaum.</q> is not the author of the citation they +ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil's what <emph>is known</emph> +not to have been his?</note> <emph>For our present purpose</emph> +they are <emph>Codices</emph> of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In +this way then, far more than <emph>forty-seven</emph> ancient witnesses +have come back to testify to the men of this generation that +the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is <emph>the true +reading</emph>, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking +to palm off upon us is <emph>a fabrication and a blunder</emph>. Will +any one be found to maintain that the authority of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א +is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15 <emph>contemporary +Ecclesiastical Writers</emph> above enumerated? or that <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> can stand +against the 7 which follow? +</p> + +<p> +This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration +geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from +Gaul,—at least 2 stand for Constantinople,—while 5 are +dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent Antioch; and—6, +other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for +other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 +are men of Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate +voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in +this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all +delivering the same unfaltering message,—if <emph>this</emph> be not +allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before +us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount +of evidence <emph>will</emph> men accept as final? It is high time that +this were known.... The plain truth is, that a case has +<pb n='046'/><anchor id='Pg046'/> +been established against א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b d</hi> and the Latin version, which +amounts to <emph>proof</emph> that those documents, even when they conspire +to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended +on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of +the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—<emph>It +emerges into notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears +from sight entirely.</emph> +</p> + +<p> +Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning +the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. But because we propose +to ourselves that <emph>no uncertainty whatever</emph> shall remain on +this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at parting we +pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to +leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable +doubt hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing +else but the high estimate which Critics have conceived of +the value of the testimony of the old uncials (א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d</hi>), +which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. +Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the +character of codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d</hi> hereabouts, by collating <emph>the +context in which S. Luke ii. 14 is found</emph>, viz. the 13 verses +which precede and the one verse (ver. 15) which immediately +follows. If the old uncials are observed all to sing in tune +throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if on the contrary, +their voices prove utterly discordant, <emph>who</emph> sees not that +the last pretence has been taken away for placing <emph>any confidence +at all</emph> in their testimony concerning the text of +ver. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence of <emph>a +single letter</emph>?... He will find, as the result of his analysis, +that within the space of those 14 verses, the old uncials are +responsible for 56 <q>various readings</q> (so-called): singly, for +41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, +however, is the testimony they respectively render, that they +are found severally to differ from the Text of the cursives no +<pb n='047'/><anchor id='Pg047'/> +less than 70 times. Among them, besides twice varying the +phrase,—they contrive to omit 19 words:—to add 4:—to +substitute 17:—to alter 10:—to transpose 24.—Lastly, these +five codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to +fall into <emph>ten</emph> different combinations: viz. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א, for 5 readings;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b +d</hi>, for 2;—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c</hi>, א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>, for 1 each. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> therefore, which stands alone <emph>twice</emph>, +is found in combination 4 times;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, which stands alone +<emph>once</emph>, is found in combination 4 times;<note place='foot'>But then, note that <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> is only available for comparison down to the end +of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say how many +more eccentricities would have been discoverable?</note>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, which stands +alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;—א, which +stands alone 11 times, is found in combination 8 times;—<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, +which stands alone 22 times, is found in combination 7 +times.... And now,—for the last time we ask the question,—With +what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας +(of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b d</hi>) be upheld as genuine, in defiance of <emph>the whole +body of Manuscripts</emph>, uncial and cursive,—the great bulk of +the Versions,—and the mighty array of (upwards of fifty) +Fathers exhibited above? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that +we shall rarely prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely +necessary to begin by clearing the ground. We may not +go on doubting for ever. The <q>Angelic hymn</q> and <q>The +last 12 Verses</q> of S. Mark's Gospel, are convenient places +for a trial of strength. <emph>It has now been proved</emph> that the commonly +received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,—the +Revisionists' emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. +On behalf of the second Gospel, we claim to have also +established that an important portion of the sacred narrative +has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from +which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the +Evangelist free. The pretence that no harm has been done +<pb n='048'/><anchor id='Pg048'/> +him by the mere statement of what is an undeniable fact,—(viz. +that <q>the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other +authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;</q> and that <q>some +other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,</q>)—will +not stand examination. Pin to the shoulder of an +honourable man a hearsay libel on his character, and see +what he will have to say to you! Besides,—<emph>Why have the +12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?</emph> +This at least is unjustifiable. +</p> + +<p> +Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Companion to the Revised Version</hi>, pp. 62, 63. <hi rend='italic'>Words of the N. T.</hi> +p. 193.</note> have been +taught to maintain <q><emph>that the passage is not the immediate +production of S. Mark</emph>,</q>—<q><emph>can hardly be regarded as a part +of the original Gospel</emph>; but is rather an addition made to +it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime of the +Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:</q>—such Critics are +informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed +in the same breath to assure the offended reader that the +passage <q>is nevertheless <emph>possessed of full canonical authority</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Words of the N. T.</hi> p. 193.</note> +Men who so write show that they do not understand the +question. For if these 12 verses <emph>are</emph> <q>canonical Scripture,</q>—as +much inspired as the 12 verses which precede them, and +as worthy of undoubting confidence,—then, whether they be +<q>the production of S. Mark,</q> or of some other, is a purely +irrelevant circumstance. The <emph>Authorship</emph> of the passage, as +every one must see, is not the question. The last 12 verses +of Deuteronomy, for instance, were probably not written by +Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the rest of +Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive +of our opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding +what follows to be <q>canonical Scripture,</q> are careful to state +that a rival ending to be found elsewhere merits serious +attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore (<emph>according to them</emph>), +<pb n='049'/><anchor id='Pg049'/> +is <emph>not certainly</emph> a genuine part of the Gospel; <emph>may</emph>, after all, +be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text. And as +long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they +publish to the world that, <emph>in their account</emph> at all events, +these verses are <emph>not</emph> <q>possessed of full canonical authority.</q> +If <q>the two oldest Greek manuscripts</q> <emph>justly</emph> <q>omit from +verse 9 to the end</q> (as stated in the margin), will any one +deny that our printed Text ought to omit them also?<note place='foot'>Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put them <emph>on the self-same +footing</emph> with the evidently spurious ending found in <hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi>.</note> On +the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary +curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to +abiding record in the margin of the <emph>English Version</emph> of the +everlasting page?—<emph>affords any warrant whatever for separating +<q>the last Twelve Verses</q> from their context</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>) We can probably render ordinary readers no more +effectual service, than by offering now to guide them over +a few select places, concerning the true reading of which +the Revisionists either entertain such serious doubts that +they have <emph>recorded</emph> their uncertainty in the margin of their +work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately +thrust a new reading into the body of their text, and +<emph>that</emph>, without explanation, apology, or indeed record of any +kind.<note place='foot'><p>True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth, showing +every change which has been either actually accepted, or else suggested +for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of the accomplished +editor), <q>the <emph>Revisers are not responsible for its publication</emph>.</q> Moreover, +(and this is the chief point,) it is a sealed book to all but Scholars. +</p> +<p> +It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of +Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of +sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning +of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from the +exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be of abiding +interest and value. <emph>Both</emph> volumes should be in the hands of every +scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr. Scrivener has (with +rare ability and immense labour) set before the Church, <emph>for the first time, +the Greek Text which was followed by the Revisers of 1611</emph>, viz. Beza's +N. T. of 1598, supplemented in above 190 places from other sources; +every one of which the editor traces out in his <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>, pp. 648-56. +At the foot of each page, he shows what changes have been introduced into +the Text by the Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking the <hi rend='italic'>Text of Stephens</hi> +(1550) as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers +of the <q>Authorized Version,</q> and relegates the displaced Readings (of 1611) +to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them both, and thank +them for the good service they have rendered.</p></note> One remark should be premised, viz. that <q>various +<pb n='050'/><anchor id='Pg050'/> +Readings</q> as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are +seldom if ever the result of conscious <emph>fraud</emph>. An immense +number are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through +erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that +men took liberties with the deposit. They imported into +their copies whatever readings they considered highly recommended. +By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have +been thought allowable <emph>to abbreviate</emph>, by simply leaving out +whatever did not appear to themselves strictly necessary: +by others, to <emph>transpose</emph> the words—even the members—of a +sentence, almost to any extent: by others, to <emph>substitute</emph> easy +expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to pass +that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of +all, with Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly +fabrications. That it was held allowable to assimilate one +Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as +the IInd century there abounded in the Church documents,—<q>Diatessarons</q> +they were sometimes called,—of which the +avowed object was to weave one continuous and connected +narrative <q>out of the four;</q>—and we shall find that as many +heads have been provided, as will suffice for the classification +of almost every various reading which we are likely to +encounter in our study of the Gospels. +</p> + +<p> +I. <hi rend='smallcaps'>To accidental causes</hi> then we give the foremost place, +<pb n='051'/><anchor id='Pg051'/> +and of these we have already furnished the reader with two +notable and altogether dissimilar specimens. The first (viz. +the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 from certain ancient copies +of the Gospel) seems to have originated in an unique circumstance. +According to the Western order of the four, S. Mark +occupies <emph>the last</emph> place. From the earliest period it had been +customary to write τέλος (<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>end</hi></q>) after the 8th verse of +his last chapter, in token that <emph>there</emph> a famous ecclesiastical +lection comes to a close. <emph>Let the last leaf of one very ancient +archetypal copy have begun at ver. 9; and let that last leaf +have perished;—and all is plain.</emph> A faithful copyist will +have ended the Gospel perforce—as <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א have done—at +S. Mark xvi. 8.... Our other example (S. Luke ii. 14) +will have resulted from an accident of the most ordinary +description,—as was explained at the outset.—To the foregoing, +a few other specimens of erroneous readings resulting +from Accident shall now be added. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Always instructive, it is sometimes even entertaining +to trace the history of a mistake which, dating from the IInd +or IIIrd century, has remained without a patron all down the +subsequent ages, until at last it has been suddenly taken +up in our own times by an Editor of the sacred Text, and +straightway palmed off upon an unlearned generation as +the genuine work of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>. Thus, whereas the +Church has hitherto supposed that S. Paul's company <q>were +in all in the ship <emph>two hundred threescore and sixteen souls</emph></q> +(Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort (relying on the +authority of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and the Sahidic version) insist that what S. +Luke actually wrote was <q><emph>about seventy-six</emph>.</q> In other words, +instead of διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ, we are invited henceforth +to read ὩΣ ἑβδομηκονταέξ. What can have given rise +to so formidable a discrepancy? Mere accident, we answer. +First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote ἦμεν δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ +<pb n='052'/><anchor id='Pg052'/> +αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί, his last six words at some very early period +underwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, +αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ; whereby the <emph>word</emph> πλοίῳ and +the <emph>numbers</emph> διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ were brought into +close proximity. (It is thus that Lachmann, Tischendorf, +Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.) But since <q>276</q> +when represented in Greek numerals is ΣΟΣ, the inevitable +consequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran +thus: ΨΥΧΑΙΕΝΤΩΠΛΟΙΩΣΟΣ. Behold, the secret is out! Who +sees not what has happened? There has been no intentional +falsification of the text. There has been no critical disinclination +to believe that <q>a corn-ship, presumably heavily +laden, would contain so many souls,</q>—as an excellent judge +supposes.<note place='foot'>The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard +the ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (<hi rend='italic'>Life</hi>, c. <hi rend='smallcaps'>iii.</hi>)</note> The discrepancy has been the result of sheer +accident: is the merest blunder. Some IInd-century copyist +connected the last letter of ΠΛΟΙΩ with the next ensuing +numeral, which stands for 200 (viz. Σ); and made an <emph>independent +word</emph> of it, viz. ὡς—<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <q>about.</q> But when Σ (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> +200) has been taken away from ΣΟΣ (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> 276), 76 is perforce +all that remains. In other words, the result of so +slight a blunder has been that instead of <q><emph>two hundred</emph> and +seventy-six</q> (ΣΟΣ), some one wrote ὡς ος´—<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <q><emph>about</emph> +seventy-six.</q> His blunder would have been diverting had +it been confined to the pages of a codex which is <emph>full</emph> of +blunders. When however it is adopted by the latest Editors +of the N. T. (Drs. Westcott and Hort),—and by their influence +has been foisted into the margin of our revised English +Version—it becomes high time that we should reclaim +against such a gratuitous depravation of Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +All this ought not to have required explaining: the +blunder is so gross,—its history so patent. But surely, had +<pb n='053'/><anchor id='Pg053'/> +its origin been ever so obscure, the most elementary critical +knowledge joined to a little mother-wit ought to convince +a man that the reading ὡς ἑβδομηκονταέξ <emph>cannot</emph> be trustworthy. +A reading discoverable only in codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and one +Egyptian version (which was evidently executed from codices +of the same corrupt type as codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) <emph>may always be dismissed +as certainly spurious</emph>. But further,—Although a man might +of course say <q>about <emph>seventy</emph></q> or <q>about <emph>eighty</emph>,</q> (which is how +Epiphanius<note place='foot'>ii. 61 and 83.</note> quotes the place,) <emph>who</emph> sees not that <q>about +seventy-<emph>six</emph></q> is an impossible expression? Lastly, the two +false witnesses give divergent testimony even while they +seem to be at one: for the Sahidic (or Thebaic) version +arranges the words in an order <emph>peculiar to itself</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Another corruption of the text, with which it is +proposed henceforth to disfigure our Authorized Version, +(originating like the last in sheer accident,) occurs in Acts +xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at Corinth, that +having forsaken the synagogue of the Jews, <q>he entered into +a certain man's house <emph>named Justus</emph></q> (ὀνόματι Ἰούστου). +That this is what S. Luke wrote, is to be inferred from the +fact that it is found in almost every known copy of the Acts, +beginning with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a d g h l p</hi>. Chrysostom—the only ancient +Greek Father who quotes the place—<emph>so</emph> quotes it. This is, +in consequence, the reading of Lachmann, Tregelles, and +Tischendorf in his 7th edition. But then, the last syllable +of <q>name</q> (ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ) and the first three letters of <q>Justus</q> +(ΙΟΥΣΤΟΥ), in an uncial copy, may easily get mistaken for +an independent word. Indeed it only wants a horizontal +stroke (at the summit of the second Ι in ΤΙΙΟΥ) to produce +<q>Titus</q> (ΤΙΤΟΥ). In the Syriac and Sahidic versions accordingly, +<q>Titus</q> actually stands <emph>in place of</emph> <q>Justus,</q>—a reading +<pb n='054'/><anchor id='Pg054'/> +no longer discoverable in any extant codex. As a matter of +fact, the error resulted <emph>not</emph> in the <emph>substitution</emph> of <q>Titus</q> for +<q>Justus,</q> but in the introduction of <emph>both</emph> names where +S. Luke wrote but one. א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>e</hi>, the Vulgate, and the +Coptic version, exhibit <q><emph>Titus Justus</emph>.</q> And that the foregoing +is a true account of the birth and parentage of <q>Titus</q> +is proved by the tell-tale circumstance, that in <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> the letters +ΤΙ and ΙΟΥ are all religiously retained, and a supernumerary +letter (Τ) has been thrust in between,—the result of which +is to give us one more imaginary gentleman, viz. <q><emph>Titius</emph> +Justus;</q> with whose appearance,—(and he is found <emph>nowhere</emph> +but in codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,)—Tischendorf in his 8th ed., with Westcott +and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they actually give +him a place in their text. It was out of compassion (we +presume) for the friendless stranger <q><emph>Titus</emph> Justus</q> that our +Revisionists have, in preference, promoted <emph>him</emph> to honour: in +which act of humanity they stand alone. Their <q>new Greek +Text</q> is <emph>the only one in existence</emph> in which the imaginary +foreigner has been advanced to citizenship, and assigned <q>a +local habitation and a name.</q> ... Those must have been +wondrous drowsy days in the Jerusalem Chamber when +such manipulations of the inspired text were possible! +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) The two foregoing depravations grew out of the +ancient practice of writing the Scriptures in uncial characters +(<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> in capital letters), no space being interposed +between the words. Another striking instance is supplied +by S. Matthew xi. 23 and S. Luke x. 15, where however the +error is so transparent that the wonder is how it can ever +have imposed upon any one. What makes the matter +serious is, that it gives a turn to a certain Divine saying, +of which it is incredible that either our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> or His +Evangelists knew anything. We have hitherto believed that +the solemn words ran as follows:—<q>And thou, Capernaum, +<pb n='055'/><anchor id='Pg055'/> +which art exalted (ἡ ... ὑψωθεῖσα) unto heaven, shalt be +brought down (καταβιβασθήσῃ) to hell.</q> For this, our Revisionists +invite us to substitute, in S. Luke as well as in +S. Matthew,—<q>And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted +(μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ;) unto heaven?</q> And then, in S. Matthew, +(but not in S. Luke,)—<q>Thou shalt go down (καταβήσῃ) +into Hades.</q> Now, what can have happened to occasion +such a curious perversion of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> true utterance, and +to cause Him to ask an unmeaning <emph>question</emph> about the future, +when He was clearly announcing a <emph>fact</emph>, founded on the +history of the past? +</p> + +<p> +A stupid blunder has been made (we answer), of which +traces survive (as usual) only in the same little handful of +suspicious documents. The final letter of Capernaum (Μ) by +cleaving to the next ensuing letter (Η) has made an independent +word (ΜΗ); which new word necessitates a change +in the construction, and causes the sentence to become interrogative. +And yet, fourteen of the uncial manuscripts and the +whole body of the cursives know nothing of this: neither does +the Peschito—nor the Gothic version: no,—nor Chrysostom,—nor +Cyril,—nor ps.-Cæsarius,—nor Theodoret,—the only +Fathers who quote either place. The sole witnesses for μὴ +... ὑψωθήσῃ in <emph>both</emph> Gospels are א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, copies of the old Latin, +Cureton's Syriac, the Coptic, and the Æthiopic versions,—a +consensus of authorities which ought to be held fatal to any +reading. <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> joins the conspiracy in Matthew xi. 23, but not +in Luke x. 15: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d l</hi> consent in Luke, but not in Matthew. +The Vulgate, which sided with א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> in S. Matthew, forsakes +them in S. Luke. In writing <emph>both</emph> times καταβήσῃ (<q>thou +shalt go down</q>), codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> (forsaken this time by א) is supported +by a single manuscript, viz. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. But because, in +Matthew xi. 23, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, +καταβήσῃ is actually introduced into the Revised Text, and +we are quietly informed in the margin that <q>Many ancient +<pb n='056'/><anchor id='Pg056'/> +authorities read <emph>be brought down</emph>:</q> the truth being (as the reader +has been made aware) that there are <emph>only two manuscripts +in existence which read anything else</emph>. And (what deserves +attention) those two manuscripts are convicted of having +<emph>borrowed their quotation from the Septuagint</emph>,<note place='foot'>Isaiah xiv. 15.</note> and therefore +stand self-condemned.... Were the occupants of the Jerusalem +Chamber all—saving the two who in their published +edition insist on reading (with <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>) καταβήσῃ in both +places—<emph>all</emph> fast asleep when they became consenting parties +to this sad mistake? +</p> + +<p> +II. It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations +of Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are +unmistakably the result of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Design</hi>, and are very clumsily +executed too. The enumeration of a few of these may prove +instructive: and we shall begin with something which is +found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each +several instance so much impress the devout student of +Scripture, as with the exquisite structure of a narrative in +which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and self-condemned, +the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show +themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his +attention is, the sufficiency of the <emph>external evidence</emph> which +Divine Wisdom is observed to have invariably provided for +the establishment of the truth of His written Word. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) When our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> was about to enter His capital in +lowly triumph, He is observed to have given to <q>two of His +disciples</q> directions well calculated to suggest the mysterious +nature of the incident which was to follow. They +were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain +village,—to unloose a certain colt which they would find +<pb n='057'/><anchor id='Pg057'/> +tied there,—and to bring the creature straightway to <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi>. +Any obstacle which they might encounter would at once +disappear before the simple announcement that <q>the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> +hath need of him.</q><note place='foot'>S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.</note> But, singular to relate, this transaction +is found to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic +as not altogether correct. The good man was evidently of +opinion that the colt,—as soon as the purpose had been +accomplished for which it had been obtained,—ought in +common fairness to have been returned to <q>the owners +thereof.</q> (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of +there being no nominative before <q>will send</q> (in S. Mark +xi. 3), he assumed that it was <emph>of Himself</emph> that our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> was +still speaking: feigned that the sentence is to be explained +thus:—<q>say ye, <q>that the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> hath need of him <emph>and +will straightway send him hither</emph>.</q></q> According to this view +of the case, our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> instructed His two Disciples to +convey to the owner of the colt an undertaking from Himself +<emph>that He would send the creature back as soon as He had +done with it</emph>: would treat the colt, in short, <emph>as a loan</emph>. A +more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. +But in the meantime, by way of clenching the matter, the +Critic proceeded on his own responsibility to thrust into the +text the word <q><emph>again</emph></q> (πάλιν). The fate of such an unauthorized +accretion might have been confidently predicted. +After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a +few centuries (see the note at foot<note place='foot'>א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d l</hi> read—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει +ὡδε: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ +ὡδε: y<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>scr</hi>—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.</note>), πάλιν has shared the +invariable fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of +Scripture, viz.: It has been effectually eliminated from the +copies. Traces of it linger on only in those untrustworthy +witnesses א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d L</hi> Δ, and about twice as many cursive +<pb n='058'/><anchor id='Pg058'/> +copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication +ought in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have +our Revisionists not been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark +xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to read, <q>And if any one say +unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> hath need of +him, and straightway <emph>He</emph> (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>) <emph>will send him</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>back</hi> +<emph>hither</emph>.</q> ... Of what can they have been dreaming? They +cannot pretend that they have <emph>Antiquity</emph> on their side: for, +besides the whole mass of copies with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> at their head, <emph>both</emph> +the Syriac, <emph>both</emph> the Latin, and <emph>both</emph> the Egyptian versions, +the Gothic, the Armenian,—all in fact except the Æthiopic,—are +against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts πάλιν,<note place='foot'>iii. 722, 740.</note> +twice leaves it out.<note place='foot'>iii. 737, iv. 181.</note> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Quid plura?</foreign> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A +novel statement arrests attention five verses lower down: +viz. that <q>Many spread their garments upon the way</q> [and +why not <q><emph>in</emph> the way</q>? εἰς does not mean <q>upon</q>]; <q>and +others, branches <emph>which they had cut from the fields</emph></q> (S. Mark +xi. 8). But how in the world could they have done <emph>that</emph>? +They must have been clever people certainly if they <q>cut +<emph>branches</emph> from</q> anything except <emph>trees</emph>. Was it because our +Revisionists felt this, that in the margin they volunteer the +information, that the Greek for <q>branches</q> is in strictness +<q><emph>layers of leaves</emph></q>? But what <emph>are</emph> <q>layers of leaves</q>? and +what <emph>proof</emph> is there that στοιβάδες has that meaning? and +how could <q><emph>layers of leaves</emph></q> have been suddenly procured +from such a quarter? We turn to our Authorized Version, +and are refreshed by the familiar and intelligible words: +<q>And others cut down branches off the trees and strawed +them in the way.</q> Why then has this been changed? In +an ordinary sentence, consisting of 12 words, we find that 2 +<pb n='059'/><anchor id='Pg059'/> +words have been substituted for other 2; that 1 has undergone +modification; that 5 have been ejected. <emph>Why</emph> is all +this? asks the unlearned Reader. He shall be told. +</p> + +<p> +An instance is furnished us of the perplexity which a +difficult word sometimes occasioned the ancients, as well +as of the serious consequences which have sometimes resulted +therefrom to the text of Scripture itself. S. Matthew, +after narrating that <q>a very great multitude spread their +garments in the way,</q> adds, <q>others cut branches (κλάδους) +from the trees and strawed them in the way.</q><note place='foot'>S. Matt. xxi. 8.</note> But would +not branches of any considerable size have impeded progress, +inconveniently encumbering the road? No doubt they +would. Accordingly, as S. Mark (with S. Matthew's Gospel +before him) is careful to explain, they were <emph>not</emph> <q>branches +of any considerable size,</q> but <q>leafy twigs</q>—<q><emph>foliage</emph>,</q> in fact +it was—<q>cut from the trees and strawed in the way.</q> The +word, however, which he employs (στοιβάδας) is an unique +word—very like another of similar sound (στιβάδας), yet +distinct from it in sense, if not in origin. Unfortunately, +all this was not understood in a highly uncritical and most +licentious age. With the best intentions, (for the good man +was only seeking to reconcile two inconvenient parallel +statements,) some Revisionist of the IInd century, having +convinced himself that the latter word (στιβάδας) might with +advantage take the place of S. Mark's word (στοιβάδας), +substituted this for that. In consequence, it survives to this +day in nine uncial copies headed by א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. But then, στιβάς +does not mean <q>a branch</q> <emph>at all</emph>; no, nor a <q>layer of leaves</q> +either; but <emph>a pallet</emph>—<emph>a floor-bed</emph>, in fact, of the humblest +type, constructed of grass, rushes, straw, brushwood, leaves, +or any similar substance. On the other hand, because such +materials are not obtainable <emph>from trees</emph> exactly, the ancient +<pb n='060'/><anchor id='Pg060'/> +Critic judged it expedient further to change δένδρων into +ἀγρῶν (<q><emph>fields</emph></q>). Even this was not altogether satisfactory. +Στιβάς, as explained already, in strictness means a <q>bed.</q> +Only by a certain amount of license can it be supposed to +denote the materials of which a bed is composed; whereas +the Evangelist speaks of something <q>strawn.</q> <emph>The self-same +copies</emph>, therefore, which exhibit <q><emph>fields</emph></q> (in lieu of <q><emph>trees</emph></q>), +by introducing a slight change in the construction (κόψαντες +for ἔκοπτον), and <emph>omitting</emph> the words <q>and strawed them in +the way,</q> are observed—after a summary fashion of their own, +(with which, however, readers of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> are only too familiar)—to +dispose of this difficulty by putting it nearly out +of sight. The only result of all this misplaced officiousness +is a miserable travestie of the sacred words:—ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας, +κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: 7 words in place of 12! +</p> + +<p> +But the calamitous circumstance is that the Critics have all +to a man fallen into the trap. True, that Origen (who once +writes στοιβάδας and once στιβάδας), as well as the two +Egyptian versions, side with א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi> Δ in reading ἐκ τῶν +ἀγρῶν: but then <emph>both versions</emph> (with <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>) <emph>decline to alter the +construction</emph> of the sentence; and (with Origen) <emph>decline to +omit the clause</emph> ἐστρώννυον εἰς τὴν ὁδόν: while, against this +little band of disunited witnesses, are marshalled all the +remaining fourteen uncials, headed by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a d</hi>—the Peschito and +the Philoxenian Syriac; the Italic, the Vulgate, the Gothic, +the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Æthiopic as well as the +Slavonic versions, besides the whole body of the cursives. +Whether therefore Antiquity, Variety, Respectability of witnesses, +numbers, or the reason of the thing be appealed to, +the case of our opponents breaks hopelessly down. Does +any one seriously suppose that, if S. Mark had written the +common word στΙβάδας, so vast a majority of the copies at +this day would exhibit the improbable στΟΙβάδας? Had the +same S. Mark expressed nothing else but ΚΌΨΑΝΤΕΣ ἐκ τῶν +<pb n='061'/><anchor id='Pg061'/> +ἈΓΡΩ´Ν, will any one persuade us that <emph>every copy in existence +but five</emph> would present us with ἜΚΟΠΤΟΝ ἐκ τῶν ΔΈΝΔΡΩΝ, +καὶ ἘΣΤΡΏΝΝΥΟΝ ἘΙΣ ΤῊΝ ὉΔΌΝ? And let us not be told that +there has been Assimilation here. There has been none. +S. Matthew (xxi. 8) writes ἈΠῸ τῶν δένδρον ... ἘΝ τῇ ὡδῷ: +S. Mark (xi. 8), ἘΚ τῶν δένδρων ... ἘΙΣ τὴν ὁδόν. The +types are distinct, and have been faithfully retained all +down the ages. The common reading is certainly correct. +The Critics are certainly in error. And we exclaim (surely +not without good reason) against the hardship of thus having +an exploded corruption of the text of Scripture furbished up +afresh and thrust upon us, after lying deservedly forgotten +for upwards of a thousand years. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Take a yet grosser specimen, which has nevertheless +imposed just as completely upon our Revisionists. It is +found in S. Luke's Gospel (xxiii. 45), and belongs to the +history of the Crucifixion. All are aware that as, at the +typical redemption out of Egypt, there had been a preternatural +darkness over the land for three days,<note place='foot'>Exod. x. 21-23.</note> so, preliminary +to the actual Exodus of <q>the Israel of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>,</q> <q>there +was darkness over all the land</q> for three hours.<note place='foot'>S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.</note> S. Luke +adds the further statement,—<q><emph>And the sun was darkened</emph></q> +(καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος). Now the proof that this is what +S. Luke actually wrote, is the most obvious and conclusive +possible. Ἐσκοτίσθη is found in all the most ancient documents. +Marcion<note place='foot'>Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.</note> (whose date is <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 130-50) so exhibits +the place:—besides the old Latin<note place='foot'><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Intenebricatus est sol</foreign>—a: <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>obscuratus est sol</foreign>—b: <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>tenebricavit sol</foreign>—c.</note> and the Vulgate:—the +Peschito, Cureton's, and the Philoxenian Syriac versions:—the +Armenian,—the Æthiopic,—the Georgian,—and the +<pb n='062'/><anchor id='Pg062'/> +Slavonic.—Hippolytus<note place='foot'>Ap. Routh, <hi rend='italic'>Opusc.</hi> i. 79.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 190-227),—Athanasius,<note place='foot'>i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.</note>—Ephraem +Syr.,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Syr.</hi> ii. 48. So also <hi rend='italic'>Evan. Conc.</hi> pp. 245, 256, 257.</note>—Theodore Mops.,<note place='foot'>Mai, <hi rend='italic'>Scriptt. Vett.</hi> vi. 64.</note>—Nilus +the monk,<note place='foot'>i. 305.</note>—Severianus, (in a homily preserved in Armenian, +p. 439,)—Cyril of Alexandria,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. Also <hi rend='italic'>Luc.</hi> 722.</note>—the apocryphal <hi rend='italic'>Gospel of +Nicodemus</hi>—and the <hi rend='italic'>Anaphora Pilati</hi>,<note place='foot'>i. 288, 417.</note>—are all witnesses +to the same effect. Add the <hi rend='italic'>Acta Pilati</hi><note place='foot'>P. 233.</note>—and the Syriac +<hi rend='italic'>Acts of the Apostles</hi>.<note place='foot'>Ed. by Wright, p. 16.</note>—Let it suffice of the Latins to quote +Tertullian.<note place='foot'><q>Sol mediâ die <emph>tenebricavit</emph>.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Adv. Jud.</hi> c. xiii.</note>—But the most striking evidence is the consentient +testimony of the manuscripts, viz. <emph>all the uncials</emph> but +3 and-a-half, and <emph>every known Evangelium</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +That the darkness spoken of was a divine portent—<emph>not</emph> an +eclipse of the sun, but an incident wholly out of the course +of nature—the ancients clearly recognize. Origen,<note place='foot'>iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv. +82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys. vii. +825 a.</note>—Julius +Africanus<note place='foot'>ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh, ii. +298.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 220),—Macarius Magnes<note place='foot'>εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν +ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 330),—are +even eloquent on the subject. Chrysostom's evidence is unequivocal.<note place='foot'>ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον +ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν +μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.</note> +It is, nevertheless, well known that this place of +S. Luke's Gospel was tampered with from a very early period; +and that Origen<note place='foot'>i. 414, 415; iii. 56.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 186-253), and perhaps Eusebius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει +οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146, 199, +201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 <hi rend='italic'>bis</hi>) were apparently acquainted +with the same reading, but neither of them actually quotes Luke xxiii. 45.</note> +<pb n='063'/><anchor id='Pg063'/> +employed copies which had been depraved. In some copies, +writes Origen, instead of <q>and the sun was darkened</q> (καὶ +ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος), is found <q>the sun having become eclipsed</q> +(τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος). He points out with truth that the +thing spoken of is a physical impossibility, and delivers it as +his opinion that the corruption of the text was due either to +some friendly hand in order to <emph>account for</emph> the darkness; or +else, (which he,<note place='foot'><q>In quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur <emph>tenebræ factæ sunt, et obscuratus +est sol</emph>: sed ita, <emph>tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem terram, sole +deficiente</emph>. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi manifestius aliquid dicere +volens, pro, <emph>et obscuratus est sol</emph>, ponere <emph>deficiente sole</emph>, existimans quod non +aliter potuissent fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod +insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam <emph>tenebræ factæ +sunt sole deficiente</emph>, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui possint secundum adinventiones +volentium arguere illa.</q> (iii. 923 f. a.)</note> and Jerome<note place='foot'>vii. 235. <q><emph>Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia</emph>, suspicantur deliquium +solis,</q> &c.</note> after him, thought more +likely,) to the enemies of Revelation, who sought in this way +to provide themselves with a pretext for cavil. Either way, +Origen and Jerome elaborately assert that ἐσκοτίσθη is the +only true reading of S. Luke xxiii. 45. Will it be believed +that this gross fabrication—for no other reason but because +it is found in א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi>, +and probably once existed in <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi><note place='foot'>This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. <hi rend='italic'>Cod. Ephr. Syr.</hi> p. +327.</note>—has +been resuscitated in 1881, and foisted into the sacred Text +by our Revisionists? +</p> + +<p> +It would be interesting to have this proceeding of theirs +explained. <emph>Why</emph> should the truth dwell exclusively<note place='foot'>Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.</note> with +א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi>? It cannot be pretended that between the IVth and Vth +centuries, when the copies א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> were made, and the Vth and +VIth centuries, when the copies <hi rend='smallcaps'>a q d r</hi> were executed, this +<pb n='064'/><anchor id='Pg064'/> +corruption of the text arose: for (as was explained at the +outset) the reading in question (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος) is found +in all the oldest and most famous documents. Our Revisionists +cannot take their stand on <q>Antiquity,</q>—for as we +have seen, <emph>all the Versions</emph> (with the single exception of the +Coptic<note place='foot'>The Thebaic represents <q>the sun <emph>setting</emph>;</q> which, (like the mention of +<q><emph>eclipse</emph>,</q>) is only another <emph>interpretation</emph> of the darkness,—derived from Jer. +xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (<q><emph>occidit</emph> sol meridie</q>). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, +(p. 273,) who says that these two prophecies found fulfilment in <q>eum +<emph>occasum</emph> solis qui, crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.</q> He alludes to the same +places in iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—<q>Et +hoc factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,</q> and then he quotes Amos and +Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—<q>Videturque mihi +clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios suos, +ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ luce +fruerentur.</q></note>),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion, Origen, +Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., +Ephraem, &c.,) are <emph>all</emph> against them.—They cannot advance +the claim of <q>clearly preponderating evidence;</q> for they have +but a single Version,—<emph>not</emph> a single Father,—and but three-and-a-half +Evangelia to appeal to, out of perhaps three +hundred and fifty times that number.—They cannot pretend +that essential probability is in favour of the reading of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>; +seeing that the thing stated is astronomically impossible.—They +will not tell us that critical opinion is with them: for +their judgment is opposed to that of every Critic ancient and +modern, except Tischendorf since his discovery of codex א.—Of +what nature then will be their proof?... <emph>Nothing</emph> +results from the discovery that א reads τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> ἐκλείποντος,—except that those two codices are of the same +corrupt type as those which Origen deliberately condemned +1650 years ago. In the meantime, with more of ingenuity +than of ingenuousness, our Revisionists attempt to conceal +the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating it +<pb n='065'/><anchor id='Pg065'/> +unfairly. They present us with, <q><emph>the sun's light failing</emph>.</q> But +this is a gloss of their own. There is no mention of <q>the +sun's <emph>light</emph></q> in the Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of +the original expression were accurately ascertained, would +such a paraphrase of it prove correct<note place='foot'>Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse which +happened <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> 481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἕδρην.</note>. But, in fact, the +phrase ἔκλειψις ἡλίου means <q>an eclipse of the sun</q> and <emph>no +other thing</emph>. In like manner, τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος<note place='foot'>For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the reading +vouched for <emph>only by codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. What c* once read is as uncertain as it is +unimportant.</note> (as our +Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means <q><emph>the sun becoming +eclipsed</emph>,</q> or <q><emph>suffering eclipse</emph>.</q> It is easy for Revisionists +to <q>emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek +word ἐκλείπειν, when associated with the sun, which involves +necessarily the notion of an eclipse.</q><note place='foot'>Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 60.</note> The <emph>fact</emph> referred to +may not be so disposed of. It lies outside the province of +<q>emphatic denial.</q> Let them ask any Scholar in Europe what +τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος means; and see if he does not tell +them that it can <emph>only</emph> mean, <q>the sun <emph>having become eclipsed</emph></q>! +They know this every bit as well as their Reviewer. And +they ought either to have had the manliness to render the +words faithfully, or else the good sense to let the Greek +alone,—which they are respectfully assured was their only +proper course. Καί ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος is, in fact, clearly +above suspicion. Τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος, which these learned +men (with the best intentions) have put in its place, is, to +speak plainly, a transparent fabrication. That it enjoys +<q><emph>clearly preponderating evidence</emph>,</q> is what no person, fair or +unfair, will for an instant venture to pretend. +</p> + +<p> +III. Next, let us produce an instance of depravation of +Scripture resulting from the practice of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Assimilation</hi>, which +<pb n='066'/><anchor id='Pg066'/> +prevailed anciently to an extent which baffles arithmetic. +We choose the most famous instance that presents itself. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) It occurs in S. Mark vi. 20, and is more than unsuspected. +The substitution (on the authority of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> and +the Coptic) of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει in that verse, (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the statement +that Herod <q>was much <emph>perplexed</emph>,</q>—instead of Herod +<q><emph>did</emph> many things,</q>) is even vaunted by the Critics as the +recovery of the true reading of the place—long obscured by +the <q>very singular expression</q> ἐποίει. To ourselves the only +<q>very singular</q> thing is, how men of first-rate ability can +fail to see that, on the contrary, the proposed substitute is +simply fatal to the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit's</hi> teaching in this place. <q>Common +sense is staggered by such a rendering,</q> (remarks the learned +Bishop of Lincoln). <q>People are not wont to <emph>hear gladly</emph> +those by whom they are <emph>much perplexed</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On the Revised Version</hi>, p. 14.</note> But in fact, the +sacred writer's object clearly is, to record the striking circumstance +that Herod was so moved by the discourses of +John, (whom he used to <q>listen to with pleasure,</q>) that he +even <q><emph>did many things</emph></q> (πολλὰ ἐποίει) <emph>in conformity with +the Baptist's teaching</emph>.<note place='foot'>πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch +(<hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129) who +exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod's difficulty <emph>about getting rid +of Herodias</emph>.</note>... And yet, if this be so, how (we +shall be asked) has <q>he was much perplexed</q> (πολλὰ ἠπόρει) +contrived to effect a lodgment in <emph>so many as three</emph> copies of +the second Gospel? +</p> + +<p> +It has resulted from nothing else, we reply, but the determination +to assimilate a statement of S. Mark (vi. 20) concerning +Herod and John the Baptist, with another and a distinct +statement of S. Luke (ix. 7), having reference to Herod +<pb n='067'/><anchor id='Pg067'/> +and our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>. S. Luke, speaking of the fame of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> miracles at a period subsequent to the Baptist's +murder, declares that when Herod <q>heard <emph>all things that were +done</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>by Him</hi></q> (ἤκουσε τὰ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα), <q>he <emph>was +much perplexed</emph></q> (διηπόρει).—Statements so entirely distinct +and diverse from one another as <emph>this</emph> of S. Luke, and <emph>that</emph> +(given above) of S. Mark, might surely (one would think) +have been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at the +foot of the page will show that in the IInd century S. Mark's +words were solicited in all sorts of ways. A persistent determination +existed to make him say that Herod having <q>heard +of <emph>many things which <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Baptist</hi> did</emph>,</q> &c.<note place='foot'><p>καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have +been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which is +chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as explained +by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar's <hi rend='italic'>Collation of four +important MSS.</hi>, etc. (Dublin 1877). The same reading is also found in +Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196. +</p> +<p> +Different must have been the reading of that other venerable exemplar +which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let +the reader judge:—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Et cum audisset illum multa facere, libenter</foreign>,</q> &c. (c: +also <q>Codex Aureus</q> and γ, both at Stockholm): <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>et audito eo quod multa +faciebat, et libenter</foreign>,</q> &c. (g<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> q): <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>et audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et +libenter</foreign>,</q> &c. (b). The Anglo-Saxon, (<q><emph>and he heard that he many wonders +wrought, and he gladly heard him</emph></q>) approaches nearest to the last two. +</p> +<p> +The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strictness +exhibits:—<q><emph>And many things he was hearing [from] him and doing; +and gladly he was hearing him.</emph></q> But this, by competent Syriac scholars, +is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως +ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, +ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The Coptic also renders, <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>et +audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat corde</foreign>.</q> From all this, it becomes clear +that the actual <emph>intention</emph> of the blundering author of the text exhibited by +א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> was, to connect πολλά, <emph>not</emph> with ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the +Arabian version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as +Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.</p></note>—a strange perversion +of the Evangelist's meaning, truly, and only to be +accounted for in one way.<note place='foot'>Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate +the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10 (ϟα / η) +and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) +are bracketed together by Eusebius, the +former place in codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> is found brought into conformity with the latter +by the unauthorized insertion of the clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The +parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix. 10 is the reason why <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> exhibits in +the latter place ἀν- (instead of ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. +10, codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> exhibits εἰς ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only +because ἔρημον τόπον is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So +again, codex א, in the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause +πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of +the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the limits of +S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη +(in ver. 14), <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν—only because those words +are found in Lu. ix. 7. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> substitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that +word is found in Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> substitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ +τῶν νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> inserts καὶ +ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu. iii. +20. In א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> Δ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver. 24—only by +Assimilation with ver. 14. (<hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi> is for assimilating ver. 25 likewise), Κ Δ Π, +the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in +ver. 14)—only because those words are transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If +facts like these do not open men's eyes to the danger of following the +fashionable guides, it is to be feared that nothing ever will. The foulest +blot of all remains to be noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, +codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d l</hi> Δ conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is +<emph>known</emph> to have been <q>Salome</q>) as <emph>another <q>Herodias</q></emph>—<emph>Herod's own +daughter</emph>? This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of +history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected +hitherto by <emph>all</emph> the editors and <emph>all</emph> the critics—finds undoubting favour +with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate, <emph>it also disfigures the +margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark</emph> vi. 22, <emph>in consequence</emph>.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='068'/><anchor id='Pg068'/> + +<p> +Had this been <emph>all</emph>, however, the matter would have +attracted no attention. One such fabrication more or less +in the Latin version, which abounds in fabricated readings, +is of little moment. But then, the Greek scribes had recourse +to a more subtle device for assimilating Mark vi. 20 to Luke +ix. 7. They perceived that S. Mark's ἐποίει might be almost +identified with S. Luke's διηπόρει, by <emph>merely changing two of +the letters</emph>, viz. by substituting η for ε and ρ for ι. From this, +there results in S. Mk. vi. 20: <q>and having heard many things +of him, <emph>he was perplexed</emph>;</q> which is very nearly identical +<pb n='069'/><anchor id='Pg069'/> +with what is found in S. Lu. ix. 7. This fatal substitution (of +ἠπόρει for ἐποίει) survives happily only in codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> and +the Coptic version—all of bad character. But (calamitous to +relate) the Critics, having disinterred this long-since-forgotten +fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize it, at the +end of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and activity. We +venture to assure them that they will not succeed. Herod's +<q>perplexity</q> did not begin until John had been beheaded, +and the fame reached Herod of the miracles which our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> wrought. The apocryphal statement, now for the +first time thrust into an English copy of the New Testament, +may be summarily dismissed. But the marvel will for ever +remain that a company of distinguished Scholars (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1881) +could so effectually persuade themselves that ἐποίει (in +S. Mark vi. 20) is a <q><emph>plain and clear error</emph>,</q> and that there is +<q><emph>decidedly preponderating evidence</emph></q> in favour of ἠπόρει,—as to +venture to <emph>substitute the latter word for the former</emph>. This +will for ever remain a marvel, we say; seeing that <emph>all the +uncials</emph> except three of bad character, together with <emph>every +known cursive without exception</emph>;—the old Latin and the +Vulgate, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, +Æthiopic, Slavonian and Georgian versions,—are with +the traditional Text. (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and Cureton's +Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent.) +</p> + +<p> +IV. More serious in its consequences, however, than any +other source of mischief which can be named, is the process +of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Mutilation</hi>, to which, from the beginning, the Text of +Scripture has been subjected. By the <q>Mutilation</q> of Scripture +we do but mean the intentional Omission—<emph>from whatever +cause proceeding</emph>—of genuine portions. And the causes of it +have been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, +there seems to have been at work nothing else but a +strange passion for getting rid of whatever portions of the +<pb n='070'/><anchor id='Pg070'/> +inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,—or at +all events have appeared capable of being removed without +manifest injury to the sense. But the estimate of the +tasteless IInd-century Critic will never be that of the well-informed +Reader, furnished with the ordinary instincts of +piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of the +Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of +little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than +that thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the +Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many of the +coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle +to hang wondrous ungracefully; but often <emph>that</emph> is all. Sometimes, +however, (as might have been confidently anticipated,) +the result is calamitous in a high degree. Not only is the +beauty of the narrative effectually marred, (as <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> by the +barbarous excision of καί—εὐθέως—μετὰ δακρύων—Κύριε, +from S. Mark ix. 24):<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <q><emph>And</emph></q> is omitted by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> Δ: <q><emph>immediately</emph></q> by א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>: <q><emph>with tears</emph></q> +by א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c l</hi> Δ: <q><emph>Lord</emph></q> by א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d l</hi>.—In S. Mark vi. 16—(viz. <q>But +when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom I beheaded. He +is risen [from the dead],</q>)—the five words in brackets are omitted by our +Revisers on the authority of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi> Δ. But א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> further omit Ἰωάννην: +<hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi> omit ὁ: א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d l</hi> omit ὅτι. To enumerate and explain the effects of all +the barbarous Mutilations which the Gospels alone have sustained at the +hands of א, of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, and of <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>—<emph>would fill many volumes like the present</emph>.</note>—the doctrinal teaching of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> discourses in countless places, damaged, (as <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> +by the omission of καὶ νηστείᾳ from verse 29):—absurd expressions +attributed to the Holy One which He certainly +never uttered, (as <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> by truncating of its last word the +phrase τό, Εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι in verse 23):—but (<hi rend='smallcaps'>i.</hi>) The +narrative is often rendered in a manner unintelligible; or +else (<hi rend='smallcaps'>ii.</hi>), The entire point of a precious incident is made to +disappear from sight; or else (<hi rend='smallcaps'>iii.</hi>), An imaginary incident +is fabricated: or lastly (<hi rend='smallcaps'>iv.</hi>), Some precious saying of our +Divine <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> is turned into absolute nonsense. Take a +<pb n='071'/><anchor id='Pg071'/> +single short example of what has last been offered, from each +of the Gospels in turn. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>i.</hi>) In S. Matthew xiv. 30, we are invited henceforth to +submit to the information concerning Simon Peter, that +<q><emph>when he saw the wind</emph>, he was afraid.</q> The sight must have +been peculiar, certainly. So, indeed, is the expression. But +Simon Peter was as unconscious of the one as S. Matthew of +the other. Such curiosities are the peculiar property of +codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>—the Coptic version—and the Revisionists. The +predicate of the proposition (viz. <q><emph>that it was strong</emph>,</q> contained +in the single word ἰσχυρόν) has been wantonly excised. +That is all!—although Dr. Hort succeeded in persuading his +colleagues to the contrary. A more solemn—a far sadder +instance, awaits us in the next Gospel. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>ii.</hi>) The first three Evangelists are careful to note <q>the +<emph>loud</emph> cry</q> with which the Redeemer of the World expired. +But it was reserved for S. Mark (as Chrysostom pointed out +long since) to record (xv. 39) the memorable circumstance +that <emph>this particular portent</emph> it was, which wrought conviction +in the soul of the Roman soldier whose office it was to be +present on that terrible occasion. The man had often witnessed +death by Crucifixion, and must have been well +acquainted with its ordinary phenomena. Never before had +he witnessed anything like this. He was stationed where he +could see and hear all that happened: <q>standing</q> (S. Mark +says) <q>near</q> our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi>,—<q><emph>over against Him</emph>.</q> <q>Now, when +the Centurion saw that it was <emph>after so crying out</emph> (κράξας), +that He expired</q> (xv. 39) he uttered the memorable words, +<q>Truly this man <emph>was</emph> the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son of God</hi>!</q> <q>What chiefly +moved him to make that confession of his faith was that our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> evidently died <emph>with power</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>Chrysostom, vii. 825.</note> <q>The miracle</q> (says +Bp. Pearson) <q>was not in the death, but <emph>in the voice</emph>. The +<pb n='072'/><anchor id='Pg072'/> +strangeness was not that He should die, but that at the point +of death He should <emph>cry out so loud</emph>. He died not by, but +with a Miracle.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On the Creed</hi>, Art. iv. <q>Dead:</q> about half-way through.</note> ... All this however is lost in א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi>, which +literally <emph>stand alone</emph><note place='foot'>The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.</note> in leaving out the central and only +important word, κράξας. Calamitous to relate, they are followed +herein by our Revisionists: who (misled by Dr. Hort) +invite us henceforth to read,—<q>Now when the Centurion saw +<emph>that He so gave up the ghost</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>iii.</hi>) In S. Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words +(τω and <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>κε</hi>), the same blind guides, under the same blind +guidance, effectually misrepresent the record concerning the +repentant malefactor. Henceforth they would have us believe +that <q>he said, <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi>, remember me when thou comest +in thy Kingdom.</q></q> (Dr. Hort was fortunately unable to persuade +the Revisionists to follow him in further substituting +<q><emph>into</emph> thy kingdom</q> for <q><emph>in</emph> thy kingdom;</q> and so converting +what, in the A. V., is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation,<note place='foot'>Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading of <emph>every known copy +but two</emph>; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Only <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> +read ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.</note> +into what would have been an indelible blot. +The record of his discomfiture survives in the margin). +Whereas none of the Churches of Christendom have ever yet +doubted that S. Luke's record is, that the dying man <q>said +<emph>unto <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi></emph>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, remember me,</q> &c. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>iv.</hi>) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second καί and +the second οἴδατε, our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> is now made to say, <q>And +whither I go, <emph>ye know the way</emph>;</q> which is really almost nonsense. +What He actually said was, <q>And whither I go ye +know, and the way ye know;</q> <emph>in consequence of which</emph> (as we +all remember) <q>Thomas saith unto Him, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, we know +<pb n='073'/><anchor id='Pg073'/> +not <q>whither</q> Thou goest, and how can we know <q>the +way</q>?</q> ... Let these four samples suffice of a style of depravation +with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is deliberately +proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel; +and for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have +to thank no one so much as Drs. Westcott and Hort. +</p> + +<p> +We cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena +already opened up to the Reader's notice. For indeed, this +astonishing taste for mutilating and maiming the Sacred +Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the history +of Textual Criticism. +</p> + +<p> +It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 +has disappeared from codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi>. The reader may not be +displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped +the vigilance of the Critics:— +</p> + +<p> +<q>I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,</q>—(the +words are Jerome's in a letter to Nepotianus),—<q>to explain to +me the meaning of S. Luke's expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, +literally the <q><emph>second-first</emph> sabbath.</q> <q>I will tell you +all about it in church,</q> he replied. <q>The congregation +shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either +to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you +understand what you do not.</q></q> But <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>eleganter lusit</foreign>,</q> says +Jerome<note place='foot'>i. 261.</note>. The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being +a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so +elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that +the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous +periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, +Gregory of Nazianzus [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 360] is found to have no more +understood the word than Jerome did [370]. +</p> + +<p> +Ambrose<note place='foot'>i. 936, 1363.</note> of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult +<pb n='074'/><anchor id='Pg074'/> +expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius<note place='foot'>i. 158.</note> of +Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus<note place='foot'>P. 301.</note> [400] called +<q>Pelusiota</q> after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. vi. 53.</note> +also volunteers remarks on the word [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 400?].—It +is further explained in the <hi rend='italic'>Paschal Chronicle</hi>,<note place='foot'>P. 396.</note>—and by +Chrysostom<note place='foot'>vii. 431.</note> [370] at Antioch.—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Sabbatum secundo-primum</foreign></q> is +found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier +evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume +that a word so attested must at least be entitled to <emph>its place in +the Gospel</emph>. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century +testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, +added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in +<emph>every codex extant</emph> except א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi>, and half a dozen cursives of +suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. +That an unintelligible word should have got <emph>omitted</emph> from a +few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has +attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of +certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions +as the present. They are observed constantly to leave +out what they either failed quite to understand, or else +found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable +indeed, that an unique expression like the present +should have <emph>established itself universally</emph>, if it were actually +spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind +the precept <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua</foreign>. Apart from +external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that +such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. +Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very +consideration.<note place='foot'><q>Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu +est.</q></note> It got excised, however, here and there from +manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may +appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from +<pb n='075'/><anchor id='Pg075'/> +the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous +<q>second-first Sabbath</q> has been <emph>thrust out of his Gospel by our +Revisionists</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. +By codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> (collated with the traditional Text), no less than +2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: +by codex א,—3455 words: by codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>,—3704 words.<note place='foot'>But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> are lost: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>'s omissions in the +Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> does not admit of +comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished; but, from +examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 +would about represent the number of words omitted from its text.—The +discrepancy between the texts of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, thus <emph>for the first time brought distinctly +into notice</emph>, let it be distinctly borne in mind, is a matter wholly +irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for +convenience only, is adopted as a standard: not, of course, of <emph>Excellence</emph> +but only of <emph>Comparison</emph>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be +anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last +three chapters of S. Luke's Gospel, from which about 200 +words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, +or else served with <q>notice to quit.</q> We proceed to specify +the chief of these:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of +the Sacrament of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> Supper,—from <q>which is given +for you</q> to the end,—32 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(2) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 43, 44. (Our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> Agony in the garden,—26 +words.) +</p> + +<p> +(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 +words.) +</p> + +<p> +(4) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 34. (Our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> prayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 +words.) +</p> + +<p> +(5) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was +written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.) +</p> + +<pb n='076'/><anchor id='Pg076'/> + +<p> +(6) xxiv. 1. (<q>and certain with them,</q>—4 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(7) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 3. (<q>of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord Jesus</hi>,</q>—3 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(8) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 6. (<q>He is not here, but He is risen,</q>—5 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(9) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 9. (<q>from the sepulchre,</q>—3 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(10) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 12. (The mention of S. Peter's visit to the +sepulchre,—22 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(11) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 36. (<q>and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!</q>—5 +words.) +</p> + +<p> +(12) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 40. (<q>and when He had thus spoken, He showed +them His hands and His feet,</q>—10 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(13) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 42. (<q>and of an honeycomb,</q>—4 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(14) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 51. (<q>and was carried up into Heaven,</q>—5.) +</p> + +<p> +(15) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 52. (<q>worshipped Him,</q>—2 words.) +</p> + +<p> +(16) <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 53. (<q>praising and,</q>—2 words.) +</p> + +<p> +On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances +of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st +passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have been eliminated +from the Text because the mention of <emph>two</emph> Cups seemed to +create a difficulty.—The 2nd has been suppressed because +(see p. <ref target='Pg082'>82</ref>) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty +of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> Incarnate.—The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, +because the information which they contain has been +already conveyed by the parallel passages.—The 10th will +have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with the strict +letter of S. John xx. 1-10.—The 6th and 13th are certainly +instances of enforced Harmony.—Most of the others (the +4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to +have been excised through mere wantonness,—the veriest +licentiousness.—In the meantime, so far are Drs. Westcott +and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, +that they even style the 1st <q>a <emph>perverse interpolation</emph>:</q> in +which view of the subject, however, they enjoy the distinction +of standing entirely alone. With the same <q>moral certainty,</q> +they further proceed to shut up within double +<pb n='077'/><anchor id='Pg077'/> +brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: +while the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from +their Text as indisputably spurious matter. +</p> + +<p> +Now, we are not about to abuse our Readers' patience by +an investigation of the several points raised by the foregoing +statement. In fact, all should have been passed by in silence, +but that unhappily the <q>Revision</q> of our Authorized Version +is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So intimate +(may we not say, <emph>so fatal</emph>?) proves to be the sympathy +between the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of +our Revisionists, <emph>that whatever the former have shut up within +double brackets, the latter are discovered to have branded with a +note of suspicion</emph>, conceived invariably in the same terms: +viz., <q>Some ancient authorities omit.</q> And further, <emph>whatever +those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists +have rejected also</emph>. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to +enquire after the precise amount of manuscript authority +which underlies certain of the foregoing changes. And +happily this may be done in a few words. +</p> + +<p> +The <emph>sole</emph> authority for just half of the places above enumerated<note place='foot'>Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.</note> +is <emph>a single Greek codex</emph>,—and that, the most depraved +of all,—viz. Beza's <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>.<note place='foot'>Concerning <q>the <emph>singular codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>,</q>—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see +back, pages 14 and 15.</note> It should further be stated that the +only allies discoverable for <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> are a few copies of the old +Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely credible: but +it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself who +will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the +foot of the pages of Tischendorf's last (8th) edition. Our +Revisionists' notion, therefore, of what constitutes <q>weighty +evidence</q> is now before the Reader. If, in <emph>his</emph> judgment, the +testimony of <emph>one single manuscript</emph>, (and <emph>that</emph> manuscript the +<pb n='078'/><anchor id='Pg078'/> +Codex Bezæ (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>),)—does really invalidate that of <emph>all other +Manuscripts and all other Versions</emph> in the world,—then of +course, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment +be a thing to be rejoiced over. But what if he should +be of opinion that such testimony, in and by itself, is simply +worthless? We shrewdly suspect that the Revisionists' view +of what constitutes <q>weighty Evidence</q> will be found to end +where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber. +</p> + +<p> +For, when we reach down codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> from the shelf, we are +reminded that, within the space of the three chapters of S. +Luke's Gospel now under consideration, there are in all no +less than 354 words omitted; <emph>of which</emph>, 250 <emph>are omitted by</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> +<emph>alone</emph>. May we have it explained to us why, of those 354 +words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort +for permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the +same compass, no less than 173 words have been <emph>added by</emph> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> to the commonly Received Text,—146, <emph>substituted</emph>,—243, +<emph>transposed</emph>. May we ask how it comes to pass that of those +562 words <emph>not one</emph> has been promoted to their margin by +the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the +changes which they actually <emph>have</emph> effected. +</p> + +<p> +(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places +would seriously affect such precious words as are found in S. +Luke xxii. 19, 20,—was to have been expected. Yet has the +type been preserved all along, from the beginning, with +singular exactness; except in one little handful of singularly +licentious documents, viz. in <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> a ff<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> i l, which <emph>leave all out</emph>;—in +b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;—and in <q>the +singular and sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,</q><note place='foot'>Bp. Ellicott <hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the last-named +authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate testimony +of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p. <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>.</note> +which, retaining the 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes +<pb n='079'/><anchor id='Pg079'/> +verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for the condemnation of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> survives in Justin,<note place='foot'>i. 156.</note>—Basil,<note place='foot'>ii. 254.</note>—Epiphanius,<note place='foot'>i. 344</note>—Theodoret,<note place='foot'>iv. 220, 1218.</note>—Cyril,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>In Luc.</hi> 664 (Mai, iv. 1105).</note>—Maximus,<note place='foot'>ii. 653.</note>—Jerome.<note place='foot'><q>In Lucâ legimus <emph>duos calices</emph>, quibus discipulis propinavit,</q> vii. 216.</note> +But why delay ourselves concerning +a place vouched for <emph>by every known copy of the Gospels +except</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain <q><emph>no moral +doubt</emph> that the [32] words [given at foot<note place='foot'>Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὡσαύτως +καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, ἡ καινὴ +διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.</note>] were absent from +the original text of S. Luke;</q> in which opinion, happily, +<emph>they stand alone</emph>. But why did our Revisionists suffer themselves +to be led astray by such blind guidance? +</p> + +<p> +The next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may +on no account be lightly dismissed, seeing that these two +verses contain the sole record of that <q>Agony in the Garden</q> +which the universal Church has almost erected into an +article of the Faith. +</p> + +<p> +(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony +and bloody sweat of the world's Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, +44), was anciently absent from certain copies of the Gospels, +is expressly recorded by Hilary,<note place='foot'>P. 1062.</note> by Jerome,<note place='foot'>ii. 747.</note> and others. +Only necessary is it to read the apologetic remarks which +Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,<note place='foot'>i. 1516. See below, p. <ref target='Pg082'>82</ref>.</note> to +understand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation +of Scripture,—traces of which survive at this day exclusively +in <emph>four</emph> codices, viz. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b r t</hi>. Singular to relate, in the +Gospel which was read on Maundy-Thursday these two +verses of S. Luke's Gospel are thrust in between the 39th +<pb n='080'/><anchor id='Pg080'/> +and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive +copies, viz. 13-69-124-346—(confessedly derived from a +common ancient archetype,<note place='foot'>Abbott's <hi rend='italic'>Collation of four important Manuscripts</hi>, &c., 1877.</note> and therefore not four witnesses +but only one),—actually exhibit these two Verses +in that place. But will any unprejudiced person of sound +mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these +two verses, witnessed to as they are by <emph>the whole body of the +Manuscripts</emph>, uncial as well as cursive, and <emph>by every ancient +Version</emph>?... If such a thing were possible, it is hoped +that the following enumeration of ancient Fathers, who +distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at least +be held to be decisive:—viz. +</p> + +<p> +Justin M.,<note place='foot'>ii. 354.</note>—Irenæus<note place='foot'>Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).</note> in the IInd century:— +</p> + +<p> +Hippolytus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Contra Noet.</hi> c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.</note>—Dionysius Alex.,<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. xix.; <hi rend='italic'>Append.</hi> 116, 117.</note>—ps. Tatian,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Evan. Conc.</hi> pp. 55, 235.</note> in the +IIIrd.— +</p> + +<p> +Arius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.</note>—Eusebius,<note place='foot'>It is § 283 in his sectional system.</note>—Athanasius,<note place='foot'>P. 1121.</note>—Ephraem Syr.,<note place='foot'>ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. Also <hi rend='italic'>Evan. Conc.</hi> 235. And see below, p. <ref target='Pg082'>82</ref>.</note>—Didymus,<note place='foot'>Pp. 394, 402.</note>—Gregory +Naz.,<note place='foot'>i. 551.</note>—Epiphanius,<note place='foot'>[i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.</note>—Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.</note>—ps.-Dionysius +Areop.,<note place='foot'>ii. 39.</note> in the IVth:— +</p> + +<p> +Julian the heretic,<note place='foot'>Ap. Theod. Mops.</note>—Theodoras Mops.,<note place='foot'>In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai, <hi rend='italic'>Scriptt. Vett.</hi> vi. 306.</note>—Nestorius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 327 a.</note>—Cyril +Alex.,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, iii. 389.</note>—Paulus, bishop of Emesa,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 1101 d.</note>—Gennadius,<note place='foot'>Schol. 34.</note>—Theodoret,<note place='foot'>i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23. <hi rend='italic'>Conc.</hi> iii. 907 e.</note>—and +several Oriental Bishops (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 431),<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 740 d.</note> in +the Vth:—besides +<pb n='081'/><anchor id='Pg081'/> +Ps.-Cæsarius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.</note>—Theodosius Alex.,<note place='foot'>Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.</note>—John Damascene,<note place='foot'>i. 544.</note>—Maximus,<note place='foot'>In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.</note>—Theodorus +hæret.,<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. xii. 693.</note>—Leontius Byz.,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> 688.</note>—Anastasius +Sin.,<note place='foot'>Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.</note>—Photius:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Epist.</hi> 138</note> and of the Latins, Hilary,<note place='foot'>P. 1061.</note>—Jerome,<note place='foot'>ii. 747.</note>—Augustine,<note place='foot'>iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.</note>—Cassian,<note place='foot'>P. 373.</note>—Paulinus,<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. ix. 40.</note>—Facundus.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> xi. 693.</note> +</p> + +<p> +It will be seen that we have been enumerating <emph>upwards of +forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom</emph>, +who recognize these verses as genuine; fourteen of them +being as old,—some of them, a great deal older,—than our +oldest MSS.—<emph>Why</emph> therefore Drs. Westcott and Hort should +insist on shutting up these 26 precious words—this article +of the Faith—in double brackets, in token that it is <q>morally +certain</q> that verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are +at a loss to divine.<note place='foot'>Let their own account of the matter be heard:—<q>The documentary +evidence clearly designates [these verses] as <emph>an early Western interpolation</emph>, +adopted in eclectic texts.</q>—<q>They can only be <emph>a fragment from the +Traditions</emph>, written or oral, which were for a while at least <emph>locally current</emph>:</q>—an +<q>evangelic Tradition,</q> therefore, <q><emph>rescued from oblivion by the Scribes +of the second century</emph>.</q></note> We can but ejaculate (in the very +words they proceed to disallow),—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>, forgive them; for +they know not what they do.</q> But our especial concern is +with <emph>our Revisionists</emph>; and we do not exceed our province +when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having +succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded +these Verses with their own corporate expression of doubt. +For unless <emph>that</emph> be the purpose of the marginal Note which +they have set against these verses, we fail to understand the +Revisers' language and are wholly at a loss to divine what +purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is prefaced +<pb n='082'/><anchor id='Pg082'/> +by a formula which, (as we learn from their own +Preface,) offers to the reader the <q>alternative</q> of <emph>omitting</emph> the +Verses in question: implies that <q><emph>it would not be safe</emph></q> any +longer to accept them,—as the Church has hitherto done,—with +undoubting confidence. In a word,—<emph>it brands them with +suspicion</emph>.... We have been so full on this subject,—(not +half of our references were known to Tischendorf,)—because +of the unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because +we desire to see an end at last to expressions of doubt and +uncertainty on points which really afford not a shadow of +pretence for either. These two Verses were excised through +mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,—jealous for the +honour of their <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, and alarmed by the use which the +impugners of His <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>head freely made of them.<note place='foot'>Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.</note> Hence +Ephraem [<hi rend='italic'>Carmina Nisibena</hi>, p. 145] puts the following words +into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of Hell:—<q>One +thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I +saw Him praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance +changed and He was afraid. <emph>His sweat was drops of blood</emph>, +for He had a presentiment that His day had come. This was +the fairest sight of all,—unless, to be sure, He was practising +deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it +is all over,—both with me, and with you, my servants!</q> +</p> + +<p> +(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the +Prayer which the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> of the World breathed from the +Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These +twelve precious words,—(<q>Then said <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus, Father</hi>, forgive +them; for they know not what they do,</q>)—like those +twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been +considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within +double brackets in token of the <q>moral certainty</q> they entertain +<pb n='083'/><anchor id='Pg083'/> +that the words are spurious.<note place='foot'><p>The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of the +<q>Seven last Words:</q>—<q>We cannot doubt that <emph>it comes from an extraneous +source</emph>:</q>—<q>need not have belonged originally <emph>to the book in which it is now +included</emph>:</q>—is <q><emph>a Western interpolation</emph>.</q> +</p> +<p> +Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he is <emph>at the bar</emph>, not <emph>on the bench</emph>,—passes +sentence (in his usual imperial style)—<q>Text, Western and +Syrian</q> (p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> intercession +on behalf of His murderers is attested by upwards of forty Patristic +witnesses <emph>from every part of ancient Christendom</emph>: while, (2ndly) On the +contrary, the places in which it is <emph>not found</emph> are certain copies of the old +Latin, and codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, which is supposed to be our great <q>Western</q> witness.</p></note> And yet these words are +found in <emph>every known uncial</emph> and in <emph>every known cursive Copy</emph>, +except four; besides being found <emph>in every ancient Version</emph>. And +<emph>what</emph>,—(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)—<emph>what</emph> +amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting +confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence +of Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities +of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the +incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no +considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that +<q>few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness +to the Truth of what they record, than this.</q> (It is the +admission of the very man<note place='foot'>Dr. Hort's <hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> vol. ii. <hi rend='italic'>Note</hi>, p. 68.</note> who has nevertheless dared to +brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patronage +with indignation. <q>Internal Evidence,</q>—<q>Transcriptional +Probability,</q>—and all such <q>chaff and draff,</q> with which he +fills his pages <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ad nauseam</foreign>, and mystifies nobody but himself,—shall +be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let +this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient +external testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about +the <emph>Patristic</emph> evidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored? +</p> + +<p> +Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We +find our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> Prayer attested,— +</p> + +<pb n='084'/><anchor id='Pg084'/> + +<p> +In the IInd century by Hegesippus,<note place='foot'>Ap. Eus. <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccl.</hi> ii. 23.</note>—and by Irenæus:<note place='foot'>P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]</note>— +</p> + +<p> +In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,<note place='foot'>Ed. Lagarde, p. 65 <hi rend='italic'>line</hi> 3.</note>—by Origen,<note place='foot'>ii. 188. <hi rend='italic'>Hær.</hi> iii. 18 p. 5.</note>—by the +<hi rend='italic'>Apostolic Constitutions</hi>,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.</note>—by the <hi rend='italic'>Clementine Homilies</hi>,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> ii. 714. (<hi rend='italic'>Hom.</hi> xi. 20.)</note>—by +ps.-Tatian,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Evan. Conc.</hi> 275.</note>—and by the disputation of Archelaus with +Manes:<note place='foot'>Ap. Routh, v. 161.</note>— +</p> + +<p> +In the IVth, by Eusebius,<note place='foot'>He places the verses in <hi rend='italic'>Can.</hi> x.</note>—by Athanasius,<note place='foot'>i. 1120.</note>—by Gregory +Nyss.,<note place='foot'>iii. 289.</note>—by Theodoras Herac.,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Ps.</hi> iii. 219.</note>—by Basil,<note place='foot'>i. 290.</note>—by Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>15 times.</note>—by +Ephraem Syr.,<note place='foot'>ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (<hi rend='italic'>syr.</hi>) 233.</note>—by ps.-Ephraim,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Evan. Conc.</hi> 117, 256.</note>—by ps.-Dionysius +Areop.,<note place='foot'>i. 607.</note>—by the Apocryphal <hi rend='italic'>Acta Pilati</hi>,<note place='foot'>Pp. 232, 286.</note>—by +the <hi rend='italic'>Acta Philippi</hi>,<note place='foot'>P. 85.</note>—and by the Syriac <hi rend='italic'>Acts of the App.</hi>,<note place='foot'>Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.</note>—by +ps.-Ignatius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Eph.</hi> c. x.</note>—and ps.-Justin:<note place='foot'>ii. 166, 168, 226.</note>— +</p> + +<p> +In the Vth, by Theodoret,<note place='foot'>6 times.</note>—by Cyril,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort's strenuous +pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is plainly +against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive <q>82</q> on his +side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits throughout his ingenious +volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to find an upright and honourable +man contending so hotly, and almost on any pretext, for the support of +those very Fathers which, when they are against him, (as, 99 times out of +100, they are,) he treats with utter contumely. He is observed to put up +with any ally, however insignificant, who even <emph>seems</emph> to be on his side.</note>—by Eutherius:<note place='foot'>Ap. Theod. v. 1152.</note> +</p> + +<p> +In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,<note place='foot'>Pp. 423, 457.</note>—by Hesychius:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Ps.</hi> i. 768; ii. 663.</note>— +</p> + +<p> +In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,<note place='foot'>Pp. 1109, 1134.</note>—by Maximus,<note place='foot'>i. 374.</note>—by +Andreas Cret.:<note place='foot'>P. 93.</note>— +</p> + +<pb n='085'/><anchor id='Pg085'/> + +<p> +In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,<note place='foot'>ii. 67, 747.</note>—besides ps.-Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.</note>—ps. +Amphilochius,<note place='foot'>P. 88.</note>—and the <hi rend='italic'>Opus imperf.</hi><note place='foot'>Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to +the front),—Ambrose,<note place='foot'>11 times.</note>—Hilary,<note place='foot'>P. 782 f.</note>—Jerome,<note place='foot'>12 times.</note>—Augustine,<note place='foot'>More than 60 times.</note>—and +other earlier writers.<note place='foot'>Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.</note> +</p> + +<p> +We have thus again enumerated <emph>upwards of forty</emph> ancient +Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is +the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as +if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the +following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every +part of ancient Christendom:—viz: <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>, 38, 435, a b d and +one Egyptian version</q>—might really have been mistaken for +a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>mauvaise plaisanterie</foreign>, were it not that the gravity of the +occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could +our Revisionists <emph>dare</emph> to insinuate doubts into wavering +hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were <emph>bound</emph> +to know, there exists <emph>no manner of doubt at all</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) +that the Inscription over our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> Cross was <q>written +... in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,</q> <emph>disappears +entirely</emph> from our <q>Revised</q> version; and this, for no other +reason, but because the incident is omitted by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi>, the +corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton's depraved Syriac: +the text of which (according to Bp. Ellicott<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>,—p. 42 <hi rend='italic'>note</hi>. See above, p. <ref target='Pg078'>78</ref> <hi rend='italic'>note</hi>.</note>) <q>is of a +very composite nature,—<emph>sometimes inclining to the shortness +and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript</emph></q> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>): <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> on the +present occasion. But surely the negative testimony of this +little band of disreputable witnesses is entirely outweighed +by the positive evidence of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a d q r</hi> with 13 other uncials,—the +<pb n='086'/><anchor id='Pg086'/> +evidence of <emph>the entire body of the cursives</emph>,—the sanction +of the Latin,—the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,—the +Armenian,—Æthiopic,—and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius—whose +testimony (which is express) has been hitherto +strangely overlooked<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Eclog. Proph.</hi> p. 89.</note>—and Cyril.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>In Luc.</hi> 435 and 718.</note> Against the threefold +plea of Antiquity, Respectability of witnesses, Universality +of testimony,—what have our Revisionists to show? (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) They +cannot pretend that there has been Assimilation here; for +the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially different, and has +retained its distinctive character all down the ages. (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Nor can +they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears +traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader's +attention to this matter just for a moment. There may be +some of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber even, to +whom what we are about to offer may not be altogether +without the grace of novelty:— +</p> + +<p> +That the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each +of the four Evangelists,—all men are aware. But perhaps +all are not aware that <emph>S. Luke's record</emph> of the Title (in +ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited in <emph>four different ways</emph> by codices +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d</hi>:— +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> exhibits—ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> (with א <hi rend='smallcaps'>L</hi> and a) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ +ΟΥΤΟΣ +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is Mk. +xv. 26). +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> (with e and ff<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi>) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ +ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ (which is the words of the Evangelist +transposed). +</p> + +<p> +We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness +by-and-by.<note place='foot'>See pages <ref target='Pg093'>93</ref> to 97.</note> For the moment, let it be added that +<pb n='087'/><anchor id='Pg087'/> +codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>x</hi> and the Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, +viz., ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ +(which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose<note place='foot'>i. 1528.</note> is found to +have used a Latin copy which represented ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ +Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. John xix. 18). +We spare the reader any remarks of our own on all this. He +is competent to draw his own painful inferences, and will not +fail to make his own damaging reflections. He shall only be +further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the +cursive copies side with codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> in upholding the Traditional +Text; that the Vulgate,<note place='foot'>So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.</note>—the Peschito,—Cureton's Syriac,—the +Philoxenian;—besides the Coptic,—Armenian,—and +Æthiopic versions—are all on the same side: lastly, that +Origen,<note place='foot'>iii. 2.</note>—Eusebius,—and Gregory of Nyssa<note place='foot'>Euseb. <hi rend='italic'>Ecl. Proph.</hi> p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two places +have hitherto escaped observation.</note> are in addition +consentient witnesses;—and we can hardly be mistaken if +we venture to anticipate (1st),—That the Reader will agree +with us that the Text with which we are best acquainted +(as usual) is here deserving of all confidence; and (2ndly),—That +the Revisionists who assure us <q>that they did not +esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and +complete Greek Text;</q> (and who were never authorized to +construct <emph>a new Greek Text at all</emph>;) were not justified in the +course they have pursued with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38. +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>This is the King of the Jews</hi></q> is the only idiomatic way +of rendering into English the title according to S. Luke, +whether the reading of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> or of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> be adopted; but, in order to +make it plain that they <emph>reject the Greek of</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> <emph>in favour of</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, +the Revisionists have gone out of their way. They have +instructed the two Editors of <q><hi rend='italic'>The Greek Testament with the +<pb n='088'/><anchor id='Pg088'/> +Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version</hi></q><note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg049'>49-50</ref>, note 2.</note> +to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38 <emph>as it stands in the mutilated +recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort</emph>.<note place='foot'>Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων +οὗτος.</note> And if <emph>this</emph> procedure, +repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing a <q>new +Greek Text</q> of the N. T., we have yet to learn what <emph>is</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of +S. Luke's Gospel, is excluded the familiar clause—<q><emph>and certain +others with them</emph></q> (καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς). And pray, why? +For no other reason but because א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi>, with some Latin +authorities, omit the clause;—and our Revisionists do the +like, on the plea that they have only been getting rid of a +<q>harmonistic insertion.</q><note place='foot'>Dean Alford, <hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi></note> But it is nothing of the sort, as we +proceed to explain. +</p> + +<p> +Ammonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd +century, saw fit (with perverse ingenuity) to seek to <emph>force</emph> +S. Luke xxiii. 55 into agreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and +S. Mark xv. 47, by turning κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες,—into +κατηκολούθησαν δὲ ΔΎΟ γυναῖκες. This done, in order +to produce <q>harmonistic</q> agreement and to be thorough, the +same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through +the words <q>and certain with them</q> (καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς) as +inopportune; and his work was ended. 1750 years have +rolled by since then, and—What traces remain of the man's +foolishness? Of his <emph>first</emph> feat (we answer), Eusebius,<note place='foot'>ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα γυναῖκας +ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας συνακολουθήσασαι, +ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—<hi rend='italic'>ad +Marinum</hi>, ap. Mai, iv. 266.</note> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and +Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e ff<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> q), are +<pb n='089'/><anchor id='Pg089'/> +the sole surviving Witnesses. Of his <emph>second</emph> achievement, +א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi>, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies +of the old Latin (a b c e ff<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> g<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>-1</hi> 1), together with the Vulgate, +the Coptic, and Eusebius in one place<note place='foot'>Ps. i. 79.</note> though not in another.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dem.</hi> 492.</note> +The Reader is therefore invited to notice that the tables have +been unexpectedly turned upon our opponents. S. Luke +introduced the words <q>and certain with them,</q> in order to +prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,—viz. <q>It +was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of +James, and <emph>other women with them</emph>, which told these things +unto the Apostles.</q> Some stupid harmonizer in the IInd +century omitted the words, because they were in his way. +Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has +long since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be +as deliberately banished for the second time from the sacred +page by our Revisionists; who under the plea of <emph>amending +our English Authorized Version</emph> have (with the best intentions) +<emph>falsified the Greek Text</emph> of the Gospels in countless +places,—often, as here, without notice and without apology. +</p> + +<p> +(10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treatment +which S. Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. +They have branded with doubt S. Luke's memorable account +of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre. And why? Let the +evidence <emph>for</emph> this precious portion of the narrative be first +rehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> at their head, +supported by <emph>every known cursive</emph> copy,—all these vouch for +the genuineness of the verse in question. The Latin,—the +Syriac,—and the Egyptian versions also contain it. Eusebius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.</note>—Gregory +of Nyssa,<note place='foot'>i. 364.</note>—Cyril,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, ii. 439.</note>—Severus,<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. xi. 224.</note>—Ammonius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Joann.</hi> p. 453.</note> +<pb n='090'/><anchor id='Pg090'/> +and others<note place='foot'>Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.</note> refer to it: while <emph>no ancient writer</emph> is found to +impugn it. Then, <emph>why</emph> the double brackets of Drs. Westcott +and Hort? and <emph>why</emph> the correlative marginal note of our Revisionists?—Simply +because <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and 5 copies of the old Latin +(a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out. +</p> + +<p> +(11) On the same sorry evidence—(viz. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and 5 copies of +the old Latin)—it is proposed henceforth to omit our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> greeting to His disciples when He appeared among +them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter +Day. And yet the precious words (<q><emph>and saith unto them, +Peace be unto you</emph></q> [Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 +uncials (with א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> at their head), and <emph>every known cursive +copy</emph> of the Gospels: by all the Versions: and (as before) by +Eusebius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, iv. 293 <hi rend='italic'>bis</hi>; 294 <hi rend='italic'>diserte</hi>.</note>—and Ambrose,<note place='foot'>i. 506, 1541.</note>—by Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>iii. 91.</note>—and Cyril,<note place='foot'>iv. 1108, and <hi rend='italic'>Luc.</hi> 728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).</note>—and +Augustine.<note place='foot'>iii.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> 142; viii. 472.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of +the evidence for S. Luke xxiv. 40:—<q><emph>And when He had +thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet.</emph></q> The +words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi>), and in +every known cursive: in the Latin,<note place='foot'>So Tertullian:—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert</foreign></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Carn.</hi> c. 5). +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert</foreign></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Marc.</hi> iv. c. 43). Also +Jerome i. 712.</note>—the Syriac,—the +Egyptian,—in short, <emph>in all the ancient Versions</emph>. Besides +these, ps.-Justin,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>De Resur.</hi> 240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).</note>—Eusebius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, iv. 294.</note>—Athanasius,<note place='foot'>i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.</note>—Ambrose (in +Greek),<note place='foot'>Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.</note>—Epiphanius,<note place='foot'>i. 49.</note>—Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.</note>—Cyril,<note place='foot'>iv. 1108; vi. 23 (<hi rend='italic'>Trin.</hi>). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 <hi rend='italic'>ter.</hi></note>—Theodoret,<note place='foot'>iv. 272.</note>—Ammonius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Joan.</hi> 462, 3.</note>—and +<pb n='091'/><anchor id='Pg091'/> +John Damascene<note place='foot'>i. 303.</note>—quote them. +What but the veriest trifling is it, in the face of such a +body of evidence, to bring forward the fact that <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and 5 +copies of the old Latin, with Cureton's Syriac (of which +we have had the character already<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg078'>78</ref> and <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>.</note>), <emph>omit</emph> the words in +question? +</p> + +<p> +The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation +might be enlarged to almost any extent. Take only three +more short but striking specimens, before we pass on:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which +declares that <q><emph>this kind</emph> [of evil spirit] <emph>goeth not out but by +prayer and fasting</emph>,</q> is expunged by our Revisionists; +although it is vouched for by every known uncial <emph>but two</emph> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א), every known cursive <emph>but one</emph> (Evan. 33); is witnessed +to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,—the Syriac, Coptic, +Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, and Slavonic versions; by +Origen,<note place='foot'>iii. 579.</note>—Athanasius,<note place='foot'>ii. 114 (ed. 1698).</note>—Basil,<note place='foot'>ii. 9, 362, 622.</note>—Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.</note>—the <hi rend='italic'>Opus +imperf.</hi>,<note place='foot'>vi. 79.</note>—the Syriac Clement,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ep.</hi> i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)</note>—and John Damascene;<note place='foot'>ii. 464.</note>—by +Tertullian,—Ambrose,—Hilary,—Juvencus,—Augustine,—Maximus +Taur.,—and by the Syriac version of the <hi rend='italic'>Canons +of Eusebius</hi>: above all by the Universal East,—having been +read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the 10th +Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in +the world, then (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists +left those words out?... For no other reason, we answer, +but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place them among the +interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even +<pb n='092'/><anchor id='Pg092'/> +<q>exceptionally retained in association with the true Text.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>, pp. 565 and 571.</note> +<q>Western and Syrian</q> is their oracular sentence.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Append.</hi> p. 14.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The blessed declaration, <q><emph>The Son of Man is come to +save that which was lost</emph>,</q>—has in like manner been expunged +by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is +attested by every known uncial except <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi>, and every +known cursive <emph>except three</emph>: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: +by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: +by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic +versions:<note place='foot'>We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.</note>—by Origen,<note place='foot'>ii. 147. <hi rend='italic'>Conc.</hi> v. 675.</note>—Theodoras Heracl.,<note place='foot'>Cord. <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> i. 376.</note>—Chrysostom<note place='foot'>vii. 599, 600 <hi rend='italic'>diserte</hi>.</note>—and +Jovius<note place='foot'>Ap. Photium, p. 644.</note> the monk;—by Tertullian,<note place='foot'>Three times.</note>—Ambrose,<note place='foot'>i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.</note>—Hilary,<note place='foot'>Pp. 367, 699.</note>—Jerome,<note place='foot'>vii. 139.</note>—pope +Damasus<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. vi. 324.</note>—and Augustine:<note place='foot'>iii. P. i. 760.</note>—above +all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been +read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, +from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again +ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can +only answer as before,—because Drs. Westcott and Hort +consign it to the <emph>limbus</emph> of their <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>; class it among +their <q>Rejected Readings</q> of the most hopeless type.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>, p. 572.</note> As +before, <emph>all</emph> their sentence is <q>Western and Syrian.</q> They +add, <q>Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent +source, written or oral.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Append.</hi> p. 14.</note>... Will the English +Church suffer herself to be in this way defrauded of her +priceless inheritance,—through the irreverent bungling of +well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men? +</p> + +<pb n='093'/><anchor id='Pg093'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) In the same way, our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> important saying,—<q><hi rend='italic'>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</hi></q> (S. Luke +ix. 55, 56), has disappeared from our <q>Revised</q> Version; +although Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the <emph>second +century</emph> downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently +in its favour. +</p> + +<p> +V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, +to those five several mis-representations of S. Luke's <q>Title +on the Cross,</q> which were rehearsed above, viz. in page <ref target='Pg086'>86</ref>. +At so gross an exhibition of licentiousness, it is the mere +instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,—But then, could not +those men even set down so sacred a record as <emph>that</emph>, correctly? +They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer): +but, marvellous to relate, the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Transposition</hi> of words,—no +matter how significant, sacred, solemn;—of short clauses,—even +of whole sentences of Scripture;—was anciently +accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise of the critical +faculty. +</p> + +<p> +The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so +often done, apparently, without any reason whatever,—or +rather in defiance of all reason. Let <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>candidus lector</foreign> be the +judge whether we speak truly or not. Whereas S. Luke +(xxiv. 41) says, <q><hi rend='italic'>And while they yet believed not for joy, +and wondered</hi>,</q> the scribe of codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> (by way of improving +upon the Evangelist) transposes his sentence into this, <q>And +while they yet disbelieved Him, <emph>and wondered for joy</emph>:</q><note place='foot'>ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.</note> +which is almost nonsense, or quite. +</p> + +<p> +But take a less solemn example. Instead of,—<q>And His +<pb n='094'/><anchor id='Pg094'/> +disciples plucked <emph>the ears of corn, and ate them</emph>, (τοὺς +στάχυας, καὶ ἤσθιον,) rubbing them in their hands</q> (S. Luke +vi. 1),—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l r</hi>, by <emph>transposing</emph> four Greek words, present us +with, <q>And His disciples plucked, <emph>and ate the ears of corn</emph>, +(καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας,) rubbing them,</q> &c. Now this +might have been an agreeable occupation for horses and for +another quadruped, no doubt; but hardly for men. This +curiosity, which (happily) proved indigestible to our Revisionists, +is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs. Westcott +and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>O dura +Doctorum ilia!</foreign>)—But to proceed. +</p> + +<p> +Then further, these preposterous Transpositions are of +such perpetual recurrence,—are so utterly useless or else so +exceedingly mischievous, <emph>always</emph> so tasteless,—that familiarity +with the phenomenon rather increases than lessens our +astonishment. What <emph>does</emph> astonish us, however, is to find +learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating +these long-since-forgotten <foreign rend='italic'>bêtises</foreign> of long-since-forgotten +Critics, and seeking to palm them off upon a busy and a +careless age, as so many new revelations. That we may not +be thought to have shown undue partiality for the xxiind, +xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke's Gospel by selecting +our instances of <emph>Mutilation</emph> from those three chapters, we +will now look for specimens of <emph>Transposition</emph> in the xixth +and xxth chapters of the same Gospel. The reader is +invited to collate the Text of the oldest uncials, throughout +these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text. He +will find that within the compass of 88 consecutive verses,<note place='foot'>Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.</note> +codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d q</hi> exhibit no less than 74 instances of Transposition:—for +39 of which, <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> is responsible:—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, for 14:—א +and א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>, for 4 each:—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> and א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi>, for 3 each:—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, for +<pb n='095'/><anchor id='Pg095'/> +2:—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>q</hi>, א A, and <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, each for 1.—In other words, he will +find that in no less than 44 of these instances of Transposition, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> is implicated:—א, in 26:—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, in 25:—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, in 10:—while +<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>q</hi> are concerned in only one a-piece.... It should +be added that Drs. Westcott and Hort have adopted <emph>every one +of the 25 in which codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>is concerned</emph>—a significant indication +of the superstitious reverence in which they hold that +demonstrably corrupt and most untrustworthy document.<note place='foot'><p>We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate Drs. +Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and importance +of the Vatican Codex (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>), nothing can excuse their summary handling, +not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all evidence adverse to that of +their own favourite guide. They <emph>pass by</emph> whatever makes against the +reading they adopt, with the oracular announcement that the rival reading +is <q><emph>Syrian</emph>,</q> <q><emph>Western</emph>,</q> <q><emph>Western and Syrian</emph>,</q> as the case may be. +</p> +<p> +But we respectfully submit that <q><emph>Syrian</emph>,</q> <q><emph>Western</emph>,</q> <q><emph>Western and +Syrian</emph>,</q> as Critical expressions, are absolutely without meaning, as well as +without use to a student in this difficult department of sacred Science. +They supply no information. They are never supported by a particle of +intelligible evidence. They are often demonstrably wrong, and <emph>always</emph> +unreasonable. They are <emph>Dictation</emph>, not <emph>Criticism</emph>. When at last it is +discovered that they do but signify that certain words <emph>are not found in +codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,—they are perceived to be the veriest <emph>foolishness</emph> also. +</p> +<p> +Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If +these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what the +Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the world with +the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the contrary, they are +merely relying on their own inner consciousness for the power of divining +the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they must be prepared to find their +decrees treated with the contumely which is due to imposture, of whatever +kind.</p></note> +Every other case of Transposition they have rejected. By +their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> two-thirds +of the entire number) are instances of depravation. +We turn with curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover +that out of the 25 so retained, the Editors in question were +only able to persuade the Revisionists to adopt 8. So that, +in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66 out of 74, or <emph>eleven-twelfths</emph>, +<pb n='096'/><anchor id='Pg096'/> +are instances of licentious tampering with the +deposit.... O to participate in the verifying faculty which +guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition +out of 74, the genuine work of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>! O, far +more, to have been born with that loftier instinct which +enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan, Newth +and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to +winnow out from the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the +remaining 66 as nothing worth! +</p> + +<p> +According to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully +examined them all,) <emph>every one</emph> of the 74 is worthless. +But then <emph>we</emph> make it our fundamental rule to reason always +from grounds of external Evidence,—never from postulates of +the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our rule, +we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer's +day well spent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth +concerning one single controverted word of Scripture. Thus, +when we find that our Revisionists, at the suggestion of +Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic utterance (in +S. Luke xxiv. 7), λέγων ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθῆναι,—into +this, λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ, &c., +we at once enquire for <emph>the evidence</emph>. And when we find that +no single Father, <emph>no</emph> single Version, and no Codex—except +the notorious א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi>—advocates the proposed transposition; +but on the contrary that every Father (from <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150 downwards) +who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the +Textus receptus;<note place='foot'>Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius +(i. 348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).</note>—we have no hesitation whatever in +rejecting it. It is found in the midst of a very thicket of +fabricated readings. It has nothing whatever to recommend +it. It is condemned by the consentient voice of Antiquity. +<pb n='097'/><anchor id='Pg097'/> +It is advocated only by four copies,—which <emph>never</emph> combine +exclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture +and to seduce the simple. +</p> + +<p> +But the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless +other instances of unauthorized Transposition, may not +be dismissed without a few words of serious remonstrance. +Our contention is that, inasmuch as the effect of such transposition +<emph>is incapable of being idiomatically represented in the English +language</emph>,—(for, in all such cases, the Revised Version +retains the rendering of the Authorized,)—our Revisionists +have violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, +in putting forth <emph>a new Greek Text</emph>, and silently introducing +into it a countless number of these and similar +depravations of Scripture. These Textual curiosities (for +they are nothing more) are absolutely out of place in a +<hi rend='italic'>Revision of the English Version</hi>: achieve no lawful purpose: +are sure to mislead the unwary. This first.—Secondly, we +submit that,—strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have +been, to secure the sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their +own private Recension of the Greek, (printed long since, but +published simultaneously with the <q>Revised Version</q>)—it is +to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have +yielded thereto. Man's impatience never promotes <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> +Truth. The interests of Textual Criticism would rather have +suggested, that the Recension of that accomplished pair of +Professors should have been submitted to public inspection +in the first instance. The astonishing Text which it advocates +might have been left with comparative safety to take its +chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone +the searching ordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely +ventilated at home and abroad for a decade of years. But +on the contrary. It was kept close. It might be seen only +by the Revisers: and even <emph>they</emph> were tied down to secrecy as +<pb n='098'/><anchor id='Pg098'/> +to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All +this strikes us as painful in a high degree. +</p> + +<p> +VI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the +Gospels. In conclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists' +treatment of 1 Tim. iii. 16—the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>crux criticorum</foreign>, +as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.<note place='foot'>[The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it originally +stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 will be found +fully discussed at the end of the present volume. See <hi rend='italic'>Index of Texts</hi>.]</note> We cannot act more +fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising +body to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this +way ascertain the amount of acquaintance with the subject +enjoyed by some of those who have been so obliging as to +furnish the Church with a new Recension of the Greek of +the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>The English reader will probably be startled to find that +the familiar text,—<q><hi rend='italic'>And without controversy great is the mystery of +godliness</hi>: <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> <hi rend='italic'>was manifest in the flesh</hi>,</q> has been exchanged in +the Revised Version for the following,—<q><hi rend='italic'>And without controversy +great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the +flesh.</hi></q> A note on the margin states that <q>the word <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, in +place of <emph>He who</emph>, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence;</q> and +it may be well that, in a passage of so great importance, the +reader should be convinced that such is the case.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which +can be produced in support of the reading <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q>? This is +soon stated. Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly +quoted for it. None of the very ancient versions support it. +No uncial witnesses to it, with the doubtful exception of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>.... +But even granting that the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian +manuscript is in favour of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>,</q> far more evidence can be +produced in support of <q>who.</q> א and probably <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> witness to this +reading, and it has also powerful testimony from the versions +and Fathers. Moreover, the relative <q>who</q> is a far more difficult +reading than <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>,</q> and could hardly have been substituted +for the latter. On every ground, therefore, we conclude that +<pb n='099'/><anchor id='Pg099'/> +this interesting and important passage must stand as it has been +given in the Revised Version.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Companion to the Revised Version</hi>, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd +edit.), pp. 66-8.</note> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +And now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf +of his brother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves +listened to in reply. +</p> + +<p> +The place of Scripture before us, the Reader is assured, +presents a memorable instance of the mischief which occasionally +resulted to the inspired Text from the ancient +practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in uncial +characters. S. Paul <emph>certainly</emph> wrote μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας +μυστήριον; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, (<q><hi rend='italic'>Great is the +mystery of godliness</hi>: <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> <hi rend='italic'>was manifested in the flesh</hi></q>) But +it requires to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name +when abbreviated (which it always was), thus,—<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> (<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q>), +is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun <q>who</q> (ΟΣ), +by two horizontal strokes,—which, in manuscripts of early +date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at +present they can scarcely be discerned.<note place='foot'>Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the +2 pages of codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> which are exposed to view at the British Museum.</note> Need we go on? +An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight +strokes had vanished from the word <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> (<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q>), gave rise +to the reading ΟΣ (<q>who</q>),—of which nonsensical substitute, +traces survive in <emph>only two</emph><note place='foot'>For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181), +the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgment of +Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is non-existent.</note> manuscripts,—א and 17: not, for +certain, in <emph>one single</emph> ancient Father,—no, nor for certain in +<emph>one single</emph> ancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the +absurdity of writing τὸ μυστέριον ὅς (<q>the mystery <emph>who</emph></q>), +that copyists promptly substituted ὅ (<q><emph>which</emph></q>): thus furnishing +another illustration of the well-known property of +<pb n='100'/><anchor id='Pg100'/> +a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later inevitably to become +the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake +the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of +the VIth century (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>): the only Patristic evidence in its +favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, ii. 217 c.</note> (whose date is <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 476): +and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to +Chrysostom.<note place='foot'>viii. 214 b.</note> The Versions—all but the Georgian and the +Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text—favour it +unquestionably; for they are observed invariably to make +the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which +represents μυστήριον (<q>mystery</q>) which immediately precedes +it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, ὅς (<q><emph>who</emph></q>) is found,—but +only because the Syriac equivalent for μυστήριον is +of the masculine gender: in the Latin, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quod</foreign> (<q><emph>which</emph></q>)—but +only because <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>mysterium</foreign> in Latin (like μυστήριον in Greek) +is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not +linger; seeing that ὅ does not find a single patron at the +present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly +upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac +Newton being its most strenuous advocates. +</p> + +<p> +It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence +for the true reading. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> exhibited <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> until +ink, thumbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated +what once was patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to +contend on the negative side of <emph>this</emph> question.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>, +which exhibit <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> and <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> respectively, were confessedly +derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is +evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ +from Ο must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely +discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke +in question represents <emph>the aspirate</emph>, is scarcely admissible. +<emph>There is no single example of</emph> ὅς <emph>written</emph> <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> <emph>in any part of +<pb n='101'/><anchor id='Pg101'/> +either Cod.</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> <emph>or Cod.</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>. On the other hand, in the only place +where ΟΣ represents <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>, it is written <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> <emph>in both</emph>. Prejudice +herself may be safely called upon to accept the obvious +and only lawful inference. +</p> + +<p> +To come to the point,—Θεός is the reading of <emph>all the +uncial copies extant but two</emph> (viz. א which exhibits ὅς, and +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> which exhibits ὅ), and of all the cursives <emph>but one</emph> (viz. 17). +The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that Θεός +has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful from the +IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period of +her existence is it supposed then that the Church (<q>the +witness and keeper of Holy Writ,</q>) availed herself of her +privilege to substitute Θεός for ὅς or ὅ,—whether in error +or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy, to which every +region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would +account for the phenomenon. +</p> + +<p> +We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and +we discover that—(1) Gregory of Nyssa quotes Θεός <emph>twenty-two +times</emph>:<note place='foot'>A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude +of proofs that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> is <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν +βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.</note>—that Θεός is also recognized by (2) his namesake +of Nazianzus in two places;<note place='foot'>Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ +πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα μυστήριον?... +Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)</note>—as well as by (3) Didymus +of Alexandria;<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>De Trin.</hi> p. 83—where the testimony is express.</note>—(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;<note place='foot'>Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—<hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, i. 853 d.</note>—and (5) +by Diodorus of Tarsus.<note place='foot'>Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Rom.</hi> p. 124.</note>—(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. +16 in conformity with the received text at least three times;<note place='foot'>One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι +γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως +γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ +τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ +πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός, κ.τ.λ. i. 497. += Galland. xiv. 141.</note>—and +<pb n='102'/><anchor id='Pg102'/> +(7) Cyril Al. as often:<note place='foot'>The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; +πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι. +v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. +iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ +φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive. The place has been hitherto +overlooked.</note>—(8) Theodoret, four times:<note place='foot'>i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.</note>—(9) +an unknown author of the age of Nestorius (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 430), +once:<note place='foot'>Apud Athanasium, <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> ii. 33, where see Garnier's prefatory note.</note>—(10) Severus, Bp. of Antioch (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 512), once.<note place='foot'>Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην +δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν νομοθέτην, +τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> iii. 69. The quotation +is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of Halicarnassus.</note>—(11) +Macedonius (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 506) patriarch of CP.,<note place='foot'>Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and +Gallandius.</note> of whom it +has been absurdly related that he <emph>invented</emph> the reading, is a +witness for Θεός perforce; so is—(12) Euthalius, and—(13) +John Damascene on two occasions.<note place='foot'>i. 313; ii. 263.</note>—(14) An unknown +writer who has been mistaken for Athanasius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Athanas. i. 706.</note>—(15) besides +not a few ancient scholiasts, close the list: for we pass by +the testimony of—(16) Epiphanius at the 7th Nicene Council +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 787),—of (17) Œcumenius,—of (18) Theophylact. +</p> + +<p> +It will be observed that neither has anything been said +about the many indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this +place of Scripture; and yet some of these are too striking +to be overlooked: as when—(19) Basil, writing of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi>, says αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:<note place='foot'>iii. 401-2.</note>—and (20) Gregory +Thaum., καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ +φανερωθείς:<note place='foot'>Ap. Phot. 230.</note>—and before him, (21) Hippolytus, οὗτος +προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Contra Hær. Noet.</hi> c. 17.</note>—and +(22) Theodotus the Gnostic, ὁ Σωτὴρ ὤφθη κατιὼν τοῖς +<pb n='103'/><anchor id='Pg103'/> +ἀγγέλοις:<note place='foot'>Ap. Clem. Al. 973.</note>—and (23) Barnabas, Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ +Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:<note place='foot'>Cap. xii.</note>—and earlier still (24) +Ignatius: Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένον:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος +Θεός:—εἶς Θεὸς ἔστιν ὁ φανερώσοας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ +Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ad Eph.</hi> c. 19, 7; <hi rend='italic'>ad Magn.</hi> c. 8.</note>—Are we to suppose that <emph>none</emph> of +these primitive writers read the place as we do? +</p> + +<p> +Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the +unwearied industry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, +is as follows:—(1) The exploded <emph>Latin</emph> fable that Macedonius +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 506) <emph>invented</emph> the reading:<note place='foot'>See Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Plain Introd.</hi> pp. 555-6, and Berriman's <hi rend='italic'>Dissertation</hi>, +pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.</note>—(2) the fact that +Epiphanius,—<emph>professing to transcribe</emph><note place='foot'>i. 887 c.</note> from an earlier treatise +of his own<note place='foot'>ii. 74 b.</note> (in which ἐφανερώθη stands <emph>without a nominative</emph>), +prefixes ὅς:—(3) the statement of an unknown +scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril's writings +where the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote ὅς,—(which seems to +be an entire mistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would +be sufficiently explained by the discovery that in two other +places of Cyril's writings the evidence <emph>fluctuates</emph> between ὅς +and Θεός):—(4) a quotation in an epistle of Eutherius of +Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where <q>qui</q> is found:—(5) +a casual reference (in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah) to +our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, as One <q>qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in +spiritu,</q>—which Bp. Pearson might have written.—Lastly, (6) +a passage of Theodorus Mopsuest. (quoted at the Council +of Constantinople, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 553), where the reading is <q>qui,</q>—which +is balanced by the discovery that in another place +of his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is +translated <q>quod.</q> And this closes the evidence. Will any +unprejudiced person, on reviewing the premisses, seriously +declare that ὅς is the better sustained reading of the two? +</p> + +<pb n='104'/><anchor id='Pg104'/> + +<p> +For ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a +Reading which—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Is not to be found in more than two +copies (א and 17) of S. Paul's Epistles: which—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Is not +certainly supported by a single Version:—(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Nor is clearly +advocated by a single Father,—<emph>can</emph> be genuine. It does not at +all events admit of question, that until <emph>far</emph> stronger evidence +can be produced in its favour, ὅς (<q>who</q>) may on no account +be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received +Θεός (<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q>) of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a +striking and instructive way all the characteristic tokens of +a depravation of the text. (1st) At an exceedingly early +period it resulted in <emph>another</emph> deflection. (2nd) It is without +the note of <emph>Continuity</emph>; having died out of the Church's +memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient in +<emph>Universality</emph>; having been all along denied the Church's corporate +sanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests +at this day on wholly <emph>insufficient Evidence</emph>: Manuscripts, +Versions, Fathers being <emph>all</emph> against it. (5th) It carries on +its front its own refutation. For, as all must see, <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> might +easily be mistaken for ΟΣ: but in order to make ΟΣ into +<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>, <emph>two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the +copy</emph>. It is therefore a vast deal <emph>more likely</emph> that <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> became +ΟΣ, than that ΟΣ became <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned +by internal considerations. Ὅς is in truth so grossly improbable—rather, +so <emph>impossible</emph>—a reading, that under any +circumstances we must have anxiously enquired whether no +escape from it was discoverable: whether there exists no +way of explaining <emph>how</emph> so patent an absurdity as μυστέριον +ὅς <emph>may</emph> have arisen? And on being reminded that the +disappearance of two faint horizontal strokes, <emph>or even of one</emph>, +would fully account for the impossible reading,—(and thus +much, at least, all admit,)—should we not have felt that it +required an overwhelming consensus of authorities in favour +of ὅς, to render such an alternative deserving of serious +<pb n='105'/><anchor id='Pg105'/> +attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel's famous axiom +to recal it on occasions like the present. We shall be landed +in a bathos indeed if we allow <emph>gross improbability</emph> to become a +constraining motive with us in revising the sacred Text. +</p> + +<p> +And thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We +invite the reader to refer back<note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg098'>98</ref>.</note> to a Reviser's estimate of +the evidence in favour of Θεός and ὅς respectively, and to +contrast it with our own. If he is impressed with the +strength of the cause of our opponents,—their mastery of the +subject,—and the reasonableness of their contention,—we +shall be surprised. And yet <emph>that</emph> is not the question just +now before us. The <emph>only</emph> question (be it clearly remembered) +which has to be considered, is <emph>this</emph>:—Can it be said +with truth that the <q>evidence</q> for ὅς (as against Θεός) +in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is <q><emph>clearly preponderating</emph></q>? Can it be +maintained that Θεός is a <q><emph>plain and clear error</emph></q>? Unless +this can be affirmed—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>cadit quæstio</foreign>. The traditional reading +of the place ought to have been let alone. May we be +permitted to say without offence that, in our humble judgment, +if the Church of England, at the Revisers' bidding, +were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of +the sacred page,<note place='foot'>As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S. Matth. +xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for adoption, as in S. +Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S. John xiii. 21-6 (at the +last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the way to Emmaus):—the many +proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13 (the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 +(the signs of the weather): in S. Mark ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in +S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.</note>—with which the Church Universal was once +well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has +long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned,—she +would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of +Christendom? Yes, and to have <emph>that</emph> openly said of her +<pb n='106'/><anchor id='Pg106'/> +which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day +who fell back into the very errors which they had already +abjured. The place will be found in 2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly +applicable is it to the matter in hand, that we can but +invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p. 1. +</p> + +<p> +And here we make an end. +</p> + +<p> +1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in +expectation of being entertained with another of those discussions +(of which we suspect the public must be already +getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of ability +which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in +their rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience +disappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who +have been at the pains to follow us through the foregoing +pages, will be constrained to admit that we have done more +faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth by the course +we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied +instances of incorrect and unsatisfactory <emph>Translation</emph>. There +is (and this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question +of prior interest and far graver importance which has to +be settled <emph>first</emph>, viz. the degree of confidence which is due to +the underlying <hi rend='smallcaps'>new Greek text</hi> which our Revisionists have +constructed. In other words, before discussing their <emph>new +Renderings</emph>, we have to examine their <emph>new Readings</emph>.<note place='foot'>It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary +Scrivener is <emph>wholly guiltless</emph> of the many spurious <q>Readings</q> with which +a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>. He +pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also to state +that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles Wordsworth) has +fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity, by his printed (not +published) remonstrances with his colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of +Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended only 121 of their 407 meetings; and +that judicious scholar, the Abp. of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The +reader will find more on this subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp. <ref target='Pg228'>228-30</ref>.</note> The +silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part +<pb n='107'/><anchor id='Pg107'/> +of the subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes +us the more anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect +of the problem; the rather, because we have thoroughly convinced +ourselves that the <q>new Greek Text</q> put forth by the +Revisionists of our Authorized Version is <emph>utterly inadmissible</emph>. +The traditional Text has been departed from by them +nearly 6000 times,—almost invariably <emph>for the worse</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +2. Fully to dispose of <emph>all</emph> these multitudinous corruptions +would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested +to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we +have culled out from the mass,—<emph>then we are right in all</emph>. If +we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of +authorities on which the <q>new Greek Text</q> depends, are the +reverse of trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,—then, +we have cut away from under the Revisionists the very +ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in +that case, the structure which they have built up throughout +a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, collapses +<q>like the baseless fabric of a vision.</q> +</p> + +<p> +3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing +a <emph>further</emph> process of <q>Revision,</q> the <q>Revised Version</q> may +after all be rendered trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent +Bishop of Derry is <q>convinced that, with all its undeniable +merits, it will have to be somewhat extensively revised.</q> +And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more important +circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of +penance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the +restoration of the underlying Greek Text to very nearly—<emph>not +quite</emph>—the state in which they found it when they entered +upon their ill-advised undertaking. <q>Very nearly—not +quite:</q> for, in not a few particulars, the <q>Textus receptus</q> +<emph>does</emph> call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on +entirely different principles from those which are found to +have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a +<pb n='108'/><anchor id='Pg108'/> +single instance:—When our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> first sent forth His Twelve +Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission +to them to <q><emph>raise the dead</emph></q> (νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, S. +Matthew x. 8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the +spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is +found in those corrupt witnesses—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d</hi>, and the Latin +copies.<note place='foot'>Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (<hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi>),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit +the words. P. E. Pusey found them in <emph>no</emph> Syriac copy. But the conclusive +evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1 out of 20 of +which contain this clause.</note> When will men learn unconditionally to put away +from themselves the weak superstition which is for investing +with oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably +depraved Codices? +</p> + +<p> +4. <q>It may be said</q>—(to quote again from Bp. Alexander's +recent Charge),—<q>that there is a want of modesty in dissenting +from the conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body +so learned. But the rough process of counting heads imposes +unduly on the imagination. One could easily name <emph>eight</emph> +in that assembly, whose <emph>unanimity</emph> would be practically +almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that +these did not <emph>form the minority</emph> in resisting the changes +which we most regret.</q> The Bishop is speaking of the +<emph>English</emph> Revision. Having regard to the Greek Text exclusively, +<emph>we</emph> also (strange to relate) had singled out <emph>exactly eight</emph> +from the members of the New Testament company—Divines +of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship +and proficiency in the best learning, or else for their refined +taste and admirable judgment, might (as we humbly think), +under certain safeguards, have been safely entrusted even with +the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text. Under the +guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen +is <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>facile princeps</foreign> in these pursuits) it is scarcely to be +anticipated that, <hi rend='smallcaps'>when unanimous</hi>, such Divines would ever +<pb n='109'/><anchor id='Pg109'/> +have materially erred. But then, of course, a previous life-long +familiarity with the Science of <emph>Textual Criticism</emph>, or at +least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten or twenty years, +with absolutely undivided attention,—would be the indispensable +requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and +this, undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated +than looked for at the hands of English Divines of note at +the present day. On the other hand, (loyalty to our Master +constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley assortment of +names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p. 125 +of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the +average attendance <emph>was not so many as sixteen</emph>,—concerning +whom, moreover, the fact has transpired that some of the +most judicious of their number often <emph>declined to give any +vote at all</emph>,—is by no means calculated to inspire any sort of +confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these +pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for +their successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. +In support of this remark, one has but to refer to the +instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The Sacred Text has none +to fear so much as those who <emph>feel</emph> rather than think: who +<emph>imagine</emph> rather than reason: who rely on a supposed <emph>verifying +faculty</emph> of their own, of which they are able to render +no intelligible account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott's +phrase,) have the misfortune to conceive themselves possessed +of a <q><emph>power of divining the Original Text</emph>,</q>—which would +be even diverting, if the practical result of their self-deception +were not so exceedingly serious. +</p> + +<p> +5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the +measure of success which has attended the Revisers' <emph>Revision +of the English</emph> of our Authorized Version of 1611. We have +occupied ourselves at this time exclusively with a survey +of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly depraved +<hi rend='smallcaps'>new Greek text</hi>, on which their edifice has been reared. +<pb n='110'/><anchor id='Pg110'/> +And the circumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to +impress upon our Readers, is this,—that the insecurity +of that foundation is so alarming, that, except as a concession +due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now +under review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed +with, as a thing superfluous. Even could it be proved +concerning the superstructure, that <q><emph>it had been [ever so] well +builded</emph>,</q><note place='foot'><q>Revised Text</q> of S. Luke vi. 48.</note> (to adopt another of our Revisionists' unhappy perversions +of Scripture,) the fatal objection would remain, viz. +that it is not <q><emph>founded upon the rock</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><q>Authorized Version,</q> supported by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c d</hi> and 12 other uncials, the +whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.</note> It has been the ruin +of the present undertaking—as far as the Sacred Text is concerned—that +the majority of the Revisionist body have been +misled throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous +advocacy of Drs. Westcott and Hort; who, with the purest +intentions and most laudable industry, have constructed a +Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity, +than any which has ever yet seen the light. <q>The old is +good,</q><note place='foot'><q>Revised Text</q> of S. Luke v. 39.</note> say the Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to +assure them that <q><emph>the old is better</emph>;</q><note place='foot'><q>Authorized Version,</q> supported by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c</hi> and 14 other uncials, the whole +body of the cursives, and <emph>all</emph> the versions except the Peschito and the +Coptic.</note> and that this remark +holds every bit as true of their Revision of the Greek +throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of S. Luke v. 39. +To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New +Testament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccentricities +of a single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful +a proceeding as would be the attempt to erect an Eddystone +lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='112'/><anchor id='Pg112'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Article II. The New English Version.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>Such is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon +to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and +minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the +more we have learned to admire <emph>its simplicity</emph>, <emph>its dignity</emph>, <emph>its power</emph>, <emph>its +happy turns of expression</emph>, <emph>its general accuracy</emph>, and we must not fail to +add, <emph>the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm</emph>. To render +a work that had reached this high standard of excellence, still more +excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm; was the +task committed to us.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Preface To the Revised Version.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +<q>To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a +well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a macadamized +road,—and to get into one <emph>which has bad springs or none at all</emph>, and in +which you are <emph>jolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly-mended +and rarely traversed road</emph>, like some of the roads in our North +Lincolnshire villages.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop Wordsworth.</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference</hi>,—p. 16.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour's +acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the +present Authorized Version.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop Ellicott.</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>,—p. 99.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of +this Book,—If any man shall add unto these things, <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> shall add unto +him the plagues that are written in this Book.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of +this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and +out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Revelation</hi> +xxii. 18, 19. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it +is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous +risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious +link which at present binds together ninety millions of +English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. Is +it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond +should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain +words more accurately,—here and there translating a tense +with greater precision,—getting rid of a few archaisms? It +may be confidently assumed that no <q>Revision</q> of our +Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever +occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed +by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary +work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never +have <emph>another</emph> <q>Authorized Version.</q> And this single consideration +may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, +except in a greatly modified form. To be brief,—As a +companion in the study and for private edification: as a +book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect +<pb n='114'/><anchor id='Pg114'/> +of difficult and controverted passages:—we hold that a +revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English +Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) +would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The +method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes +or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But +certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something +<emph>intended to supersede</emph> our present English Bible, we are +thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation +is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we +deprecate it entirely. +</p> + +<p> +On the other hand, <emph>who</emph> could have possibly foreseen what +has actually come to pass since the Convocation of the +Southern Province (in Feb. 1870) declared itself favourable +to <q>a Revision of the Authorized Version,</q> and appointed a +Committee of Divines to undertake the work? <emph>Who</emph> was +to suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists +would be by them systematically disregarded? <emph>Who</emph> was +to imagine that an utterly untrustworthy <q>new Greek Text,</q> +constructed on mistaken principles,—(say rather, on <emph>no +principles at all</emph>,)—would be the fatal result? To speak +more truly,—<emph>Who</emph> could have anticipated that the opportunity +would have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the +Church the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort, in all its +essential features,—a text which, as will be found elsewhere +largely explained, we hold to be <emph>the most vicious Recension of +the original Greek in existence</emph>? Above all,—<emph>Who</emph> was to +foresee that instead of removing <q><emph>plain</emph> and <emph>clear errors</emph></q> +from our Version, the Revisionists,—(besides systematically +removing out of sight so many of the genuine utterances of +the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit</hi>,)—would themselves introduce a countless number +of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to +have been believed that the Revisionists would show themselves +<pb n='115'/><anchor id='Pg115'/> +industrious in sowing broadcast over four continents +doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which it will never +be in their power either to remove or to recal? <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Nescit vox +missa reverti.</foreign> +</p> + +<p> +For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of +an English Bible, certain of the blunders—(such things +cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled <q>Various Readings</q>)—which +disfigure <q>some</q> or <q>many</q> <q>ancient authorities,</q> +can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of +millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,—the +candour which is determined that men shall <q>know the +worst.</q> <emph><q>The worst</q> has</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>not</hi> <emph>been told</emph>: and it were dishonesty +to insinuate that <emph>it has</emph>. If all the cases were faithfully +exhibited where <q>a few,</q> <q>some,</q> or <q>many ancient authorities</q> +read differently from what is exhibited in the actual +Text, not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain +the record, but <emph>the very page itself</emph> would not nearly suffice. +Take a single instance (the first which comes to mind), of +the thing referred to. Such illustrations might be multiplied +to any extent:— +</p> + +<p> +In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of <q>Thou art my beloved Son; +<emph>in Thee I am well pleased</emph>,</q>) the following authorities of +the IInd, IIIrd and IVth centuries, read,—<q><emph>this day have I +begotten Thee</emph>:</q> viz.—codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and the most ancient copies of +the old Latin (a, b, c, ff<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>-2</hi>, 1),—Justin Martyr in three places<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dial.</hi> capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).</note> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 140),—Clemens Alex.<note place='foot'>P. 113.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 190),—and Methodius<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.</note> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 290) among the Greeks. Lactantius<note place='foot'>iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 300),—Hilary<note place='foot'>42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.</note> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350),—Juvencus<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 330),—Faustus<note place='foot'>Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 400), +<pb n='116'/><anchor id='Pg116'/> + and—Augustine<note place='foot'><p><q>Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta est <emph>Ego hodie genui te</emph>,</q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Enchirid.</hi> c. 49 [<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vi. 215 a]):— +</p> +<p> +<q>Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa +voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, <emph>Filius meus es tu: ego hodie +genui te</emph>, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhibeatur, +tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, +quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine +de cælo sonuisse?</q> (<hi rend='italic'>De Cons. Ev.</hi> ii. c. 14 [<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine +seems to allude to what is found to have existed in the <emph>Ebionite +Gospel</emph>.</p></note> amongst the Latins. The reading in question +was doubtless derived from the <emph>Ebionite Gospel</emph><note place='foot'>Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the statement.</note> (IInd cent.). +Now, we desire to have it explained to us <emph>why</emph> an exhibition +of the Text supported by such an amount of first-rate +primitive testimony as the preceding, obtains <emph>no notice whatever</emph> +in our Revisionists' margin,—if indeed it was the object +of their perpetually recurring marginal annotations, to put +the unlearned reader on a level with the critical Scholar; +to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It +is the gross one-sidedness, the patent <emph>unfairness</emph>, in a critical +point of view, of this work, (which professes to be nothing +else but <emph>a Revision of the English Version of</emph> 1611,)—which +chiefly shocks and offends us. +</p> + +<p> +For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be +to encumber the margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), +with the announcement that <q>A few ancient authorities read +<emph>Martha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath chosen</emph> &c.</q> (the +fact being, that <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> <emph>alone</emph> of MSS. omits <q><emph>careful and ... +about many things. But one thing is needful, and</emph></q> ...)? +With the record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we +ask) to choke up our English margin,—to create perplexity +and to insinuate doubt? The author of the foregoing +<pb n='117'/><anchor id='Pg117'/> +marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same +<q>singular codex</q> (as Bp. Ellicott styles cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>) omits, in +S. Luke's Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will +of course have ascertained (by counting) that the words in +S. Luke's Gospel amount to 19,941. Why then did he not +tell <emph>the whole</emph> truth; and instead of <q><emph>&c.</emph>,</q> proceed as follows?—<q>But +inasmuch as cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> is so scandalously corrupt that +about <emph>one word in thirteen</emph> is missing throughout, the absence +of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or +significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, +and the first half of the present Annotation might have +been spared.</q>... We submit that a Note like that, although +rather <q>singular</q> in style, really <emph>would</emph> have been to some +extent helpful,—if not to the learned, at least to the unlearned +reader. +</p> + +<p> +In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike +are competent to see that the foregoing perturbation of +S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests on <emph>the same</emph> manuscript authority +as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately preceded +it. The <emph>Patristic</emph> attestation, on the other hand, of the reading +which has been promoted to the margin, is almost <emph>nil</emph>: +whereas <emph>that</emph> of the neglected place has been shown to be +considerable, very ancient, and of high respectability. +</p> + +<p> +But in fact,—(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, when +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> Word is at stake, circumlocution is contemptible, +while concealment would be a crime;)—<q><emph>Faithfulness</emph></q> +towards the public, a stern resolve that the English reader +<q>shall know the worst,</q> and all that kind of thing,—such +considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the +matter. A vastly different principle has prevailed with the +Revisionists. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken +Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has +<pb n='118'/><anchor id='Pg118'/> +been <emph>to impose that same Theory</emph>,—(<emph>which is Westcott and +Hort's</emph>,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned +and unsuspicious public. +</p> + +<p> +We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain +what we mean by so injurious—so damning—an imputation? +For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our +meaning which will be found below, in pp. <ref target='Pg137'>137-8</ref>. The exposure +of what has there been shown to be the method of the +Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated +hundreds of times. It would in fact <emph>fill a volume</emph>. We shall +therefore pass on, when we have asked the Revisionists in +turn—<emph>How they have dared</emph> so effectually to blot out those +many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere +English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his +knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their +existence?... Supposing even that it <emph>was</emph> the calamitous +result of their mistaken principles that they found themselves +constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their +Text precious sayings of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> and His Apostles,—what +possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a +record of words so amply attested, <emph>at least in their margin</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which +has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. +For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be +so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be +thrust upon the Church's acceptance, we should be a thousand +times worse off than we were with the Text which +Erasmus and the Complutensian,—Stephens, and Beza, and +the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries +ago. On this part of the subject we have remarked at length +already [pp. <ref target='Pg001'>1-110</ref>]: yet shall we be constrained to recur once +and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists, +<pb n='119'/><anchor id='Pg119'/> +inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the +task before us, without being painfully reminded of its existence. +Not only do the familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses +of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, trip us up at every step, but we cannot open +the first page of the Gospel—no, nor indeed read <emph>the first line</emph>—without +being brought to a standstill. Thus, +</p> + +<p> +1. S. Matthew begins,—<q>The book of the generation of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus Christ</hi></q> (ver. 1).—Good. But here the margin volunteers +two pieces of information: first,—<q>Or, <emph>birth</emph>: as in +ver. 18.</q> We refer to ver. 18, and read—<q>Now the birth of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus Christ</hi> was on this wise.</q> Good again; but the +margin says,—<q>Or, <emph>generation</emph>: as in ver. 1.</q> Are we then +to understand that <emph>the same Greek word</emph>, diversely rendered +in English, occurs in both places? We refer to the <q><emph>new</emph> +Greek Text:</q> and there it stands,—γένεσις in either verse. +But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers' theory) +is it diversely rendered? +</p> + +<p> +In the meantime, <emph>who</emph> knows not that there is all the +difference in the world between S. Matthew's γέΝΕσις, in +ver. 1,—and the same S. Matthew's γέΝΝΗσις, in ver. 18? +The latter, the Evangelist's announcement of the circumstances +of the human Nativity of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>: the former, the +Evangelist's unobtrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal +rendering of Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:<note place='foot'>Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.</note> the same Evangelist's +calm method of guiding the devout and thoughtful student +to discern in the Gospel the History of the <q>new Creation,</q>—by +thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its lips, it +shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant? +We are pointing out that it more than startles—it +supremely offends—one who is even slenderly acquainted +<pb n='120'/><anchor id='Pg120'/> +with the treasures of wisdom hid in the very diction of the +N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort has been +made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine +intelligence, by confounding two words which all down the +ages have been carefully kept distinct; and that this effort +is the result of an exaggerated estimate of a few codices +which happen to be written in the uncial character, viz. +two of the IVth century (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א); one of the Vth (<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>); two of +the VIth (<hi rend='smallcaps'>p z</hi>); one of the IXth (Δ); one of the Xth (<hi rend='smallcaps'>s</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +The Versions<note place='foot'>For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one +who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is perhaps the +sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C. Malan. See his +<hi rend='italic'>Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised</hi>,—p. 3. But especially +should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan's learned dissertation on this very +subject in his <hi rend='italic'>Select Readings in Westcott and Hort's Gr. Text of S. +Matth.</hi>,—pp. 1 to 22.</note>—(which are our <emph>oldest</emph> witnesses)—are +perforce only partially helpful here. Note however, that <emph>the +only one which favours</emph> γένεσις is the heretical Harkleian +Syriac, executed in the VIIth century. The Peschito and +Cureton's Syriac distinguish between γένεσις in ver. 1 and +γέννησις in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian +Versions. The Egyptian, Armenian, Æthiopic and Georgian, +have only one word for both. Let no one suppose however +that <emph>therefore</emph> their testimony is ambiguous. It is γέννησις +(<emph>not</emph> γένεσις) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in ver. 18.<note place='foot'>So Dr. Malan in his <hi rend='italic'>Select Readings</hi> (see above note 1),—pp. 15, 17, 19.</note> +The Latin (<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>generatio</foreign></q>) is an equivocal rendering certainly: +but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, +(viz. Tertullian) employs the word <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>genitura</foreign></q> in S. Matth. +i. 1,—but <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>nativitas</foreign></q> in ver. 18,—which no one seems to +have noticed.<note place='foot'><q>Liber <emph>genituræ</emph> Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham</q> ... <q>Gradatim +ordo deducitur ad Christi <emph>nativitatem</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>De Carne Christi</hi>, c. 22.</note> Now, Tertullian, (as one who sometimes +<pb n='121'/><anchor id='Pg121'/> +wrote in Greek,) is known to have been conversant with +the Greek copies of his day; and <q>his day,</q> be it remembered, +is <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism +between S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,—where the old Latin +exhibits <q>liber <emph>creaturæ</emph></q> or <q><emph>facturæ</emph>,</q> as the rendering of +βίβλος γενέσεως. And so much for the testimony of the +Versions. +</p> + +<p> +But on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority<note place='foot'>A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of the +Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a Treatise. We +are <emph>constrained</emph> to omit such details. Briefly, we always quote <emph>the best +Edition</emph>. Critical readers can experience <emph>no</emph> difficulty in verifying our +references. A few details shall however be added: Justin (<hi rend='italic'>Otto</hi>): Irenæus +(<hi rend='italic'>Stieren</hi>): Clemens Al. (<hi rend='italic'>Potter</hi>): Tertullian (<hi rend='italic'>Oehler</hi>): Cyprian (<hi rend='italic'>Baluze</hi>): +Eusebius (<hi rend='italic'>Gaisford</hi>): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. +(1622): Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (<hi rend='italic'>Vallarsi</hi>): +Nilus (1668-73): Chrysostom (<hi rend='italic'>Montfaucon</hi>): Cyril (<hi rend='italic'>Aubert</hi>): Isidorus +(1638): Theodoret (<hi rend='italic'>Schulze</hi>): Maximus (1675): John Damascene (<hi rend='italic'>Lequien</hi>): +Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg. Nazianz., +Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are quoted from the +Benedictine editions. When we say <q>Mai,</q> we always mean his <hi rend='italic'>Nova +Biblioth. PP.</hi> 1852-71. By <q>Montfaucon,</q> we mean the <hi rend='italic'>Nov. Coll. PP.</hi> +1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.</note> +we are encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony +for γέννησις in ver. 18: and this, considering the +nature of the case, is an extraordinary circumstance. Quite +plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the difference +between spelling the word with one N or with two,—as +the little dissertation of the heretic Nestorius<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 521 a to d.</note> in itself +would be enough to prove. Γέννησις, in the meantime, is +the word employed by Justin M.,<note place='foot'>i.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> 340.</note>—by Clemens Alex.,<note place='foot'>P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).</note>—by +Athanasius,<note place='foot'>i. 943 c.</note>—by Gregory of Nazianzus,<note place='foot'>i. 735.</note>—by Cyril Alex.,<note place='foot'>v.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>1</hi> 363, 676.</note>—by +Nestorius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> 28 a).</note>—by Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>vii. 48; viii. 314.</note>—by Theodorus +<pb n='122'/><anchor id='Pg122'/> +Mopsuest.,<note place='foot'>In Matth. ii. 16.</note>—and by three other ancients.<note place='foot'>Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.</note> Even more deserving +of attention is it that Irenæus<note place='foot'>P. 470.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 170)—(whom Germanus<note place='foot'>Gall. ix. 215.</note> +copies at the end of 550 years)—calls attention to +the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. +So does Didymus:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Trin.</hi> 188.</note>—so does Basil:<note place='foot'>i. 250 b.</note>—so does Epiphanius.<note place='foot'>i. 426 a (γένησις).</note>—Origen<note place='foot'>Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ +πρώτη πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ +ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv. <hi rend='italic'>Append.</hi> pp. 73, 74.</note> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 210) is even eloquent on the subject.—Tertullian +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 190) we have heard already.—It is a significant +circumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable +on the other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors +of an heretical Creed<note place='foot'>[dated 22 May <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.</note>—whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.<note place='foot'>i. 722 c.</note> +... Will the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that γέννησις +in verse 18 is a <q><emph>plain and clear error</emph></q>? +</p> + +<p> +2. This, however, is not all. Against the words <q>of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus +Christ</hi>,</q> a further critical annotation is volunteered; to the +effect that <q>Some ancient authorities read <emph>of the Christ</emph>.</q> In +reply to which, we assert that <emph>not one single known MS.</emph> +omits the word <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi>:</q> whilst its presence is vouched for +by ps.-Tatian,<note place='foot'>P. 20 of the newly-recovered <hi rend='italic'>Diatessaron</hi>, translated from the Armenian. +The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.</note>—Irenæus,—Origen,—Eusebius,—Didymus,— Epiphanius,—Chrysostom,—Cyril,—in +addition to <emph>every +known Greek copy of the Gospels</emph>, and not a few of the Versions, +including the Peschito and both the Egyptian. What else +but nugatory therefore is such a piece of information as this? +</p> + +<p> +3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical +annotations, with which the margin of the revised N. T. is +<pb n='123'/><anchor id='Pg123'/> +disfigured. Hoping that the worst is now over, we read on +till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a statement +which fairly trips us up: viz.,—<q>And knew her not <emph>till she +had brought forth a son</emph>.</q> No intimation is afforded of what +has been here effected; but in the meantime every one's +memory supplies the epithet (<q>her first-born</q>) which has +been ejected. Whether something very like indignation is +not excited by the discovery that these important words +have been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let +others say. For ourselves, when we find that only א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b z</hi> +and two cursive copies can be produced for the omission, +we are at a loss to understand of what the Revisionists can +have been dreaming. Did they know<note place='foot'>Dr. Malan, <hi rend='italic'>Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised</hi>, p. 7.</note> that,—besides the +Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Æthiopic, +Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,<note place='foot'>See below, note 13.</note>—a whole +torrent of Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness +of the epithet they were so unceremoniously excising? +They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,<note place='foot'>See p. <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, note 11.</note>—to Athanasius,<note place='foot'>i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.</note>—to +Didymus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Trin.</hi> 349.</note>—to Cyril of Jer.,<note place='foot'>P. 116.</note>—to Basil,<note place='foot'>i. 392; ii. 599, 600.</note>—to Greg. Nyss.,<note place='foot'>ii. 229.</note>—to +Ephraem Syr.,<note place='foot'>See p. <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, note 11.</note>—to Epiphanius,<note place='foot'>i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.</note>—to Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>vii. 76.</note>—to +Proclus,<note place='foot'>Galland. ix. 636.</note>—to Isidorus Pelus.,<note place='foot'>P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syr<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>ev</hi> and of the +Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)</note>—to John Damasc.,<note place='foot'>i. 276.</note>—to +Photius,<note place='foot'>Gal. xiii. 662.</note>—to Nicetas:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>In Cat.</hi></note>—besides, of the Latins, Ambrose,<note place='foot'>ii. 462.</note>—the +<hi rend='italic'>Opus imp.</hi>,—Augustine,—and not least to Jerome<note place='foot'><q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse +Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres</foreign></q> (vii. 14). +He refers to his treatise against Helvidius, ii. 210.</note>—eighteen +Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,) +<pb n='124'/><anchor id='Pg124'/> +that two copies of the IVth century (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א) and one of the +VIth (<hi rend='smallcaps'>z</hi>)—all three without a character—backed by a few +copies of the old Latin, should be supposed to be any +counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate contemporary +evidence as the foregoing? +</p> + +<p> +Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an +authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede +any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. +Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking +the time has not yet come. <q>It is my honest conviction,</q>—(remarks +Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the Revisionists,)—<q>that +for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet mature: +either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Preface to Pastoral Epistles</hi>,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.</note> +The same opinion precisely is found to have been cherished +by Dr. Westcott till <emph>within about a year-and-a-half</emph><note place='foot'>The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.</note> of the +first assembling of the New Testament Company in the +Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True, that we enjoy +access to—suppose from 1000 to 2000—more <hi rend='smallcaps'>manuscripts</hi> +than were available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But +nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which +has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in +the monastic libraries from which they were obtained.—True, +that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to light +since the year 1628; but, <emph>who knows how to use them</emph>?—True, +that we have made acquaintance with certain ancient +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, about which little or nothing was known 200 +years ago: but,—(with the solitary exception of the Rev. +Solomon Cæsar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,—who, +by the way, is always ready to lend a torch to his +benighted brethren,)—what living Englishman is able to tell +<pb n='125'/><anchor id='Pg125'/> +us what they all contain? A smattering acquaintance with +the languages of ancient Egypt,—the Gothic, Æthiopic, Armenian, +Georgian and Slavonian Versions,—is of no manner +of avail. In no department, probably, is <q>a little learning</q> +more sure to prove <q>a dangerous thing.</q>—True, lastly, that +the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi> have been better edited within the last 250 +years: during which period some fresh Patristic writings +have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret +among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, +<emph>which of the Fathers has been satisfactorily indexed</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +Even what precedes is not nearly all. <emph>The fundamental +Principles</emph> of the Science of Textual Criticism are not yet +apprehended. In proof of this assertion, we appeal to the +new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which, beyond +all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the inspired +Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation +of Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected +branch of sacred Science. Let 500 more <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi> of the +Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be diligently collated. Let at +least 100 of the ancient <emph>Lectionaries</emph> be very exactly collated +also. Let the most important of the ancient <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi> be +edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are +written be for the first time really <emph>mastered</emph> by Englishmen. +<emph>Above all, let the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi> he called upon to give up their +precious secrets.</emph> Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, +and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently +inspected, in order that we may know what actually +is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be +possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance +may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a +satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version. Nay, let +whatever unpublished works of the ancient Greek Fathers are +anywhere known to exist,—(and not a few precious remains +<pb n='126'/><anchor id='Pg126'/> +of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at +home and abroad,)—let these be printed. The men could +easily be found: the money, far more easily.—When all this +has been done,—<emph>not before</emph>—then in <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> Name, let <emph>the +Church</emph> address herself to the great undertaking. Do but +revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James's +days: and we venture to predict that less than a third part +of ten years will be found abundantly to suffice for the work. +How the coming men will smile at the picture Dr. Newth<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Lectures on Biblical Revision</hi>, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp. <ref target='Pg037'>37-9</ref>.</note> +has drawn of what was the method of procedure in the reign +of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright +merriment Bp. Ellicott's jaunty proposal <q><emph>simply to proceed +onward with the work</emph></q>—[to wit, of constructing a new Greek +Text,]—<q>in fact, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>solvere ambulando</foreign>,</q> [<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>necnon in laqueum +cadendo</foreign>]?<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>, pp. 30 and 49.</note> +</p> + +<p> +I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the +Revisers' work,<note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated +out of the Greek: being the Version set forth</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>1611, compared with +the most ancient Authorities, and Revised</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>1881</hi>. Printed for the +Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881. +</p> +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text +followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in +the Revised Version.</hi> Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University +Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter +and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881. +</p> +<p> +Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. <hi rend='italic'>The Greek Testament, with the Readings +adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.</hi> [Edited by the Ven. +Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881. +</p> +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>The New Testament in the Original Greek.</hi> The Text revised by +Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. +Cambridge and London, 1881.</p></note> than by following them over some of the +ground which they claim to have made their own, and +which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right +<pb n='127'/><anchor id='Pg127'/> +Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. +First, he invites attention to the Principle and Rule for +their guidance agreed to by the Committee of Convocation +(25th May, 1870), viz. <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>To introduce as few alterations +as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, +consistently with faithfulness</hi>.</q> Words could not be more +emphatic. <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Plain and clear errors</hi></q> were to be corrected. +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Necessary</hi> emendations</q> were to be made. But (in the +words of the Southern Convocation) <q>We do not contemplate +any new Translation, <emph>or any alteration of the language</emph>, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>except where</hi>, in the judgment of the most competent +Scholars, <hi rend='smallcaps'>such change is necessary</hi>.</q> The watchword, +therefore, given to the company of Revisionists was,—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Necessity</hi>.</q> +<emph>Necessity</emph> was to determine whether they were +to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or +not; for the alterations were to be <hi rend='smallcaps'>as few as possible</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle +has been utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is +this the case, that even an unlettered Reader is competent to +judge them. When we find <q><emph>to</emph></q> substituted for <q>unto</q> +(<hi rend='italic'>passim</hi>):—<q><emph>hereby</emph></q> for <q>by this</q> (1 Jo. v. 2):—<q>all that <emph>are</emph>,</q> +for <q>all that be</q> (Rom. i. 7):—<q><emph>alway</emph></q> for <q>always</q> (2 Thess. +i. 3):—<q>we <emph>that</emph>,</q> <q>them <emph>that</emph>,</q> for <q>we <emph>which</emph>,</q> <q>them <emph>which</emph></q> +(1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet <q>every spirit <emph>which</emph>,</q> for <q>every +spirit that</q> (1 Jo. iv. 3), and <q>he <emph>who</emph> is not of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>,</q> for <q>he +that is not of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (ver. 6,—although <q>he <emph>that</emph> knoweth <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> +had preceded, in the same verse):—<q><emph>my</emph> host</q> for <q>mine host</q> +(Rom. xvi. 23); and <q><emph>underneath</emph></q> for <q><emph>under</emph></q> (Rev. vi. 9):—it +becomes clear that the Revisers' notion of <hi rend='smallcaps'>necessity</hi> +is not that of the rest of mankind. But let the plain Truth +be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by their +fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the +Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work +<pb n='128'/><anchor id='Pg128'/> +of Revision, are reported to have even gloried in their +shame. The majority, it is clear, have even ostentatiously +set those Instructions at defiance. +</p> + +<p> +Was the course they pursued,—(we ask the question +respectfully,)—strictly <emph>honest</emph>? To decline the work entirely +under the prescribed Conditions, was always in their power. +But, first to accept the Conditions, and straightway to +act in defiance of them,—<emph>this</emph> strikes us as a method of +proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high +character of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To +proceed however. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Nevertheless</q> and <q>notwithstanding</q> have had a sad +time of it. One or other of them has been turned out in +favour of <q><emph>howbeit</emph></q> (S. Lu. x. 11, 20),—of <q><emph>only</emph></q> (Phil. iii. 16),—of +<q><emph>only that</emph></q> (i. 18),—of <q><emph>yet</emph></q> (S. Matth. xi. 11),—of <q><emph>but</emph></q> +(xvii. 27),—of <q><emph>and yet</emph></q> (James ii. 16).... We find <q><emph>take heed</emph></q> +substituted for <q>beware</q> (Col. ii. 8):—<q><emph>custom</emph></q> for <q>manner</q> +(S. Jo. xix. 40):—<q>he was <emph>amazed</emph>,</q> for <q>he was astonished:</q> +(S. Lu. v. 9):—<q><emph>Is it I, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>?</emph></q> for <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, is it I?</q> (S. Matth. +xxvi. 22):—<q><emph>straightway</emph> the cock crew,</q> for <q>immediately +the cock crew</q> (S. Jo. xviii. 27):—<q>Then <emph>therefore he delivered +Him</emph>,</q> for <q>Then delivered he Him therefore</q> (xix. 16):—<q><emph>brought</emph> +it to His mouth,</q> for <q>put it to His mouth</q> (ver. 29):—<q><emph>He +manifested Himself on this wise</emph>,</q> for <q>on this wise +shewed He Himself</q> (xxi. 1):—<q><emph>So when they got out upon the +land</emph>,</q> for <q>As soon then as they were come to land</q> (ver. 9):—<q>the +things <emph>concerning</emph>,</q> for <q>the things pertaining to the +kingdom of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Acts i. 3):—<q>as <emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> steward</emph>,</q> for <q>as +the steward of God</q> (Tit. i. 7): but <q>the <emph>belly of the whale</emph></q> +for <q>the whale's belly</q> (S. Matth. xii. 40), and <q><emph>device of man</emph></q> +for <q>man's device</q> in Acts xvii. 29.—These, and hundreds of +similar alterations have been evidently made out of the +<pb n='129'/><anchor id='Pg129'/> +merest wantonness. After substituting <q><emph>therefore</emph></q> for <q>then</q> +(as the rendering of οὖν) a score of times,—the Revisionists +quite needlessly substitute <q><emph>then</emph></q> for <q>therefore</q> in S. Jo. xix. +42.—And why has the singularly beautiful greeting of <q>the +elder unto the well-beloved Gaius,</q> been exchanged for <q>unto +<emph>Gaius the beloved</emph></q>? (3 John, ver. 1). +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) We turn a few pages, and find <q>he that <emph>doeth</emph> sin,</q> +substituted for <q>he that committeth sin;</q> and <q><emph>To this end</emph></q> put +in the place of <q>For this purpose</q> (1 Jo. iii. 8):—<q><emph>have beheld</emph></q> +and <q><emph>bear witness</emph>,</q> for <q>have seen and do testify</q> (iv. 14):—<q><emph>hereby</emph></q> +for <q>by this</q> (v. 2):—<q><emph>Judas</emph></q> for <q>Jude</q> (Jude +ver. 1), although <q><emph>Mark</emph></q> was substituted for <q>Marcus</q> (in +1 Pet. v. 13), and <q><emph>Timothy</emph></q> for <q>Timotheus</q> (in Phil. i. 1):—<q>how +that they <emph>said to</emph> you,</q> for <q>how that they told you</q> +(Jude ver. 18).—But why go on? The substitution of <q><emph>exceedingly</emph></q> +for <q>greatly</q> in Acts vi. 7:—<q><emph>the birds</emph></q> for <q>the fowls,</q> +in Rev. xix. 21:—<q><emph>Almighty</emph></q> for <q>Omnipotent</q> in ver. 6:—<q><emph>throw +down</emph></q> for <q>cast down,</q> in S. Luke iv. 29:—<q><emph>inner +chamber</emph></q> for <q>closet,</q> in vi. 6:—these are <emph>not</emph> <q>necessary</q> +changes.... We will give but three instances more:—In +1 S. Pet. v. 9, <q>whom <emph>resist</emph>, stedfast in the faith,</q> has been +altered into <q>whom <emph>withstand</emph>.</q> But how is <q>withstand</q> a +better rendering for ἀντίστητε, than <q>resist</q>? <q>Resist,</q> at +all events, <emph>was the Revisionists' word in S. Matth.</emph> v. 39 +<emph>and S. James</emph> iv. 7.—Why also substitute <q>the <emph>race</emph></q> (for <q>the +kindred</q>) <q>of Joseph</q> in Acts vii. 13, although γένος was +rendered <q>kindred</q> in iv. 6?—Do the Revisionists think +that <q><emph>fastening their</emph> eyes on him</q> is a better rendering of +ἀτενίσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (Acts vi. 15) than <q><emph>looking stedfastly</emph> on +him</q>? They certainly did not think so when they got to +xxiii. 1. There, because they found <q><emph>earnestly beholding</emph> the +council,</q> they must needs alter the phrase into <q><emph>looking +stedfastly</emph>.</q> It is clear therefore that <emph>Caprice</emph>, not <emph>Necessity</emph>,—an +<pb n='130'/><anchor id='Pg130'/> +<emph>itching impatience</emph> to introduce changes into the A. V., not +the discovery of <q><emph>plain and clear errors</emph></q>—has determined +the great bulk of the alterations which molest us in every +part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance. +</p> + +<p> +II. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our +attention is their <hi rend='smallcaps'>new Greek text</hi>,—<q>the necessary foundation +of</q> their work. And here we must renew our protest against +the wrong which has been done to English readers by the +Revisionists' disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their +guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual +reading, such alteration was to be <q><emph>indicated in the margin</emph>.</q> +This <q>proved inconvenient,</q> say the Revisionists. Yes, we +reply: but only because you saw fit, in preference, to choke +up your margin with a record of the preposterous readings +you did <emph>not</emph> admit. Even so, however, the thing might to +some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs +in the margin wherever a change in the Text had been by +yourselves effected. And, at whatever <q>inconvenience,</q> you +were bound to do this,—partly because the Rule before you +was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English Reader. +How comes it to pass that you have <emph>never</emph> furnished him +with the information you stood pledged to furnish; but have +instead, volunteered in every page information, worthless +in itself, which can only serve to unsettle the faith of unlettered +millions, and to suggest unreasonable as well as +miserable doubts to the minds of all? +</p> + +<p> +For no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal +statements of which we speak are a kind of equivalent for +the <hi rend='italic'>Apparatus Criticus</hi> which is found in every principal +edition of the Greek Testament—excepting always that of +Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating +(with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of <q>Various Readings,</q> +<pb n='131'/><anchor id='Pg131'/> +that we rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that +they are the very foundation of our confidence and the secret +of our strength. For this reason we consider Dr. Tischendorf's +last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly +enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and +himself in his 7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the +Revisionists is <emph>not</emph> by any means that they have commemorated +<emph>actual</emph> <q>alternative Readings</q> in their margin: but +that, while they have given prominence throughout to <emph>patent +Errors</emph>, they <emph>have unfairly excluded all mention of,—have not +made the slightest allusion to,—hundreds of Readings which +ought in fact rather to have stood in the Text</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so +ill-advised as to put prominently forward, and to introduce +to the Reader's notice with the vague statement that they are +sanctioned by <q>Some</q> (or by <q>Many</q>) <q>ancient authorities,</q>—are +specimens <emph>arbitrarily selected</emph> out of an immense mass; +are magisterially recommended to public attention and +favour; <emph>seem</emph> to be invested with the sanction and authority +of Convocation itself. And this becomes a very serious +matter indeed. No hint is given <emph>which</emph> be the <q>ancient +Authorities</q> so referred to:—nor what proportion they bear +to the <q>ancient Authorities</q> producible on the opposite side:—nor +whether they are the <emph>most</emph> <q>ancient Authorities</q> obtainable:—nor +what amount of attention their testimony may +reasonably claim. But in the meantime a fatal assertion is +hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that <emph>in cases +where <q>it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute +exclusion of others,</q> <q>alternative Readings</q></emph> have been given <q>in +the margin.</q> So that the <q>Agony and bloody sweat</q> of the +World's <hi rend='smallcaps'>Redeemer</hi> (Lu. xxii. 43, 44),—and His Prayer for His +murderers (xxiii. 34),—and much beside of transcendent +importance and inestimable value, may, <emph>according to our +Revisionists</emph>, prove to rest upon no foundation whatever. +<pb n='132'/><anchor id='Pg132'/> +At all events, <q><emph>it would not be safe</emph>,</q> (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <emph>it is not safe</emph>) to place +absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow +at Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal +adroitness, which no amount of orthodox learning will ever +be able hereafter to heal, much less to undo! Thus,— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) From the first verse of S. Mark's Gospel we are +informed that <q>Some ancient authorities omit <emph>the Son of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></emph>.</q> Why are we <emph>not</emph> informed that every known uncial +Copy <emph>except one of bad character</emph>,—every cursive <emph>but two</emph>,—<emph>every +Version</emph>,—and the following Fathers,—all <emph>contain</emph> the +precious clause: viz. Irenæus,—Porphyry,—Severianus of +Gabala,—Cyril Alex.,—Victor Ant.,—and others,—besides +Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins:—while the supposed +adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and +Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all +a mistake? To speak plainly, since the clause is above +suspicion, <emph>Why are we not rather told so?</emph> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John's +Gospel, we are left to take our choice between,—<q>without +Him was not anything made that hath been made. In him +was life; and the life,</q> &c.,—and the following absurd alternative,—<q>Without +him was not anything made. <emph>That which +hath been made was life in him</emph>; and the life,</q> &c. But we +are <emph>not</emph> informed that this latter monstrous figment is known +to have been the importation of the Gnostic heretics in the +IInd century, and to be as destitute of authority as it is of +sense. <emph>Why is prominence given only to the lie?</emph> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause +of that famous verse (<q>No man hath ascended up to heaven, +but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man—<emph>which +is in heaven</emph></q>), is not found in <q>many ancient authorities.</q> +<pb n='133'/><anchor id='Pg133'/> +But why, in the name of common fairness, are we not +<emph>also</emph> reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained +in the note overleaf,) is <emph>a circumstance of no Textual significancy +whatever</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause +in question (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) <emph>is</emph> found in every MS. in +the world, except five of bad character?—is recognized by +<emph>all</emph> the Latin and <emph>all</emph> the Syriac versions; as well as by the +Coptic,—Æthiopic,—Georgian,—and Armenian?<note place='foot'>Malan's <hi rend='italic'>Gospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest Versions</hi>.</note>—is either +quoted or insisted upon by Origen,<note place='foot'>Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.</note>—Hippolytus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>C. Noet.</hi> § 4.</note>—Athanasius,<note place='foot'>i. 1275.</note>—Didymus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Trin.</hi> 363.</note>—Aphraates +the Persian,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. v. 67.</note>—Basil the +Great,<note place='foot'>i. 282.</note>—Epiphanius,<note place='foot'>i. 486.</note>—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius Alex.,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil.</hi> i. 872 e; 889 e.</note>—Eustathius;<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. iv. 563.</note>—by +Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.</note>—Theodoret,<note place='foot'>iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.</note>—and Cyril,<note place='foot'>iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.</note> +each 4 times;—by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 1102 d.</note> (in a sermon +on Christmas Day, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 431);—by Theodoras Mops.,<note place='foot'>Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).</note>—Amphilochius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>In Cat.</hi> Cord. 96.</note>—Severus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 94.</note>—Theodorus Heracl.,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Ps.</hi> ii. 323 and 343.</note>—Basilius +Cil.,<note place='foot'>Ap. Photium, p. 281.</note>—Cosmas,<note place='foot'>Montf. ii. 286.</note>—John Damascene, in 3 places,<note place='foot'>i. 288, 559, 567.</note>—and 4 +other ancient Greek writers;<note place='foot'>Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii. 287.</note>—besides Ambrose,<note place='foot'>i. 863, 903, 1428.</note>—Novatian,<note place='foot'>Gall. iii. 296.</note>—Hilary,<note place='foot'>32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.</note>—Lucifer,<note place='foot'>Gall. vi. 192.</note>—Victorinus,—Jerome,<note place='foot'>iv. 679.</note>—Cassian,—Vigilius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Athan. ii. 646.</note>—Zeno,<note place='foot'>Gall. v. 124.</note>—Marius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> iii. 628, 675.</note>—Maximus +Taur.,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> ix. 367.</note>—Capreolus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> ix. 493.</note>—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by +Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, is <emph>quite above +suspicion</emph>: why are we not told <emph>that</emph>? Those 10 Versions, +<pb n='134'/><anchor id='Pg134'/> +those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies in the proportion of +995 to 5,—<emph>why</emph>, concerning all these is there not so much +as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence +exists?<note place='foot'><p>Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts +of the several <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi> above enumerated, and mentally assign each +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi> to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that +995 out of 1000 of the extant <hi rend='smallcaps'>Manuscripts</hi> agree with those Fathers and +Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at +different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent +remote originals, inasmuch as <emph>no two of them are found to be quite alike</emph>.—Next, +let him consider that, <emph>in all the Churches of the East</emph>, these words +from the earliest period were read as <emph>part of the Gospel for the Thursday +in Easter week</emph>.—This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that +two worshippers of codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1881—should attempt to thrust all this +mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence +of exclusion,—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Western and Syrian</hi>.</q> +</p> +<p> +Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that <q><emph>the character of the attestation</emph> +marks</q> the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), <q>as a <hi rend='smallcaps'>Western gloss</hi>.</q> But the +<q>attestation</q> for retaining that clause—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Comes demonstrably from +every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Is more ancient (by 200 years) +than the evidence for omitting it:—(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Is more numerous, in the proportion +of 99 to 1:—(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. +For since we have <emph>proved</emph> that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, +Ambrose and Jerome, <emph>recognize</emph> the words in dispute, of what possible +Textual significancy can it be if presently (<emph>because it is sufficient for their +purpose</emph>) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13 <emph>no further +than down to the words <q>Son of Man</q></emph>? No person, (least of all a professed +Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a +little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, +Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting +on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their +quotation at this place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. +[Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course +quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for +his heresy) to adduce it.... About the <emph>internal</emph> evidence for the clause, +nothing has been said; but <emph>this</emph> is simply overwhelming. We make our +appeal to <emph>Catholic Antiquity</emph>; and are content to rest our cause on +<emph>External Evidence</emph>;—on <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>, on <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, on <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>.</p></note>... Shame,—yes, <emph>shame</emph> on the learning which +comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the +<pb n='135'/><anchor id='Pg135'/> +doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame,—yes, <emph>shame</emph> +on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most +incompetent men, who,—finding themselves (in an evil hour) +appointed to correct <q><emph>plain and clear errors</emph></q> in the <emph>English</emph> +<q>Authorized Version,</q>—occupied themselves instead with +<emph>falsifying the inspired Greek Text</emph> in countless places, and +branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances +of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit</hi>! Shame,—yes, <emph>shame</emph> upon them! +</p> + +<p> +Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) +of S. Mark i. 1 and—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) of S. John i. 3, and—(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) of S. +John iii. 13, encumbered after this discreditable fashion? +It is (we answer) only because <emph>the Text of Drs. Westcott and +Hort</emph> is thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars +enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel +from S. John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which +Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. +Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the +epithet of <q><emph>fearless</emph></q>!... If report speaks truly, it is by the +merest accident that the clause in question still retains its +place in <emph>the Revised Text</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the +very end of the blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18— +</p> + +<p> +<q>Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him +count the number of the Beast; for it is the number of a +Man: and his number is six hundred and sixty and six.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Against this, we find noted,—<q>Some ancient authorities +read <emph>six hundred and sixteen</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But why is not the <emph>whole</emph> Truth told? viz. why are we not +informed that <emph>only one</emph> corrupt uncial (<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>):—<emph>only one</emph> cursive +copy (11):—<emph>only one</emph> Father (Tichonius): and <emph>not one</emph> ancient +Version—advocates this reading?—which, on the contrary, +<pb n='136'/><anchor id='Pg136'/> +Irenæus (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, +which is <q>found in all the best and oldest copies and is +attested by men who saw John face to face,</q> is unquestionably +the true reading.<note place='foot'>Pp. 798, 799.</note> Why is not the ordinary Reader +further informed that the same number (666) is expressly +vouched for by Origen,<note place='foot'>iii. 414.</note>—by Hippolytus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ant.</hi> c. 50; <hi rend='italic'>Consum.</hi> c. 28.</note>—by Eusebius:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Hist. Eccl.</hi> v. 8.</note>—as +well as by Victorinus—and Primasius,—not to mention +Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter +of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, +Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort. <emph>Why</emph> +therefore—for what possible reason—at the end of 1700 +years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else +but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention +of 90 millions of English-speaking people? +</p> + +<p> +Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that +it has been done because <q>it would not be safe to accept</q> +666, <q>to the absolute exclusion of</q> 616?... <q>We have +given <emph>alternative Readings</emph> in the margin,</q> (say they,) +<q>wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or +interest to deserve notice.</q> Will they venture to claim +either <q>interest</q> or <q>importance</q> for <emph>this</emph>? or pretend that it +is an <q>alternative Reading</q> <emph>at all</emph>? Has it been rescued from +oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order +to perplex, mystify, and discourage <q>those that have understanding,</q> +and would fain <q>count the number of the Beast,</q> +if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate +one more wretched doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into +minds which have been taught (<emph>and rightly</emph>) to place +absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest +utterances of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit</hi>: minds which are utterly incapable +<pb n='137'/><anchor id='Pg137'/> +of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, +from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away +none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable +distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in +their opinion, the margin of every Englishman's N. T. is the +fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, +and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We +really pause for an answer. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) But serious as this is, <emph>more</emph> serious (if possible) is the +unfair <emph>Suppression systematically practised</emph> throughout the +work before us. <q>We have given alternative Readings in +the margin,</q>—(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—<q><emph>wherever +they seem to be of sufficient importance +or interest to deserve notice.</emph></q> [iii. 1.] From which statement, +readers have a right to infer that whenever <q>alternative +Readings</q> are <emph>not</emph> <q>given in the margin,</q> it is because +such Readings do <emph>not</emph> <q>seem to be of <emph>sufficient importance or +interest to deserve notice</emph>.</q> Will the Revisionists venture to +tell us that,—(to take the first instance of unfair Suppression +which presents itself,)—our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>'s saying in S. Mark vi. 11 +is not <q>of sufficient importance or interest to deserve +notice</q>? We allude to the famous words,—<q>Verily I say +unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah +in the day of judgment, than for that city:</q>—words which +are not only omitted from the <q>New English Version,</q> but +<emph>are not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves +in the margin</emph>. And yet, the saying in question is attested +by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the +Old Latin: by the Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by +11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives:—by +Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether +Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether +we look for Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness +<pb n='138'/><anchor id='Pg138'/> +of the passage may be regarded as <emph>certain</emph>. Our complaint +however is <emph>not</emph> that the Revisionists entertain a different +opinion on this head from ourselves: but that they give +the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is +such, that it is quite <q>safe to accept</q> the shorter reading,—<q>to +the <emph>absolute exclusion</emph> of the other.</q>—So vast is +the field before us, that this single specimen of what we +venture to call <q>unfair Suppression,</q> must suffice. (Some +will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It +is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work +before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so +seriously <emph>falsified the Deposit</emph>; and yet, (in clear violation +of the IVth Principle or Rule laid down for their guidance +at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin +of the deadly mischief which they have effected. +</p> + +<p> +III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Translation</hi>; and surprise us by the avowal, that <q>the +character of the Revision was determined for us from the +outset by the first Rule,—<q>to introduce as few alterations +as possible, consistently with faithfulness.</q> Our task was +Revision, not Retranslation.</q> (This is <emph>naïve</emph> certainly.) They +proceed,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase +that was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no +change, even where rigid adherence to <emph>the rule of Translating, as +far as possible, the same Greek word by the same English word</emph> might +have prescribed some modification.</q>—[iii. 2 <hi rend='italic'>init.</hi>] (The italics +are our own.) +</quote> + +<p> +To the <q><emph>rule</emph></q> thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur +by and by [pp. <ref target='Pg152'>152-4</ref>: also pp. <ref target='Pg187'>187-202</ref>]. We proceed +to remark on each of the five principal Classes of alterations +indicated by the Revisionists: and first,—<q>Alterations +<pb n='139'/><anchor id='Pg139'/> +positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text</q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find <q><emph>Suffer her to keep it</emph> +against the day of my burying;</q> and in the margin (as an +alternative), <q>Let her alone: <emph>it was that she might keep it</emph>.</q>—Instead +of <q>as soon as <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> heard the word,</q>—we are invited +to choose between <q><emph>not heeding</emph>,</q> and <q><emph>overhearing</emph> the word</q> +(S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of παρακούσας,—an +expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.—<q>On +earth, peace among men <emph>in whom he is well +pleased</emph></q> (S. Lu. ii. 14): where the margin informs us that +<q>many ancient authorities read, <emph>good pleasure among men</emph>.</q> +(And why not <q><emph>good will</emph>,</q>—the rendering adopted in Phil. i. +15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have +resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—<q>Why <emph>askest +thou me concerning that which is good</emph>?</q> (Matth. xix. 17,—an +absurd fabrication).—<q>He would fain <emph>have been filled</emph> with the +husks,</q> &c.... <q>and I perish <emph>here</emph> with hunger!</q> (χορτασθῆναι, +borrowed from Lu. xvi. 21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent +error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—<q>When <emph>it shall fail</emph>, they +may receive you into the eternal tabernacles</q> (xvi. 9).——Elizabeth +<q>lifted up her voice <emph>with a loud cry</emph></q> (κραυγή—the +private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. +42).—<q>And <emph>they stood still looking sad</emph></q> (xxiv. 17,—a foolish +transcriptional blunder).—<q>The multitude <emph>went up</emph> and began +to ask him,</q> &c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk. xv. 8).—<q>But is +guilty of <emph>an eternal sin</emph></q> (iii. 29).—<q>And the officers <emph>received +Him</emph> with blows of their hands,</q>—marg. <q>or <emph>strokes of rods</emph>:</q> +ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—<q>Else, that which should fill +it up taketh from it, <emph>the new from the old</emph></q> (ii. 21): and <q>No +man <emph>rendeth a piece from a new garment</emph> and putteth it upon +an old garment; else <emph>he will rend the new</emph>,</q> &c. (Lu. v. 36).—<q>What +is this? <emph>a new teaching!</emph></q> (Mk. i. 27).—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> saith +unto him, <emph>If thou canst!</emph></q> (Mk. ix. 23).—<q>Because of your <emph>little +<pb n='140'/><anchor id='Pg140'/> +faith</emph></q>(Matth. xvii. 20).—<q><emph>We must</emph> work the works of Him +that sent Me, while it is day</q> (Jo. ix. 4).—<q><emph>The man that is +called</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> made clay</q> (ver. 11).—<q>If ye shall ask <emph>Me anything +in My name</emph></q> (xiv. 14).—<q>The Father abiding in Me +<emph>doeth His works</emph></q> (xiv. 10).—<q>If ye shall ask anything of the +Father, <emph>He will give it you in My name</emph></q> (xvi. 23).—<q>I glorified +Thee on the earth, <emph>having accomplished the work</emph> which Thou +hast given Me to do</q> (xvii. 4).—<q>Holy Father, keep them <emph>in +Thy Name which</emph> Thou hast given Me ... I kept them <emph>in +Thy Name which</emph> Thou hast given me</q> (ver. 11, 12).—<q>She +... saith unto Him <emph>in Hebrew</emph>, Rabboni</q> (xx. 16).—<q>These +things said Isaiah, <emph>because</emph> he saw his glory</q> (xii. 41,—ΟΤΙ for +ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—<q>In tables <emph>that are hearts of flesh</emph></q> +(ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a <q>perfectly absurd reading,</q> as +Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—<q><emph>Now if</emph> we put the +horses' bridles [and pray, why not <q>the horses' <emph>bits</emph></q>?] into +their mouths</q> (ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—<q>Unto +the sick were <emph>carried away from his body</emph> handkerchiefs,</q> +&c. (Acts xix. 12).—<q><emph>Ye know all things once for all</emph></q> +(Jude ver. 5).—<q><emph>We love</emph> because he first loved us</q> (1 Jo. iv. 19).—<q>I +have found <emph>no work of thine fulfilled</emph> before my <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Rev. +iii. 2).—<q>Seven Angels <emph>arrayed with [precious] stone</emph></q> (xv. 6), +instead of <q>clothed in linen,</q> λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the +Angels <q><emph>clothed in stone</emph></q>! <q>Precious</q> is an interpolation of +the Revisers).—<q><emph>Dwelling in</emph> the things which he hath seen:</q> +for which the margin offers as an alternative, <q><emph>taking his stand +upon</emph></q> (Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων (the word here +employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. +S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly <q><emph>prying into</emph> +the things <emph>not</emph> seen.</q><note place='foot'>Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus, +quoted by Brüder.</note> A few MSS. of bad character omit the +<q><emph>not</emph>.</q> That is all!... These then are a handful of the less +<pb n='141'/><anchor id='Pg141'/> +conspicuous instances of a change in the English <q>positively +required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:</q> every +one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross +fabrication.—Take only two more: <q>I neither know, nor +understand: <emph>thou, what sayest thou?</emph></q> (Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—<q>And +<emph>whither I go, ye know the way</emph></q> (Jo. xiv. 4).... The +A. V. is better in every instance. +</p> + +<p> +(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. +<q>appeared to be incorrect</q> or else <q>obscure.</q> They must +needs be such as the following:—<q>He that <emph>is bathed</emph> needeth +not save to wash his feet</q> (S. John xiii. 10).—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, if he is +fallen asleep <emph>he will recover</emph></q> (σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—<q>Go ye +therefore into <emph>the partings of the highways</emph></q> (Matth. xxii. 9).—<q>Being +grieved at <emph>the hardening</emph> of their heart</q> (Mk. iii. 5).—<q>Light +<emph>a lamp</emph> and put it <emph>on the stand</emph></q> (Matt. v. 15).—<q>Sitting +at <emph>the place of toll</emph></q> (ix. 9).—<q>The supplication of a righteous +man availeth much <emph>in its working</emph></q> (James v. 16).—<q>Awake +up <emph>righteously</emph></q> (1 Cor. xv. 34).—<q><emph>Guarded</emph> through faith unto +<emph>a salvation</emph></q> (1 Pet. i. 5).—<q>Wandering in ... <emph>the holes of +the earth</emph></q> (Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be +<q>wandering</q> in).—<q><emph>She that is in Babylon</emph>, elect together +with you, saluteth you</q> (1 Pet. v. 13).—<q>Therefore do <emph>these +powers work in Him</emph></q> (Matth. xiv. 2).—<q>In danger of the +<emph>hell of fire</emph></q> (v. 22).—<q><emph>Put out</emph> into the deep</q> (Luke v. 4).—<q>The +tomb that Abraham bought for <emph>a price in silver</emph></q> (Acts +vii. 16). +</p> + +<p> +With reference to every one of these places, (and they are +but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture +to assert that they are either <emph>less</emph> intelligible, or else <emph>more</emph> +inaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended +to supersede; while, in some instances, they are <emph>both</emph>. +Will any one seriously contend that <q><emph>the hire of wrong-doing</emph></q> +<pb n='142'/><anchor id='Pg142'/> +is better than <q><emph>the wages of unrighteousness</emph></q> (2 Pet. ii. 15)? +or, will he venture to deny that, <q>Come and <emph>dine</emph></q>—<q>so when +they <emph>had dined</emph>,</q>—is a hundred times better than <q>Come and +<emph>break your fast</emph></q>—<q>so when they <emph>had broken their fast</emph></q> (Jo. +xxi. 12, 15)?—expressions which are only introduced because +the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to +write <q>breakfast</q> and <q>breakfasted.</q> The seven had not been +<q><emph>fasting</emph>.</q> Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,—any +more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12? +</p> + +<p> +Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of <q>incorrectness</q> +<emph>remedied</emph> and <q>obscurity</q> <emph>removed</emph>? Rather, as +it seems, have <emph>both</emph> been largely imported into a Translation +which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. +vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, +and then, by mistranslating it <q><emph>Or</emph></q>?—Also, why translate +γένος <q><emph>race</emph></q>? (<q>a man of Cyprus <emph>by race</emph>,</q> <q>a man of Pontus +<emph>by race</emph>,</q> <q>an Alexandrian <emph>by race</emph>,</q> Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—<q><emph>If</emph> +there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,</q> +say the Revisionists: <q>O death, where is thy victory? O <emph>death</emph> +where is thy sting?</q> (Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 +and 55 alone?)—Why alter <q>For the bread of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> is <emph>He</emph>,</q> into +<q>For the bread of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> is <emph>that</emph> which cometh down from +Heaven</q>? (Jo. vi. 33).—<q><emph>As long as I am</emph> in the world,</q> was +surely better than <q><emph>When I am</emph> in the world, I am the light +of the world</q> (ix. 5).—Is <q><emph>He went forth out of</emph> their hand</q> +supposed to be an improvement upon <q><emph>He escaped out of</emph> their +hand</q>? (x. 39): and is <q>They loved <emph>the glory</emph> of men more +than <emph>the glory</emph> of GOD</q> an improvement upon <q>the <emph>praise</emph></q>? +(xii. 43).—<q>Judas saith unto Him, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, <emph>what is come to pass</emph> +that Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us</q>? Is <emph>that</emph> supposed to +be an improvement upon xiv. 22?—How is <q><emph>If then</emph></q> an +improvement on <q>Forasmuch then</q> in Acts xi. 17?—or how +is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—<q>For that which I do, I +<pb n='143'/><anchor id='Pg143'/> +<emph>know</emph> not: for <emph>not what I would, that do I practise</emph>:</q>—or this, +in xvi. 25, <q>The mystery which hath been <emph>kept in silence +through times eternal</emph>, but now is manifested,</q> &c.—<q>Thou +therefore, <emph>my child</emph>,</q>—addressing the Bishop of Ephesus +(2 Tim. ii. 1): and <q>Titus, <emph>my true child</emph>,</q>—addressing the +Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4). +</p> + +<p> +Are the following deemed improvements? <q>Every one +that <emph>doeth</emph> sin doeth also <emph>lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness</emph></q> +(1 Jo. iii. 4): <q>I will <emph>move</emph> thy candlestick out of its place</q> +(Rev. ii. 5):—<q>a <emph>glassy</emph> sea</q> (iv. 6):—<q>a <emph>great</emph> voice</q> (v. 12):—<q>Verily, +not of Angels <emph>doth He take hold</emph>, but <emph>He taketh hold</emph> +of the seed of Abraham:</q>—<q>He <emph>took hold of</emph> the blind man by +<emph>the hand</emph>:</q>—<q>They <emph>took hold of him</emph> and brought him unto the +Areopagus</q> (Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—<q>wherefore +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> is not <emph>ashamed of them</emph>, to be called their +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Acts xi. 16):—<q><emph>Counted it not a prize</emph> to be on an +equality with <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we to substitute +<q><emph>court</emph></q> for <q>palace</q> in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21? (Consider +Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—<q>Women received +their dead <emph>by a resurrection</emph></q> (Heb. xi. 35):—<q>If ye forgive +not every one <emph>his brother from their hearts</emph></q> (Matth. xviii. 35):—<q>If +<emph>because of meat</emph> thy brother is grieved, thou walkest <emph>no +longer in love</emph></q> (Rom. xiv. 15):—<q>which <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, who cannot +lie, promised <emph>before times eternal</emph>; but <emph>in his own seasons</emph> +manifested <emph>his word in the message</emph></q> (Tit. i. 2, 3):—<q>Your +<emph>pleasures</emph> [and why not <q>lusts</q>?] that war in your members</q> +(James iv. 1):—<q>Behold <emph>how much wood</emph> is kindled by <emph>how +small a fire</emph>!</q> (iii. 5).—Are these really supposed to be less +<q>obscure</q> than the passages they are intended to supersede? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists +can only be established by an amount of illustration which +is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably +<pb n='144'/><anchor id='Pg144'/> +to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out +that,—<q>And <emph>coming up</emph> at that very hour</q> (in Lu. ii. 38),—as +well as <q>she <emph>came up</emph> to Him</q> (in Lu. x. 40), are inexact +renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which +etymologically signifies <q>to stand upon,</q> or <q>over,</q> or <q>by,</q>—(but +which retains its literal signification on only four out of +the eighteen occasions<note place='foot'>Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.</note> when the word occurs in the Gospels +and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to denote the <q><emph>coming +suddenly upon</emph></q> a person. Hence, it is observed to be used +five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly +visitants from the unseen world:<note place='foot'>S. Luke ii. 9 (where <q><emph>came upon</emph></q> is better than <q><emph>stood by</emph> them,</q> and +should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii. 11.</note> and seven times, the +sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.<note place='foot'>S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5 +(<q>assault</q>): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way, +suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from <q><emph>the present</emph></q>).</note> On the +two remaining occasions, which are those before us,—(namely, +the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple<note place='foot'>S. Luke ii. 38.</note> and +of Martha into the presence of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>,<note place='foot'>S. Luke x. 40.</note>)—<q><emph>coming suddenly +in</emph></q> would probably represent S. Luke's ἐπιστᾶσα +exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word +<q>suddenly</q> into the narrative. So that <q><emph>coming in</emph></q> would +after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive +student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something +more is <emph>implied</emph>. In other words,—the Revisionists +would have done better if they had left both places alone.... +These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain +such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) But more painful by far it is to discover that a +morbid striving after etymological accuracy,—added to a +<pb n='145'/><anchor id='Pg145'/> +calamitous preference for a depraved Text,—has proved the +ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John's Gospel. +<q>Simon Peter beckoneth to him, <emph>and saith unto him, Tell us +who it is of whom He speaketh</emph></q> [a fabulous statement evidently; +for Peter beckoned, because he might <emph>not</emph> speak]. +<q>He <emph>leaning back, as he was</emph>,</q>—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, +by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering +of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it +obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—<q>on <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi>' +breast, saith unto Him, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> who is it?</q> (S. John xiii. 24-5). +Now, S. John's word concerning himself in this place is +certainly ἐπιπεσών. He <q><emph>just sank</emph></q>—let his head <q><emph>fall</emph></q>—on +his Master's breast, and whispered his question. For this, a +few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But ἀναπεσών <emph>never</emph> +means <q><emph>leaning back</emph>.</q> It is descriptive of the posture of one +<emph>reclining at a meal</emph> (S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times +rendered by the Revisionists to <q><emph>sit down</emph>.</q> Why, in this +place, and in chapter xxi. 20, <emph>a new meaning</emph> is thrust upon +the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they +must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot +has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), +or they will fail to persuade any,—except one another. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour +over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming +(with one in the Gospel), <q><emph>The old is better</emph>.</q> Changes of <emph>any</emph> +sort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the +discovery that changes have been made <emph>for the worse</emph>, offends +greatly. To take instances at random:—'Ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος +(in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V. <q>a <emph>very great</emph> +multitude.</q><note place='foot'>Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Illa plurima sacrificia</foreign>. (Cic. <hi rend='italic'>De Fin.</hi> 2. +20. 63.)</note> Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into +<pb n='146'/><anchor id='Pg146'/> +<q><emph>the most part of</emph> the multitude</q>?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. +37), in like manner, is rightly rendered <q><emph>the common people</emph>,</q> +and ought not to have been glossed in the margin <q><emph>the great +multitude</emph>.</q>—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find <q><emph>Make</emph> thou +not common,</q> introduced as an improvement on, <q><emph>That call</emph> +not thou common.</q> But <q>the old is better:</q> for, besides its +idiomatic and helpful <q><emph>That</emph>,</q>—the old alone states the case +truly. Peter did not <q><emph>make</emph>,</q> he only <q><emph>called</emph>,</q> something +<q>common.</q>—<q>All the <emph>male</emph> children,</q> as a translation of πάντας +τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. +There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of +Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the +Greek certainly conveys no such information.—<q>When he +came into the house, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> <emph>spake first</emph> to him</q>—is really an +incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports +into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, +and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually +says. <q><emph>Anticipated</emph>,</q> in modern English,—<q><emph>prevented</emph>,</q> in +ancient phraseology,—<q><emph>was beforehand with him</emph></q> in language +neither new nor old,—conveys the sense of the original +exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35, <q>Love your enemies, ... and lend, +<emph>never despairing</emph>,</q> is simply a mistaken translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, +as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering +is the true one.<note place='foot'><q>The context</q> (says learned Dr. Field) <q>is too strong for philological +quibbles.</q> The words <q><emph>can by no possibility bear any other meaning</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Otium +Norvicense</hi>, p. 40.</note> And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>nihil inde +sperantes</foreign>. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: +ἀφορᾶν [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]: <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>abutor</foreign>, as used by Jerome +for <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>utor</foreign>, &c.)—<q>Go with them <emph>making no distinction</emph></q> is not the +meaning of Acts xi. 12: which, however, was correctly translated +before, viz. <q>nothing doubting.</q>—The mischievous change +(<q><emph>save</emph></q> in place of <q>but</q>) in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and +faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the +<pb n='147'/><anchor id='Pg147'/> +learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, <q>it is illogical and erroneous, +and <emph>contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul's Argument</emph> in that +Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were +we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the +novel <emph>expressions</emph> which the Revisionists have sought to +introduce into the English New Testament. That the +malefactors between whom <q>the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> of glory</q> was crucified +were not ordinary <q><emph>thieves</emph></q> is obvious; yet would it have +been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. +We shall never learn to call them <q><emph>robbers</emph>.</q>—<q>The +king sent forth <emph>a soldier of his guard</emph></q> is a gloss—not a +translation of S. Mark vi. 27. <q><emph>An executioner</emph></q> surely is far +preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!<note place='foot'>Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. +Boys quotes Seneca <hi rend='italic'>De Irá</hi>:—<emph>Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere +gladium</emph> speculatorem <emph>jussit</emph>.</note>—<q><emph>Assassins</emph></q> +(as the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute +for <q>murderers.</q> A word which <q>belongs probably to a +romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades</q><note place='foot'>Trench, <hi rend='italic'>Study of Words</hi>, p. 106.</note> has +no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men +suppose they should gain by substituting <q><emph>the twin brothers</emph></q> +for <q><emph>Castor and Pollux</emph></q> in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek +(Διόσκουροι) is neither the one nor the other.—In the same +spirit, instead of, <q>they that received <emph>tribute-money</emph></q> (in +S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with <q>they that +received <emph>the half-shekel</emph>:</q> and in verse 27,—instead of +<q>when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find <emph>a +piece of money</emph>,</q> we are favoured with <q>thou shalt find <emph>a +shekel</emph>.</q> But <emph>why</emph> the change has been made, we fail to see. +The margin is <emph>still</emph> obliged to explain that not one of these +four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former +place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—<q><emph>Flute-players</emph></q> +<pb n='148'/><anchor id='Pg148'/> +(for <q>minstrels</q>) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. +An αὐλητής played <emph>the pipe</emph> (αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence +<q>pipers</q> in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way μουσικοί +[<q>musicians</q>] is perversely and less accurately rendered <q><emph>minstrels</emph></q>).—Once +more. <q><emph>Undressed</emph> cloth</q> (Mk. ii. 21), because +it is an expression popularly understood only in certain +districts of England, and a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>vox artis</foreign>, ought not to have been +introduced into the Gospels. <q><emph>New</emph></q> is preferable.—<q><emph>Wine-skins</emph></q> +(Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible +to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for +they explain it by a note,—<q>That is, <emph>skins used as bottles</emph>.</q> +What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old +one?—<q><emph>Silver</emph>,</q> now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. +20, is unreasonable. Like <q>argent</q> in French, ἀργύριον as +much means <q>money,</q> here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, +&c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is +gained by the introduction of the <q><emph>shuddering</emph></q> devils.—To +take an example from a different class of words,—Who +will say that <q>Thou <emph>mindest</emph> not the things of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> is a better +rendering of οὐ φρονεῖς, than the old <q>Thou <emph>savourest</emph> not,</q>—which +at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend +points out that Dr. Field (a <q>master in Israel</q>) has examined +104 of the changes <emph>made</emph> in the Revised Version; and finds +8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> cases in +which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. +has not succeeded in amending): 64 <emph>changes for the worse</emph>.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Otium Norvicense</hi>, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.</note>... +This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. +Field to bring against the Revisers,—<emph>who were directed only +to correct</emph> <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>plain and clear errors</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) We really fail to understand how it has come to +pass that, notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which +<pb n='149'/><anchor id='Pg149'/> +sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties +are found in the present Revision which betoken a want +of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language +on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only +a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties +of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance +of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of <q><emph>Canst</emph> +thou <emph>speak</emph> Greek?</q>) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is rendered <q><emph>Dost</emph> +thou <emph>know</emph> Greek?</q> That γινώσκειν means <q>to know</q> (and +not <q>to speak</q>) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of +all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ +γινώσκεις; must be translated <q>Canst thou <emph>speak</emph> Greek?</q> +For (as every schoolboy is aware) Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, +and signifies <q><emph>in Greek fashion</emph>:</q> so that something has to be +supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, +would be, <q>Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?</q> But +then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established +idiom of the language:<note place='foot'>Compare Xenophon (<hi rend='italic'>Cyrop.</hi> vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους. The +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>plena locutio</foreign> is found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ λαλοῦντες +Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί (quoted by +Wetstein).</note> so that the rejection of the learned +rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, +and the Translators of 1611 (<q><emph>Canst thou speak</emph> Greek?</q>)—the +rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of +<q><emph>Dost thou know</emph> Greek?</q> really betrays ignorance. It is worse +than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberate <emph>blunder</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) The substitution of <q><emph>they weighed unto him</emph></q> (in place +of <q><emph>they covenanted with him for</emph></q>) <q>thirty pieces of silver</q> +(S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, +into which a little learning (proverbially <q>a dangerous thing</q>) +is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from +which it was to have been expected that the undoubted +<pb n='150'/><anchor id='Pg150'/> +attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber +would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That +ἔστησαν is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as +well as that <emph>there</emph> it refers to the ancient practice of <emph>weighing</emph> +uncoined money. It does not, however, by any means +follow, that it was customary to <emph>weigh</emph> shekels in the days +of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, +but always counted; and these were shekels, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <emph>didrachms</emph> +(Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that +there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ἔστησαν, +of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself. +In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that +in the first instance money did <emph>not</emph> pass,—only a bargain was +made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark's record is that +the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas, <q><emph>and +promised</emph> to give him money</q> (xiv. 11): S. Luke's, that <q><emph>they +covenanted</emph></q> to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement +of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest +agreement. The chief Priests <q>set</q> or <q>appointed</q><note place='foot'>Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>statuerunt</foreign></q> or <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>constituerunt</foreign>.</q> +The Revisionists give <q>appointed</q> in the second of these places, and <q>put +forward</q> in the first. In both,—What becomes of their uniformity?</note> him +a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. +xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has +been set aside to make way for <emph>a misrepresentation of the +Evangelist's meaning</emph>. <q>In the judgment of the most competent +scholars,</q> was <q>such change <hi rend='smallcaps'>necessary</hi></q>? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) We respectfully think that it would have been more +becoming in such a company as that which assembled in the +Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their +Instructions, if <emph>in doubtful cases</emph> they had abstained from +touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own +conjectural emendations <emph>in the margin</emph>. How rash and infelicitous, +<pb n='151'/><anchor id='Pg151'/> +for example, is the following rendering of the +famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust +upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, +any marginal note at all:—<q>And Agrippa said unto Paul, +<emph>With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me</emph> a +Christian. And Paul said, I would to <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, that whether +<emph>with little or with much</emph>,</q> &c. Now this is indefensible. For, +in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, +our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated +ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b</hi> and a few +cursives) for γενέσθαι in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the +words do not yield the required sense. We venture to point +out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the +opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. +The moderns confess themselves unable to discover +a single instance of the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of <q><emph>within +a little</emph>.</q> Cyril of Jerusalem (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350) and Chrysostom +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here +the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent +judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: +far better judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of +this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together. +<q>Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul +derive from the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Spirit</hi></q> (says Cyril), <q>that even King +Agrippa at last exclaimed,</q><note place='foot'>P. 279.</note> &c. From which it is evident +that Cyril regarded Agrippa's words as an avowal that he +was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle's argument. And so +Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν νίκην +αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων λέγων, ἐν +ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).</note> who says plainly that ἐν ὀλίγῳ means <q>within +a little,</q><note place='foot'>ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.</note> and assumes that <q>within a little</q> S. Paul had +<pb n='152'/><anchor id='Pg152'/> +persuaded his judge.<note place='foot'>καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν +ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.</note> He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa's +mouth.<note place='foot'>iii. 399 d.</note> So also, in effect, Theodoret.<note place='foot'>v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).</note> From all which it is +reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to +infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church's +traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half +of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better +judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem +Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh,—writes: +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum +fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades +me Christianum fieri.</foreign></q><note place='foot'>MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.</note> Yes, the Apostle's rejoinder fixes the +meaning of what Agrippa had said before.—And this shall +suffice. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that +what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unable +<emph>materially and certainly</emph> to improve, they would have been +so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. +is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all +events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all +familiar is <q><emph>a plain and clear error</emph>.</q> And confessedly, unless +it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed. +</p> + +<p> +(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute +duty of rendering identical expressions <emph>in strictly parallel +places of the Gospels</emph> by strictly identical language. So far we +are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But <q>alterations +[supposed to be] rendered necessary <emph>by consequence</emph></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi>, +iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think +that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity +of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as +most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in limine</foreign>. <q>When a particular word</q> (say they) <q>is found to +<pb n='153'/><anchor id='Pg153'/> +recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred +Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform +rendering</q> (iii. 2). <q>Desirable</q>! Yes, but in what sense? +It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language +always contained <emph>the exact counterparts</emph> of Greek words: and +of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree <q>desirable</q> +that a Translator should always employ those words and +no other. But then it happens unfortunately that <emph>precisely +equivalent words do not exist</emph>. Τέκνον, nine times out of ten +signifies nothing else but <q><emph>child</emph>.</q> On the tenth occasion, +however, (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> where Abraham is addressing the rich man +in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate +<q><emph>Son</emph>.</q> We are in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary +Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., +and which the A. V. uniformly renders <q>bowels.</q> Well, and +<q>bowels</q> confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our Revisionists +felt themselves under the <q>necessity</q> of rendering the +word <q><emph>heart</emph>,</q> in Col. iii. 12,—<q><emph>very heart</emph>,</q> in Philemon, +ver. 12,—<q>affections</q> in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—<q><emph>inward affection</emph>,</q> +in vii. 15,—<q><emph>tender mercies</emph></q> in Phil. i. 8,—<q><emph>compassion</emph></q> in +1 Jo. iii. 17,—<q><emph>bowels</emph></q> only in Acts i. 18.—These learned +men, however, put forward in illustration of their own principle +of translation, the word εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 +times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in +S. Mark's Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert +that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no +matter <emph>what</emph> the context in which it stands,—the sense of +<q><emph>straightway</emph>,</q>—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally +(not always) means <q>straight.</q> Where a miracle of healing +is described (as in S. Matth. viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since +the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere +instinct of <q>faithfulness</q> to translate εὐθέως <q><emph>immediately</emph>.</q> +So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from +sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow +<pb n='154'/><anchor id='Pg154'/> +(xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, +as <emph>accompany</emph> his denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, when +<emph>the growth of a seed</emph> is the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! +Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time +in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as +<q><emph>forthwith</emph></q> or <q><emph>straightway</emph>,</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: +and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning +(as the Revisionists confess) can only be <q><emph>shortly</emph>.</q>... So plain +a matter really ought not to require so many words. We +repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken +Principle. They clearly <emph>do not understand their Trade</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +They invite our attention to their rendering of certain +of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We +regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is +disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority +of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with +the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate +appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. +Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, +press heavily upon such a work as the present; +for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, +which may be rectified. A vicious <emph>system</emph> of rendering +Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop +up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally +be attended by consequences of a serious nature. +</p> + +<p> +1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit +at once that, in teaching <emph>boys</emph> how to turn Greek into English, +we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate +sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove +in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered +with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the +Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let +<pb n='155'/><anchor id='Pg155'/> +the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) +be religiously retained. Merciless accuracy having been in +this way acquired, a youth has to be <emph>un</emph>taught these servile +habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of the +<emph>English idiom</emph>, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic +rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement +by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to +render the same word and tense in the same slavish way. +</p> + +<p> +2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now +under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation +already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation +throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted +to believe that we are in the company of Scholars +who are altogether masters of their own language. Their +solicitude ever seems to be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular +indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they +maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as +the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part +company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us +our <q>Authorized Version.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second +chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel:— +</p> + +<p> +(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering <q><emph>we +have seen</emph></q> is made to give place to the incorrect <q><emph>we saw</emph> +his star in the east.</q>—In ver. 9, the idiomatic <q><emph>when they +had heard the king</emph>, they departed,</q> is rejected for the unidiomatic +<q>And they, <emph>having heard the king</emph>, went their way.</q>—In +ver. 15, we are treated to <q>that it might be fulfilled +which was spoken by the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> <emph>through</emph> the prophet, saying, +Out of Egypt <emph>did I call</emph> my son.</q> And yet who sees not, +that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important +<pb n='156'/><anchor id='Pg156'/> +as it may be, <emph>in the lecture-room</emph>, to insist on what is +implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it is +simply preposterous to <emph>come abroad</emph> with such refinements. +It is to stultify oneself and to render one's author unintelligible. +Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal +is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if +διά is <q><emph>through</emph></q> in verse 15,—why not in verse 17 and in +verse 23? +</p> + +<p> +(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1, <q>there came +wise men from the east</q> is changed into <q><emph>wise men from the +east came</emph>.</q>—In ver. 4, the accurate, <q>And when [Herod] had +gathered together</q> (συναγαγών) &c., is displaced for the +inaccurate, <q>And <emph>gathering together</emph></q> &c.—In ver. 6, we are +presented with the unintelligible, <q>And thou <emph>Bethlehem, land +of Judah</emph>:</q> while in ver. 7, <q>Then Herod <emph>privily called</emph> the +wise men, and <emph>learned of them carefully</emph>,</q> is improperly put +in the place of <q>Then Herod, when he had privily called +the wise men, enquired of them diligently</q> (ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ +αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar <q>And when they were come +into the house, they saw</q> &c., is needlessly changed into +<q>They <emph>came into the house</emph>, and saw:</q> while <q>and when they +had opened (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,</q> is also needlessly +altered into <q>and <emph>opening</emph> their treasures.</q>—In ver. 12, the +R. V. is careful to print <q><emph>of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></emph></q> in italics, where italics are +not necessary: seeing that χρηματισθέντες implies <q>being +warned of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (as the translators of 1611 were well +aware<note place='foot'>And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.</note>): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists +reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely +required.—Their <q>until I <emph>tell thee</emph></q> (in ver. 13) is a most +unworthy substitute for <q>until I <emph>bring thee word</emph>.</q>—And will +they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the +<pb n='157'/><anchor id='Pg157'/> +concluding words of the chapter? If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται +does not mean <q>He shall be called a Nazarene,</q> what in the +world <emph>does</emph> it mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere +omit. Then why, here,—<q><emph>That</emph> it might be fulfilled ... <emph>that</emph></q>?—Surely, +every one of these is an alteration made for alteration's +sake, and in every instance <emph>for the worse</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +We began by surveying <emph>the Greek</emph> of the first chapter of +S. Matthew's Gospel. We have now surveyed <emph>the English</emph> of +the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result? +</p> + +<p> +IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain +points of detail: and first, to their rendering of <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Tenses +of the Verb</hi>. They begin with the Greek Aorist,—(in +their account) <q>perhaps the most important</q> detail of all:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language +by forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have +often ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English +preterite, even when the reader may find some passing difficulty +in such a rendering, because we have felt convinced that the +true meaning of the original was obscured by the presence of +the familiar auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be +found in the seventeenth chapter of S. John's Gospel.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi>, +iii. 2,—(<hi rend='italic'>latter part</hi>). +</quote> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained +to assure these well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon +we there witness is absolutely fatal to their pretensions +as <q><hi rend='italic'>Revisers</hi></q> of our Authorized Version. Were it only <q>some +passing difficulty</q> which their method occasions us, we +might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome +it. But since it is <emph>the genius of the English language</emph> to +which we find they have offered violence; the fixed and +universally-understood idiom of our native tongue which +they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is +absolutely without remedy. The difference between the +A. V. and the R. V. seems to ourselves to be simply this,—that +<pb n='158'/><anchor id='Pg158'/> +the renderings in the former are the idiomatic English +representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses: +while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the +pedantic efforts of mere grammarians to reproduce in another +language idioms which it abhors. But the Reader +shall judge for himself: for <emph>this</emph> at least is a point on which +every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass +sentence. +</p> + +<p> +When our Divine <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, at the close of His Ministry,—(He +had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly +life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Passion,)—when +He, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>, says, +ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... +ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], +there can be no doubt whatever that, had He pronounced +those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.) +<q>I <emph>have glorified</emph> Thee on the earth: I <emph>have finished</emph> the +work:</q> <q>I <emph>have manifested</emph> Thy Name.</q> The pedantry which +(on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the +perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—<q>I +glorified</q> ... <q>I finished</q> ... <q>I manifested,</q>—we pronounce +altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. +Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—<q>I have given them Thy +word; and the world <emph>hath hated them</emph>.</q> And in ver. 25,—<q>O +righteous <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>, the world <emph>hath not known</emph> Thee; but +I <emph>have known</emph> Thee, and these <emph>have known</emph> that Thou <emph>hast +sent</emph> Me.</q> <emph>Who</emph> would consent to substitute for these expressions,—<q>the +world hated them:</q> and <q>the world knew +Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst +send Me</q>?—Or turn to another Gospel. <emph>Which</emph> is better,—<q>Some +one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is +gone out of Me,</q> (S. Lu. viii. 46):—or,—<q>Some one <emph>did touch</emph> +Me: for <emph>I perceived</emph> that power <emph>had gone forth</emph> from Me</q>? +</p> + +<pb n='159'/><anchor id='Pg159'/> + +<p> +When the reference is to an act so extremely recent, <emph>who</emph> is +not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to +the genius of the English language? As for ἔγνων, it is +(like <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>novi</foreign> in Latin) present in <emph>sense</emph> though past in <emph>form</emph>,—here +as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet another Gospel. +<emph>Which</emph> is better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—<q><emph>we took</emph> no bread,</q> or +<q>It is because <emph>we have taken</emph> no bread</q>?—Again. When Simon +Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out +into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard +to exclaim,—<q>Master, we have toiled all the night, and have +taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down +the net</q> (Lu. v. 5),—<emph>who</emph> would tolerate the proposal to put +in the place of it,—<q>Master, <emph>we toiled all night</emph>, and <emph>took</emph> +nothing: but at Thy word,</q> &c. It is not too much to +declare that the idiom of the English language refuses +peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain +is it to encounter us with reminder that κοπιάσαντες and +ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we +deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered <q>we +<emph>toiled</emph> all night, and <emph>took</emph> nothing.</q> There are laws of +English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when +these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English +out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,—or +we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we +propose to translate. +</p> + +<p> +All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be +insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional +practice show that they fully admit <emph>the Principle</emph> we +are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S. Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is +by them translated <q><emph>they have taken</emph>:</q>—ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; +(S. Matt. xxvii. 46) <q>Why <emph>hast Thou forsaken Me</emph>?</q><note place='foot'>Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the +peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—<q><emph>Why didst thou forsake Me?</emph></q></note>:—ἔδειξα +<pb n='160'/><anchor id='Pg160'/> +(S. Jo. x. 32) <q><emph>have I showed</emph>:</q>—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29) <q><emph>He hath +sent</emph>:</q>—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6) <q><emph>ye have dishonoured</emph>:</q>—ἐκαθάρισε +(Acts x. 15) <q><emph>hath cleansed</emph>:</q>—ἔστησεν (xvii. 31) +<q>He <emph>hath appointed</emph>.</q> But indeed instances abound everywhere. +In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed +to <emph>force</emph> them to be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), +they rightly render <q>What <emph>hast</emph> thou done?</q>:—and ἔγραψα +(in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21), <q>I <emph>have</emph> written;</q>—and ἤκουσα (in Acts +ix. 13), <q>I <emph>have</emph> heard.</q>—On the other hand, by translating οὐκ +εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4), <q><emph>hath not suffered</emph>,</q> they may be +thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have +overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten +by the viper, <q>the barbarians</q> looked upon him as <emph>a dead +man</emph>; and therefore discoursed about what Justice <q><emph>did not</emph> +suffer,</q> as about an entirely past transaction. +</p> + +<p> +But now, <emph>Who</emph> sees not that the admission, once and +again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only +lawful, but even <emph>necessary</emph>, to accommodate the Greek aorist +(when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,—reduces +the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a +mere question of <emph>Taste</emph>? In view of such instances as the +foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the +Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that +their contention is at an end,—so far as <emph>right</emph> and <emph>wrong</emph> are +concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all +along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien +yoke.<note place='foot'>As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv. +20, &c. &c.</note> Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be +repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,—Which then is +<emph>the more idiomatic</emph> of these two English renderings?... +Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists +<pb n='161'/><anchor id='Pg161'/> +have represented the <emph>Greek perfect</emph> by the English +indefinite preterite. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the +Aorist, we are often annoyed by an <emph>unidiomatic</emph> rendering of +the Imperfect. True enough it is that <q>the servants and the +officers <emph>were standing</emph> ... and <emph>were warming</emph> themselves:</q> +Peter also <q><emph>was standing</emph> with them and <emph>was warming</emph> himself</q> +(S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in +English, unless we are about to add something which shall +<emph>account for</emph> our particularity and precision. Any one, for +example, desirous of stating what had been for years his +daily practice, would say—<q><emph>I left</emph> my house.</q> Only when he +wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he +met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, +would an Englishman think of saying, <q><emph>I was leaving</emph> the +house.</q> A Greek writer, on the other hand, would not <emph>trust</emph> +this to the imperfect. He would use the present participle +in the dative case, (<q><emph>To me, leaving my house</emph>,</q><note place='foot'>Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.</note> &c.). One is +astonished to have to explain such things.... <q>If therefore +thou <emph>art offering</emph> thy gift at the altar</q> (Matt. v. 23), may +seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads +like a senseless exaggeration of the original.<note place='foot'>Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.</note> It sounds +(and <emph>is</emph>) as unnatural as to say (in S. Lu. ii. 33) <q>And His +father [a depravation of the text] and His mother <emph>were marvelling</emph> +at the things which were spoken concerning Him:</q>—or +(in Heb. xi. 17) <q>yea, he that had received the promises +<emph>was offering up</emph> his only-begotten son:</q>—or, of the cripple at +Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), <q>the same heard Paul <emph>speaking</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly +when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered +<pb n='162'/><anchor id='Pg162'/> +into English by the sign of the <emph>Pluperfect</emph>. An instance +meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (S. Lu. v. 4),—where +our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic +rendering of our Authorized Version,—<q>When He <emph>had left</emph> +speaking.</q> Of what possible avail could it be, on such an +occasion, to insist that, because ἐπαύσατο is not in the +pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated with <emph>the sign</emph> +of the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?—The +R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii. 24,—where +<q>Now Annas <emph>had sent</emph> Him bound unto Caiaphas the +high priest,</q> is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as +Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo. xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, +on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce +Joseph <q><emph>had hewn</emph> out</q> (ἐλατόμησε) the new tomb +which became our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi>: and the seven Apostles, confessedly, +<q><emph>had dined</emph></q> (ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course, <q>declared +unto them how the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> <emph>had brought him out</emph> of the prison</q> +(ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible to substitute anything for +<q>If Jesus [Joshua] <emph>had given</emph> them rest</q> (κατέπαυσεν).—Then +of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the +Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be +Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John +says (Rev. xix. 6), <q>The <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord God</hi> Omnipotent reigneth</q> +(ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against such instances. +They <emph>insist</emph> on being rendered according to the genius of the +language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when +ἔκειτο (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering <q><emph>had lain</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the +student's benefit, that there is one highly interesting place +(viz. S. Matth. xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled +Critics and Divines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as +Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will continue to mislead +readers for many a year to come:—and all because men +<pb n='163'/><anchor id='Pg163'/> +have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the +pluperfect. Translate,—<q>There <emph>had been</emph> a great earthquake:</q> +[and so (1611-1881) our margin,—until in short <q>the Revisionists</q> +interfered:] <q>for the Angel of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> <emph>had</emph> descended +from heaven, and <emph>come and rolled away</emph> (ἀπεκύλισε) +the stone from the door, and sat upon it.</q> Strange, that for +1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that +the Evangelist is describing what terrified <q><emph>the keepers</emph>.</q> <q><emph>The +women</emph></q> saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!—though +Origen,<note place='foot'>ii. 155.</note>—Dionysius of Alexandria,<note place='foot'>Routh, <hi rend='italic'>Rell</hi>. iii. 226 <hi rend='italic'>ad calc.</hi></note>—Eusebius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Mai, iv. 266.</note>—ps.-Gregory +Naz.,<note place='foot'>ii. 1324.</note>—Cyril Alex.,<note place='foot'>ii. 380.</note>—Hesychius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.</note>—and so many +others—have taken it for granted that they <emph>did</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There +are occasions where the Greek <emph>perfect</emph> exacts the sign +of the <emph>present</emph> at the hands of the English translator: as +when Martha says,—<q>Yea <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, I <emph>believe</emph> that Thou art the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi></q> (S. Jo. xi. 27).<note place='foot'>So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.</note> What else but the veriest pedantry +is it to thrust in there <q><emph>I have believed</emph>,</q> as the English equivalent +for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the officiousness +which would thrust into the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> prayer (Matt. vi. 12), +<q>as we also <emph>have forgiven</emph> (ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.</q><note place='foot'>Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs, the +<emph>preterite</emph> in form is invariably <emph>present</emph> in signification. See Dr. Field's +delightful <hi rend='italic'>Otium Norvicense</hi>, p. 65.</note>—On the +other hand, there are Greek <emph>presents</emph> (whatever the Revisionists +may think) which are just as peremptory in requiring +<emph>the sign of the future</emph>, at the hands of the idiomatic translator +into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. +16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is <emph>inherent</emph> in the present +ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can +endure, <q>I will not leave you desolate: <emph>I come unto you</emph></q>? +</p> + +<pb n='164'/><anchor id='Pg164'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) But instances abound. How does it happen that the +inaccurate rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been +retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9? +</p> + +<p> +V. Next, concerning the <hi rend='smallcaps'>definite Article</hi>; in the case +of which, (say the Revisionists,) +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>many changes have been made.</q> <q>We have been careful to +observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be +idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, +we have yielded to necessity.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi>, iii. 2,—<hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi>) +</quote> + +<p> +In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own +we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the +Reader's judgment; and invite him to decide between the +Reviewer and the Reviewed ... <q><emph>The</emph> sower went forth to sow</q> +(Matth. xiii. 3).—<q>It is greater than <emph>the</emph> herbs</q> (ver. 32).—<q>Let +him be to thee as <emph>the</emph> Gentile and <emph>the</emph> publican</q> (xviii. +17).—<q>The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of <emph>the</emph> man</q> +(xii. 43).—<q>Did I not choose you <emph>the</emph> twelve?</q> (Jo. vi. 70).—<q>If +I then, <emph>the</emph> Lord and <emph>the</emph> master</q> (xiii. 14).—<q>For <emph>the</emph> +joy that a man is born into the world</q> (xvi. 21).—<q>But as +touching Apollos <emph>the</emph> brother</q> (1 Cor. xvi. 12).—<q><emph>The</emph> Bishop +must be blameless ... able to exhort in <emph>the</emph> sound doctrine</q> +(Titus i. 7, 9).—<q><emph>The</emph> lust when it hath conceived, beareth +sin: and <emph>the</emph> sin, when it is full grown</q> &c. (James i. 15).—<q>Doth +<emph>the</emph> fountain send forth from the same opening sweet +water and bitter?</q> (iii. 11).—<q>Speak thou the things which +befit <emph>the</emph> sound doctrine</q> (Titus ii. 1).—<q>The time will come +when they will not endure <emph>the</emph> sound doctrine</q> (2 Tim. +iv. 3).—<q>We had <emph>the</emph> fathers of our flesh to chasten us</q> +(Heb. xii. 9).—<q>Follow after peace with all men, and <emph>the</emph> +sanctification</q> (ver. 14).—<q>Who is <emph>the</emph> liar but he that +denieth that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> is the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>?</q> (1 Jo. ii. 22).—<q>Not +with <emph>the</emph> water only, but with <emph>the</emph> water and with <emph>the</emph> blood</q> +(v. 6).—<q>He that hath the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi>, hath <emph>the</emph> life: he that +hath not the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi> of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> hath not <emph>the</emph> life</q> (ver. 12). +</p> + +<pb n='165'/><anchor id='Pg165'/> + +<p> +To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite +Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,—is +preposterous. In French also we say <q>Telle est <emph>la</emph> vie:</q> +but, in translating from the French, we do not <emph>therefore</emph> say +<q>Such is <emph>the</emph> life.</q> May we, without offence, suggest the +study of Middleton <hi rend='italic'>On the Doctrine of the Greek Article</hi> to +those members of the Revisionists' body who have favoured +us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings? +</p> + +<p> +So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented +with,—<q><emph>An</emph> eternal</q> (for <q><emph>the</emph> everlasting</q>) <q>gospel to proclaim</q> +(Rev. xiv. 6):—and <q>one like unto <emph>a</emph> son of man,</q> for +<q>one like unto <emph>the</emph> Son of Man</q> in ver. 14.—Why <q><emph>a</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi></q> +in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).—On the +other hand, Κρανίον is rendered <q><emph>The</emph> skull</q> in S. Lu. xxiii. +33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random +must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If +the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English +Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, +we shall be surprised, and sorry—<emph>for him</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +VI. The Revisionists announce that they <q>have been particularly +careful</q> as to <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Pronouns</hi> [iii. 2 <hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi>] We recal +with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been +specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed—at their practice +of <emph>repeating the nominative</emph> (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> in Mk. i. 13: Jo. xx. 12) to +an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except +indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at +their license of translation, <emph>when it suits them</emph> to be licentious.—Thus, +(as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) +<q><emph>it is He that</emph></q> is an incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. +i. 21,—a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is +<q><emph>He who</emph></q> as the rendering of ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—another +famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg098'>98-106</ref>. Also <hi rend='italic'>infra</hi>, towards the end.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='166'/><anchor id='Pg166'/> + +<p> +VII. 'In the case of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Particles</hi>' (say the Revisionists), +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of <emph>consistency</emph>. +The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well +known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with +precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to +preserve a general <emph>uniformity of rendering</emph>.</q>—(iii. 2 <hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi>) +</quote> + +<p> +Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to +occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. +Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,—(especially +throughout the period when the Language was in its decadence,)—are +the least capable of being drilled into <q>a general +uniformity of rendering;</q> and he who tries the experiment +ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement +and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, +are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of +the case, <q><emph>uniformity of rendering</emph></q> is precisely the thing +they will not submit to. They take their colour from their +context: often mean two quite different things in the course +of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a +long and formidable word;<note place='foot'>As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered <q>notwithstanding:</q>—Phil. +i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is <q>nevertheless.</q></note> sometimes cannot (without a +certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be rendered +<emph>at all</emph>.<note place='foot'><emph>Eight</emph> times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not represented in +the A. V. The ancients <emph>felt</emph> so keenly what Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, +the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit, that as often as not they +leave out the δέ,—in which our Revisionists twice follow them. The +reader of taste is invited to note the precious result of inserting <q>and,</q> as +the Revisionists have done six times, where according to the genius of the +English language it is not wanted at all.</note> Let us illustrate what we have been saying by +actual appeals to Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use +which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most +<pb n='167'/><anchor id='Pg167'/> +frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to be employed in the +N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable +authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying +that it may be represented by any of the following words:—<q>but,</q>—<q>and,</q><note place='foot'>38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.</note>—<q>yea,</q><note place='foot'>Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.</note>—<q>what,</q><note place='foot'>Rom. ix. 22.</note>—<q>now,</q><note place='foot'>1 Cor. xii. 27.</note>—<q>and +that</q>,<note place='foot'>Gal. ii. 4.</note>—<q>howbeit,</q><note place='foot'>Act xxvii. 26.</note>—<q>even,</q><note place='foot'>Rom. iii. 22.</note>—<q>therefore,</q><note place='foot'>Ephes. iv. 1.</note>—<q>I say,</q><note place='foot'>2 Cor. v. 8.</note>—<q>also,</q><note place='foot'>S. Mark xv. 31.</note>—<q>yet,</q><note place='foot'>S. Mark vi. 29.</note>—<q>for.</q><note place='foot'>1 Cor. x. 1.</note> +To which 12 renderings, King James's +translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at +least these other 12:—<q>wherefore,</q><note place='foot'>S. Matth. vi. 30.</note>—<q>so,</q><note place='foot'>S. John xx. 4.</note>—<q>moreover,</q><note place='foot'>2 Cor. i. 23.</note>—<q>yea +and,</q><note place='foot'>2 Cor. vii. 13.</note>—<q>furthermore,</q><note place='foot'>2 Cor. ii. 12.</note>—<q>nevertheless,</q><note place='foot'>2 Pet. iii. 13.</note>—<q>notwithstanding,</q><note place='foot'>S. Matth. ii. 22.</note>—<q>yet +but,</q><note place='foot'>1 Cor. xii. 20.</note>—<q>truly,</q><note place='foot'>1 S. John i. 3.</note>—<q>or,</q><note place='foot'>S. Matth. xxv. 39.</note>—<q>as for,</q><note place='foot'>Acts viii. 3.</note>—<q>then,</q><note place='foot'>Rom. xii. 6.</note>—<q>and +yet.</q><note place='foot'>S. Matth. vi. 29.</note> It shall suffice to add that, by the +pitiful substitution of <q>but</q> or <q>and</q> on <emph>most</emph> of the foregoing +occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every +passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being +that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 +years before them—produced a work of real genius; seizing +with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the +sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they +felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have +varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: +whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what +can only be described as <emph>a spirit of servile pedantry</emph>. The +Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We +seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,—the +startling fact that μέν means <q>indeed,</q> and δέ <q>but.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='168'/><anchor id='Pg168'/> + +<p> +We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes +introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. +In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen +have been contented to read (with William Tyndale), <q>But +now are they many members, <hi rend='smallcaps'>yet but</hi> one body.</q> Our +Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means +<q>but,</q> and yielding to the supposed <q>necessity for preserving +a general uniformity of rendering,</q>) substitute,—<q><emph>But</emph> now +they are many members, <emph>but</emph> one body.</q> Comment ought to +be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that δέ occurs +here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by <q>but</q> in +the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the +second occasion, <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>yet but</hi></q> ought to have been let alone. +And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been +effected <emph>many times in every page</emph>. To proceed however. +</p> + +<p> +(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning +of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in +S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,—being +apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to +our colloquial interrogative <q><emph>Eh?</emph></q> But sometimes it would +evidently bear to be represented by <q>Pray,</q><note place='foot'>As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.</note>—being at least +equivalent to φέρε in Greek or <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>age</foreign> in Latin. Once only +(viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so +eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our +A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it <q>What?</q>—by which +word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented +in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the +places where the particle occurs. King James's Translators are +observed to have give it up in despair.<note place='foot'>S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.</note> But what is to be +thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single +exception already indicated) has <emph>invariably</emph> rendered ἤ by +<pb n='169'/><anchor id='Pg169'/> +the conjunction <q><emph>or</emph></q>? The blunder is the more inexcusable, +because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into +places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have +failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising +body. +</p> + +<p> +(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few +words.—Καί, though no particle but a conjunction, may for +our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same +head; being diversely rendered <q>and,</q>—<q>and yet,</q><note place='foot'>S. John xvi. 32.</note>—<q>then,</q><note place='foot'>S. Luke xix. 23.</note>—<q>or,</q><note place='foot'>2 Cor. xiii. 1.</note>—<q>neither,</q><note place='foot'>S. Luke xii. 2.</note>—<q>though,</q><note place='foot'>S. Luke xviii. 7.</note>—<q>so,</q><note place='foot'>S Luke xiv. 21.</note>—<q>but,</q><note place='foot'>1 S. John ii. 27.</note>—<q>for,</q><note place='foot'>1 S. John i. 2.</note>—<q>that,</q><note place='foot'>S. Mark ix. 39.</note>—in +conformity with what may be called the genius +of the English language. The last six of these renderings, +however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting +out the word which the argument seems rather to require, +and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every +time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) +word, <q>and.</q> With what amount of benefit this has been +effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The Revisionists inform us that when <q>the high priest +Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him +on the mouth,</q>—S. Paul exclaimed, <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> shall smite thee, +thou whited wall: <hi rend='smallcaps'>and</hi> sittest thou to judge me after the +law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the +law?</q><note place='foot'>Acts xxiii. 3.</note>... Do these learned men really imagine that they +have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in +altering <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>for</hi></q> into <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>and</hi></q>? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the +Hebrews, remarks,—<q><emph>So</emph> we see that they could not enter in +because of unbelief</q> (Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists +<pb n='170'/><anchor id='Pg170'/> +again substitute <q>And.</q> Begin the sentence with <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>and</hi>,</q> +(instead of <q>So,</q>) and, in compensation for what you have +clearly <emph>lost</emph>, what have you <emph>gained</emph>?... Once more:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos +(in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage +is obtained by writing <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>and</hi></q> (instead of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>but</hi></q>) <q>his will was +not at all to come at this time</q>.... Yet once more; and on +<emph>this</emph> occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... +καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,—<emph>who</emph> knows not that what his +language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,—<q><emph>No sooner</emph> +does the sun arise,</q> <q><emph>than</emph> it withereth the grass</q>? And so +in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement +on this can it be to substitute, <q>For the sun ariseth ... +<hi rend='smallcaps'>and</hi> withereth the grass</q>?—Only once more:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Though καί undeniably means <q>and,</q> and πῶς, <q>how,</q>—<emph>who</emph> +knows not that καὶ πῶς means <q><emph>How then?</emph></q> And +yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two +places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx. 44,)—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>and +how</hi></q> is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment +of the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in +S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the text itself has been mercilessly +deprived of its characteristic καί by the Revisionists.—Let +this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such +instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, and <emph>most unscholarlike</emph> +innovation. +</p> + +<p> +VIII. <q>Many changes</q> (we are informed) <q>have been introduced +in the rendering of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Prepositions</hi>.</q> [<hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi>, iii. +2, <hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi>]:—and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the +statement, for (as was shown above [pp. <ref target='Pg155'>155-6</ref>]) the second +chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel exhibits the Revisionists +<q>all a-field</q> in respect of διά. <q>We have rarely made any +change</q> (they add) <q>where the true meaning of the original +would be apparent to <emph>a Reader of ordinary intelligence</emph>.</q> It +<pb n='171'/><anchor id='Pg171'/> +would of course ill become such an one as the present +Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: +but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts +ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down +<q><emph>through the wall</emph>,</q> he must be pardoned for regretting the +absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus +and Thisbe in order to suggest <emph>how</emph> the operation was effected: +for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. +Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle +effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think +what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable +them <emph>both</emph> to get through!... But let us look further. +</p> + +<p> +Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>captus</foreign> +of <q>a Reader of ordinary intelligence</q> that the Revisers have +introduced no less than <emph>thirty changes</emph> into <emph>eight-and-thirty +words</emph> of S. Peter's 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is +invited to the following interesting specimen of <q><emph>Revision</emph>.</q> +It is the only one we shall offer of the many <emph>contrasts</emph> we +had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, +whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a +specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν? +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(25) lw(25)'"> +<row><cell>A. V.</cell><cell>R. V.</cell></row> +<row><cell> +<q>And beside all this, giving +all diligence, add to your faith +virtue; and to virtue knowledge; +and to knowledge temperance; +and to temperance +patience; and to patience godliness; +and to godliness brotherly +kindness; and to brotherly +kindness charity.</q>—[2 +Pet. i. 5-7.]</cell> +<cell><q>Yea (1), and for (2) this very (3) cause (4) +adding (5) on (6) your part (7) all diligence, +in (8) your faith supply (9) +virtue; and in (10) your (11) virtue +knowledge; and in (12) your (13) knowledge +temperance; and in (14) your (15) +temperance patience; and in (16) +your (17) patience godliness; and +in (18) your (19) godliness love (20) of (21) the (22) +brethren (23); and in (24) your (25) love (26) of (27) +the (28) brethren (29) love (30).</q></cell></row> +</table> + +<pb n='172'/><anchor id='Pg172'/> + +<p> +The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of +the Revisionists' statement (<hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi>, iii. 2),—<q>We made <emph>no</emph> +change <emph>if the meaning was fairly expressed</emph> by the word or +phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.</q> To +ourselves it appears that <emph>every one of those 30 changes is a +change for the worse</emph>; and that one of the most exquisite +passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered +in fact well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness +of the Revisers. Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent +on removing none but <q><emph>plain and clear errors</emph>,</q> +when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of +their stern resolve <q>to introduce into the Text <emph>as few alterations +as possible</emph>,</q> that they spared the eight words which +remain out of the eight-and-thirty? +</p> + +<p> +As for their <emph>wooden</emph> rendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice +to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes +ἐν can only be rendered <q><emph>with</emph></q>:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, +to show them that ἐν sometimes means <q><emph>throughout</emph></q>:—and to +Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means +<q><emph>by</emph>.</q>—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may be +rendered <q><emph>by</emph></q> in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being +aware that <q>the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts</q> is +<emph>a phrase</emph>—in which perforce <q><emph>by</emph></q> has no business whatever. +One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and +Scholars an elementary fact like this. +</p> + +<p> +In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that +there is not one of the <q>Parts of Speech</q> which will consent +to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be +to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the +matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel +<q>casting his sickle <emph>into the earth</emph></q> (Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his +<q>pouring out his bowl <emph>upon the air</emph></q> (xvi. 17),—we really +fail to understand the nature of the operation.—And pray, +<pb n='173'/><anchor id='Pg173'/> +What is supposed to be the meaning of <q>the things <emph>upon +the heavens</emph></q>—in Ephesians i. 10? +</p> + +<p> +Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in +respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by +complaining in their Preface [iii. 3 <hi rend='italic'>ad fin.</hi>] that in the A. V. +<q>ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly +marked in the original, have been <emph>confused or obscured in the +Translation</emph>,</q>)—we have to point out:— +</p> + +<p> +(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be +aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of +<q><emph>through</emph></q> (as a substitute for <q><emph>by</emph></q>) in certain expressions +where instrumentality is concerned. Thus, <q>the Son of man</q> +was not betrayed <q><emph>through</emph></q> Judas, but <q><emph>by</emph></q> him (Matt. xxvi. +24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to say that a +prophecy was <q>spoken,</q> nay <q><emph>written</emph>,</q> <q><emph>through</emph> the Prophet</q> +(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). <q>Who spake <emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>by</hi> the Prophets</emph>,</q> +is even an article of the Faith. +</p> + +<p> +And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence +adopted a see-saw method of rendering διά,—sometimes in +one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us <q>wonders +and signs done <emph>by</emph> the Apostles</q> (Acts ii. 43; but in the +margin, <q>Or, <emph>through</emph></q>): presently, <q>a notable miracle hath +been wrought <emph>through</emph> them</q> (iv. 16: and this time, the +margin withholds the alternative, <q>Or, <emph>by</emph></q>). Is then <q>the +true meaning</q> of <q><emph>by</emph>,</q> in the former place, <q>apparent to a +Reader of ordinary intelligence</q>? but so obscure in the latter +as to render <emph>necessary</emph> the alteration to <q><emph>through</emph></q>? Or (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>sit +venia verbo</foreign>),—Was it a mere <q>toss-up</q> with the Revisionists +<emph>what</emph> is the proper rendering of διά? +</p> + +<p> +(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of <q>miracles, +wonders, and signs</q> which <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> did <emph>by</emph></q> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> of Nazareth. +Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of +<pb n='174'/><anchor id='Pg174'/> +<q><emph>through</emph></q>—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition +is still the same—διά not ὑπό. +</p> + +<p> +Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of +the Divine <hi rend='smallcaps'>Word</hi>, all Scripture attests. <q>All things were +made <emph>by</emph> Him</q> (S. Jo. i. 3):—<q>the world was made <emph>by</emph> Him</q> +(ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement +is repeated,—(<q>all things were created <emph>by</emph> Him and for +Him,</q>)—do we find <q><emph>through</emph></q> substituted for <q><emph>by</emph></q>? And why +is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where we +<emph>ought</emph> to read,—<q>one <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>, of whom are all +things ... and one <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord Jesus Christ</hi>, <emph>by</emph> whom are all +things</q>)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of <q><emph>by</emph> +whom also [viz. by <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Son</hi>] He made the worlds,</q> do we +find substituted <q><emph>through</emph> whom</q>?... And why add to +this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving +us the choice of <q><emph>through</emph></q> (in place of <q><emph>by</emph></q>) in the margin of +S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative +of <q><emph>by</emph></q> (in place of <q><emph>through</emph></q>) in any of the other places,—although +the preposition is διά on every occasion? +</p> + +<p> +And thus much for the Revisers' handling of the Prepositions. +We shall have said all that we can find room for, +when we have further directed attention to the uncritical +and unscholarlike Note with which they have disfigured the +margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that, +according to the Greek, our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> <q>was baptized <emph>into the +Jordan</emph>,</q>—an unintelligible statement to English readers, as +well as a misleading one. Especially on their guard should +the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing that, in a place +of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page +(viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted +<q><emph>into</emph></q> for <q><emph>in</emph>.</q> This latter alteration, one of the Revisers +(Dr. Vance Smith) rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his +account) the evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. That the +<pb n='175'/><anchor id='Pg175'/> +Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,—<emph>who</emph> can +doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to +append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public +that the preposition εἰς signifies <q><emph>into</emph></q> rather than <q><emph>in</emph>,</q>—why +did they not at least go on to record the elementary +fact that εἰς has here (what grammarians call) a <q>pregnant +signification</q>? that it implies—(every schoolboy knows it!)—<emph>and +that it is used in order to imply</emph>—that the Holy One +<q><emph>went down</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>into</hi>,</q> and so, <q><emph>was baptized</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>in</hi> the <emph>Jordan</emph></q>?<note place='foot'>Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver. 6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο +ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.</note>... +But <emph>why</emph>, in the name of common sense, <emph>did not the Revisionists +let the Preposition alone</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +IX. The <hi rend='smallcaps'>Margin</hi> of the Revision is the last point to which +our attention is invited, and in the following terms:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention. +They represent the results of <emph>a large amount of careful and +elaborate discussion</emph>, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, +indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions +that have almost daily come before us for decision. These +Notes fall into four main groups:—<emph>First</emph>, Notes specifying such +differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient importance +to require a particular notice;—<emph>Secondly</emph>, Notes indicating +the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of English +idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the +text;—<emph>Thirdly</emph>, Notes, very few in number, affording some explanation +which the original appeared to require;—<emph>Fourthly</emph>, +Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The +Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of +those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 +years that have passed away since their labours were concluded, +the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every +detail, and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in +the days of the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated +<pb n='176'/><anchor id='Pg176'/> +a large amount of materials that have prepared the way +for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi>, +iii. 4.) +</quote> + +<p> +When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention +to a certain part of their work in such terms as these, it is +painful for a Critic to be obliged to declare that he has +surveyed this department of their undertaking with even less +satisfaction than any other. So long, however, as he assigns +<emph>the grounds</emph> of his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot complain. +The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is +mistaken in his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the +groups in order:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) Having already stated our objections against the many +Notes which specify <emph>Textual errors</emph> which the Revisionists +declined to adopt,—we shall here furnish only two instances +of the mischief we deplore:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Against the words, <q>And while they <emph>abode</emph> in Galilee</q> +(S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,—<q>Some ancient +authorities read <emph>were gathering themselves together</emph>.</q> The plain +English of which queer piece of information is that א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +exhibit in this place an impossible and untranslatable Reading,—the +substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ ἀυτῶν +can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was +sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose +that ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact +equivalent for <emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>Con</hi>-versantibus autem illis</emph>. This is not the +place for discussing a kind of hallucination which prevailed +largely in the earliest age, especially in regions where Greek +was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it was, +obviously, that the preposterous substitution of <foreign lang='la' rend='smallcaps'>Euraquilo</foreign> +for <q>Euroclydon,</q> in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such +blunders would be laughable if encountered anywhere except +on holy ground. Apart, however, from the lamentable lack +<pb n='177'/><anchor id='Pg177'/> +of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present +displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which +elicits <q><emph>While they were gathering themselves together</emph></q> out of +συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue +to the Revisers' rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) +Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are +assured that the source of the <emph>Textual</emph> blunder which they +mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii. 38.<note place='foot'>ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed +that, instead of <foreign rend='italic'>Melita</foreign>,—<q>some ancient authorities read +<foreign rend='italic'>Melitene</foreign>,</q> in Acts xxviii. 1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> to live on in the margin of every Englishman's copy of the +New Testament, for ever? Why, <emph>all</emph> other MSS.—the Syriac +and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea<note place='foot'>Galland. iv. 6 b <hi rend='italic'>bis</hi>.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 294), +the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of Jerusalem,<note place='foot'>P. 279.</note>—Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>ix. 400.</note>—John +Damascene,<note place='foot'>ii. 707.</note>—all the Fathers in short who +quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—<emph>all</emph> +read Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every +critical Editor of the N. T.—(<emph>excepting always Drs. Westcott +and Hort</emph>), from the invention of Printing till now. But +because these two misguided men, without apology, explanation, +note or comment of any kind, have adopted +<q><foreign rend='italic'>Melitene</foreign></q> into their text, is the Church of England to be +dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the +eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is <q>gross as a +mountain, open, palpable.</q> One glance at the place, written +in uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. +Some stupid scribe (as the reader sees) has connected the +first syllable of νῆσος with the last syllable of Μελίτη.<note place='foot'>The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr. +Field in his delightful <hi rend='italic'>Otium Norvicense</hi>.</note> <emph>That</emph> +<pb n='178'/><anchor id='Pg178'/> +is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it most certainly is)—belongs +to the age and country in which <q><foreign rend='italic'>Melitene</foreign></q> was by +far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan +see of Armenia;<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iv. 79 e.</note> mention of which crops up in the <hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi> +repeatedly.<note place='foot'>Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of Melitene,—<hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, +iii. 1111.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered +together. The former comprises those words of which +the <emph>less exact</emph> rendering finds place in the Text:—the latter, +<q><emph>Alternative renderings</emph> in difficult and debateable passages.</q> +</p> + +<p> +We presume that here our attention is specially invited to +such notes as the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,—<q><emph>Awake +out of drunkenness righteously</emph></q>:—against S. John i. 14,—<q><emph>an +only begotten from a father</emph></q>:—against 1 Pet. iii. 20,—<q><emph>into +which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through +water</emph></q>:—against 2 Pet. iii. 7,—<q><emph>stored with fire</emph></q>:—against +S. John xviii. 37,—<q><emph>Thou sayest it, because I am a king</emph></q>:—against +Ephes. iii. 21,—<q><emph>All the generations of the age of the +ages</emph></q>:—against Jude ver. 14,—<q><emph>His holy myriads</emph></q>:—against +Heb. xii. 18,—<q><emph>a palpable and kindled fire</emph></q>:—against Lu. xv. +31,—<q><emph>Child</emph>, thou art ever with me</q>:—against Matth. xxi. 28,—<q><emph>Child</emph>, +go work to-day in my vineyard</q>:—against xxiv. +3,—<q>What shall be the sign of Thy <emph>presence</emph>, and of <emph>the consummation +of the age</emph>?</q>—against Tit. i. 2,—<q><emph>before times +eternal</emph></q>: against Mk. iv. 29,—<q>When the fruit <emph>alloweth</emph> [and +why not <q><emph>yieldeth</emph> itself</q>?], straightway <emph>he sendeth forth</emph> the +sickle</q>:—against Ephes. iv. 17,—<q><emph>through every joint of the +supply</emph></q>:—against ver. 29,—<q><emph>the building up of the need</emph></q>:—against +Lu. ii. 29,—<q><emph>Master</emph>, now lettest thou Thy <emph>bondservant</emph> +depart in peace</q>:—against Acts iv. 24,—<q>O <emph>Master</emph>, +thou that didst make the heaven and the earth</q>:—against +<pb n='179'/><anchor id='Pg179'/> +Lu. i. 78,—<q>Because of <emph>the heart of mercy</emph> of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>.</q> Concerning +all such renderings we will but say, that although +they are unquestionably better in the Margin than in the +Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that they would +have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists +serious when they suggested as the more <q>exact</q> rendering of +2 Pet. i. 20,—<q>No prophecy of Scripture is of <emph>special</emph> interpretation</q>? +And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by <q><emph>the +spiritual milk which is without guile</emph></q>? +</p> + +<p> +Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed +with. Thus, against διδάσκαλος, upwards of 50 times stands +the Annotation, <q>Or, <emph>teacher</emph>.</q>—Ἄρτος, (another word of perpetual +recurrence,) is every time explained to mean <q><emph>a loaf</emph>.</q> +But is this reasonable? seeing that φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Luke xiv. 1) +can mean nothing else but <q>to eat <emph>bread</emph></q>: not to mention +the petition for <q><emph>daily bread</emph></q> in the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> prayer. These +learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is +made of <q>taking the children's <emph>bread</emph> and casting it to the +dogs</q> (Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,—<q>If a son shall +ask <emph>bread</emph> of any of you that is a father</q> (Lu. xi. 11), <q><emph>loaf</emph></q> is +actually thrust into the text.—We cannot understand why +such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words. +Δοῦλος, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, +is invariably honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15] +<emph>twice in the course of the same verse</emph>) with 2 lines to itself, to +explain that in Greek it is <q><emph>bondservant</emph>.</q>—About 60 times, +δαιμόνιον is explained in the margin to be <q><emph>demon</emph></q> in the +Greek.—It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devote +<emph>three lines</emph> to explain the value of <q>a penny.</q>—Whenever +τέκνον is rendered <q><emph>Son</emph>,</q> we are molested with a marginal +annotation, to the effect that the Greek word means <q><emph>child</emph>.</q> +Had the Revisionists been consistent, the margins would not +nearly have sufficed for the many interesting details of this +<pb n='180'/><anchor id='Pg180'/> +nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have +furnished them. +</p> + +<p> +May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been +better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι +in S. Peter's vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means +not <q>corners,</q> but <q><emph>beginnings</emph></q> [cf. Gen. ii. 10]:—that τὴν +πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally <q><emph>the first</emph></q> [cf. Gen. iii. 7] +(not <q>the best</q>) <q>robe</q>:—that ἀληθινός (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> in Lu. xvi. 11: +Jo. i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and +ix. 24) means <q><emph>very</emph></q> or <q><emph>real</emph>,</q> rather than <q>true</q>?—And +when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. +xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c. &c.), would it not +have been as well to try to <emph>represent</emph> them in English? For +want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv. +18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,—will ever be +able to understand the precise circumstances under which +the first four Apostles left their <q><emph>nets</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(3) The third group consists of <emph>Explanatory Notes</emph> required +by the obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation +against S. Luke i. 15 (explanatory of <q>strong drink</q>),—<q>Gr. +sikera.</q> And yet, the word (σίκερα) happens to be <emph>not</emph> +Greek, but Hebrew.—On the other hand, such must be the +annotation against μωρέ, in S. Matth. v. 22:—<q>Or, <foreign rend='italic'>Moreh</foreign>, a +Hebrew expression of condemnation;</q> which statement is +incorrect. The word proves to be <emph>not</emph> Hebrew, but Greek.—And +this, against <q>Maran atha</q> in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,—<q>That is, +<emph>Our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> cometh</emph>:</q> which also proves to be a mistake. The +phrase means <q><emph>Our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> is come</emph>,</q>—which represents a widely +different notion.<note place='foot'>See Dr. Field's delightful <hi rend='italic'>Otium Norvicense</hi> (Pars tertia), 1881, pp. +1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism ought to +be in the hands of every student of Scripture.</note>—Surely a room-full of learned men, volunteering +to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more +<pb n='181'/><anchor id='Pg181'/> +sure of their elementary <emph>facts</emph> before they ventured to compromise +the Church of England after this fashion!—Against +<q><emph>the husks</emph> which the swine did eat</q> (Lu. xv. 16), we find, <q>Gr. +<emph>the pods of the carob tree</emph>,</q>—which is really not true. The Greek +word is κεράτια,—which only signifies <q>the pods of the carob +tree,</q> as <q>French beans</q> signifies <q>the pods of the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Phaseolus +vulgaris</foreign>.</q>—By the way, it is <emph>quite</emph> certain that μύλος ὀνικός +[in Matth. xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies +<q><emph>a mill-stone turned by an ass</emph></q>? Hilary certainly thought so: +but is that thing at all likely? What if it should appear that +μύλος ὀνικός merely denotes the <emph>upper</emph> mill-stone (λίθος +μυλικός, as S. Mark calls it,—<emph>the stone that grinds</emph>), and which +we know was called ὄνος by the ancients?<note place='foot'>See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.</note>—Why is <q>the +brook Cedron</q> (Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt <q>Kidron,</q> and then +explained to mean <q><emph>ravine of the cedars</emph></q>? which <q><foreign rend='italic'>Kidron</foreign></q> no +more means that <q><foreign rend='italic'>Kishon</foreign></q> means <q><emph>of the ivies</emph>,</q>—(though the +Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps. lxxxiii. 9] shows that +τῶν κισσῶν was in its common Hellenistic designation). As +for calling the Kidron <q><emph>a ravine</emph>,</q> you might as well call +<q>Mercury</q> in <q>Tom quad</q> <q><emph>a lake</emph>.</q> <q>Infelictious</q> is the +mildest epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations +crude, questionable,—even <emph>inaccurate</emph> as these. +</p> + +<p> +Then further, <q>Simon, the son of <foreign rend='italic'>Jona</foreign></q> (in S. John i. 42 +and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice +by the Revisionists as <q>the son of <emph>John</emph>:</q> with an officious +marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written +<q><foreign rend='italic'>Ioanes</foreign>.</q> But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) +to thrust in this way the <foreign rend='italic'>bêtises</foreign> of their favourite codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +upon us? <emph>In no codex in the world except the Vatican codex</emph> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, is <q>Ioannes</q> spelt <q><foreign rend='italic'>Ioanes</foreign></q> in this place. Besides, the +name of Simon Peter's father was <emph>not</emph> <q>John</q> at all, but +<q><foreign rend='italic'>Jona</foreign>,</q>—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present +<pb n='182'/><anchor id='Pg182'/> +two places in S. John's Gospel; where the evidence <emph>against</emph> +<q>Ioannes</q> is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of +Dr. Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be +to assist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to state <emph>facts</emph>,—not, +by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England to <emph>a +new (and absurd) Textual theory</emph>! The <emph>actual Truth</emph>, we insist, +should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information +is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious +readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading +(against S. John i. 18)—<q>Many very ancient authorities read +<q><emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> only begotten</emph></q></q>: whereas the <q>authorities</q> alluded to +read μονογενὴς Θεός,—(whether with or without the article +[ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well +aware) means <q><emph>the only-begotten <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></emph>,</q> and no other thing. +Why then did they not say so? <emph>Because</emph> (we answer)—<emph>they +were ashamed of the expression</emph>. But to proceed.—The information +is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. +xiv. 32) that χωρίον means <q><emph>an enclosed piece of ground</emph>,</q>—which +is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded +from the individual who translated ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) +the <q><emph>open street</emph>:</q> whereas the word merely denotes the <q>highway,</q>—literally +the <q><emph>thoroughfare</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would +have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure +which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) +Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance, is quite an ordinary +expression for <q>always,</q> and therefore should not be exhibited +(in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—<q>Gr. +<emph>all the days</emph>.</q>—So (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) with respect to the word αἰών, which +seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need, +<emph>every time it occurs</emph>, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν +αἰώνων means literally <q><emph>unto the ages of the ages</emph></q>? Surely +(as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering +<pb n='183'/><anchor id='Pg183'/> +(<q>for ever and ever</q>) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute +for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. +Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 +and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in +Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where <q><emph>one</emph> +scribe,</q> <q><emph>one</emph> ruler,</q> <q><emph>one</emph> widow,</q> <q><emph>one</emph> eagle,</q> <q><emph>one</emph> voice,</q> <q><emph>one</emph> +angel,</q> are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that +εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because +<q><foreign rend='italic'>une</foreign></q> means <q><emph>one</emph>,</q> will it be pretended that <q><foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>Tu es une bête</foreign></q> +would be properly rendered <q><emph>Thou art one beast</emph></q>? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) Far more serious is the substitution of <q>having <emph>a great</emph> +priest over the house of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> (Heb. x. 21), for <q>having <emph>an +high</emph> priest:</q> inasmuch as this obscures <q>the pointed reference +to our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> as the antitype of the Jewish high priest,</q>—who +(except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either +ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς only,—as in Acts v. 24<note place='foot'><emph>Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a +reference to the</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx.</hi>, &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of Llandaff,—Rivingtons, +1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable performance, only far too +brief.</note>.... +And (<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) why are we presented with <q>For <emph>no word from <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> +shall be void of power</emph></q> (in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the +Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal +rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (<q><emph>Is anything too hard for the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>?</emph></q><note place='foot'>Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?</note>), we venture to think that the A. V. (<q><emph>for with <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> +nothing shall be impossible</emph></q><note place='foot'>Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.</note>) ought to have been let alone. +It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that +among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have +been <emph>one</emph> sufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve +his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as +the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic +<pb n='184'/><anchor id='Pg184'/> +scholarship of those who represented the Church and the +Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable. +</p> + +<p> +Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of +a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations +which belong to this third group; which we have examined +with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon +already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow +that we rather desiderate <q>Explanatory Notes</q> on matters +which really <emph>do</emph> call for explanation? as, to be reminded of +what kind was the <q>net</q> (ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. +iv. 18 (<emph>not</emph> 20), and Mk. i. 16 (<emph>not</emph> 18):—to see it explained +(against Matth. ii. 23) that <foreign rend='italic'>netser</foreign> (the root of <q>Nazareth</q>) +denotes <q>Branch:</q>—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that +ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies <q>the <emph>depressed valley of +the Jordan</emph>,</q> as the usage of the LXX. proves.<note place='foot'>[Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity +with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his +knowledge to others.]</note> We should +have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—<q>Gr. <foreign rend='italic'>Exodus</foreign>.</q>—At +least in the margin, we might have been told that <q><foreign rend='italic'>Olivet</foreign></q> +is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the +Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred +to the Bp. of Lincoln's note on the place last quoted.)—Nay, +why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi></q> +means [not <q><emph>Saviour</emph>,</q> but] <q><hi rend='italic'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Jehovah</hi> is Salvation</hi></q>? +</p> + +<p> +But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have +spared us the absurd Annotation set against <q><emph>ointment of +spikenard</emph></q> (νάρδου πιστικῆς,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John +xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Gr. <foreign rend='italic'>pistic</foreign> nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others +take it to mean <emph>genuine</emph>; others <emph>liquid</emph>.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +Can Scholars require to be told that <q><emph>liquid</emph></q> is an <emph>impossible</emph> +<pb n='185'/><anchor id='Pg185'/> +sense of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted +must be derived (like πιστός [<hi rend='italic'>Prom.</hi> V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and +would mean <emph>drinkable</emph>: but since ointment <emph>cannot</emph> be drunk, +it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word +elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture +be retained that it is <q>perhaps a <emph>local</emph> name</q>? Do Divines +require to have it explained to them that the one <q>locality</q> +which effectually fixes the word's meaning, is <emph>its place in the +everlasting Gospel</emph>?... Be silent on such lofty matters if +you will, by all means; but <q>who are these that darken +counsel by words without knowledge?</q> S. Mark and S. +John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively +except in this place<note place='foot'>μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John +xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—<q>Non de nardo propositum +est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis intuemur, +Evangelista scribit, unguento; sed <emph>de nardo spirituali</emph>.</q> And so +Jerome himself, vii. 212.</note>) are observed here to employ an ordinary +word with lofty spiritual purpose. The <emph>pure faith</emph> (πίστις) +in which that offering of the ointment was made, determines +the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός) which shall +signify <q>faithful</q> rather than <q>genuine,</q>—shall suggest a +<emph>moral</emph> rather than a <emph>commercial</emph> quality: just as, presently, +Mary's <q>breaking</q> the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by +a word which has reference to a broken heart.<note place='foot'>Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is. +lvii. 15.</note> She <q><emph>contrited</emph></q> +it, S. Mark says; and S. John adds a statement +which implies that the Church has been rendered fragrant by +her act for ever.<note place='foot'>Consider Ignatius, <hi rend='italic'>ad Ephes.</hi> c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark of +Theod. Heracl. in Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi></note> (We trust to be forgiven for having said +a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.) +</p> + +<p> +(5) Under which of the four previous <q>groups</q> certain +Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of +<pb n='186'/><anchor id='Pg186'/> +S. Matthew's Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them +be briefly considered by themselves. +</p> + +<p> +So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see +on what principle it is stated that—<q>Ram,</q> <q>Asa,</q> <q>Amon,</q> +<q>Shealtiel,</q> are in Greek (<q>Gr.</q>) <q><foreign rend='italic'>Aram</foreign>,</q> <q><foreign rend='italic'>Asaph</foreign>,</q> <q><foreign rend='italic'>Amos</foreign>,</q> +<q><foreign rend='italic'>Salathiel</foreign>.</q> For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just +as needless) to explain that <q>Perez,</q> <q>Zarah,</q> <q>Hezron,</q> +<q>Nahson,</q> are in Greek <q><foreign rend='italic'>Phares</foreign>,</q> <q><foreign rend='italic'>Zara</foreign>,</q> <q><foreign rend='italic'>Esrom</foreign>,</q> <q><foreign rend='italic'>Naasson</foreign>.</q>—But +(2), Through what <q>necessity</q> are the names, which we +have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote +them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any +other way?<note place='foot'>We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of the +<emph>Greek</emph> original. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv. 8), is it not +far more edifying that attention should be in this way directed to the +identity of the names <q><foreign rend='italic'>Joshua</foreign></q> and <q><foreign rend='italic'>Jesus</foreign>,</q> than that the latter word +should be entirely obliterated by the former;—and this, only for the sake +of unmistakeably proclaiming, (what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, +viz.) that <q><foreign rend='italic'>Joshua</foreign></q> is the personage spoken of?</note>—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. spelling +<emph>is</emph> to be adopted, then <emph>let us have it explained to us why <q>Jeconiah</q> +in ver. 11 is not written</emph> <q>Jehoiakim</q>? (As for <q>Jeconiah</q> +in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to settle whether +they would call him <q>Jehoiachin,</q> <q>Jeconiah,</q> or <q>Coniah.</q> +[By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose that <emph>they did not know</emph> +that <q>Jechonias</q> here represents two different persons?])—On +the other hand, (4) <q><foreign rend='italic'>Amos</foreign></q> probably,—<q><foreign rend='italic'>Asaph</foreign></q> certainly,—are +corrupt exhibitions of <q>Amon</q> and <q>Asa:</q> and, if noticed +at all, should have been introduced to the reader's notice +with the customary formula, <q>some ancient authorities,</q> &c.—To +proceed—(5), Why substitute <q>Immanuel</q> (for <q>Emmanuel</q>) +in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that +S. Matthew writes it <q><foreign rend='italic'>Emmanuel</foreign></q>? By strict parity of +reasoning, against <q>Naphtali</q> (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists +ought to have written <q>Gr. <foreign rend='italic'>Nephthaleim</foreign>.</q>—And +(6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that +<pb n='187'/><anchor id='Pg187'/> +<q>Mary is in <q>Gr. <foreign rend='italic'>Mariam</foreign></q></q>? and why is not Zacharias +written <q><foreign rend='italic'>Zachariah</foreign></q>?... But (to conclude),—What is the +object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) +all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names +been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and +to make <q>a fresh departure</q>? Or were the four marginal +notes added <emph>only for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the +(apparent) sanction of the Church</emph> to the preposterous notion +that <q>Asa</q> was written <q><foreign rend='italic'>Asaph</foreign></q> by the Evangelist—in conformity +with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of +History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability? +Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on +this. +</p> + +<p> +X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission +made in the Revisionists' <hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi> (iii. 2 <hi rend='italic'>init.</hi>), that to some +extent they recognized the duty of a <q><emph>rigid adherence to the +rule of translating</emph>, as far as possible, the <emph>same Greek word by +the same English word</emph>.</q> This mistaken principle of theirs lies +at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the +Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our +hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp. <ref target='Pg138'>138</ref> and <ref target='Pg152'>152</ref>) received. +</p> + +<p> +The <q>Translators</q> of 1611, towards the close of their long +and quaint Address <q>to the Reader,</q> offer the following +statement concerning what had been their own practice:—<q>We +have not <emph>tied ourselves</emph></q> (say they) <q><emph>to an uniformity of +phrasing, or to an identity of words</emph>, as some peradventure +would wish that we had done.</q> On this, they presently +enlarge. We have been <q>especially careful,</q> have even +<q>made a conscience,</q> <q>not to vary from the sense of that +which we had translated before, if the word signified the +same thing in both places.</q> But then, (as they shrewdly +point out in passing,) <q><emph>there be some words that be not of the +<pb n='188'/><anchor id='Pg188'/> +same sense everywhere</emph>.</q> And had this been the sum of their +avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least +appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would +have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when +they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable +to insist on invariably expressing <q>the same notion</q> by employing +<q>the same particular word;</q>—(which they illustrate +by instancing terms which, in their account, may with +advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we +are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. <q>If</q> (say +they,) <q>we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once <emph>purpose</emph>, +never to call it <emph>intent</emph>; if one where <emph>journeying</emph>, never <emph>travelling</emph>; +if one where <emph>think</emph>, never <emph>suppose</emph>; if one where <emph>pain</emph>, +never <emph>ache</emph>; if one where <emph>joy</emph>, never <emph>gladness</emph>;—thus to mince +the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than +of wisdom.</q> And yet it is plain that a different principle +is here indicated from that which went before. The remark +<q>that niceness in words was always counted the next step to +trifling,</q> suggests that, in the Translators' opinion, it matters +little <emph>which</emph> word, in the several pairs of words they instance, +is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather +rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary +supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, +as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with +them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties +of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed,—any of +such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject +<q>purpose,</q> <q>journey,</q> <q>think,</q> <q>pain,</q> <q>joy,</q>—in favour of +<q>intent,</q> <q>travel,</q> <q>suppose,</q> <q>ache,</q> <q>gladness.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the +bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the +Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say +a <emph>prophetic</emph>?) consciousness, that the fate of the English +<pb n='189'/><anchor id='Pg189'/> +Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. +<emph>Hence</emph> their reluctance to incur the responsibility of +tying themselves <q>to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an +identity of words.</q> We should be liable to censure (such is +their plain avowal), <q>if we should say, as it were, unto certain +words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; +and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for +ever.</q> But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and +a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought +to deny that there is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth +in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our +ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English +scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare +their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, +there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, +that these learned men,—with whom all would avow hearty +sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly +acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they +enunciate so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too +far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe +cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the +author of the <hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi> of 1881: +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>They seem</q>—(he says, speaking of the Revisionists of 1611)—<q>to +have been guided by the feeling that their Version would +secure for the words they used a lasting place in the language; +and they express a fear lest they should <q>be charged (by scoffers) +with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good +English words,</q> which, without this liberty on their part, would +not have a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot +be doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the +rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same +context, is one of the blemishes in their work.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi>, (i. 2). +</quote> + +<p> +Yes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and +familiar passage (2 Cor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to +<pb n='190'/><anchor id='Pg190'/> +linger over the same word (παράκλησις namely, which is +generally rendered <q><emph>comfort</emph></q>);—to harp upon it;—to reproduce +it <emph>ten times</emph> in the course of those five verses;—it +seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the +Apostle, should on four occasions (viz. when the word comes +back for the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th times), for <q><emph>comfort</emph></q> +substitute <q><emph>consolation</emph>.</q> And this one example may serve as +well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the Revisionists +of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the +English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of +expression characterizes the original Greek. When we find +them turning <q>goodly apparel,</q> (in S. James ii. 2,) into <q>gay +clothing,</q> (in ver. 3,)—we can but conjecture that they conceived +themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James +himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing +English. +</p> + +<p> +But if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may +be thought to have erred on the side of excess, there can be +no doubt whatever, (at least among competent judges,) that +our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously and with +greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to +the opposite form of error. We must needs speak out +plainly: for the question before us is not, What defects are +discoverable in our Authorized Version?—but, What amount +of gain would be likely to accrue to the Church if the +present Revision were accepted as a substitute? And we +assert without hesitation, that the amount of certain loss +would so largely outweigh the amount of possible gain, +that the proposal may not be seriously entertained for a +moment. As well on grounds of Scholarship and Taste, as +of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former +Article), the work before us is immensely inferior. To +speak plainly, it is an utter failure. +</p> + +<pb n='191'/><anchor id='Pg191'/> + +<p> +XI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the +truth of the principle enunciated by their predecessors of +1611, viz. that <q><emph>there be some words that be not of the same +sense everywhere</emph>.</q> On such a fundamental truism we are +ashamed to enlarge: but it becomes necessary that we should +do so. We proceed to illustrate, by two familiar instances,—the +first which come to hand,—the mischievous result which +is inevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The verb αἰτεῖν confessedly means <q>to ask.</q> And +perhaps no better general English equivalent could be +suggested for it. But then, <emph>in a certain context</emph>, <q>ask</q> would +be an inadequate rendering: in another, it would be improper: +in a third, it would be simply intolerable. Of all +this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly +conscious. Accordingly, when this same verb (in the middle +voice) is employed to describe how the clamorous rabble, +besieging Pilate, claimed their accustomed privilege, (viz. to +have the prisoner of their choice released unto them,) those +ancient men, with a fine instinct, retain Tyndale's rendering +<q><emph>desired</emph></q><note place='foot'>So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still following +Tyndale.</note> in S. Mark (xv. 8),—and his <q><emph>required</emph></q> in S. Luke +(xxiii. 23).—When, however, the humble entreaty, which +Joseph of Arimathea addressed to the same Pilate (viz. that +he might be allowed to take away the Body of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi>), is in +question, then the same Scholars (following Tyndale and +Cranmer), with the same propriety exhibit <q><emph>begged</emph>.</q>—King +David, inasmuch as he only <q><emph>desired</emph> to find a habitation for +the <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> of Jacob,</q> of course may not be said to have <q><emph>asked</emph></q> +to do so; and yet S. Stephen (Acts vii. 46) does not hesitate +to employ the verb ᾐτήσατο.—So again, when they of Tyre +and Sidon approached Herod whom they had offended: they +<pb n='192'/><anchor id='Pg192'/> +did but <q><emph>desire</emph></q> peace.<note place='foot'>Acts xii. 20.</note>—S. Paul, in like manner, addressing +the Ephesians: <q>I <emph>desire</emph> that ye faint not at my tribulations +for you.</q><note place='foot'>Eph. iii. 13.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But our Revisionists,—possessed with the single idea +that αἰτεῖν means <q>to <emph>ask</emph></q> and αἰτεῖσθαι <q>to <emph>ask for</emph>,</q>—have +proceeded mechanically to inflict that rendering on every one +of the foregoing passages. In defiance of propriety,—of +reason,—even (in David's case) of historical truth,<note place='foot'>For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2), +it was only <q><emph>in his heart</emph></q> to build <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> an house (1 Kings viii. 17, 18). +Hence Cranmer's <q><emph>he would fain</emph></q> have done so.</note>—they +have thrust in <q><emph>asked</emph></q> everywhere. At last, however, they +are encountered by two places which absolutely refuse to +submit to such iron bondage. The terror-stricken jailer of +Philippi, when <emph>he</emph> <q>asked</q> for lights, must needs have done +so after a truly imperious fashion. Accordingly, the <q><emph>called +for</emph></q><note place='foot'>Acts xvi. 29.</note> of Tyndale and all subsequent translators, is <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>pro hâc +vice</foreign> allowed by our Revisionists to stand. And to conclude,—When +S. Paul, speaking of his supplications on behalf of +the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (αἰτούμενοι) in +a context where <q><emph>to ask</emph></q> would be intolerable, our Revisionists +render the word <q><emph>to make request</emph>;</q><note place='foot'>Col. i. 9.</note>—though they might +just as well have let alone the rendering of <emph>all</emph> their predecessors,—viz. +<q><emph>to desire</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +These are many words, but we know not how to make +them fewer. Let this one example, (only because it is the +first which presented itself,) stand for a thousand others. +Apart from the grievous lack of Taste (not to say of Scholarship) +which such a method betrays,—<emph>who</emph> sees not that the +only excuse which could have been invented for it has +<pb n='193'/><anchor id='Pg193'/> +disappeared by the time we reach the end of our investigation? +If αἰτέω, αἰτοῦμαι had been <emph>invariably</emph> translated <q>ask,</q> +<q>ask for,</q> it might at least have been pretended that <q>the +English Reader is in this way put entirely on a level with the +Greek Scholar;</q>—though it would have been a vain pretence, +as all must admit who understand the power of language. +<emph>Once</emph> make it apparent that just in a single place, perhaps in +two, the Translator found himself forced to break through +his rigid uniformity of rendering,—and <emph>what</emph> remains but an +uneasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain +put on the Evangelists' meaning in a vast proportion of the +other seventy places where αἰτεῖν occurs? An unlearned +reader's confidence in his guide vanishes; and he finds that +he has had not a few deflections from the Authorized Version +thrust upon him, of which he reasonably questions alike the +taste and the necessity,—<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> at S. Matth. xx. 20. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) But take a more interesting example. In S. Mark +i. 18, the A. V. has, <q>and straightway they <emph>forsook</emph></q> (which +the Revisionists alter into <q><emph>left</emph></q>) <q>their nets.</q> Why? +Because in verse 20, the same word ἀφέντες will recur; and +because the Revisionists propose to let the statement (<q>they +<emph>left</emph> their father Zebedee</q>) stand. They <q>level up</q> accordingly; +and plume themselves on their consistency. +</p> + +<p> +We venture to point out, however, that the verb +ἀφιέναι is one of a large family of verbs which,—always +retaining their own essential signification,—yet depend for +their English rendering entirely on the context in which +they occur. Thus, ἀφιέναι is rightly rendered <q><emph>to suffer</emph>,</q> in +S. Matth. iii. 15;—<q><emph>to leave</emph>,</q> in iv. 11;—<q><emph>to let have</emph>,</q> in v. 40;—<q><emph>to +forgive</emph>,</q> in vi. 12, 14, 15;—<q><emph>to let</emph>,</q> in vii. 4;—<q><emph>to yield +up</emph>,</q> in xxvii. 50;—<q><emph>to let go</emph>,</q> in S. Mark xi. 6;—<q><emph>to let alone</emph>,</q> +in xiv. 6. Here then, by the admission of the Revisionists, +<pb n='194'/><anchor id='Pg194'/> +are eight diversities of meaning in the same word. But they +make the admission grudgingly; and, in order to render +ἀφιέναι as often as possible <q><emph>leave</emph>,</q> they do violence to many +a place of Scripture where some other word would have been +more appropriate. Thus <q><emph>laying aside</emph></q> might have stood +in S. Mark vii. 8. <q><emph>Suffered</emph></q> (or <q>let</q>) was preferable in +S. Luke xii. 39. And, (to return to the place from which we +started,) in S. Mark i. 18, <q>forsook</q> was better than <q>left.</q> +And why? Because men <q><emph>leave</emph> their father,</q> (as the Collect +for S. James's Day bears witness); but <q><emph>forsake</emph> all covetous +desires</q> (as the Collect for S. Matthew's Day aptly attests). +For which reason,—<q>And they all <emph>forsook</emph> Him</q> was infinitely +preferable to <q>and they all <emph>left</emph> Him, and fled,</q> in S. Mark +xiv. 50. We insist that a vast deal more is lost by this +perpetual disregard of the idiomatic proprieties of the English +language, than is gained by a pedantic striving after uniformity +of rendering, only because the Greek word happens to +be the same. +</p> + +<p> +For it is sure sometimes to happen that what seems +mere licentiousness proves on closer inspection to be unobtrusive +Scholarship of the best kind. An illustration presents +itself in connection with the word just now before us. It is +found to have been our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> practice to <q><emph>send away</emph></q> +the multitude whom He had been feeding or teaching, in +some formal manner,—whether with an act of solemn benediction, +or words of commendatory prayer, or both. Accordingly, +on the memorable occasion when, at the close of a +long day of superhuman exertion, His bodily powers succumbed, +and the Disciples were fain to take Him <q>as He +was</q> in the ship, and at once He <q>fell asleep;</q>—on that +solitary occasion, <emph>the Disciples</emph> are related to have <q><emph>sent away</emph> +the multitudes,</q>—<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> to have formally dismissed them on +His behalf, as they had often seen their Master do. The +<pb n='195'/><anchor id='Pg195'/> +word employed to designate this practice on two memorable +occasions is ἀπολύειν:<note place='foot'>S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the substitution +of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv. 32, 39 (= S. +Mark viii. 9).</note> on the other two, ἀφιέναι.<note place='foot'>S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.</note> This +proves to have been perfectly well understood as well by the +learned authors of the Latin Version of the N. T., as by the +scholars who translated the Gospels into the vernacular of +Palestine. It has been reserved for the boasted learning of +the XIXth century to misunderstand this little circumstance +entirely. The R. V. renders S. Matth. xiii. 36,—not <q>Then +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> <emph>sent the multitude away</emph></q> (<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>dimissis turbis</foreign></q> in every +Latin copy,) but—<q>Then He <emph>left</emph> the multitudes.</q> Also +S. Mark iv. 36,—not <q>And when they had <emph>sent away the +multitude</emph>,</q> (which the Latin always renders <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>et dimittentes +turbam</foreign>,</q>) but—<q>And <emph>leaving</emph> the multitude.</q> Would it be +altogether creditable, we respectfully ask, if at the end of +1800 years the Church of England were to put forth with +authority such specimens of <q>Revision</q> as these? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) We will trouble our Readers with yet another illustration +of the principle for which we are contending.—We +are soon made conscious that there has been a fidgetty +anxiety on the part of the Revisionists, everywhere to substitute +<q><emph>maid</emph></q> for <q><emph>damsel</emph></q> as the rendering of παιδίσκη. It +offends us. <q>A damsel named Rhoda,</q><note place='foot'>Acts xii. 13.</note>—and the <q>damsel +possessed with a spirit of divination,</q><note place='foot'>Acts xvi. 16.</note>—might (we think) +have been let alone. But out of curiosity we look further, to +see what these gentlemen will do when they come to S. Luke +xii. 45. Here, because παῖδας has been (properly) rendered +<q>menservants,</q> παιδίσκας, they (not unreasonably) render +<q><emph>maid-servants</emph>,</q>—whereby <emph>they break their rule</emph>. The crucial +<pb n='196'/><anchor id='Pg196'/> +place is behind. What will they do with the Divine +<q>Allegory</q> in Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)—where all turns on +the contrast<note place='foot'>Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.</note> between the παιδίσκη and the ἐλευθέρα,—the +fact that Hagar was a <q><emph>bondmaid</emph></q> whereas Sarah was a <q><emph>free +woman</emph></q>? <q>Maid</q> clearly could not stand here. <q>Maid-servant</q> +would be intolerable. What is to be done? The +Revisionists adopt <emph>a third</emph> variety of reading,—<emph>thus surrendering +their principle entirely</emph>. And what reader with a +spark of taste, (we confidently ask the question,) does not +resent their substitution of <q><emph>handmaid</emph></q> for <q>bondmaid</q> +throughout these verses? <emph>Who</emph> will deny that the mention +of <q><emph>bondage</emph></q> in verses 24 and 25 claims, at the hands of an +intelligent English translator, that he shall avail himself of +the admirable and helpful equivalent for παιδίσκη which, as +it happens, the English language possesses? More than +that. <emph>Who</emph>—(except one who is himself <q>in bondage—with +his children</q>)—<emph>who</emph> does not respond gratefully to the exquisite +taste and tact with which <q><emph>bondmaid</emph></q> itself has been +exchanged for <q><emph>bondwoman</emph></q> by our translators of 1611, in +verses 23, 30 and 31?... Verily, those men understood +their craft! <q>There were giants in those days.</q> As little +would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the +Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they +could shake themselves free from either. And why? For +the selfsame reason: viz. because the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit</hi> of their <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> +was mightily upon them. +</p> + +<p> +Our contention, so far, has been but this,—that it does +not by any means follow that identical Greek words and +expressions, <emph>wherever occurring</emph>, are to be rendered by identical +words and expressions in English. We desire to pass on +to something of more importance. +</p> + +<pb n='197'/><anchor id='Pg197'/> + +<p> +Let it not be supposed that we make light of the difficulties +which our Revisionists have had to encounter; or are +wanting in generous appreciation of the conscientious toil +of many men for many years; or that we overlook the perils +of the enterprise in which they have seen fit to adventure +their reputation. If ever a severe expression escapes us, it +is because our Revisionists themselves seem to have so very +imperfectly realized the responsibility of their undertaking, +and the peculiar difficulties by which it is unavoidably beset. +The truth is,—as all who have given real thought to the +subject must be aware,—the phenomena of Language are +among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem +of Translation, one of the most manysided and difficult that +can be named. And if this holds universally, in how much +greater a degree when the book to be translated is <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Bible</hi>! +Here, anything like a mechanical <emph>levelling up</emph> of terms, every +attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform rendering +on words,—every one of which has a history and (so to +speak) <emph>a will</emph> of its own,—is inevitably destined to result in +discomfiture and disappointment. But what makes this so +very serious a matter is that, because <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Scripture</hi> is the +Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be +named become imperilled; and it will constantly happen +that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may +yet inflict irreparable injury. We subjoin an humble illustration +of our meaning—the rather, because it will afford us +an opportunity for penetrating a little deeper into the proprieties +of Scriptural Translation:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) The place of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> Burial, which is mentioned +upwards of 30 times in the Gospels, is styled in the original, +μνημεῖον. This appellation is applied to it three times by +S. Matthew;—six times by S. Mark;—eight times by +<pb n='198'/><anchor id='Pg198'/> +S. Luke;<note place='foot'>Twice he calls it μνῆμα.</note>—eleven times by S. John. Only on four occasions, +in close succession, does the first Evangelist call it by +another name, viz. τάφος.<note place='foot'>Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.</note> King James's translators (following +Tyndale and Cranmer) decline to notice this diversity, +and uniformly style it the <q><emph>sepulchre</emph>.</q> So long as it belonged +to Joseph of Arimathea, they call it a <q>tomb</q> (Matth. xxvii. +60): when once it has been appropriated by <q>the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> of +Glory,</q> <emph>in the same verse</emph> they give it a different English +appellation. But our Revisionists of 1881, as if bent on +<q>making a fresh departure,</q> <emph>everywhere</emph> substitute <q><emph>tomb</emph></q> for +<q>sepulchre</q> as the rendering of μνημεῖον. +</p> + +<p> +Does any one ask,—And why should they <emph>not</emph>? We +answer, Because, in connection with <q><emph>the Sepulchre</emph></q> of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, there has grown up such an ample literature and such +a famous history, that we are no longer <emph>able</emph> to sever ourselves +from those environments of the problem, even if we desired +to do so. In all such cases as the present, we have to +balance the Loss against the Gain. Quite idle is it for the +pedant of 1881 to insist that τάφος and μνημεῖον are two +different words. We do not dispute the fact. (Then, if he +<emph>must</emph>, let him represent τάφος in some other way.) It +remains true, notwithstanding, that the receptacle of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> Body after His dissolution will have to be spoken +of as <q><emph>the Holy Sepulchre</emph></q> till the end of time; and it is +altogether to be desired that its familiar designation should +be suffered to survive unmolested on the eternal page, in +consequence. There are, after all, mightier laws in the +Universe than those of grammar. In the quaint language of +our Translators of 1611: <q>For is the Kingdom of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> become +words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them +<pb n='199'/><anchor id='Pg199'/> +if we may be free?</q>... As for considerations of etymological +propriety, the nearest English equivalent for μνημεῖον +(be it remembered) is <emph>not</emph> <q>tomb,</q> but <q><emph>monument</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Our Revisionists seem not to be aware that 270 years +of undisturbed possession have given to certain words rights +to which they could not else have pretended, but of which +it is impossible any more to dispossess them. It savours of +folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt. +Διδαχή occurs 30,—διδασκαλία 21 times,—in the N. T. +Etymologically, both words alike mean <q><emph>teaching</emph>;</q> and are +therefore indifferently rendered <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>doctrina</foreign></q> in the Vulgate,<note place='foot'>Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is rendered <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ad +docendum</foreign>.</note>—for +which reason, <q><emph>doctrine</emph></q> represents both words indifferently +in our A. V.<note place='foot'>Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered <q><emph>on +teaching</emph>.</q></note> But the Revisers have well-nigh extirpated +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>doctrine</hi></q> from the N. T.: (1st), By making <q><emph>teaching</emph>,</q> the +rendering of διδαχή,<note place='foot'>Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it <q><emph>doctrine</emph>.</q></note>—(reserving <q><emph>doctrine</emph></q> for διδασκαλία<note place='foot'>And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal +note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means <q><emph>Teacher</emph></q>—διδασκαλία (rather +than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered <q><emph>teaching</emph>.</q></note>): +and (2ndly), By 6 times substituting <q><emph>teaching</emph></q> (once, <q><emph>learning</emph></q>) +for <q><emph>doctrine</emph>,</q> in places where διδασκαλία occurs.<note place='foot'>Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom. +xv. 4.</note> This +is to be lamented every way. The word cannot be spared so +often. The <q><emph>teachings</emph></q> of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> and of His Apostles were +<emph>the <q>doctrines</q> of Christianity</emph>. When S. Paul speaks of <q>the +<emph>doctrine</emph> of baptisms</q> (Heb. vi. 2), it is simply incomprehensible +to us why <q>the <emph>teaching</emph> of baptisms</q> should be deemed +a preferable expression. And if the warning against being +<q>carried about with every wind of <emph>doctrine</emph>,</q> may stand in +Ephes. iv. 14, why may it not be left standing in Heb. xiii. 9? +</p> + +<pb n='200'/><anchor id='Pg200'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravagant +bad taste which, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to +substitute <q><emph>bowls</emph></q> for <q>vials</q> in the Book of Revelation.<note place='foot'>Eight times in Rev. xvi.</note> As a +matter of fact, we venture to point out that φιάλη no more +means <q><emph>a bowl</emph></q> than <q>saucer</q> means <q>a cup.</q> But, waiving +this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown +more wisdom if they had <emph>let alone</emph> a word which, having no +English equivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of +the language, and has acquired a conventional signification +which will cleave to it for ever. <q><emph>Vials of wrath</emph></q> are understood +to signify the outpouring of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> wrathful visitations +on mankind: whereas <q>bowls</q> really conveys no meaning at +all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconveniently +ambiguous one. What must be the impression made +on persons of very humble station,—labouring-men,—when +they hear of <q>the seven Angels that had <emph>the seven bowls</emph></q>? +(Rev. xvii. 1.) The φιάλη,—if we must needs talk like +Antiquaries—is a circular, almost flat and very shallow +vessel,—of which the contents can be discharged in an +instant. It was used in pouring out libations. There is, at +that back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the first joint of +the forefinger to rest in. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Patera</foreign> the Latins called it. +Specimens are to be seen in abundance. +</p> + +<p> +The same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the +<q>alabaster <emph>box</emph> of ointment.</q>—for which they have substituted +<q>an alabaster <emph>cruse</emph> of ointment.</q><note place='foot'>S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.</note> But what <emph>is</emph> a <q>cruse</q>? +Their marginal note says, <q>Or, <q><emph>a flask</emph>:</q></q> but once more, +what <emph>is</emph> <q>a flask</q>? Certainly, the receptacles to which that +name is now commonly applied, (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> a powder-flask, a +Florence flask, a flask of wine, &c.) bear no resemblance +whatever to the vase called ἀλάβαστρον. The probability is +<pb n='201'/><anchor id='Pg201'/> +that the receptacle for the precious ointment with which the +sister of Lazarus provided herself, was likest of all to a small +medicine-bottle (<foreign rend='italic'>lecythus</foreign> the ancients called it), made however +of alabaster. Specimens of it abound. But why not +let such words alone? The same Critics have had the good +sense to leave standing <q>the bag,</q> for what was confessedly +a <emph>box</emph><note place='foot'>γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.</note> (S. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and <q>your purses</q> for what +in the Greek is unmistakably <q>your <emph>girdles</emph></q><note place='foot'>ζώνας.</note> (S. Matth. x. 9). +We can but repeat that possession for <emph>five centuries</emph> conveys +rights which it is always useless, and sometimes dangerous, +to dispute. <q>Vials</q> will certainly have to be put back into +the Apocalypse. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) Having said so much about the proposed rendering +of such unpromising vocables as μνημεῖον—διδαχή—φιάλη, +it is time to invite the Reader's attention to the calamitous +fate which has befallen certain other words of infinitely +greater importance. +</p> + +<p> +And first for Ἀγάπη—a substantive noun unknown to +the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses +proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else +but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual +banishment passed by our Revisionists on <q>that most excellent +gift, the gift of <emph>Charity</emph>,</q> and the general substitution +of <q>Love</q> in its place? Do not these learned men perceive +that <q>Love</q> is not an equivalent term? Can they require +to be told that, because of S. Paul's exquisite and life-like +portrait of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Charity</hi>,</q> and the use which has been made of +the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to +pass that the word <q><emph>Charity</emph></q> connotes many ideas to which +the word <q>Love</q> is an entire stranger? that <q>Love,</q> on the +contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions +which in <q><emph>Charity</emph></q> find no place at all? And if this be +<pb n='202'/><anchor id='Pg202'/> +so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure +the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian +graces,—and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, +will presently come to be only traditionally known among +mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly +understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how +firmly this word <q><emph>Charity</emph></q> has established itself in the +phraseology of the Church,—ancient, mediæval, modern,—as +well as in our Book of Common Prayer? how thoroughly +it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the +English language? how it has entered into our common +vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of +<q>household words</q>? Of what can they have been thinking +when they deliberately obliterated from the thirteenth +chapter of S. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the ninefold +recurrence of the name of <q>that most excellent gift, the +gift of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Charity</hi></q>? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) With equal displeasure, but with even sadder feelings, +we recognize in the present Revision a resolute +elimination of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Miracles</hi></q> from the N. T.—Not so, (we shall +be eagerly reminded,) but only of their <emph>Name</emph>. True, but the +two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. +At all events, the getting rid of <emph>the Name</emph>,—(except in the +few instances which are enumerated below,)—will in the +account of millions be regarded as the getting rid of <emph>the +thing</emph>. And in the esteem of all, learned and unlearned +alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word +from the pages of that Book to which we refer exclusively +for our knowledge of the remarkable thing signified,—cannot +but be looked upon as a memorable and momentous circumstance. +Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the +foolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries +of familiarity with such a word, we are no longer <emph>able</emph> to +part company with it, even if we were inclined. The term +<pb n='203'/><anchor id='Pg203'/> +has struck root firmly in our Literature: has established +itself in the terminology of Divines: has grown into our +common speech. But further, even were it possible to get +rid of the words <q>Miracle</q> and <q>Miraculous,</q> what else but +abiding inconvenience would be the result? for we must +still desire to speak about <emph>the things</emph>; and it is a truism to +remark that there are no other words in the language which +connote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained +by substituting <q><emph>sign</emph></q> for <q><emph>miracle</emph></q> on some 19 or 20 occasions—(<q>this +beginning of <emph>his signs</emph> did <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi>,</q>—<q>this is +again the <emph>second sign</emph> that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> did</q>)—we really fail to see. +</p> + +<p> +That the word in the original is σημεῖον, and that σημεῖον +means <q>a sign,</q> we are aware. But what then? Because +ἄγγελος, in strictness, means <q>a messenger,</q>—γραφή, <q>a +writing,</q>—ὑποκριτής, <q>an actor,</q>—ἐκκλησία, <q>an assembly,</q>—εὐαγγέλιον, +<q>good tidings,</q>—ἐπίσκοπος, <q>an overseer,</q>—βαπτιστής, +<q>one that dips,</q>—παράδεισος, <q>a garden,</q>—μαθητής, +<q>a learner,</q>—χἁρις, <q>favour:</q>—are we to forego +the established English equivalents for these words, and +never more to hear of <q>grace,</q> <q>disciple,</q> <q>Paradise,</q> <q>Baptist,</q> +<q>Bishop,</q> <q>Gospel,</q> <q>Church,</q> <q>hypocrite,</q> <q>Scripture,</q> +<q>Angel</q>? Is it then desired to revolutionize our sacred +terminology? or at all events to sever with the Past, and +to translate the Scriptures into English on etymological +principles? We are amazed that the first proposal to +resort to such a preposterous method was not instantly +scouted by a large majority of those who frequented the +Jerusalem Chamber. +</p> + +<p> +The words under consideration are not only not equivalent, +but they are quite dissimilar. All <q><emph>signs</emph></q> are not +<q><emph>Miracles</emph>,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>E.g.</hi> S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.</note> though all <q><emph>Miracles</emph></q> are undeniably <q><emph>signs</emph>.</q> +<pb n='204'/><anchor id='Pg204'/> +Would not a marginal annotation concerning the original +word, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And <emph>why</emph> was +the term <q><emph>Miracle</emph></q> as the rendering of σημεῖον<note place='foot'>Δύναμις is rendered <q>miracle</q> in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.</note> spared only +on <emph>that</emph> occasion in the Gospels; and <emph>only</emph> in connection with +S. Peter's miracle of healing the impotent man, in the Acts?<note place='foot'>Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand, <q>sign</q> was allowed to represent +σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and the parallel +places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.</note> +We ask the question not caring for an answer. We are +merely bent on submitting to our Readers, whether,—especially +in an age like the present of wide-spread unbelief in +the Miraculous,—it was a judicious proceeding in our Revisionists +almost everywhere to substitute <q>Sign</q> for <q>Miracle</q> +as the rendering of σημεῖον. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>i</hi>) Every bit as offensive, in its way, is a marginal +note respecting the Third Person in the Trinity, which does +duty at S. Matth. i. 18: S. Mark i. 8: S. Luke i. 15: Acts +i. 2: Rom. v. 5: Heb. ii. 4. As a rule, in short, against +every fresh first mention of <q>the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>,</q> five lines are +punctually devoted to the remark,—<q><emph>Or</emph>, Holy Spirit: <emph>and +so throughout this book</emph>.</q> Now, as Canon Cook very fairly +puts the case,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Does this imply that the marginists object to the word +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Ghost</hi></q>? If so, it must be asked, On what grounds? Certainly +not as an archaism. The word is in every Churchman's +mouth continually. For the sake of consistency? But Dr. +Vance Smith complains bitterly of the <emph>inconsistency</emph> of his +colleagues in reference to this very question,—see his <hi rend='italic'>Texts +and Margins</hi>, pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not suggest a doctrinal +bias: but to prove that it had no influence, a strong, if not +unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers is called for. +Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of the clearest proofs +<pb n='205'/><anchor id='Pg205'/> +that the Revisers ought in consistency to discard the word as +<q><emph>a poor and almost obsolete</emph> equivalent for Spirit.</q></q><note place='foot'>Canon Cook's <hi rend='italic'>Revised Version of the first three Gospels considered</hi>, &c.—p. +26: an admirable performance,—unanswered, because <emph>unanswerable</emph>.</note> +</quote> + +<p> +But in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, +on behalf of the Revision, that <q>in the most substantial +sense,</q> (whatever <emph>that</emph> may happen to mean,) it is <q>contrary +to fact</q> <q>that the doctrines of popular Theology remain +unaffected, untouched by the results of the Revision,</q><note place='foot'>Dr. Vance Smith's <hi rend='italic'>Revised Texts and Margins</hi>,—p. 45.</note>—Charity +itself is constrained to use language which by a +certain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal +prepossession had no share in the production under review,—why +is no protest publicly put forth against such language +as the foregoing, when employed by a conspicuous Member +of the Revisionist body? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>j</hi>) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks +on the attempted elimination of <q><emph>Miracles</emph></q> from the N. T. of +the future,—we altogether disapprove of the attempt to +introduce <q>is <emph>Epileptic</emph>,</q> as the rendering of σεληνιάζεται, in +S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on <q><emph>the lunatic +child</emph></q> may never more come abroad under a different name. +In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather +1700, for <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>lunaticus</foreign></q> is the reading of all the Latin copies,) +constitute a title which may not be disputed. <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Epileptic</hi></q> +is a sorry <emph>gloss</emph>—not a translation. Even were it demonstrable +that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits every feature related +in connection with the present case;<note place='foot'>S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.</note> and that sufferers +from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon's changes, +(neither of which things are <emph>certainly</emph> true): even so, the +Revisionists would be wholly unwarranted in doing violence +to the Evangelist's language, in order to bring into prominence +<pb n='206'/><anchor id='Pg206'/> +their own private opinion that what is called <q><emph>Lunacy</emph></q> +here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified with the ordinary +malady called <q>Epilepsy.</q> This was confessedly an extraordinary +case of <emph>demoniacal possession</emph><note place='foot'>Consider our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—<q><emph>But this kind +goeth not out save by prayer and fasting</emph>,</q>—12 words left out by the R. V., +though witnessed to by <emph>all the Copies but</emph> 3: by the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, +and Armenian Versions: and by the following Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) +Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the Syriac <hi rend='italic'>Canons of Eusebius</hi>, (5) +Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) +<hi rend='italic'>Opus imp.</hi>, (11) Hilary, (12) Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. +Then (it will be asked), why have the Revisionists left them out? Because +(we answer) they have been misled by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, Cureton's Syriac and the +Sahidic,—as untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of +Scripture as could be named.</note> besides. The Revisionists +have in fact gone out of their way in order to +introduce us to a set of difficulties with which before we +had no acquaintance. And after all, the English reader +desires to know—<emph>not</emph>, by any means, what two-thirds of the +Revisionists <emph>conjecture</emph> was the matter with the child, but—<emph>what +the child's Father actually said</emph> was the matter with him. +Now, the Father undeniably did <emph>not</emph> say that the child was +<q>Epileptic,</q> but that he was <q><emph>Lunatic</emph>.</q> The man employed a +term which (singular to relate) has its own precise English +equivalent;—a term which embodies to this hour (as it did +anciently) the popular belief that the moon influences certain +forms of disease. With the advance of Science, civilized +nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do not <emph>therefore</emph> +revolutionize their Terminology. <q>The advance of Science,</q> +however, has nothing whatever to do with <emph>the Translation of +the word</emph> before us. The Author of this particular rendering +(begging his pardon) is open to a process <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>de lunatico inquirendo</foreign></q> +for having imagined the contrary. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>k</hi>) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the +Ecclesiastical Historian of future years will point with concern +<pb n='207'/><anchor id='Pg207'/> +to the sad evidences that the Church had fallen on evil days +when the present Revision was undertaken. With fatal +fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues +of <q>modern Thought,</q> which is too often but another name +for the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of +the present controversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, +which has brought into prominence a supposed distinction +between the import of the epithets <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>eternal</hi></q> and +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>everlasting</hi>,</q>—how painful is it to discover that the latter +epithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving +school,) has been by our Revisionists diligently excluded<note place='foot'>The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs +twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the rendering of +ἀῖδιος.</note> +<emph>every time it occurs</emph> as the translation of αἰώνιος, in favour of +the more palatable epithel <q>eternal</q>! King James's Translators +showed themselves impartial to a fault. As if to mark +that, in their account, the words are of identical import, they +even introduced <emph>both words into the same verse</emph><note place='foot'>S. Matth. xxv. 46.</note> of Scripture. +Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of +1881, claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the +Southern Province, should, in a matter like the present, +throw all their weight into the scale of Misbelief? They +were authorized only to remove <q>plain and clear <emph>errors</emph>.</q> +They were instructed to introduce <q>as few changes <emph>as possible</emph>.</q> +Why have they needlessly gone out of their way, +on the contrary, indirectly to show their sympathy with +those who deny what has been the Church's teaching for +1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,—our +whole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and +speaks a different language.... Have our Revisionists persuaded +the Old Testament company to follow their example? +It will be calamitous if they <emph>have</emph>. There will be serious +<pb n='208'/><anchor id='Pg208'/> +discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New +Testament if they have <emph>not</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>l</hi>) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested +throughout these pages to explain away, or at least to +evacuate, expressions which have to do with <hi rend='smallcaps'>Eternity</hi>? +<emph>Why</emph>, for example, is <q>the <emph>world</emph> (αἰών) to come,</q> invariably +glossed <q>the <emph>age</emph> to come</q>? and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας so persistently +explained in the margin to mean, <q><emph>unto the ages</emph></q>? (See the +margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> blessed <emph>unto the +ages</emph></q>?) Also εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, <q><emph>unto the ages of +the ages</emph></q>? Surely we, whose language furnishes expressions +of precisely similar character (viz. <q>for ever,</q> and <q>for ever +and ever</q>), might dispense with information hazy and unprofitable +as this! +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>m</hi>) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Inspiration</hi> of Scripture, nothing but real necessity could +warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the subject +as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto been taught +to believe that <q><emph>All Scripture is given by inspiration of</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> +and is profitable,</q> &c. The ancients<note place='foot'>Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους +καλεῖ, ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Legimus omnem Scripturam +ædificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari.</foreign> Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ +θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ +θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος +λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, &c.</note> clearly so understood +S. Paul's words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful +of the moderns. Πᾶσα γραφή, even if it be interpreted +<q>every Scripture,</q> can only mean every portion of those +ἱερὰ γράμματα of which the Apostle had been speaking in +the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify <emph>the +whole of Scripture</emph>.<note place='foot'>See Archdeacon Lee <hi rend='italic'>on Inspiration</hi>, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.</note> So that the expression <q><emph>all Scripture</emph></q> +<pb n='209'/><anchor id='Pg209'/> +expresses S. Paul's meaning exactly, and should not have +been disturbed. +</p> + +<p> +But—<q>It is very difficult</q> (so at least thinks the Right +Rev. Chairman of the Revisers) <q>to decide whether θεόπνευστος +is a part of the predicate, καί being the simple copula; or +whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and +grammar contribute but little to a decision.</q> Not so +thought Bishop Middleton. <q>I do not recollect</q> (he says) +<q>any passage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently +connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to +be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an +instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility +of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the +least of it, to be forced and improbable.</q>—And yet it is +proposed to thrust this <q>forced and improbable</q> translation +on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever +found, on the plea of <emph>necessity</emph>! Our Revisionists translate, +<q>Every Scripture inspired of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> <emph>is also profitable</emph>,</q> &c.,—which +of course may be plausibly declared to imply that +a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired +and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be +presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing) <q>profitable +for teaching,</q> &c. which is <emph>not</emph> commonly held to be <q>inspired +of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q>?... But in fact the proposed rendering is +inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. +The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul's +assertion is that <q>every portion of Scripture <emph>being inspired</emph></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> inasmuch as it is—because it is—inspired); <q>is <emph>also</emph> +profitable,</q> &c. Else there would be no meaning in the καί. +But, in the name of common sense, if this be so, <emph>why</emph> have +the blessed words been meddled with? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>n</hi>) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with +which the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious +<pb n='210'/><anchor id='Pg210'/> +expression in S. Mark's Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems +to predicate concerning the Eternal <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi>, limitation in respect +of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the +Catholic Doctrine of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son's</hi> <q>equality with the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi> as +touching His <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>head;</q> or for explaining that, in consequence, +all things that the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi> hath, (<emph>the knowledge of +<q>that Day and Hour</q> included</emph>,) the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi> hath likewise.<note place='foot'>S. John xvi. 15.</note> But +this is the place for calling attention to the deplorable +circumstance that the clause <q><emph>neither the</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi>,</q> which has an +indisputable right to its place in S. Mark's Gospel, has on +insufficient authority by our Revisionists been thrust into +S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where it has no business whatever, and +from which the word <q>only</q> effectually excludes it.<note place='foot'>Study by all means Basil's letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360 to +362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας +ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς +ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... +τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι +τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; +ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362 c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ +τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.</note> We +call attention to this circumstance with sincere sorrow: but +it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but +the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed +to correct manifest errors in <emph>the English</emph> of the N. T. go out +of their way to introduce an error like this into the <emph>Greek</emph> +Text which Catholic Antiquity would have repudiated with +indignation, and for which certainly the plea of <q>necessity</q> +cannot be pretended? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>o</hi>) A <hi rend='smallcaps'>marginal annotation</hi> set over against Romans ix. 5 +is the last thing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. +S. Paul declares it to be Israel's highest boast and +glory that of them, <q>as concerning the flesh [came] <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>, +<pb n='211'/><anchor id='Pg211'/> +<emph>who is over all</emph> [things], <emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> blessed for ever</emph>! Amen.</q> A +grander or more unequivocal testimony to our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> eternal +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>head is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, +these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful +Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly +assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by +which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are +powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred +Revisionists in the following terms:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Some modern Interpreters place a full stop after <emph>flesh</emph>, and +translate, <emph>He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever</emph>: or, <emph>He +who is over all is God, blessed for ever</emph>. Others punctuate, <emph>flesh, +who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever.</emph></q> +</quote> + +<p> +Now this is a matter,—let it be clearly observed,—which, +(as Dr. Hort is aware,) <q>belongs to <emph>Interpretation</emph>,—and <emph>not +to Textual Criticism</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, p. 109.</note> What business then has it in these +pages at all? Is it then the function of Divines appointed +to revise the <hi rend='italic'>Authorized Version</hi>, to give information to the +90 millions of English-speaking Christians scattered throughout +the world as to the unfaithfulness of <q><emph>some modern +Interpreters</emph></q>?<note place='foot'><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Celebre effugium</foreign>, (as Dr. Routh calls it,) <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quod ex falsâ verborum constructione +Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt.</foreign> <hi rend='italic'>Reliqq.</hi> iii. 322-3.</note> We have hitherto supposed that it was +<q><emph>Ancient</emph> authorities</q> exclusively,—(whether <q>a few,</q> or +<q>some,</q> or <q>many,</q>)—to which we are invited to submit our +judgment. How does it come to pass that <emph>the Socinian gloss</emph> +on this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into such +extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider +that their marginal note would travel to earth's remotest +verge,—give universal currency to the view of <q>some modern +Interpreters,</q>—and in the end <q>tell it out among the heathen</q> +also? We refer to Manuscripts,—Versions,—Fathers: and +what do we find? (1) It is demonstrable that <emph>the oldest +<pb n='212'/><anchor id='Pg212'/> +Codices, besides the whole body of the cursives</emph>, know nothing +about the method of <q>some modern Interpreters.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς +τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in +the margin.</note>—(2) +<q>There is absolutely not a shadow, <emph>not a tittle of evidence, in +any of the ancient Versions</emph>, to warrant what they do.</q><note place='foot'>MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.</note>—(3) +How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our +best modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by +heart. We find that the expression <q><emph>who is over all</emph> [things], +<emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> blessed for ever</emph></q> is expressly acknowledged to refer to +our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> by the following 60 illustrious names:— +</p> + +<p> +Irenæus,<note place='foot'>i. 506.</note>—Hippolytus in 3 places,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Opusc.</hi> i. 52, 58; <hi rend='italic'>Phil.</hi> 339.</note>—Origen,<note place='foot'>iv. 612.</note>—Malchion, +in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 269,<note place='foot'>Routh, <hi rend='italic'>Reliqq. Sac.</hi> iii. 292, and 287. (<hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> i. 845 b. c.)</note>—ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, i. 873 d: 876 a.</note>—the <hi rend='italic'>Constt. App.</hi>,<note place='foot'>vi. c. 26.</note>—Athanasius +in 6 places,<note place='foot'>i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.</note>—Basil in 2 places,<note place='foot'>i. 282. And in <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> 317.</note>—Didymus in +5 places,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Trin.</hi> 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.</note>—Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,<note place='foot'>ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [<hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> v. 697] and the +<hi rend='italic'>Chronicon Paschale</hi>, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.</note>—Epiphanius in 5 +places,<note place='foot'>i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.</note>—Theodoras Mops.,<note place='foot'>Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.</note>—Methodius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. iii. 805.</note>—Eustathius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. iv. 576.</note>—Eulogius, +twice,<note place='foot'>Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.</note>—Cæsarius, 3 times,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.</note>—Theophilus Alex., +twice,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.</note>—Nestorius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also, <hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi> +(Harduin), i. 1413 a.</note>—Theodotus of Ancyra,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. ix. 474.</note>—Proclus, +twice,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( = <hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> iii. 1230, 1231).</note>—Severianus Bp. of Gabala,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Homilia</hi> (Arm.), p. 165 and 249.</note>—Chrysostom, 8 times,<note place='foot'>i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.</note>—Cyril +<pb n='213'/><anchor id='Pg213'/> +Alex., 15 times,<note place='foot'>v.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>1</hi> 20, 503, 765, 792; v.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii. 70, +86, 96, 104; iii. 84 <hi rend='italic'>in Luc.</hi> 26.</note>—Paulus Bp. of Emesa,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 1099 b.</note>—Theodoret, +12 times,<note place='foot'>i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295, 1309; v. +67, 1093.</note>—Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,<note place='foot'>Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> 160.</note>—Severus, Abp. of +Antioch,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid. in Act.</hi> 40.</note>—Amphilochius,<note place='foot'>P. 166.</note>—Gelasius Cyz.,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, ii. 195.</note>—Anastasius +Ant.,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. xii. 251.</note>—Leontius Byz., 3 times,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. xii. 682.</note>—Maximus,<note place='foot'>ii. 64.</note>—J. Damascene, +3 times.<note place='foot'>i. 557; ii. 35, 88.</note> Besides of the Latins, Tertullian, twice,<note place='foot'>Prax. 13, 15—<q>Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit, <emph>Quorum +patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus +benedictus in ævum</emph>.</q></note>—Cyprian,<note place='foot'>P. 287.</note>—Novatian, +twice,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.</note>—Ambrose, 5 times,<note place='foot'>i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.</note>—Palladius +the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, ii. 982 c.</note>—Hilary, 7 +times,<note place='foot'>78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.</note>—Jerome, twice,<note place='foot'>i. 870, 872.</note>—Augustine, about 30 times,—Victorinus,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. viii. 157.</note>—the +<hi rend='italic'>Breviarium</hi>, twice,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.</note>—Marius Mercator,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. viii. 627.</note>—Cassian, +twice,<note place='foot'>709, 711.</note>—Alcimus Avit.,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. x. 722.</note>—Fulgentius, twice,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.</note>—Leo, +Bp. of Rome, twice,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 1364, 1382.</note>—Ferrandus, twice,<note place='foot'>Ap. Gall. 352, 357.</note>—Facundus:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> 674.</note>—to +whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3<note place='foot'>ii. 16, 215, 413.</note> +have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3<note place='foot'>i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.</note> for Chrysostom. +All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>head of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,—for +we have enumerated <emph>upwards of sixty</emph> ancient +Fathers—it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian +interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence, +<pb n='214'/><anchor id='Pg214'/> +can stand. But why has it been introduced <emph>at all</emph>? We +shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, +that such perverse imaginations of <q>modern Interpreters</q> are +not entitled to a place in the margin of the N. T. For our +Revisionists to have even given them currency, and thereby a +species of sanction, constitutes in our view a very grave offence.<note place='foot'>Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may +consult with advantage Dr. Gifford's learned note on the passage in the +<hi rend='italic'>Speaker's Commentary</hi>. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that <q>it is the +natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would adopt +without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.</q></note> +A public retraction and a very humble Apology we claim at +their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of +Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But <emph>a Socinian +gloss gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman's +N. T.</emph> admits of no excuse—is not to be tolerated on +<emph>any</emph> terms. It would by itself, in our account, have been +sufficient to determine the fate of the present Revision. +</p> + +<p> +XII. Are we to regard it as a kind of <emph>set-off</emph> against all +that goes before, that in an age when the personality of +Satan is freely called in question, <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>the evil one</hi></q> has been +actually <emph>thrust into the Lord's Prayer</emph>? A more injudicious +and unwarrantable innovation it would be impossible to +indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The +case has been argued out with much learning and ability +by two eminent Divines, Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. +The Canon remains master of the field. That <emph>the change +ought never to have been made</emph> is demonstrable. The grounds +of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted +on all hands that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion +only whether in the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the nominative +case is τὸ πονηρόν (as in S. Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. +xii. 9), or ὁ πονηρός (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi. +<pb n='215'/><anchor id='Pg215'/> +16),—either of which yields a good sense. But then—(2) +The Church of England in her formularies having emphatically +declared that, for her part, she adheres to the former +alternative, it was in a very high degree unbecoming for the +Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment of <emph>certain</emph> knowledge +that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken: +and unless <q>from evil</q> be <q><emph>a clear and plain error</emph>,</q> the Revisionists +were bound to let it alone. Next—(3), It can +never be right to impose the narrower interpretation on +words which have always been understood to bear the larger +sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the +larger meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: +witness the paraphrase in our Church Catechism,—<q>and that +He will keep us (<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) from all sin and wickedness, and (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) +<emph>from our ghostly enemy</emph>, and (<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) from everlasting death.</q>—(4) +But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this +behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only +<q>the Devil,</q> but also <q><emph>all his works</emph>, the vain pomp and glory +of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the +carnal desires of the flesh.</q><note place='foot'>Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the +beginning. Thus Tertullian,—<q>Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos renuntiare +diabolo, <emph>et pompæ et angelis ejus</emph></q> (i. 421): and Ambrose,—<q>Quando +te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diabolo <emph>et operibus ejus</emph>, quid respondisti? +Abrenuntio. Abrenuntias <emph>sæculo et voluptatibus ejus</emph>, quid +respondisti? Abrenuntio</q> (ii. 350 c): and Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι +τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius +of Arles,—<q>Abrenuntias diabolo, <emph>pompis et operibus ejus</emph> ... Abrenuntio</q> +(Galland. xi. 18 e).</note> And at this point—(5), The +voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in attestation that +this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition in the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> Prayer: for when S. Paul says—<q>the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> will +deliver me <emph>from every evil work</emph> and will preserve me unto +His heavenly kingdom; to whom be glory for ever and ever. +Amen,</q><note place='foot'>2 Tim. iv. 18.</note>—what else is he referring to but to the words just +<pb n='216'/><anchor id='Pg216'/> +now under consideration? He explains that in the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> +Prayer it is <q><emph>from every evil work</emph></q> that we pray to be +<q>delivered.</q> (Note also, that he retains <hi rend='italic'>the Doxology</hi>.) Compare +the places:— +</p> + +<p> +S. Matth. vi. 13.—ἀλλὰ ῬΎΣΑΙ ἩΜΆΣ ἈΠῸ ΤΟΎ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΎ. ὍΤΙ +ΣΟΎ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ... καὶ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ἘΙΣ ΤΟΎΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ. ἈΜΉΝ. +</p> + +<p> +2 Tim. iv. 18.—καὶ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΊ ΜΕ ὁ Κύριος ἈΠῸ ΠΑΝΤῸΣ ἜΡΓΟΥ +ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ καὶ σώσει εἰς ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ἈΥΤΟΥ ... ᾧ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ΕΊΣ +ΤΟΥΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ.... ἈΜΉΝ. +</p> + +<p> +Then further—(6), What more unlikely than that our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> would end with giving such prominence to that rebel +Angel whom by dying He is declared to have <q>destroyed</q>? +(Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the Doxology +(as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> +Prayer with <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Our Father</hi>,</q> and literally end it with—<emph>the +Devil</emph>!—But above all,—(7) Let it never be forgotten that +this is <emph>the pattern Prayer</emph>, a portion of every Christian +child's daily utterance,—the most sacred of all our formularies, +and by far the most often repeated,—into which it is +attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. +Lastly—(8), When it is called to mind that nothing short of +<emph>necessity</emph> has warranted the Revisionists in introducing a +single change into the A. V.,—<q><emph>clear and plain errors</emph></q>—and +that no such plea can be feigned on the present occasion, the +liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted +to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the +grounds on which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain +the proposed introduction of the Devil into the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> +Prayer. From the position we have taken up, it will be +found utterly impossible to dislodge us. +</p> + +<p> +XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists +that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their +labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed +<pb n='217'/><anchor id='Pg217'/> +that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes +the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater +number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be +strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined +labours of upwards of twenty Scholars, whose <foreign rend='italic'>raison d'être</foreign> as +Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in +the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V. of Gospels +and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, +for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a +dozen others have been introduced: in other words, that the +result of this Revision has been the planting in of a <emph>fresh +crop of difficulties</emph>, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual +wrestling with <emph>these</emph> is what hereafter awaits the diligent +student of the New Testament. +</p> + +<p> +We speak not now of passages which have been merely +altered for the worse: as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we +are invited to read,—<q>Every good gift and every <emph>perfect boon</emph> +is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with +whom <emph>can be no variation</emph>, neither <emph>shadow that is cast by +turning</emph>. Of his own will <emph>he brought us forth</emph>.</q> Grievous as +such blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be +set down to nothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we +complain of is that, misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers +have often made nonsense of what before was perfectly clear: +and have not only thrust many of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> precious utterances +out of sight, (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and xi. 26: +Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings +which He certainly never uttered, (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> Matt. xix. 17); or else, +given such a twist to what He actually said, that His +blessed words are no longer recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: +S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a sample:— +</p> + +<p> +(1.) The Church has always understood her <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> to say,—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>, +I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, +<pb n='218'/><anchor id='Pg218'/> +be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory.</q><note place='foot'>S. John xvii. 24.</note> +We reject with downright indignation the proposal henceforth +to read instead,—<q><emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>, that which Thou hast given +Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me</emph>,</q> &c. +We suspect a misprint. The passage reads like nonsense. +Yes, and nonsense it is,—in Greek as well as in English: +(ὅ has been written for οὕς—one of the countless <foreign rend='italic'>bêtises</foreign> for +which א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi> are exclusively responsible; and which the +weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a +new Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the +Vulgate,—to the better Egyptian and to all the Syriac +versions: to <emph>every known Lectionary</emph>: to Clemens Alex.,<note place='foot'>P. 140.</note>—to +Eusebius,<note place='foot'>Marcell. p. 192.</note>—to Nonnus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>In loc. diserte.</hi></note>—to Basil,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Eth.</hi> ii. 297.</note>—to Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>viii. 485.</note>—to +Cyril,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>, iv. 1003; <hi rend='italic'>Comm.</hi> 1007, which are <emph>two distinct authorities</emph>, as +learned readers of Cyril are aware.</note>—to Cælestinus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 356 d.</note>—to Theodoret:<note place='foot'>iv. 450.</note> not to mention +Cyprian,<note place='foot'>Pp. 235, 321.</note>—Ambrose,<note place='foot'>i. 412; ii. 566, 649.</note>—Hilary,<note place='foot'>Pp. 1017, 1033.</note> &c.:<note place='foot'>Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.</note> and above all, 16 +uncials, beginning with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>,—and the whole body of +the cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If +men prefer <emph>their</emph> <q>mumpsimus</q> to <emph>our</emph> <q>sumpsimus,</q> let them +by all means have it: but pray let them keep their rubbish to +themselves,—and at least leave our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> words alone. +</p> + +<p> +(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous +instance. It is. Then take a few milder cases. They abound, +turn whichever way we will. Thus, we are invited to believe +that S. Luke relates concerning our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> that He <q><emph>was +led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days</emph></q> (iv. 1). +We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar +Greek. It proves to be the Greek of <emph>all the copies in the +<pb n='219'/><anchor id='Pg219'/> +world but four</emph>; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the +Syrian, the Coptic Churches, with the text of their respective +Versions; the Greek which was familiar to +Origen,<note place='foot'>iii. 966 <hi rend='italic'>dis.</hi></note>—to Eusebius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dem.</hi> 92.</note>—to Basil,<note place='foot'>i. 319.</note>—to Didymus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Trin.</hi> 190.</note>—to +Theodoret,<note place='foot'>v. 1039, 1069.</note>—to Maximus,<note place='foot'>ii. 460.</note>—and to two other ancient +writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>v. 615.</note> the +other for Basil.<note place='foot'>ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>2</hi> 156, and <hi rend='italic'>in Luc.</hi> p. 52.</note> It is therefore quite above suspicion. And +it informs us that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> <q>was led by the Spirit <emph>into the +wilderness</emph>;</q> and there was <q><emph>forty days tempted of the Devil</emph>.</q> +What then has happened to obscure so plain a statement? +Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad +character (א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d l</hi>) exhibit <q>in</q> instead of <q>into:</q> and that—(2) +Our Revisionists have been persuaded to believe that +<emph>therefore</emph> S. Luke must needs have done the same. Accordingly +they invite us to share their conviction that it was the +<emph>leading about</emph> of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, (and not His <emph>Temptation</emph>,) which +lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be +thrust upon the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians +throughout the world,—under the plea of <q>necessity</q>!... +But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of the mischievous +consequences which would ensue from the acceptance +of the present so-called <q>Revision.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(3.) What is to be thought of <emph>this</emph>, as a substitute for the +familiar language of 2 Cor. xii. 7?—<q><emph>And by reason of the +exceeding greatness of the revelations—wherefore, that I should +not be exalted overmuch</emph>, there was given to me a thorn in the +flesh.</q> The word <q>wherefore</q> (διό), which occasions all the +difficulty—(breaking the back of the sentence and necessitating +the hypothesis of a change of construction)—is due +solely to the influence of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a bb</hi>. The ordinary Text is recognized +<pb n='220'/><anchor id='Pg220'/> +by almost every other copy; by the Latin,—Syriac,—Gothic,—Armenian +Versions;—as well as by Irenæus,<note place='foot'>i. 720.</note>—Origen,<note place='foot'>ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.</note>—Macarius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Galland. vii. 183.</note>—Athanasius,<note place='foot'>Ap. Montf. ii. 67.</note>—Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.</note>—Theodoret,<note place='foot'>ii. 77; iii. 349.</note>—John +Damascene.<note place='foot'>ii. 252.</note> Even Tischendorf here makes +a stand and refuses to follow his accustomed guides.<note place='foot'><q>Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.</q></note> In +plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is beyond the reach of +suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of which +our Revisers have been the dupes.—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Quousque tandem?</foreign> +</p> + +<p> +(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: +viz. so seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar +passage of Holy Writ as effectually to mar it. Even where +they remedy an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V., +they often inflict a more grievous injury than mistranslation +on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14, +where the good Shepherd says,—<q>I know Mine own <emph>and am +known of Mine</emph>, even as the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi> knoweth Me and I know +the Father.</q> By thrusting in here the Manichæan depravation +(<q><emph>and Mine own know Me</emph></q>), our Revisionists have +obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the +original,—which implies that whereas the knowledge which +subsists between the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi> and the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi> is identical on +either side, not such is the knowledge which subsists between +the creature and the Creator. The refinement in question +has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy +in existence except four of bad character,—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d l</hi>. It is +witnessed to by the Syriac,—by Macarius,<note place='foot'>P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).</note>—Gregory Naz.,<note place='foot'>i. 298, 613.</note>—Chrysostom,<note place='foot'>viii. 351, 352.</note>—Cyril +Alex.,<note place='foot'>iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.</note>—Theodoret,<note place='foot'>i. 748; iv. 274, 550.</note>—Maximus.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>In Dionys. Ar.</hi> ii. 192.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='221'/><anchor id='Pg221'/> + +<p> +But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose +that if S. John had written <q><emph>Mine own know Me</emph>,</q> 996 manuscripts +out of 1000, at the end of 1800 years, would be found +to exhibit <q><emph>I am known of Mine</emph></q>? +</p> + +<p> +(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration +of many more has been given already, at pp. <ref target='Pg144'>144</ref>(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>)-152. +</p> + +<p> +Now, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,—(viz. +for one crop of deformities weeded out, an infinitely +larger crop of far grosser deformities as industriously +planted in,)—we confess to a feeling of distress and annoyance +which altogether indisposes us to accord to the +Revisionists that language of congratulation with which it +would have been so agreeable to receive their well-meant +endeavours. The serious question at once arises,—Is it to +be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or losers, by +the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain +way of resolving this doubt, but by opening a <q>Profit and +Loss account</q> with the Revisers,—crediting them with every +item of <emph>gain</emph>, and debiting them with every item of <emph>loss</emph>. +But then,—(and we ask the question with sanguine simplicity,)—Why +should it not be <emph>all</emph> gain and <emph>no</emph> loss, when, +at the end of 270 years, a confessedly noble work, a truly +unique specimen of genius, taste and learning, is submitted +to a body of Scholars, equipped with every external advantage, +<emph>only</emph> in order that they may improve upon it—<emph>if they +are able</emph>? These learned individuals have had upwards of +ten years wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the +benefit of the tentative labours of a host of predecessors,—some +for their warning, some for their help and guidance. +They have all along had before their eyes the solemn injunction +that, whatever they were not able <emph>certainly</emph> to +improve, they were to be <emph>supremely careful to let alone</emph>. +<pb n='222'/><anchor id='Pg222'/> +They were warned at the outset against any but <q><emph>necessary</emph></q> +changes. Their sole business was to remove <q><emph>plain and clear +errors</emph>.</q> They had pledged themselves to introduce <q><emph>as few +alterations as possible</emph>.</q> Why then, we again ask,—<emph>Why</emph> +should not every single innovation which they introduced +into the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a +manifest, an undeniable change for the better?<note place='foot'>As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a book +by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled, <hi rend='italic'>Should the Revised New Testament be +Authorized?</hi> In four Chapters, the author discusses with characteristic +vigour, first, the principles and method of the Revisers, and then the +Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as +fair samples of their work, with a union of sound sense, forensic skill, and +scholarship more skilful than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst +details open, of course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a +most telling style, that the plea of <q>necessity</q> and <q>faithfulness</q> utterly +fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in point of English +composition, carry their condemnation on their face, and, to sum up the +great distinction between the two Versions, illustrate <q>the difference between +working by <emph>discretion</emph> and by <emph>rules</emph>—by which no great thing was ever +done or ever will be.</q> Sir Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure +of the abuse of the famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the +more obvious, as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated +wilful absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.</note> +</p> + +<p> +XIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, +the more cordially do we regret that it was ever +undertaken. Verily, the Northern Convocation displayed a +far-sighted wisdom when it pronounced against the project +from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we +have conceived it possible that the persons originally appointed +by the Southern Province would have co-opted into +their body persons capable of executing their work with +such extravagant licentiousness as well as such conspicuous +bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful +thought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic +feature of the work of the Revisionists offends us,—as well +<pb n='223'/><anchor id='Pg223'/> +in respect of what they have left undone, as of what they +have been the first to venture to do:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Charged <q>to introduce <emph>as few</emph> alterations as possible into +the Text of the Authorized Version,</q> they have on the contrary +evidently acted throughout on the principle of making <emph>as +many</emph> changes in it as they conveniently could. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Directed <q>to limit, <emph>as far as possible</emph>, the expression of +such alterations to the language of the Authorized and +earlier English Versions,</q>—they have introduced such terms +as <q>assassin,</q> <q>apparition,</q> <q>boon,</q> <q>disparagement,</q> <q>divinity,</q> +<q>effulgence,</q> <q>epileptic,</q> <q>fickleness,</q> <q>gratulation,</q> <q>irksome,</q> +<q>interpose,</q> <q>pitiable,</q> <q>sluggish,</q> <q>stupor,</q> <q>surpass,</q> <q>tranquil:</q> +such compounds as <q>self-control,</q> <q>world-ruler:</q> such +phrases as <q><emph>draw up</emph> a narrative:</q> <q><emph>the impulse</emph> of the +steersman:</q> <q><emph>in lack</emph> of daily food:</q> <q><emph>exercising</emph> oversight.</q> +These are but a very few samples of the offence committed +by our Revisionists, of which we complain. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Whereas they were required <q>to <emph>revise</emph> the Headings of +the Chapters,</q> they have not even <emph>retained</emph> them. We +demand at least to have our excellent <q>Headings</q> back. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) And what has become of our time-honoured <q>Marginal +References,</q>—<emph>the very best Commentary</emph> on the Bible, as we +believe,—certainly the very best help for the right understanding +of Scripture,—which the wit of man hath ever yet +devised? The <q>Marginal References</q> would be lost to the +Church for ever, if the work of the Revisionists were allowed +to stand: the space required for their insertion having been +completely swallowed up by the senseless, and worse than +senseless, Textual Annotations which at present infest the +margin of every sacred page. We are beyond measure +amazed that the Revisionists have even deprived the reader +of the <emph>essential aid</emph> of references to the places of the Old +Testament which are quoted in the New. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Let the remark be added in passing, that we greatly +<pb n='224'/><anchor id='Pg224'/> +dislike the affectation of printing certain quotations from +the Old Testament after the strange method adopted by our +Revisers from Drs. Westcott and Hort. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) The further external <emph>assimilation of the Sacred Volume +to an ordinary book</emph> by getting rid of the division into Verses, +we also hold to be a great mistake. In the Greek, by all +means let the verses be merely noted in the margin: but, +for more than one weighty reason, in the <emph>English</emph> Bible let +the established and peculiar method of printing the Word of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) But incomparably the gravest offence is behind. By +far the most serious of all is <emph>that</emph> Error to the consideration +of which we devoted our former Article. <hi rend='smallcaps'>The New +Greek Text</hi> which, in defiance of their Instructions,<note place='foot'><p>It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not fair to +say that <q>they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.</q> +We are glad of this opportunity to explain. +</p> +<p> +That <emph>some</emph> corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware: and +had those <emph>necessary</emph> changes been made, we should only have had words of +commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. Hort's +eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists have made a vast number +of <emph>perfectly needless changes</emph>:—(1) Changes which <emph>are incapable of being +represented in a Translation</emph>: as ἐμοῦ for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε +for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις, at least as much as γένεσις, means +<q><emph>birth</emph>,</q> <emph>why</emph> γένεσις in S. Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead +of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ +ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ? and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this +they have done <emph>throughout</emph>,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But +(what is far worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet +they <emph>do not adopt</emph>. These numerous changes are, <emph>by their own confession</emph>, +not <q>necessary:</q> and yet they are of a most serious character. In fact, it +is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3), <emph>How many</emph> of their <emph>other</emph> +alterations of the Text will the Revisionists undertake to defend publicly +on the plea of <q><emph>Necessity</emph></q>? +</p> +<p> +[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of the +present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages <ref target='Pg087'>87-88</ref>.]</p></note> our +Revisionists have constructed, has been proved to be utterly +undeserving of confidence. Built up on a fallacy which since +<pb n='225'/><anchor id='Pg225'/> +1831 has been dominant in Germany, and which has lately +found but too much favour among ourselves, it is in the +main a reproduction of the recent labours of Doctors Westcott +and Hort. But we have already recorded our conviction, +that the results at which those eminent Scholars have arrived +are wholly inadmissible. It follows that, in our account, the +<q>New English Version,</q> has been all along a foredoomed thing. +If the <q>New Greek Text</q> be indeed a tissue of fabricated +Readings, the translation of these into English must needs +prove lost labour. It is superfluous to enquire into the +merits of the English rendering of words which Evangelists +and Apostles demonstrably never wrote. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, +full two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves +singularly deficient,—alike in their critical acquaintance +with the language out of which they had to translate, and +in their familiarity with the idiomatic requirements of their +own tongue. They had a noble Version before them, which +they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified +simplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and +its delightful rhythm, they have shown themselves alike +unable to imitate and unwilling to retain. Their queer +uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:—their +pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:—their +fidgetty affectation of accuracy,—and their habitual +achievement of English which fails to exhibit the spirit of +the original Greek;—are sorry substitutes for the living +freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of the +grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and +which has sustained the spiritual life of the Church of +England, and of all English-speaking Christians, for 350 +years. Linked with all our holiest, happiest memories, and +bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and parcel of +<pb n='226'/><anchor id='Pg226'/> +whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men's hopes +of a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending +Life;—the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, +<emph>should have been jealously retained</emph>. But on the contrary. +Every familiar cadence has been dislocated: the congenial +flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been hopelessly +marred: so many of those little connecting words, which +give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously +displaced, that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. +The countless minute alterations which have been needlessly +introduced into every familiar page prove at last as tormenting +as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on a +summer's day.<note place='foot'><q>We meet in every page</q> (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop +of Lincoln,) <q>with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and +irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small insects sting +most sharply), <emph>which seem almost to be made merely for the sake of +change</emph>.</q>—p. 25.</note> To speak plainly, the book has been made +<emph>unreadable</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament +Company (Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on +this subject in language which leaves nothing to be desired, +and which we willingly make our own. <q>No Revision</q> +(he says) <q>in the present day <emph>could hope to meet with an +hour's acceptance</emph> if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and +diction of the present Authorized Version.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On the Revision of the English Version</hi>, &c. (1870), p. 99.</note>—What else is +this but a vaticination,—of which the uninspired Author, by +his own act and deed, has ensured the punctual fulfilment? +</p> + +<p> +We lay the Revisers' volume down convinced that the +case of their work is simply hopeless. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Non ego paucis +offendar maculis.</foreign> Had the blemishes been capable of being +reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to +remedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured +<pb n='227'/><anchor id='Pg227'/> +by a few weeds scattered here and there, the whole field +proves to be sown over in every direction with thorns and +briars; above all when, deep beneath the surface, roots of +bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have +been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous +fruit after many days:—under <emph>such</emph> circumstances only one +course can be prescribed. Let the entire area be ploughed +up,—ploughed deep; and let the ground be left for a decent +space of time without cultivation. It is idle—worse than +idle—to dream of revising, <emph>with a view to retaining</emph>, this +Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered +to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice +to cool effectually down. Partizanship, (which at present +prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is wondrously +out of place in <emph>this</emph> department of Sacred Learning,)—<emph>Partizanship</emph> +must be completely outlived,—before the +Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful +issue, to organize another attempt at revising the +Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures. +</p> + +<p> +Yes, and in the meantime—(let it in all faithfulness be +added)—the Science of Textual Criticism will have to be +prosecuted, <emph>for the first time</emph>, in a scholarlike manner. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fundamental +Principles</hi>,—sufficiently axiomatic to ensure +general acceptance,—will have to be laid down for men's +guidance. The time has quite gone by for vaunting <q><emph>the +now established Principles of Textual Criticism</emph>,</q><note place='foot'>Bp. Ellicott, <hi rend='italic'>Diocesan Progress</hi>, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.</note>—as if they +had an actual existence. Let us be shown, instead, <emph>which +those Principles be</emph>. As for the weak superstition of these +last days, which—<emph>without proof of any kind</emph>—would erect two +IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably +derived from one and the same utterly depraved archetype,) +<pb n='228'/><anchor id='Pg228'/> +into an authority from which there shall be no appeal,—it +cannot be too soon or too unconditionally abandoned. And, +perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse +their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their +power, when addressing themselves to that most difficult and +delicate of problems,—<emph>the improvement of the Traditional +Text</emph>,—<q>solvere ambulando.</q><note place='foot'>Bp. Ellicott, <hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>,—p. 49.</note> They are assured that they +may not take to Textual Criticism as ducks take to the +water. They will be drowned inevitably if they are so ill-advised +as to make the attempt. +</p> + +<p> +Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament +Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance +with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one +indispensable condition of success.<note place='foot'><q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Qui</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>lxx</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>interpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is sciat se +non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de Græco in +Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in aliis Græcis +scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus</foreign>.</q> (John Bois, 1619.)—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Græcum +N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est utilius quam diligenter versasse +Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis interpretationem</foreign>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>e quâ unâ plus peti +poterit auxilii, quam ex veteribus Scriptoribus Græcis simul +sumtis</hi>. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Centena reperientur in N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum +veterum, sed frequentata in Alexandrinâ versione.</foreign></q> (Valcknaer, 1715-85.)</note> And finally, the Revisionists +of the future (if they desire that their labours should +be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe +self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of <q><emph>plain +and clear errors</emph>;</q> and in fact to <q>introduce into the Text <emph>as +few alterations as possible</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +On a review of all that has happened, from first to last, +we can but feel greatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of +all, disappointed. We had expected a vastly different result. +It is partly (not quite) accounted for, by the rare attendance +in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names on which +we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was +<pb n='229'/><anchor id='Pg229'/> +present on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. +Andrews) on only 109: Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only +63: Bishop Wilberforce on only <emph>one</emph>. The Archbishop, in his +Charge, adverts to <q>the not unfrequent sacrifice of grace and +ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal accuracy;</q> and +regards them <q>as pushed to a faulty excess</q> (p. 22). Eleven +years before the scheme for the present <q>Revision</q> had been +matured, the same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then +Dean of Westminster,) persuaded as he was that a Revision +<emph>ought</emph> to come, and convinced that in time it <emph>would</emph> come, +deprecated its being attempted <emph>yet</emph>. His words were,—<q>Not +however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yet <emph>in any +respect prepared for it. The Greek, and the English</emph> which +should enable us to bring this to a successful end might, it is +to be feared, be wanting alike.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On the Authorized Version</hi>,—p. 3.</note> Archbishop Trench, with +wise after-thought, in a second edition, explained himself +to mean <q><emph>that special Hellenistic Greek, here required</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, +cleared himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors +of the work before us,—as well in respect of the <q>New Greek +Text</q> as of the <q>New English Version.</q> In the Charge +which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd Sept. +1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was +finally completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed +circular to each member of the Company, in which he +strongly remonstrated against the excess to which changes +had been carried; and that the remonstrance had been, for +the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there +is good reason to believe that the reception which the +Revision has met with would have been far less unfavourable, +and that many a controversy which it has stirred up, +would have been avoided. We have been assured that the +<pb n='230'/><anchor id='Pg230'/> +Bp. of S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in +the Company at that time, if he had not been led to expect +that some opportunity would have been taken by the +Minority, when the work was finished, to express their +formal dissent from the course which had been followed, +and many of the conclusions which had been adopted. +</p> + +<p> +Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and +Divines of the best type) who were often present, disposed +at this late hour to come forward, they too would doubtless +tell us that they heartily regretted what was done, but were +powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,—the +learned Archdeacon of Dublin,—(one of the few really +competent members of the Revising body,)—found himself +perpetually in the minority. +</p> + +<p> +The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose +work on the Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is +not by any means so entirely a novice in the mysteries of +Textual Criticism as certain of his colleagues.—One famous +Scholar and excellent Divine,—a Dean whom we forbear to +name,—with the modesty of real learning, often withheld +what (had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.—Another +learned and accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after +attending 19 meetings of the Revising body, withdrew in +disgust from them entirely. He disapproved <emph>the method</emph> of +his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of responsibility +for the probable result of their deliberations.—By +the way,—What about a certain solemn Protest, by +means of which the Minority had resolved <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>liberare animas +suas</foreign> concerning the open disregard shown by the Majority +for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with +the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last +moment? Inasmuch as their reasons for the course they +eventually adopted seemed sufficient to those high-minded and +<pb n='231'/><anchor id='Pg231'/> +honourable men, we forbear to challenge it. Nothing however +shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that +human regards scarcely deserve a hearing when <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> +Truth is imperilled. And that the Truth of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> Word in +countless instances <emph>has been</emph> ignorantly sacrificed by a majority +of the Revisionists—(out of deference to a worthless +Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two +of their body),—has been already demonstrated; as far, that +is, as demonstration is <emph>possible</emph> in this subject matter. +</p> + +<p> +As for Prebendary Scrivener,—<emph>the only really competent +Textual Critic of the whole party</emph>,—it is well known +that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds +of those present. We look forward to the forthcoming +new edition of his <hi rend='italic'>Plain Introduction</hi>, in the confident +belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is +in no degree responsible for the monstrous Text which it +became his painful duty to conduct through the Press on +behalf of the entire body, of which he continued to the +last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout, Dr. +Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have +ourselves advocated in this and the preceding Article. +</p> + +<p> +All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of +knowing that, besides having stimulated, to an extraordinary +extent, public attention to the contents of the Book +of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening a living +interest in one important but neglected department of +Sacred Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. +It may reasonably prove a solace to them to reflect that +they have besides, although perhaps in ways they did not +anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A monument +they have certainly erected to themselves,—though +neither of their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant +endeavours have provided an admirable text-book for +<pb n='232'/><anchor id='Pg232'/> +Teachers of Divinity,—who will henceforth instruct their +pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the Revisionists of +1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and unsatisfactory +essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge +the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall +hereafter embark on the same perilous enterprise with themselves. +It will convince men of the danger of pursuing the +same ill-omened course: trusting to the same unskilful +guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore. +</p> + +<p> +Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else +could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the +Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling +the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed +to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will +dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined +that a more exact Version, undertaken with the +boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would +bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly +kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least +service which the Revisionists have rendered has been +the proof their work affords, how very seldom our +Authorized Version is materially wrong: how faithful and +trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be +also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) +the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune +<emph>seriously</emph> to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth; +nor have they in any quarter (as we hope) inflicted wounds +which will be attended with worse results than to leave a +hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their +work bears marks of an amount of conscientious (though +misdirected) labour, which those only can fully appreciate +who have made the same province of study to some extent +their own. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='234'/><anchor id='Pg234'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Article III. Westcott And Hort's New +Textual Theory.</head> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>In the determination of disputed readings, these Critics avail themselves +of so small a portion of existing materials, or allow so little weight +to others, that the Student who follows them has positively <emph>less ground +for his convictions than former Scholars had at any period in the history +of modern Criticism</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Canon Cook</hi>, p. 16. +</p> + +<p> +<q>We have no right, doubtless, to assume that our Principles are infallible: +but we <emph>have</emph> a right to claim that any one who rejects them ... +should confute the Arguments and rebut the Evidence on which the +opposite conclusion has been founded. <emph>Strong expressions of Individual +Opinion are not Arguments.</emph></q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bp. Ellicott's</hi> Pamphlet, (1882,) p. 40. +</p> + +<p> +Our <q>method involves vast research, unwearied patience.... It will +therefore find but little favour with <emph>those who adopt the easy method</emph> ... +<emph>of using some favourite Manuscript</emph>, or <emph>some supposed power of divining +the Original Text</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bp. Ellicott</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 19. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Non enim sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes (καπηλεύοντες) verbum +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Dei</hi>.</q>—2 Cor. ii. 17. +</p> + +<pb n='235'/><anchor id='Pg235'/> + +<p> +<q>Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Job</hi> +xxxviii. 2. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the +ditch?</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>S. Luke</hi> vi. 39. +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Proposing to ourselves (May 17th, 1881) to enquire into +the merits of the recent Revision of the Authorized Version +of the New Testament Scriptures, we speedily became aware +that an entirely different problem awaited us and demanded +preliminary investigation. We made the distressing discovery, +that the underlying Greek Text had been completely refashioned +throughout. It was accordingly not so much a +<q><emph>Revised English Version</emph></q> as a <q><emph>New Greek Text</emph>,</q> which was +challenging public acceptance. Premature therefore,—not to +say preposterous,—would have been any enquiry into the +degree of ability with which the original Greek had been +rendered into English by our Revisionists, until we had first +satisfied ourselves that it was still <q>the original Greek</q> with +which we had to deal: or whether it had been the supreme +infelicity of a body of Scholars claiming to act by the +authority of the sacred Synod of Canterbury, to put themselves +into the hands of some ingenious theory-monger, and +to become the dupes of any of the strange delusions which +<pb n='236'/><anchor id='Pg236'/> +are found unhappily still to prevail in certain quarters, on +the subject of Textual Criticism. +</p> + +<p> +The correction of known Textual errors of course we +eagerly expected: and on every occasion when the Traditional +Text was altered, we as confidently depended on +finding a record of the circumstance inserted with religious +fidelity into the margin,—as agreed upon by the Revisionists +at the outset. In both of these expectations however we +found ourselves sadly disappointed. The Revisionists have +<emph>not</emph> corrected the <q>known Textual errors.</q> On the other +hand, besides silently adopting most of those wretched fabrications +which are just now in favour with the German school, +they have encumbered their margin with those other Readings +which, after due examination, <emph>they had themselves deliberately +rejected</emph>. For why? Because, in their collective judgment, +<q>for the present, it would not be safe to accept one Reading +to the absolute exclusion of others.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi>, p. xiv.</note> A fatal admission +truly! What are found in the margin are therefore <q><emph>alternative +Readings</emph>,</q>—in the opinion of these self-constituted +representatives of the Church and of the Sects. +</p> + +<p> +It becomes evident that, by this ill-advised proceeding, +our Revisionists would convert every Englishman's copy +of the New Testament into a one-sided Introduction to +the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a labyrinth, +out of which they have not been at the pains to supply +him with a single hint as to how he may find his way. +On the contrary. By candidly avowing that they find themselves +enveloped in the same Stygian darkness with the +ordinary English Reader, they give him to understand that +<pb n='237'/><anchor id='Pg237'/> +there is absolutely no escape from the difficulty. What +else must be the result of all this but general uncertainty, +confusion, distress? A hazy mistrust of all Scripture has +been insinuated into the hearts and minds of countless +millions, who in this way have been <emph>forced</emph> to become doubters,—yes, +doubters in the Truth of Revelation itself. One +recals sorrowfully the terrible woe denounced by the Author +of Scripture on those who minister occasions of falling to +others:—<q>It must needs be that offences come; but woe to +that man by whom the offence cometh!</q> +</p> + +<p> +For ourselves, shocked and offended at the unfaithfulness +which could so deal with the sacred Deposit, we made it our +business to expose, somewhat in detail, what had been the +method of our Revisionists. In our October number<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi>, No. 304.</note> we demonstrated, +(as far as was possible within such narrow limits,) +the utterly untrustworthy character of not a few of the +results at which, after ten years of careful study, these +distinguished Scholars proclaim to the civilized world that +they have deliberately arrived. In our January number<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi>, No. 305.</note> +also, we found it impossible to avoid extending our enumeration +of Textual errors and multiplying our proofs, while +we were making it our business to show that, even had their +<emph>Text</emph> been faultless, their <emph>Translation</emph> must needs be rejected +as intolerable, on grounds of defective Scholarship and +egregious bad Taste. The popular verdict has in the meantime +been pronounced unmistakably. It is already admitted +on all hands that the Revision has been a prodigious blunder. +How it came about that, with such a first-rate textual Critic +among them as Prebendary Scrivener,<note place='foot'>At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will be +found enumerated Dr. Scrivener's principal works. It shall but be said of +them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather unapproached, in their +particular department. Himself an exact and elegant Scholar,—a most +patient and accurate observer of Textual phenomena, as well as an +interesting and judicious expositor of their significance and value;—guarded +in his statements, temperate in his language, fair and impartial +(even kind) to all who come in his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best +teacher and guide to whom a beginner can resort, who desires to be led by +the hand, as it were, through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. +His <hi rend='italic'>Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of +Biblical Students</hi>, (of which a third edition is now in the press,) is perforce +the most generally useful, because the most comprehensive, of his works; +but we strenuously recommend the three prefatory chapters of his <hi rend='italic'>Full and +Exact Collation of about twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels</hi> [pp. +lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and the two prefatory chapters of his <hi rend='italic'>Exact +Transcript of the Codex Augiensis</hi>, &c., to which is added a full Collation +of Fifty Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of +students. His Collation of <hi rend='italic'>Codex Bezæ</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>) is perhaps the greatest of his +works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is instructive to +compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf's. No reader of the +Greek Testament can afford to be without his reprint of Stephens' ed. of +1550: and English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener's is the only +<emph>classical</emph> edition of the English Bible,—<hi rend='italic'>The Cambridge Paragraph Bible</hi>, +&c., 1870-3. His Preface or <q>Introduction</q> (pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. +Ordinary English readers should enquire for his <hi rend='italic'>Six Lectures on the Text +of the N. T.</hi>, &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize the +<hi rend='italic'>Plain Introduction</hi>. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot +of page <ref target='Pg243'>243</ref>.</note> the Revisers of 1881 +<pb n='238'/><anchor id='Pg238'/> +should have deliberately gone back to those vile fabrications +from which the good Providence of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> preserved Erasmus +and Stunica,—Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—three +centuries ago:—how it happened that, with so many splendid +Scholars sitting round their table, they should have produced +a Translation which, for the most part, reads like a first-rate +school-boy's <emph>crib</emph>,—tasteless, unlovely, harsh, unidiomatic;—servile +without being really faithful,—pedantic without being +really learned;—an unreadable Translation, in short; the +result of a vast amount of labour indeed, but of wondrous +little skill:—how all this has come about, it were utterly +useless at this time of day to enquire. +</p> + +<pb n='239'/><anchor id='Pg239'/> + +<p> +Unable to disprove the correctness of our Criticism on +the Revised Greek Text, even in a single instance, certain +partizans of the Revision,—singular to relate,—have been +ever since industriously promulgating the notion, that the +Reviewer's great misfortune and fatal disadvantage all along +has been, that he wrote his first Article before the publication +of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Critical <q><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>.</q> +Had he but been so happy as to have been made aware by +those eminent Scholars of the critical principles which have +guided them in the construction of their Text, how differently +must he have expressed himself throughout, and to what +widely different conclusions must he have inevitably arrived! +This is what has been once and again either openly declared, +or else privately intimated, in many quarters. Some, in the +warmth of their partizanship, have been so ill-advised as to +insinuate that it argues either a deficiency of moral courage, +or else of intellectual perception, in the Reviewer, that he has +not long since grappled definitely with the Theory of Drs. +Westcott and Hort,—and either published an Answer to it, +or else frankly admitted that he finds it unanswerable. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) All of which strikes us as queer in a high degree. +First, because as a matter of fact we were careful to make it +plain that the <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi> in question had duly reached us +<emph>before the first sheet</emph> of our earlier Article had left our hands. +To be brief,—we made it our business to procure a copy and +read it through, the instant we heard of its publication: and +on our fourteenth page (see above, pp. <ref target='Pg026'>26-8</ref>) we endeavoured +to compress into a long foot-note some account of a Theory +which (we take leave to say) can appear formidable only to +one who either lacks the patience to study it, or else the +knowledge requisite to understand it. We found that, from +a diligent perusal of the <hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi> prefixed to the <q>limited +and private issue</q> of 1870, we had formed a perfectly correct +<pb n='240'/><anchor id='Pg240'/> +estimate of the contents of the <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>; and had already +characterized it with entire accuracy at pp. 24 to 29 of our +first Article. Drs. Westcott and Hort's <hi rend='italic'>New Testament in +the original Greek</hi> was discovered to <q>partake inconveniently +of the nature of a work of the Imagination,</q>—as we had +anticipated. We became easily convinced that <q>those accomplished +Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text +vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the +Evangelists and Apostles of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, than any which has +appeared since the invention of Printing.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) But the queerest circumstance is behind. How is it +supposed that any amount of study of <emph>the last new Theory</emph> of +Textual Revision can seriously affect a Reviewer's estimate +of the evidential value of the historical <emph>facts</emph> on which he +relies for his proof that a certain exhibition of the Greek +Text is untrustworthy? The <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>onus probandi</foreign> rests clearly not +with <emph>him</emph>, but with those who call those proofs of his in +question. More of this, however, by and by. We are impatient +to get on. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) And then, lastly,—What have <emph>we</emph> to do with the <emph>Theory</emph> +of Drs. Westcott and Hort? or indeed with the Theory of +<emph>any other person who can be named</emph>? We have been examining +the new Greek Text <emph>of the Revisionists</emph>. We have condemned, +after furnishing detailed proof, <emph>the results</emph> at which—by +whatever means—that distinguished body of Scholars has +arrived. Surely it is competent to us to upset their <emph>conclusion</emph>, +without being constrained also to investigate in detail +the illicit logical processes by which two of their number in +a separate publication have arrived at far graver results, and +often even stand hopelessly apart, the one from the other! +We say it in no boastful spirit, but we have an undoubted +right to assume, that unless the Revisionists are able by a +<pb n='241'/><anchor id='Pg241'/> +stronger array of authorities to set aside the evidence we +have already brought forward, the calamitous destiny of their +<q>Revision,</q> so far as the New Testament is concerned, is +simply a thing inevitable. +</p> + +<p> +Let it not be imagined, however, from what goes before, +that we desire to shirk the proposed encounter with the +advocates of this last new Text, or that we entertain the +slightest intention of doing so. We willingly accept the +assurance, that it is only because Drs. Westcott and Hort are +virtually responsible for the Revisers' Greek Text, that it is +so imperiously demanded by the Revisers and their partizans, +that the Theory of the two Cambridge Professors may be +critically examined. We can sympathize also with the secret +distress of certain of the body, who now, when it is all +too late to remedy the mischief, begin to suspect that they +have been led away by the hardihood of self-assertion;—overpowered +by the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>facundia præceps</foreign> of one who is at least a +thorough believer in his own self-evolved opinions;—imposed +upon by the seemingly consentient pages of Tischendorf and +Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.—Without further preface we +begin. +</p> + +<p> +It is presumed that we shall be rendering acceptable +service in certain quarters if,—before investigating the particular +Theory which has been proposed for consideration,—we +endeavour to give the unlearned English Reader some general +notion, (it must perforce be a very imperfect one,) of the +nature of the controversy to which the Theory now to be +considered belongs, and out of which it has sprung. Claiming +to be an attempt to determine the Truth of Scripture on +scientific principles, the work before us may be regarded as +the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional +Greek Text,—that strange impatience of its authority, or +<pb n='242'/><anchor id='Pg242'/> +rather denial that it possesses any authority at all,—which +began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and +has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters +being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-72). +</p> + +<p> +The true nature of the Principles which respectively +animate the two parties in this controversy is at this time as +much as ever,—perhaps <emph>more</emph> than ever,—popularly misunderstood. +The common view of the contention in which they +are engaged, is certainly the reverse of complimentary to the +school of which Dr. Scrivener is the most accomplished living +exponent. We hear it confidently asserted that the contention +is nothing else but an irrational endeavour on the one +part to set up the many modern against the few ancient +Witnesses;—the later cursive copies against the <q>old Uncials;</q>—inveterate +traditional Error against undoubted primitive +Truth. The disciples of the new popular school, on the contrary, +are represented as relying exclusively <emph>on Antiquity</emph>. +We respectfully assure as many as require the assurance, +that the actual contention is of an entirely different nature. +But, before we offer a single word in the way of explanation, +let the position of our assailants at least be correctly ascertained +and clearly established. We have already been constrained +to some extent to go over this ground: but we will +not repeat ourselves. The Reader is referred back, in the +meantime, to pp. <ref target='Pg021'>21-24</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +Lachmann's ruling principle then, was exclusive reliance +on a very few ancient authorities—<emph>because</emph> they are <q>ancient.</q> +He constructed his Text on three or four,—not unfrequently +on <emph>one or two</emph>,—Greek codices. Of the Greek Fathers, he +relied on Origen. Of the oldest Versions, he cared only for +the Latin. To the Syriac (concerning which, see above, p. <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>), +he paid no attention. We venture to think his method +<pb n='243'/><anchor id='Pg243'/> +<emph>irrational</emph>. But this is really a point on which the thoughtful +reader is competent to judge for himself. He is invited +to read the note at foot of the page.<note place='foot'><q>Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (<hi rend='italic'>N. T. Berolini</hi> 1842-50), ingenii +viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T. audacior +quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem, tantopere +judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum miramur: quippe +qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope, perpaucis antiquissimis +(nec iis integris, nec per eum satis accuratè collatis) innixus, libros +sacros ad sæculi post Christum quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; +versionum porrò (cujuslibet codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ +atque Ægyptiacarum contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum +contrà nimius fautor, præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.</q>—Scrivener's Preface +to <hi rend='italic'>Nov. Test, textûs Stephanici</hi>, &c. See above, p. <ref target='Pg238'>238</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>note</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Tregelles adopted the same strange method. He resorted +to a very few out of the entire mass of <q>ancient Authorities</q> +for the construction of his Text. His proceeding is exactly +that of a man, who—in order that he may the better explore +a comparatively unknown region—begins by putting out both +his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives +to show him the way. <emph>Why</emph> he rejected the testimony of +<emph>every Father of the IVth century, except Eusebius</emph>,—it were +unprofitable to enquire. +</p> + +<p> +Tischendorf, the last and by far the ablest Critic of the +three, knew better than to reject <q><emph>eighty-nine ninetieths</emph></q> of +the extant witnesses. He had recourse to the ingenious expedient +of <emph>adducing</emph> all the available evidence, but <emph>adopting</emph> +just as little of it as he chose: and he <emph>chose</emph> to adopt those +readings only, which are vouched for by the same little band +of authorities whose partial testimony had already proved +fatal to the decrees of Lachmann and Tregelles. Happy in +having discovered (in 1859) an uncial codex (א) second in +antiquity only to the oldest before known (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>), and strongly +<pb n='244'/><anchor id='Pg244'/> +resembling that famous IVth-century codex in the character +of its contents, he suffered his judgment to be overpowered +by the circumstance. He at once (1865-72) remodelled his +7th edition (1856-9) in 3505 places,—<q>to the scandal of the +science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave +discredit for discernment and consistency.</q><note place='foot'>Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 429.</note> And yet he +knew concerning Cod. א, that at least ten different Revisers +from the Vth century downwards had laboured to remedy +the scandalously corrupt condition of a text which, <q>as it +proceeded from the first scribe,</q> even Tregelles describes as +<q><emph>very rough</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>N. T. Part II. p. 2.</note> But in fact the infatuation which prevails to +this hour in this department of sacred Science can only be +spoken of as incredible. Enough has been said to show—(the +only point we are bent on establishing)—that the one +distinctive tenet of the three most famous Critics since 1831 +has been a superstitious reverence for whatever is found in +the <emph>same little handful</emph> of early,—but <emph>not</emph> the earliest,—<emph>nor +yet of necessity the purest</emph>,—documents. +</p> + +<p> +Against this arbitrary method of theirs we solemnly, stiffly +remonstrate. <q>Strange,</q> we venture to exclaim, (addressing +the living representatives of the school of Lachmann, +and Tregelles, and Tischendorf):—<q>Strange, that you should +not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which +is even transparent. You <emph>talk</emph> of <q>Antiquity.</q> But you must +know very well that you actually <emph>mean</emph> something different. +You fasten upon three, or perhaps four,—on two, or perhaps +three,—on <emph>one, or perhaps two</emph>,—documents of the IVth +or Vth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, two, +three, or four <emph>specimens only</emph> of Antiquity,—not <q>Antiquity</q> +itself. And what if they should even prove to be <emph>unfair +samples</emph> of Antiquity? Thus, you are observed always to +<pb n='245'/><anchor id='Pg245'/> +quote cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> or at least cod. א. Pray, why may not the Truth +reside instead with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, or <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, or <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>?—You quote the old Latin +or the Coptic. Why may not the Peschito or the Sahidic +be right rather?—You quote either Origen or else Eusebius,—but +why not Didymus and Athanasius, Epiphanius and +Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret, the Gregories and the +Cyrils?... It will appear therefore that we are every bit +as strongly convinced as you can be of the paramount claims +of <q>Antiquity:</q> but that, eschewing prejudice and partiality, +we differ from you only in <emph>this</emph>, viz. that we absolutely refuse +to bow down before the <emph>particular specimens of Antiquity</emph> +which you have arbitrarily selected as the objects of your +superstition. You are illogical enough to propose to include +within your list of <q>ancient Authorities,</q> codd. 1, 33 and 69,—which +are severally MSS. of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth +centuries. And why? Only because the Text of those 3 +copies is observed to bear a sinister resemblance to that of +codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. But then why, in the name of common sense, do you +not show corresponding favour to the remaining 997 cursive +Copies of the N. T.,—seeing that these are observed to bear +<emph>the same general resemblance to codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>?... You are for ever +talking about <q>old Readings.</q> Have you not yet discovered +that <hi rend='smallcaps'>all</hi> <q>Readings</q> are <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>old</hi></q>?</q> +</p> + +<p> +The last contribution to this department of sacred Science +is a critical edition of the New Testament by Drs. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Westcott</hi> +and <hi rend='smallcaps'>Hort</hi>. About this, we proceed to offer a few remarks. +</p> + +<p> +I. The first thing here which unfavourably arrests attention +is the circumstance that this proves to be the only +Critical Edition of the New Testament since the days of Mill, +which does not even pretend to contribute something to our +previous critical knowledge of the subject. Mill it was +(1707) who gave us the great bulk of our various Readings; +<pb n='246'/><anchor id='Pg246'/> +which Bengel (1734) slightly, and Wetstein (1751-2) very +considerably, enlarged.—The accurate Matthæi (1782-8) acquainted +us with the contents of about 100 codices more; and +was followed by Griesbach (1796-1806) with important additional +materials.—Birch had in the meantime (1788) culled +from the principal libraries of Europe a large assortment of +new Readings: while truly marvellous was the accession of +evidence which Scholz brought to light in 1830.—And +though Lachmann (1842-50) did wondrous little in this +department, he yet furnished the critical authority (such as +it is) for his own unsatisfactory Text.—Tregelles (1857-72), +by his exact collations of MSS. and examination of the +earliest Fathers, has laid the Church under an abiding +obligation: and what is to be said of Tischendorf (1856-72), +who has contributed more to our knowledge than any other +editor of the N. T. since the days of Mill?—Dr. Scrivener, +though he has not independently edited the original Text, is +clearly to be reckoned among those who <emph>have</emph>, by reason of +his large, important, and accurate contributions to our knowledge +of ancient documents. Transfer his collections of +various Readings to the foot of the page of a copy of the +commonly Received Text,—and <q><hi rend='italic'>Scrivener's New Testament</hi></q><note place='foot'>No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be +assured that <q><hi rend='italic'>The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the +text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the variations adopted +in the Revised Version</hi>,</q> edited by Dr. Scrivener for the Syndics of the +Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by any means represent his +own views. The learned Prebendary merely edited the decisions of the +two-thirds majority of the Revisionists,—<emph>which were not his own</emph>.</note> +might stand between the editions of Mill and of Wetstein. +Let the truth be told. C. F. Matthæi and he are <emph>the only +two Scholars who have collated any considerable number of +sacred Codices with the needful amount of accuracy</emph>.<note place='foot'>Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the +strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p. <ref target='Pg238'>238</ref> +(<hi rend='italic'>note</hi>) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly understood +that it is chiefly by the multiplication of <emph>exact</emph> collations of MSS. that +an abiding foundation will some day be laid on which to build up the +<emph>Science</emph> of Textual Criticism. We may safely keep our <q><emph>Theories</emph></q> back +till we have collated our MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our +Fathers. They will be abundantly in time <emph>then</emph>.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='247'/><anchor id='Pg247'/> + +<p> +Now, we trust we shall be forgiven if, at the close of the +preceding enumeration, we confess to something like displeasure +at the oracular tone assumed by Drs. Westcott and +Hort in dealing with the Text of Scripture, though they +admit (page 90) that they <q>rely for documentary evidence on +the stores accumulated by their predecessors.</q> Confident as +those distinguished Professors may reasonably feel of their +ability to dispense with the ordinary appliances of Textual +Criticism; and proud (as they must naturally be) of a verifying +faculty which (although they are able to give no account +of it) yet enables them infallibly to discriminate between the +false and the true, as well as to assign <q>a local habitation and +a name</q> to every word,—inspired or uninspired,—which +purports to belong to the N. T.:—they must not be offended +with us if we freely assure them at the outset that we shall +decline to accept a single argumentative assertion of theirs +for which they fail to offer sufficient proof. Their wholly +unsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, we +shall unceremoniously reject, as soon as we have allowed +them a hearing. +</p> + +<p> +This resolve bodes ill, we freely admit, to harmonious +progress. But it is inevitable. For, to speak plainly, we +never before met with such a singular tissue of magisterial +statements, unsupported by a particle of rational evidence, as +we meet with here. The abstruse gravity, the long-winded +earnestness of the writer's manner, contrast whimsically +with the utterly inconsequential character of his antecedents +<pb n='248'/><anchor id='Pg248'/> +and his consequents throughout. Professor Hort—(for <q>the +writing of the volume and the other accompaniments of the +Text devolved</q> on <emph>him</emph>,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 18.</note>)—Dr. Hort seems to mistake his +Opinions for facts,—his Assertions for arguments,—and a +Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is +throughout the volume, apparently, a dread of <emph>Facts</emph> which is +even extraordinary. An actual illustration of the learned +Author's meaning,—a concrete case,—seems as if it were +<emph>never</emph> forthcoming. At last it comes: but the phenomenon +is straightway discovered to admit of at least two interpretations, +and therefore never to prove the thing intended. +In a person of high education,—in one accustomed to exact +reasoning,—we should have supposed all this impossible.... +But it is high time to unfold the <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi> at the first +page, and to begin to read. +</p> + +<p> +II. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks +on <q>Transmission by Writing;</q> vague and inaccurate,—unsupported +by one single Textual reference,—and labouring under +the grave defect of leaving the most instructive phenomena +of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as <q>Transmission +by writing</q> involves two distinct classes of errors, +(1st) Those which are the result of <emph>Accident</emph>,—and (2ndly) +Those which are the result of <emph>Design</emph>,—it is to use a Reader +badly not to take the earliest opportunity of explaining to +him that what makes codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> such utterly untrustworthy +guides, (except when supported by a large amount of extraneous +evidence,) is the circumstance that <emph>Design</emph> had +evidently so much to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar +errors in which they severally abound. In other words, +each of those codices clearly exhibits a fabricated Text,—is +the result of arbitrary and reckless <emph>Recension</emph>. +</p> + +<pb n='249'/><anchor id='Pg249'/> + +<p> +Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In +S. Luke's Gospel alone (collated with the traditional Text) +the <emph>transpositions</emph> in codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> amount to 228,—affecting 654 +words: in codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, to 464,—affecting 1401 words. Proceeding +with our examination of the same Gospel according to +S. Luke, we find that the words <emph>omitted</emph> in <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> are 757,—in <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, +1552. The words <emph>substituted</emph> in <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> amount to 309,—in <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, to +1006. The readings <emph>peculiar</emph> to <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> are 138, and affect 215 +words;—those peculiar to <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, are 1731, and affect 4090 +words. Wondrous few of these <emph>can</emph> have been due to accidental +causes. The Text of one or of both codices must +needs be depraved. (As for א, it is so frequently found in +accord with <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, that out of consideration for our Readers, we +omit the corresponding figures.) +</p> + +<p> +We turn to codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>—(executed, suppose, a hundred +years <emph>after</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, and a hundred years <emph>before</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>)—and the figures +are found to be as follows:— +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{2cm} p{1cm} p{1cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(25) lw(10) lw(10)'"> +<row><cell></cell><cell>In <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi></cell><cell>In <hi rend='smallcaps'>c.</hi></cell></row> +<row><cell>The transpositions are</cell><cell>75</cell><cell>67</cell></row> +<row><cell>affecting</cell><cell>199 words</cell><cell>197</cell></row> +<row><cell>The words omitted are</cell><cell>208</cell><cell>175</cell></row> +<row><cell>The words substituted</cell><cell>111</cell><cell>115</cell></row> +<row><cell>The peculiar readings</cell><cell>90</cell><cell>87</cell></row> +<row><cell>affecting</cell><cell>131 words</cell><cell>127</cell></row> +</table> + +<p> +Now, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,<note place='foot'>See lower part of page <ref target='Pg017'>17</ref>. Also note at p. <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref> and middle of p. <ref target='Pg262'>262</ref>.</note>) +it is entirely to misunderstand the question, to object that +the preceding Collation has been made with the Text of +Stephanus open before us. Robert Etienne in the XVIth +century was not <emph>the cause</emph> why cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> in the IVth, and cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> +in the VIth, are so widely discordant from one another; +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest +<pb n='250'/><anchor id='Pg250'/> +explanation of the phenomena is the truest; namely, that <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> exhibit grossly depraved Texts;—a circumstance of +which it is impossible that the ordinary Reader should be too +soon or too often reminded. But to proceed. +</p> + +<p> +III. Some remarks follow, on what is strangely styled +<q>Transmission by printed Editions:</q> in the course of which +Dr. Hort informs us that Lachmann's Text of 1831 was +<q>the first founded on documentary authority.</q><note place='foot'>P. 13, cf. p. viii.</note>... On +<emph>what</emph> then, pray, does the learned Professor imagine that +the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were +founded? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference +between Lachmann's Text and those of the earlier Editors is, +that <emph>his</emph> <q>documentary authority</q> is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; +and is proved to be untrustworthy by a free +appeal to Antiquity. <emph>Their</emph> documentary authority, derived +from independent sources,—though partial and narrow as +that on which Lachmann relied,—exhibits (<emph>under the good +Providence of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></emph>,) a Traditional Text, the general purity +of which is demonstrated by all the evidence which 350 +years of subsequent research have succeeded in accumulating; +and which is confessedly the Text of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 375. +</p> + +<p> +IV. We are favoured, in the third place, with the <q>History +of this Edition:</q> in which the point that chiefly arrests +attention is the explanation afforded of the many and serious +occasions on which Dr. Westcott (<q>W.</q>) and Dr. Hort (<q>H.</q>), +finding it impossible to agree, have set down their respective +notions separately and subscribed them with their respective +initial. We are reminded of what was wittily said concerning +Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself +existed in the Church, <q>Richard</q> would still be found to +<pb n='251'/><anchor id='Pg251'/> +disagree with <q>Baxter,</q>—and <q>Baxter</q> with <q>Richard</q>.... +We read with uneasiness that +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>no individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or +free itself completely from <emph>its own Idiosyncrasies</emph>;</q> and that +<q>the danger of <emph>unconscious Caprice</emph> is inseparable from personal +judgment.</q>—(p. 17.) +</quote> + +<p> +All this reminds us painfully of certain statements made +by the same Editors in 1870:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>We are obliged to come to the <emph>individual mind</emph> at last; and +Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against <emph>natural +illusions</emph>, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute +rules to prescribe the final decision.</q>—(pp. xviii., xix.) +</quote> + +<p> +May we be permitted without offence to point out (not for +the first time) that <q>idiosyncrasies</q> and <q>unconscious caprice,</q> +and the fancies of the <q>individual mind,</q> can be allowed <emph>no +place whatever</emph> in a problem of such gravity and importance +as the present? Once admit such elements, and we are +safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker +foundation on which to build, is not to be named. And +when we find that the learned Professors <q>venture to hope +that the present Text has escaped some risks of this kind by +being the production of two Editors of different habits of +mind, working independently and to a great extent on +different plans,</q>—we can but avow our conviction that the +safeguard is altogether inadequate. When two men, devoted +to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential intercourse on +such a subject, the <q><emph>natural illusions</emph></q> of either have a +marvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their +Reader's only protection is rigidly to <emph>insist</emph> on the production +of <emph>Proof</emph> for everything which these authors say. +</p> + +<p> +V. The dissertation on <q>Intrinsic</q> and <q>Transcriptional +Probability</q> which follows (pp. 20-30),—being <emph>unsupported +by one single instance or illustration</emph>,—we pass by. It ignores +<pb n='252'/><anchor id='Pg252'/> +throughout the fact, that the most serious corruptions of +MSS. are due, <emph>not</emph> to <q>Scribes</q> or <q>Copyists,</q> (of whom, by +the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the +page;) but to the persons who employed them. So far from +thinking with Dr. Hort that <q>the value of the evidence +obtained from Transcriptional Probability is incontestable,</q>—for +that, <q>without its aid, Textual Criticism could rarely +obtain a high degree of security,</q> (p. 24,)—we venture to +declare that inasmuch as one expert's notions of what is +<q>transcriptionally probable</q> prove to be the diametrical +reverse of another expert's notions, the supposed evidence +to be derived from this source may, with advantage, be +neglected altogether. Let the study of <emph>Documentary Evidence</emph> +be allowed to take its place. Notions of <q>Probability</q> are +the very pest of those departments of Science which admit +of an appeal to <emph>Fact</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +VI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is +furnished by the plea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) +for the superior necessity of attending to <q>the relative antecedent +credibility of Witnesses.</q> In other words, <q>The comparative +trustworthiness of documentary Authorities</q> is +proposed as a far weightier consideration than <q>Intrinsic</q> +and <q>Transcriptional Probability.</q> Accordingly we are +assured (in capital letters) that <q>Knowledge of Documents +should precede final judgment upon readings</q> (p. 31). +</p> + +<p> +<q>Knowledge</q>! Yes, but how acquired? Suppose two +rival documents,—cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> and cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. May we be informed +how you would proceed with respect to them? +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Where one of the documents is found habitually to contain +<emph>morally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings</emph>,—and the +other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,—we [<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <emph>Dr. +Hort</emph>] can have no doubt that the Text of the first has been +<pb n='253'/><anchor id='Pg253'/> +transmitted in comparative purity; and that the Text of the +second has suffered comparatively large corruption.</q>—(p. 32.) +</quote> + +<p> +But can such words have been written seriously? Is +it gravely pretended that Readings become <q><emph>morally certain</emph>,</q> +because they are <q><emph>strongly preferred</emph></q>? Are we (in other +words) seriously invited to admit that the <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>strong preference</hi></q> +of <q>the individual mind</q> is to be the ultimate +standard of appeal? If so, though <emph>you</emph> (Dr. Hort) may +<q><emph>have no doubt</emph></q> as to which is the purer manuscript,—see +you not plainly that a man of different <q>idiosyncrasy</q> from +yourself, may just as reasonably claim to <q>have no doubt</q>—<emph>that +you are mistaken</emph>?... One is reminded of a passage +in p. 61: viz.— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>If we find in any group of documents a succession of +Readings exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,—<emph>Readings +which the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence +pronounces to be right, in opposition to formidable arrays of +Documentary Evidence</emph>; the cause must be that, as far at least as +these Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. +was the common ancestor of all the members of the group.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +But how does <emph>that</emph> appear? <q>The cause</q> <emph>may</emph> be <emph>the erroneous +judgment of the Critic</emph>,—may it not?... Dr. Hort is +for setting up what his own inner consciousness <q>pronounces +to be right,</q> against <q>Documentary Evidence,</q> however multitudinous. +He claims that his own verifying faculty shall be +supreme,—shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest? +</p> + +<p> +VII. We are next introduced to the subject of <q>Genealogical +Evidence</q> (p. 39); and are made attentive: for we +speedily find ourselves challenged to admit that a <q>total +change in the bearing of the evidence</q> is <q>made by the introduction +of the factor of Genealogy</q> (p. 43). Presuming +that the <emph>meaning</emph> of the learned Writer must rather be that +<emph>if we did but know</emph> the genealogy of MSS., we should be in a +position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts,—we +<pb n='254'/><anchor id='Pg254'/> +read on: and speedily come to a second axiom (which is +again printed in capital letters), viz. that <q>All trustworthy +restoration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of +their History</q> (p. 40). We really read and wonder. Are +we then engaged in <emph>the <q>restoration of corrupted Texts</q></emph>? If +so,—which be they? We require—(1) To be shown the +<q><emph>corrupted Texts</emph></q> referred to: and then—(2) To be convinced +that <q>the study of <emph>their History</emph></q>—(as distinguished from an +examination of the evidence for or against <emph>their Readings</emph>)—is +a thing feasible. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>A simple instance</q> (says Dr. Hort) <q>will show at once the +practical bearing</q> of <q>the principle here laid down.</q>—(p. 40.) +</quote> + +<p> +But (as usual) Dr. Hort produces <emph>no</emph> instance. He merely +proceeds to <q>suppose</q> a case (§ 50), which he confesses (§ 53) +does not exist. So that we are moving in a land of shadows. +And this, he straightway follows up by the assertion that +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>it would be difficult to insist too strongly on the transformation +of the superficial aspects of numerical authority effected by +recognition of Genealogy.</q>—(p. 43.) +</quote> + +<p> +Presently, he assures us that +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>a few documents are not, by reason of their mere paucity, +appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to +them.</q> (p. 45.) +</quote> + +<p> +On this head, we take leave to entertain a somewhat +different opinion. <emph>Apart from the character of the Witnesses</emph>, +when 5 men say one thing, and 995 say the exact contradictory, +we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic that, <q>by +reason of their mere paucity,</q> the few <q>are appreciably far +less likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.</q> +Dr. Hort seems to share our opinion; for he remarks,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant +documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral +documents, than <hi rend='italic'>vice versâ</hi>.</q> +</quote> + +<pb n='255'/><anchor id='Pg255'/> + +<p> +Exactly so! We meant, and we mean <emph>that</emph>, and no other +thing. But then, we venture to point out, that the learned +Professor considerably understates the case: seeing that the +<q><emph>vice versâ presumption</emph></q> is absolutely non-existent. On the +other hand, apart from <emph>Proof to the contrary</emph>, we are disposed +to maintain that <q>a majority of extant documents</q> in the +proportion of 995 to 5,—and sometimes of 1999 to 1,—creates +more than <q>a presumption.</q> It amounts to <emph>Proof of <q>a +majority of ancestral documents</q></emph>. +</p> + +<p> +Not so thinks Dr. Hort. <q>This presumption,</q> (he seems to +have persuaded himself,) may be disposed of by his mere +assertion that it <q>is too minute to weigh against the smallest +tangible evidence of other kinds</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>). As usual, however, +he furnishes us with <emph>no evidence at all</emph>,—<q>tangible</q> or +<q>intangible.</q> Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupported +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>dictum</foreign>, and pass on?... The argumentative import of his +twenty weary pages on <q>Genealogical Evidence</q> (pp. 39-59), +appears to be resolvable into the following barren truism: +viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9 <emph>could be proved</emph> +to have been executed from one and the same common +original (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 +independent witnesses. But does the learned Critic really +require to be told that we want no diagram of an imaginary +case (p. 54) to convince us of <emph>that</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that +Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect that <emph>therefore</emph> (indeed <emph>by +his own showing</emph>) codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, having been <emph>demonstrably</emph> +<q>executed from one and the same common original,</q> are not +to be reckoned as <emph>two</emph> independent witnesses to the Text of +the New Testament, but as little more than <emph>one</emph>. (See p. 257.) +</p> + +<p> +High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, +all this talk about <q>Genealogical evidence,</q> when applied to +<pb n='256'/><anchor id='Pg256'/> +Manuscripts, is—<emph>moonshine</emph>. The expression is metaphorical, +and assumes that it has fared with MSS. as it fares with the +successive generations of a family; and so, to a remarkable +extent, no doubt, it <emph>has</emph>. But then, it happens, unfortunately, +that we are unacquainted with <emph>one single instance</emph> of a known +MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk +about <q>Genealogical evidence,</q> where <emph>no single step in the +descent</emph> can be produced,—in other words, <emph>where no Genealogical +evidence exists</emph>,—is absurd. The living inhabitants +of a village, congregated in the churchyard where the +bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose +without memorials of any kind,—is a faint image of the +relation which subsists between extant copies of the Gospels +and the sources from which they were derived. That, in +either case, there has been repeated mixture, is undeniable; +but since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of +Tradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on <emph>that</emph> part +of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however +that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, +indicate as many remote <emph>ancestors</emph> of some sort. That they +represent as many <emph>families</emph>, is at least a <emph>fact</emph>. Further we +cannot go. +</p> + +<p> +But the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. +Assemble rather an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a +Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard; a Russian, a Pole, an +Hungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah these +12 are all confessedly descended; but if <emph>they</emph> are silent, and +<emph>you</emph> know nothing whatever about their antecedents,—your +remarks about their respective <q>genealogies</q> must needs +prove as barren—as Dr. Hort's about the <q>genealogies</q> of +copies of Scripture. <q><emph>The factor of Genealogy</emph>,</q> in short, in +this discussion, represents a mere phantom of the brain: is +the name of an imagination—not of a fact. +</p> + +<pb n='257'/><anchor id='Pg257'/> + +<p> +The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which +Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> +of S. Paul, which are found to be independent transcripts of +the same venerable lost original:—(2) by Codd. 13, 69, 124 +and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the +same queer archetype: <emph>and especially</emph>—(3) by Codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א. +These two famous manuscripts, because they are disfigured +exclusively by the self-same mistakes, are convicted of being +descended (and not very remotely) from the self-same very +corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence +of <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, +346, when they agree, would be conveniently designated by +a symbol, or a single capital letter. Codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, as already +hinted (p. <ref target='Pg255'>255</ref>), are not to be reckoned as two witnesses. +Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual significancy and +importance of B in conjunction with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, or of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> in conjunction +with <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>. At best, they do but equal 1-½ copies. Nothing of +this kind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend +to convey,—or indeed seem to understand. +</p> + +<p> +VIII. It is not until we reach p. 94, that these learned men +favour us with a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, +Dr. Hort,—who has hitherto been skirmishing over the +ground, and leaving us to wonder what in the world it can +be that he is driving at,—announces a chapter on the +<q>Results of Genealogical evidence proper;</q> and proposes to +<q>determine the Genealogical relations of the chief ancient +Texts.</q> Impatient for argument, (at page 92,) we read as +follows:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The fundamental Text of <emph>late extant Greek MSS.</emph> generally +is <emph>beyond all question identical</emph> with the dominant Antiochian +or Græco-Syrian Text of the <emph>second half of the fourth century</emph>.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may +be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New +<pb n='258'/><anchor id='Pg258'/> +Testament,—the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Textus Receptus</hi>, in short,—is, according to +Dr. Hort, <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>beyond all question</hi></q> the <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Text of the second +half of the fourth century</hi>.</q> We shall gratefully avail +ourselves of his candid admission, by and by. +</p> + +<p> +Having thus <emph>assumed</emph> a <q>dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian +text of the second half of the IVth century,</q> Dr. H. +attempts, by an analysis of what he is pleased to call <q><emph>conflate</emph> +Readings,</q> to prove the <q>posteriority of <q>Syrian</q> to +<q>Western</q> and other <q>Neutral</q> readings.</q>... Strange +method of procedure! seeing that, of those second and third +classes of readings, we have not as yet so much as heard +the names. Let us however without more delay be shown +those specimens of <q>Conflation</q> which, in Dr. Hort's judgment, +supply <q>the clearest evidence</q> (p. 94) that <q>Syrian</q> +are posterior alike to <q>Western</q> and to <q>Neutral readings.</q> +Of these, after 30 years of laborious research, Dr. Westcott +and he flatter themselves that they have succeeded in detecting +<emph>eight</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +IX. Now because, on the one hand, it would be unreasonable +to fill up the space at our disposal with details which +none but professed students will care to read;—and because, +on the other, we cannot afford to pass by anything in these +pages which pretends to be of the nature of proof;—we have +consigned our account of Dr. Hort's 8 instances of <emph>Conflation</emph> +(which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.<note place='foot'><p>They are as follows:— +</p> +<p> +[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, +when they beheld our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> and His Disciples departing in order to +cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,—(α) <q><emph>and +outwent them</emph>—(β) <emph>and came together unto Him</emph></q> (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> on His stepping out +of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging +from the scene of His <q>retirement</q> in <q>some sequestered nook</q>). +</p> +<p> +Now here, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> substitutes συνέδραμον [<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>] for συνῆλθον.—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> with the +Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> omits clause (α), but substitutes +<q><emph>there</emph></q> (αὐτοῦ) for <q><emph>unto Him</emph></q> in clause (β),—exhibits therefore a +fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the two clauses thus:—<q><emph>got there +before Him</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi>, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely +from all the rest and from one another. The present is, in fact, one of +those many places in S. Mark's Gospel where all is contradiction in those +depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into +fashion. Of <emph>Confusion</emph> there is plenty. <q>Conflation</q>—as the Reader +sees—there is none. +</p> +<p> +[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> (after restoring sight to the +blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α) <q><emph>Neither enter into the +village</emph></q>—(β) <q><emph>nor tell it to any one</emph>—(γ) <emph>in the village</emph>.</q> (And let it be +noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is +vouched for by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c n</hi> Δ and 12 other uncials: by the whole body of the +cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and +Æthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor +of Antioch. [Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> p. 345, lines 3 and 8.]) +</p> +<p> +But it is found that the <q>two false witnesses</q> (א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) omit clauses (β) and +(γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however (א), aware that +under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr. Hort, on the contrary, +(only because he finds it in <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,) considers μηδέ <q><emph>simple and +vigorous</emph></q> as well as <q>unique</q> and <q>peculiar</q> (p. 100).] substitutes μή. As for +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> +and the Vulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 +(or Mk. ii. 11), <q><emph>Depart unto thine house</emph>.</q> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> proceeds,—<q><emph>and tell it to +no one</emph> [μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,] <emph>in the village</emph>.</q> Six copies of +the old Latin (b f ff<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>-2</hi> g<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>-1-2</hi> l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following +paraphrase of the entire place:—<q><emph>Depart unto thine house, and if thou +enterest into the village, tell it to no one.</emph></q> The same reading exactly +is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, +346 exhibit <q><emph>say nothing</emph> [from Mk. i. 44] <emph>to no one</emph>.</q>) All six however +add at the end,—<q><emph>not even in the village</emph>.</q> Evan. 124 and a stand alone in +exhibiting,—<q><emph>Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; +neither tell it to any one</emph>,</q>—to which 124 [not a] adds,—<q><emph>in the +village</emph>.</q>... <emph>Why</emph> all this contradiction and confusion is now to be +called <q>Conflation,</q>—and what <q>clear evidence</q> is to be elicited therefrom +that <q>Syrian</q> are posterior alike to <q>Western</q> and to <q>neutral</q> readings,—passes +our powers of comprehension. +</p> +<p> +We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed +our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received +Text in this place; Tischendorf, <emph>alone of Editors</emph>, adopts the reading of +א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort, <emph>alone of Editors</emph>, +adopt the reading of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> (μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης),—so ending the +sentence. What else however but calamitous is it to find that Westcott +and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revisers to adopt the same mutilated +exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead +of <q><emph>Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town</emph>,</q>—we +are invited to read, <q><emph>Do not even enter into the village</emph>.</q> +</p> +<p> +[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils in +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ's</hi> Name, says—(α) <q><emph>who followeth not us, and we forbad him</emph>—(β) +<emph>because he followeth not us</emph>.</q> +</p> +<p> +Here, א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi> Δ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α), retaining +(β). <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β), but retain +(α).—Both clauses are found in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a n</hi> with 11 other uncials and the whole +body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes +the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the pretence be set up that there +has been <q>Conflation</q> here? Two Omissions do not make one Conflation. +</p> +<p> +[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> says,—<q><emph>For</emph> (α) <emph>every one shall be +salted with fire</emph>—<emph>and</emph> (β) <emph>every sacrifice shall be salted with salt</emph>.</q> +</p> +<p> +Here, clause (α) is omitted by <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and a few copies of the old Latin; +clause (β) by א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>L</hi> Δ. +</p> +<p> +But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen +words by Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> is so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to +merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort really propose +to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flimsy a circumstance +as the concurrence in error of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> Δ,—especially in S. Mark's Gospel, +which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that +can be named? Against them, are to be set on the present occasion <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c d n</hi> +with 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and +Vulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic +Versions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of +Antioch. [Also <q>Anon.</q> p. 206: and see Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> p. 368.] +</p> +<p> +[5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> +<q><emph>withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida</emph>:</q> which +S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2] τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως +[5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which six words,— +</p> +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>)—א and Syr<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>cu</hi> retain but three,—1, 2, 3. +</p> +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6. +</p> +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>)—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b l x</hi> Ξ <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4, +5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένης <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> exhibits κώμην λεγομένην. +</p> +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>qui</foreign> (or <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quod</foreign>) <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>vocabatur</foreign>,</q> the Vulg. <hi rend='italic'>b</hi> and <hi rend='italic'>c</hi> exhibit <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>qui</foreign> (or +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quod</foreign>) est.</q> +</p> +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while, +</p> +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>)—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a c</hi> Δ <hi rend='smallcaps'>e</hi>, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives,—the +Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic +Versions,—retain <emph>all the six words</emph>. +</p> +<p> +In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before to +suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of <q>conflation,</q> +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> of <emph>spurious mixture</emph>. Note, that א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> have, this time, changed +sides. +</p> +<p> +[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α) <q><emph>lying +in wait for Him</emph>,</q> (β) <emph>seeking</emph> (γ) <emph>to catch something out of His mouth</emph> (δ) +<q><emph>that they might accuse Him</emph>.</q> This is the reading of 14 uncials headed by +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a c</hi>, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also +and of the Syriac. What is to be said against it? +</p> +<p> +It is found that א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> with the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit +clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, in conjunction +with Cureton's Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause (β), and <emph>paraphrases +all the rest of the sentence</emph>. How then can it be pretended that there has +been any <q>Conflation</q> here? +</p> +<p> +In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised Text +of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτόν)—which are +attested by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c d</hi> and 12 other uncials, together with the whole body of +the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies!... Are we +then to understand that א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other +authority which can be named? +</p> +<p> +[7th] The <q>rich fool</q> in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α) πάντα +τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (So <hi rend='smallcaps'>a q</hi> and 13 other uncials, +besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil, and Cyril.) +</p> +<p> +But א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> (with the old Latin and Cureton's Syriac [which however drops +the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the other hand, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b t</hi>, +(with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and Æthiopic,) +retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause +(α). Lachmann, Tisch., and Alford, accordingly retain the traditional +text in this place. So does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only +substituting τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there +has been no <q>Syrian conflation</q> <emph>here</emph>: for all that has happened has been +<emph>the substitution</emph> by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> of τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of 4 +words by א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. This instance must therefore have been an oversight.—Only +once more. +</p> +<p> +[8th] S. Luke's Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the Apostles +were continually in the Temple, <q>(α) <emph>praising and</emph> (β) <emph>blessing +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></emph>.</q> Such +is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few +copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian +Versions. But it is found that א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c</hi> omit clause (α): while <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and seven +copies of the old Latin omit clause (β). +</p> +<p> +And this completes the evidence for <q>Conflation.</q> We have displayed +it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards the +esteemed writers on <emph>the only occasion</emph> which they have attempted argumentative +proof. Their theory has at last <emph>forced them</emph> to make an appeal +to Scripture, and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. +After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened upon +<emph>eight</emph>: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be +cited,—as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To +prevent cavil however, let <emph>all but one</emph>, the [7th], pass unchallenged.</p></note> +</p> + +<pb n='259'/><anchor id='Pg259'/> + +<p> +And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena +connected with these 7 specimens, we are constrained to +<pb n='260'/><anchor id='Pg260'/> +assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott +and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,—a +<pb n='261'/><anchor id='Pg261'/> +dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted +analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a +<pb n='262'/><anchor id='Pg262'/> +false and hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated +places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actual +<emph>facts</emph> of the case shall be submitted to the judgement of +learned and unlearned Readers alike: and we promise +beforehand to abide by the unprejudiced verdict of either:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) S. Mark's Gospel is found to contain in all 11,646 +words: of which (collated with the Traditional Text) <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> omits +138: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, 762: א, 870: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, 900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 +words: of which <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> omits 208: <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, 757; א, 816: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, no less +than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is +itself not altogether trustworthy. <emph>That</emph> is a matter entirely +beside the question just now before the Reader,—as we have +already, over and over again, had occasion to explain.<note place='foot'>The Reader is referred to pp. <ref target='Pg017'>17</ref>, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>, <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref>.</note> Codices +must needs all alike be compared <emph>with something</emph>,—must perforce +all alike be referred to <emph>some one common standard</emph>: and +we, for our part, are content to employ (as every Critic has +been content before us) the traditional Text, as the most convenient +standard that can be named. So employed, (viz. as +a standard of <emph>comparison</emph>, not of <emph>excellence</emph>,) the commonly +Received Text, more conveniently than any other, <emph>reveals</emph>—certainly +does not <emph>occasion</emph>—different degrees of discrepancy. +And now, to proceed.) +</p> + +<pb n='263'/><anchor id='Pg263'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Dr. Hort has detected <emph>four</emph> instances in S. Mark's +Gospel, only <emph>three</emph> in S. Luke's—<emph>seven</emph> in all—where Codices +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> happen to concur in making an omission <emph>at the +same place</emph>, but not <emph>of the same words</emph>. We shall probably +be best understood if we produce an instance of the thing +spoken of: and no fairer example can be imagined than the +last of the eight, of which Dr. Hort says,—<q>This simple instance +needs no explanation</q> (p. 104). Instead of αἰνοῦντες καὶ +εὐλογοῦντες,—(which is the reading of <emph>every known copy</emph> of +the Gospels <emph>except five</emph>,)—א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi> exhibit only εὐλογοῦντες: +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi> omit +αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> +omits καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, and is followed by Tischendorf. +Lachmann declines to follow either. Tregelles doubts.) +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Now, upon this (and the six other instances, which +however prove to be a vast deal less apt for their purpose +than the present), these learned men have gratuitously built +up the following extravagant and astonishing theory:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) They assume,—(they do not attempt to <emph>prove</emph>: in fact +they <emph>never</emph> prove <emph>anything</emph>:)—(1) That αἰνοῦντες καί—and +καὶ εὐλογοῦντες—are respectively fragments of two independent +Primitive Texts, which they arbitrarily designate as +<q>Western</q> and <q>Neutral,</q> respectively:—(2) That the latter +of the two, [<emph>only</emph> however because it is vouched for by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +and א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually +wrote: [though <emph>why</emph> it must, these learned men forget to +explain:]—(3) That in the middle of the IIIrd and of the +IVth century the two Texts referred to were with design +and by authority welded together, and became (what the +same irresponsible Critics are pleased to call) the <q>Syrian +text.</q>—(4) That αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, being thus shown [?] +to be <q>a Syrian <emph>Conflation</emph>,</q> may be rejected at once. (<hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, +p. 73.) +</p> + +<pb n='264'/><anchor id='Pg264'/> + +<p> +X. But we demur to this weak imagination, (which only +by courtesy can be called <q><emph>a Theory</emph>,</q>) on every ground, and +are constrained to remonstrate with our would-be Guides at +every step. They assume everything. They prove nothing. +And the facts of the case lend them no favour at all. +For first,—We only find εὐλογοῦντες standing alone, in two +documents of the IVth century, in two of the Vth, and in +one of the VIIIth: while, for αἰνοῦντες standing alone, the +only Greek voucher producible is a notoriously corrupt copy +of the VIth century. True, that here a few copies of the +old Latin side with <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>: but then a few copies <emph>also</emph> side with +the traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated +between their rival claims <emph>in favour of the latter</emph>. The +probabilities of the case are in fact simply overwhelming; +for, since <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> omits 1552 words out of 19,941 (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> about one +word in 13), <emph>why</emph> may not καὶ εὐλογοῦντες <emph>be two of the words +it omits</emph>,—in which case there has been no <q>Conflation</q>? +</p> + +<p> +Nay, look into the matter a little more closely:—(for surely, +before we put up with this queer illusion, it is our duty to +look it very steadily in the face:)—and note, that in this +last chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, which consists of 837 +words, no less than 121 are omitted by cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. To state the +case differently,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> is observed to leave out <emph>one word in seven</emph> +in the very chapter of S. Luke which supplies the instance of +<q>Conflation</q> under review. What possible significance therefore +can be supposed to attach to its omission of the clause +καὶ εὐλογοῦντες? And since, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>mutatis mutandis</foreign>, the same remarks +apply to the 6 remaining cases,—(for one, viz. the [7th], +is clearly an oversight,)—will any Reader of ordinary fairness +and intelligence be surprised to hear that we reject the +assumed <q>Conflation</q> unconditionally, as a silly dream? +It is founded entirely upon the omission of 21 (or at most +42) words out of a total of 31,587 from Codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. And +<pb n='265'/><anchor id='Pg265'/> +yet it is demonstrable that out of that total, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> omits 1519: +א, 1686: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, 2452. The occasional <emph>coincidence in Omission</emph> of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> + א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving +of notice. If,—(which is as likely as not,)—on <emph>six</emph> occasions, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> + א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> have but <emph>omitted different words in the same +sentence</emph>, then <emph>there has been no <q>Conflation</q></emph>; and the (so-called) +<q>Theory,</q> which was to have revolutionized the Text of the +N. T., is discovered to rest absolutely <emph>upon nothing</emph>. It +bursts, like a very thin bubble: floats away like a film of +gossamer, and disappears from sight. +</p> + +<p> +But further, as a matter of fact, <emph>at least five</emph> out of the +eight instances cited,—viz. the [1st], [2nd], [5th], [6th], [7th],—<emph>fail +to exhibit the alleged phenomena</emph>: conspicuously ought +never to have been adduced. For, in the [1st], <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> merely +<emph>abridges</emph> the sentence: in the [2nd], it <emph>paraphrases</emph> 11 words +by 11; and in the [6th], it <emph>paraphrases</emph> 12 words by 9. In the +[5th], <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> merely <emph>abridge</emph>. The utmost <emph>residuum</emph> of fact which +survives, is therefore as follows:— +</p> + +<lg> +<l>[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א omit 4: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> other 4.</l> +<l>[4th]. " " 9 words, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א omit 5: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> other 5.</l> +<l>[8th]. " " 5 words, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א omit 2: <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> other 2.</l> +</lg> + +<p> +But if <emph>this</emph> be <q>the clearest Evidence</q> (p. 94) producible +for <q>the Theory of Conflation,</q>—then, the less said about the +<q>Theory,</q> the better for the credit of its distinguished Inventors. +How <emph>any</emph> rational Textual Theory is to be constructed +out of the foregoing Omissions, we fail to divine. But indeed +the whole matter is demonstrably a weak imagination,—<emph>a +dream</emph>, and nothing more. +</p> + +<p> +XI. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort, instead of +realizing the insecurity of the ground under their feet, proceed +gravely to build upon it, and to treat their hypothetical +<pb n='266'/><anchor id='Pg266'/> +assumptions as well-ascertained facts. They imagine that they +have already been led by <q>independent Evidence</q> to regard +<q>the longer readings as conflate each from the two earlier +readings:</q>—whereas, up to p. 105 (where the statement +occurs), they have really failed to produce a single particle +of evidence, direct or indirect, for their opinion. <q>We have +found reason to believe</q> the Readings of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi>, (say they,) +<q>to be the original Readings.</q>—But why, if this is the case, +have they kept their <q>finding</q> so entirely to themselves?—<emph>No +reason whatever</emph> have they assigned for their belief. The +Reader is presently assured (p. 106) that <q><emph>it is certain</emph></q> that +the Readings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight +supposed cases of <q>Conflation</q> are all posterior in date to +the fragmentary readings exhibited by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>. But, once +more, What is <emph>the ground</emph> of this <q>certainty</q>?—Presently (viz. +in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further assurance that +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q><emph>the proved</emph> actual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate +Readings renders their use elsewhere a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>vera causa</foreign> in the Newtonian +sense.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +But, once more,—<emph>Where</emph> and <emph>what</emph> is the <q>proof</q> referred +to? May a plain man, sincerely in search of Truth,—after +wasting many precious hours over these barren pages—be +permitted to declare that he resents such solemn trifling? +(He craves to be forgiven if he avows that <q><emph>Pickwickian</emph></q>—not +<q>Newtonian</q>—was the epithet which solicited him, +when he had to transcribe for the Printer the passage which +immediately precedes.) +</p> + +<p> +XII. Next come 8 pages (pp. 107-15) headed—<q>Posteriority +of <q>Syrian</q> to <q>Western</q> and other (neutral and <q>Alexandrian</q>) +Readings, shown by Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence.</q> +</p> + +<p> +In which however we are really <q>shown</q> nothing of the +sort. <emph>Bold Assertions</emph> abound, (as usual with this respected +<pb n='267'/><anchor id='Pg267'/> +writer,) but <emph>Proof</emph> he never attempts any. Not a particle of +<q>Evidence</q> is adduced.—Next come 5 pages headed,—<q>Posteriority +of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other +(neutral) Readings, shown by Internal evidence of Syrian +readings</q> (p. 115). +</p> + +<p> +But again we are <q><emph>shown</emph></q> absolutely nothing: although +we are treated to the assurance that we have been shown +many wonders. Thus, <q>the Syrian conflate Readings <emph>have +shown</emph> the Syrian text to be posterior to at least two ancient +forms still extant</q> (p. 115): which is the very thing they +have signally failed to do. Next, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Patristic evidence <emph>has shown</emph> that these two ancient Texts, +and also a third, must have already existed early in the third +century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that +in the middle of the century the Syrian Text had not yet been +formed.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +Whereas <emph>no single appeal</emph> has been made to the evidence +supplied by <emph>one single ancient Father</emph>!— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Another step is gained by a close examination of all Readings +distinctively Syrian.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>) +</quote> + +<p> +And yet we are never told which the <q>Readings distinctively +Syrian</q> <emph>are</emph>,—although they are henceforth referred to in +every page. Neither are we instructed how to recognize +them when we see them; which is unfortunate, since <q>it +follows,</q>—(though we entirely fail to see from <emph>what</emph>,)—<q>that +all distinctively Syrian Readings may be set aside at once as +certainly originating after the middle of the third century.</q> +(p. 117) ... Let us hear a little more on the subject:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The same <emph>Facts</emph></q>—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured +us with <emph>any</emph>)—<q>lead to another conclusion of equal or even +greater importance respecting non-distinctive Syrian Readings +... Since the Syrian Text is only a modified eclectic combination +of earlier Texts independently attested,</q>— +</quote> + +<p> +(for it is in this confident style that these eminent Scholars +<pb n='268'/><anchor id='Pg268'/> +handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet +have failed even <emph>to touch</emph>),— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>existing documents descended from it can attest nothing but +itself.</q>—(p. 118.) +</quote> + +<p> +Presently, we are informed that <q>it follows from what has +been said above,</q>—(though <emph>how</emph> it follows, we fail to see,)—<q>that +all Readings in which the Pre-Syrian texts concur, <emph>must +be accepted at once as the Apostolic Readings</emph>:</q> and that <q>all +distinctively Syrian Readings <emph>must be at once rejected</emph>.</q>—(p. +119.) +</p> + +<p> +Trenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. +It becomes apparent that we have to do with a Writer who +has discovered a summary way of dealing with the Text of +Scripture, and who is prepared to impart his secret to any +who care to accept—without questioning—his views. We +look back to see where this accession of confidence began, +and are reminded that at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for +convenience he should henceforth speak of certain <q>groups of +documents,</q> by the conventional names <q>Western</q>—<q>Pre-Syrian</q>—<q>Alexandrian</q>—and +so forth. Accordingly, ever +since, (sometimes eight or ten times in the course of a single +page,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>E.g.</hi> pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.</note>) we have encountered this arbitrary terminology: have +been required to accept it as the expression of ascertained +facts in Textual Science. Not till we find ourselves floundering +in the deep mire, do we become fully aware of the +absurdity of our position. Then at last, (and high time too!), +we insist on knowing what on earth our Guide is about, +and whither he is proposing to lead us?... More considerate +to our Readers than he has been to us, we propose +before going any further, (instead of mystifying the subject +as Dr. Hort has done,) to state in a few plain words what +<pb n='269'/><anchor id='Pg269'/> +the present Theory, divested of pedantry and circumlocution, +proves to be; and what is Dr. Hort's actual contention. +</p> + +<p> +XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him +and his joint Editor,<note place='foot'>Referred to below, p. <ref target='Pg296'>296</ref>.</note>—(as well it may)—is <emph>The Traditional +Greek Text</emph> of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this Text +Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of +Beza, or of the Elzevirs,—call it the <q>Received,</q> or the +<emph>Traditional Greek Text</emph>, or whatever other name you please;—the +fact remains, that a Text <emph>has</emph> come down to us which +is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient +Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on +which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion +between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have +yet forgotten his virtual admission that,—<emph>Beyond all question +the Textus Receptus</emph> is <emph>the dominant Græco-Syrian Text of</emph> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350 <emph>to</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 400.<note place='foot'>See above, pages <ref target='Pg257'>257</ref> (bottom) and <ref target='Pg258'>258</ref> (top).</note> +</p> + +<p> +Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be +essentially <emph>the same</emph> in all. That it requires Revision in +respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is +at least as certain that it is an excellent Text as it stands, and +that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture +seriously astray,—which is what no one will venture to predicate +concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T. which +has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the +disciples of Griesbach's school. +</p> + +<p> +XIV. In marked contrast to the Text we speak of,—(which +is identical with the Text of every extant Lectionary of the +Greek Church, and may therefore reasonably claim to be +spoken of as the <emph>Traditional</emph> Text,)—is <emph>that</emph> contained in a +<pb n='270'/><anchor id='Pg270'/> +little handful of documents of which the most famous are +codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on +the one hand,—cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> and the old Latin copies, on the other. +To magnify the merits of these, as helps and guides, and +to ignore their many patent and scandalous defects and +blemishes:—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>per fas et nefas</foreign> to vindicate their paramount +authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and +when <emph>that</emph> is clearly impossible, then to treat their errors as +the ancient Egyptians treated their cats, dogs, monkeys, and +other vermin,—namely, to embalm them, and pay them +Divine honours:—<emph>such</emph> for the last 50 years has been the +practice of the dominant school of Textual Criticism among +ourselves. The natural and even necessary correlative of +this, has been the disparagement of the merits of the commonly +Received Text: which has come to be spoken of, (we +know not why,) as contemptuously, almost as bitterly, as if +it had been at last ascertained to be untrustworthy in every +respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place and of a name +among the monuments of the Past. Even to have <q>used the +Received Text <emph>as a basis for correction</emph></q> (p. 184) is stigmatized +by Dr. Hort as one <q>great cause</q> why Griesbach went astray. +</p> + +<p> +XV. Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their +predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for +the Traditional Text,—their superstitious veneration for a few +ancient documents; (which documents however they freely +confess <emph>are not more ancient</emph> than the <q>Traditional Text</q> which +they despise;)—knows no bounds. But the thing just now to +be attended to is the argumentative process whereby they +seek to justify their preference.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lachmann</hi> avowedly took +his stand on a very few of the oldest known documents: and +though <hi rend='smallcaps'>Tregelles</hi> slightly enlarged the area of his predecessor's +observations, his method was practically identical +with that of Lachmann.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Tischendorf</hi>, appealing to every +<pb n='271'/><anchor id='Pg271'/> +known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the +evidence he has himself accumulated. Where certain of the +uncials are,—<emph>there</emph> his verdict is sure also to be.... Anything +more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparently +<emph>foolish</emph> than such a method, can scarcely be conceived: +but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is now at last +more hotly than ever advocated by Drs. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Westcott</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>Hort</hi>. +Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense +to perceive that it must needs be recommended by <emph>Arguments</emph> +of some sort, or else it will inevitably fall to pieces the +first fine day any one is found to charge it, with the necessary +knowledge of the subject, and with sufficient resoluteness +of purpose, to make him a formidable foe. +</p> + +<p> +XVI. Their expedient has been as follows.—Aware that +the Received or Traditional Greek Text (to quote their own +words,) <q><emph>is virtually identical with that used by Chrysostom and +other Antiochian Fathers in the latter part of the IVth century</emph>:</q> +and fully alive to the fact that it <q><emph>must therefore have +been represented by Manuscripts as old as any which are +now surviving</emph></q> (<hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>, p. 547),—they have invented an extraordinary +Hypothesis in order to account for its existence:— +</p> + +<p> +They assume that the writings of Origen <q>establish the prior +existence of at least three types of Text:</q>—the most clearly +marked of which, they call the <q>Western:</q>—another, less +prominent, they designate as <q>Alexandrian:</q>—the third holds +(they say) a middle or <q>Neutral</q> position. (That all this is +mere <emph>moonshine</emph>,—a day-dream and no more,—we shall insist, +until some proofs have been produced that the respected +Authors are moving amid material forms,—not discoursing +with the creations of their own brain.) <q>The priority of two +at least of these three Texts just noticed to the Syrian Text,</q> +they are confident has been established by the eight <q><emph>conflate</emph></q> +<pb n='272'/><anchor id='Pg272'/> +Syrian Readings which they flatter themselves they have +already resolved into their <q>Western</q> and <q>Neutral</q> elements +(<hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>, p. 547). This, however, is a part of the subject on +which we venture to hope that our Readers by this time have +formed a tolerably clear opinion for themselves. The ground +has been cleared of the flimsy superstructure which these +Critics have been 30 years in raising, ever since we blew +away (pp. <ref target='Pg258'>258-65</ref>) the airy foundation on which it rested. +</p> + +<p> +At the end of some confident yet singularly hazy statements +concerning the characteristics of <q>Western</q> (pp. 120-6), of +<q>Neutral</q> (126-30), and of <q>Alexandrian</q> Readings (130-2), +Dr. Hort favours us with the assurance that— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,</q> +<q>is the chief monument of a new period of textual history.</q>—(p. +132.) +</p> + +<p> +<q>Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made +to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from +all.</q>—(p. 133.) +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something +virtually identical with the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> that we are just +now reading an imaginary history, and it is presumed that +the most careless will be made attentive. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a <q><emph>Recension</emph>,</q> +... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by +Scribes.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>) +</quote> + +<p> +But <emph>why</emph> <q>must</q> it? Instead of <q><emph>must in fact</emph>,</q> we are +disposed to read <q><emph>may—in fiction</emph>.</q> The learned Critic can +but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth +century with the Text of cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, it becomes to himself self-evident +that <emph>one of the two</emph> has been fabricated. Granted. +Then,—Why should not <emph>the solitary Codex</emph> be the offending +party? For what imaginable reason should cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,—which +comes to us without a character, and which, when tried by +<pb n='273'/><anchor id='Pg273'/> +the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted of <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>universa +vitiositas</foreign>,</q> (to use Tischendorf's expression);—<emph>why</emph> (we ask) +should <emph>codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> be upheld <q>contra mundum</q>?... Dr. Hort +proceeds—(still speaking of <q><emph>the</emph> [imaginary] <emph>Syrian Text</emph></q>),— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient +currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same +region.</q>—(p. 133.) +</quote> + +<p> +Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if +<q>the currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same +region,</q> had been first <emph>demonstrated</emph>? or, at least, shown +to be a thing probable? Till this <q>distracting</q> phenomenon +has been to some extent proved to have any existence in <emph>fact</emph>, +what possible <q>probability</q> can be claimed for the history of +a <q>Recension,</q>—which very Recension, up to this point, <emph>has not +been proved to have ever taken place at all</emph>? +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading +personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation +of rival claims.</q>—(p. 134.) +</quote> + +<p> +Why yes, to be sure,—<q>each Text [<emph>if it existed</emph>] may perhaps +[<emph>or perhaps may not</emph>] have found a Patron in some leading +personage [as Dr. Hort or Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:</q> +but then, be it remembered, this will only have been possible,—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) +If the Recension <emph>ever took place</emph>: and—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) If it was +conducted after the extraordinary fashion which prevailed in +the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we +have the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref> to 38.</note> confirmed +by the Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom +in fact it was deliberately invented.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. <ref target='Pg039'>39</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming +that <emph>any such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took +place at all</emph>,—what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of +<pb n='274'/><anchor id='Pg274'/> +the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed +further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, +or should have been pursued, if it <emph>had</emph> taken place? +</p> + +<p> +Having however in this way (1) Assumed a <q>Syrian Recension,</q>—(2) +Invented the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the +process by which it was carried into execution,—the Critic +hastens, <foreign rend='italic'>more suo</foreign>, to characterize <emph>the historical result</emph> in the +following terms:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The qualities which <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Authors of the Syrian text</hi> seem +to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. +They were evidently anxious to remove all +stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so +far as this could be done without recourse to violent measures. +They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the +benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing Texts, +provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming +contradictions. New Omissions accordingly are rare, and where +they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. +New Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, +most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation, +fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in +diction <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Syrian Text</hi> is conspicuously a full Text. It delights +in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and supplied links +of all kinds, as well as in more considerable Additions. As +distinguished from the <emph>bold vigour</emph> of the <q>Western</q> scribes, +and <emph>the refined scholarship</emph> of the <q>Alexandrians,</q> the spirit of its +own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, +on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized +or unworthy diction, yet <emph>shewing no marks of either Critical or +Spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and +attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more +fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent +study</emph>.</q>—(pp. 134-5.) +</quote> + +<p> +XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We +should be thought uncivil were we to declare our own candid +estimate of <q>the critical and spiritual</q> perception of the man +who could permit himself so to write. We prefer to proceed +<pb n='275'/><anchor id='Pg275'/> +with our sketch of the Theory, (of <emph>the Dream</emph> rather,) which +is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional +Text of the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely +it would have been high time to discuss the characteristics +which <q>the Authors of the Syrian Text</q> impressed upon their +work, when it had been first established—or at least rendered +probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed +Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain +of this distinguished and highly imaginative writer. +</p> + +<p> +XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as +fatal to Dr. Hort's unsupported conjecture concerning the +date of the Text he calls <q>Syrian</q> or <q>Antiochian,</q> is the fact +that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance +to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like +the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned +to the second century of our era. <q>It is at any rate no +stretch of imagination,</q> (according to Bp. Ellicott,) <q>to suppose +that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.</q> +[p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>the only way of explaining the whole body of facts is <emph>to suppose</emph> +that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision +long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. +represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.</q>—(p. +136.) +</p> + +<p> +<q>A Revision of the old Syriac Version <emph>appears</emph> to have taken +place in the IVth century, or sooner; and <emph>doubtless in some +connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text</emph>, the readings +being to a very great extent coincident.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>, 552.) +</p> + +<p> +<q>Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the +form which it finally received by <emph>an evidently authoritative Revision</emph>,</q>—<emph>a +Syriac <q>Vulgate</q> answering to the Latin <q>Vulgate.</q></emph>—(p. 84.) +</p> + +<p> +<q>Historical antecedents render it <emph>tolerably certain</emph> that the +locality of such an authoritative Revision</q>—(which Revision +however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported +conjecture)—<q>would be either Edessa or Nisibis.</q>—(p. 136.) +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='276'/><anchor id='Pg276'/> + +<p> +In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known +as <q>Cureton's Syriac,</q> is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed +to be the only surviving specimen of the unrevised Version, +and is henceforth <emph>invariably</emph> designated by these authors as +<q>the old Syriac;</q> and referred to, as <q>syr. vt.,</q>—(in imitation +of the Latin <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>vetus</foreign></q>): the venerable Peschito being referred +to as the <q>Vulgate Syriac,</q>—<q>syr. vg.</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences +between the <emph>revised Syriac Text</emph> and the Text of the Antiochian +Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,</q>—[of which +coincidences, (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation +is, that the Texts referred to are faithful traditional +representations of the inspired autographs;]—<q>and <emph>strong indications</emph> +that the Revision <emph>was deliberate and in some way authoritative</emph> +in both cases,—<emph>it becomes natural to suppose</emph> that the two +operations had some historical connexion.</q>—(pp. 136-7.) +</quote> + +<p> +XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked +without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a +University which is supposed to cultivate especially the +Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself +in such slipshod writing as this? The very <emph>fact</emph> of a <q>Revision</q> +of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has +been <emph>demonstrated</emph>, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a +fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—<q><emph>To +suppose</emph></q> that such a Revision took place: and (2)—<q><emph>To +suppose</emph></q> that all our existing Manuscripts represent it. But +(as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why +we should be so complaisant as <q>to suppose</q> either the one +thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic +hastens to assure us that there exist <q>strong indications</q>—(why +are we not <emph>shown</emph> them?)—that the Revision he speaks +of was <q>deliberate, and in some way authoritative.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Out of this grows a <q>natural supposition</q> that <q>two +[purely imaginary] operations,</q> <q>had some <emph>historical connexion</emph>.</q> +<pb n='277'/><anchor id='Pg277'/> +Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a +substance. <q>The <emph>Revised</emph> Syriac Text</q> has by this time come +to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it +came into being is even assumed to have been <q>deliberate +and authoritative.</q> These Editors henceforth style the +Peschito the <q><emph>Syriac</emph> Vulgate,</q>—as confidently as Jerome's +Revision of the old Latin is styled the <q><emph>Latin</emph> Vulgate.</q> They +even assure us that <q>Cureton's Syriac</q> <q>renders the comparatively +late and <q>revised</q> character of the Syriac Vulgate <emph>a +matter of certainty</emph></q> (p. 84). The very city in which the +latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with +<q><emph>tolerable certainty</emph></q> (p. 136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious? +</p> + +<p> +At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of +which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the +Greek,) the learned writer announces that—<q>The textual +elements of each principle document <emph>having being thus ascertained, +it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of +a much larger number of individual readings than before</emph></q> +(<hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>, p. 552).—We read and marvel. +</p> + +<p> +So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is +this:—that, somewhere between <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led +to an authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then +taken as standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the +Syriac text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a +second authoritative Revision</q>—this <q>final process</q> having been +<q>apparently completed by [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>] 350 or thereabouts.</q>—(p. 137.) +</quote> + +<p> +XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory +is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute +alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as +a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner +of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealing +<emph>thus</emph> with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and +<pb n='278'/><anchor id='Pg278'/> +accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed <emph>to accept his +Theory in its entirety</emph>. We will, with the Reader's permission, +assume that <emph>all</emph> he tells us is historically true: is an +authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We +shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the +inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall +inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and +foot;—of course reserving to ourselves the right of disallowing +<emph>for ourselves</emph> as much of the matter as we please. +</p> + +<p> +Somewhere between <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and 350 therefore,—(<q>it is +impossible to say with confidence</q> [p. 137] what was the +actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter +half of the IIIrd century, <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <hi rend='italic'>circa</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 275);—we are to +believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates +of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, +Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at +witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy +Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by +common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision +which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the +Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by +the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the +Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, (<q>great centres of life and +culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac,</q> [p. 136,]) +lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single +fragmentary document is, at the present day, the only vestige +remaining of the Text which before had been universally +prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity. <q>The +<emph>almost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS.</emph>, contrasted with the +great number of extant <emph>Vulgate Syriac MSS.</emph>,</q>—(for it is thus +that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),—is to be attributed, +it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors +of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [<hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi>] Bp. Ellicott, by +<pb n='279'/><anchor id='Pg279'/> +the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's +Syriac as <q><emph>singular and sometimes rather wild</emph>.</q> <q><emph>The text, of +a very composite nature</emph>; sometimes <emph>inclining to the shortness +and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript, but more commonly +presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex +Bezæ</emph>.</q> [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an <emph>utterly depraved</emph> and <emph>fabricated</emph> +document.) +</p> + +<p> +We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters +must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed +to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as +a representative Conference of the <q>leading Personages or +Sees</q> (p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at +least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed +themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough +was familiarly known about the character and the sources of +these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be +recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by +authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the +end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all +events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis. +</p> + +<p> +XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient +Christendom, and in the Church's palmiest days, the most +famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They +go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics +of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they +perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and +(by the hypothesis) <emph>the latest possible dates</emph> of any of these +Copies must range between <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and 350. But the +Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely +careful, before starting on so important and solemn an +errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere +discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their +deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal +<pb n='280'/><anchor id='Pg280'/> +to not a few codices <emph>written within a hundred years of the</emph> +date of the <emph>inspired Autographs</emph> themselves. Copies of the +Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most +famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high +repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been +freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been +stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens +of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been +the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary +concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place. +</p> + +<p> +After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men +address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the +hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which +exhibits a <q>strictly Western,</q> or a <q>strictly Alexandrian,</q> or a +<q>strictly Neutral</q> type. In plain English, if codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, א, +and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> had been before them, they would have unceremoniously +rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) +neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: +while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> would +see the light. In the meantime, the <emph>immediate ancestors</emph> of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> will perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; +and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully +rejected by the general consent of the Judges. +</p> + +<p> +XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty +years?)—and the work referred to is <q><emph>subjected to a second +authoritative Revision</emph>.</q> <emph>Again</emph>, therefore, behold the piety +and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, +formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her +palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the +period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 308-340) +is in his glory. One whole generation has come and +gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. +<pb n='281'/><anchor id='Pg281'/> +Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the +earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of +Scripture does but <q>carry out more completely the purposes +of the first;</q> and <q>the final process was apparently completed +by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350</q> (p. 137).—So far the Cambridge Professor. +</p> + +<p> +XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this +august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has +been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound +silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting +the Reader's particular attention to it. +</p> + +<p> +We request him to note that, <emph>by the hypothesis</emph>, there will +have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient +Ecclesiastics <emph>not a few codices of exactly the same type as +codices</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and</emph> א: especially as codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. We are able even +to specify with precision certain features which the codices +in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,— +</p> + +<p> +(1) From S. Mark's Gospel, those depraved copies will +have omitted <hi rend='smallcaps'>the last Twelve Verses</hi> (xvi. 9-20). +</p> + +<p> +(2) From S. Luke's Gospel the same corrupt copies will +have omitted our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's Agony in the Garden</hi> (xxii. +43, 44). +</p> + +<p> +(3) His <hi rend='smallcaps'>Prayer on behalf of His murderers</hi> (xxiii. 34), +will have also been away. +</p> + +<p> +(4) The <hi rend='smallcaps'>Inscription on the Cross</hi>, in <hi rend='smallcaps'>Greek, Latin, and +Hebrew</hi> (xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, +away. +</p> + +<p> +(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>S. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre</hi> (xxiv. 12). +</p> + +<p> +(6) Absent will have been also the record of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's +Ascension into Heaven</hi> (<hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 51). +</p> + +<p> +(7) Also, from S. John's Gospel, the codices in question +<pb n='282'/><anchor id='Pg282'/> +will have omitted the incident of <hi rend='smallcaps'>the troubling of the +pool of Bethesda</hi> (v. 3, 4). +</p> + +<p> +Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, +<emph>according to Dr. Hort</emph>, against every copy of the Gospels so +maimed and mutilated, (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <emph>against every copy of the Gospels +of the same type as codices</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and</emph> א,)—the many illustrious +Bishops who, (<emph>still</emph> according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at +Antioch, first in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and then in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350,—by common +consent set a mark of <emph>condemnation</emph>. We are assured that +those famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were +emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type +of Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and +many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper +places. +</p> + +<p> +When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a +thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, +and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is +able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the +deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as +bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above +referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be +genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. +Hort expresses himself in terms which—could +they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have +brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which +might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected +gentleman by all means be allowed to speak for himself:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) <hi rend='smallcaps'>The last Twelve Verses</hi> of S. Mark (he would have +been heard to say) are a <q>very early interpolation.</q> <q>Its +authorship and precise date must remain unknown.</q> <q>It +manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.</q> <q>It is +<pb n='283'/><anchor id='Pg283'/> +doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, +pp. 46 and 51.) +</p> + +<p> +(2) <hi rend='smallcaps'>The Agony in the Garden</hi> (he would have told them) +is <q>an early Western interpolation,</q> and <q>can only be a +fragment from traditions, written or oral,</q>—<q>rescued from +oblivion by the scribes of the second century.</q>—(pp. 66-7.) +</p> + +<p> +(3) <hi rend='smallcaps'>The Prayer of our Lord for His Murderers</hi> (Dr. +Hort would have said),—<q>I cannot doubt comes from an +extraneous source.</q> It is <q>a Western interpolation.</q>—(p.68.) +</p> + +<p> +(4) <hi rend='smallcaps'>To the Inscription on the Cross, in Greek, Latin, +and Hebrew</hi> [S. Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed +so much as a hearing. +</p> + +<p> +(5) The spuriousness of the narrative of <hi rend='smallcaps'>S. Peter's Visit +to the Sepulchre</hi> [S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene +Fathers would have learned) he regards as a <q>moral certainty.</q> +He would have assured them that it is <q>a Western non-interpolation.</q>—(p. +71.) +</p> + +<p> +(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the +same Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to +the inspired Text: another <q>Western non-interpolation.</q> +Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them that <hi rend='smallcaps'>our Lord's +Ascension into Heaven</hi> <q><emph>was evidently inserted from an +assumption</emph> that a separation from the disciples at the close +of a Gospel <emph>must be the Ascension</emph>,</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, p. 73).... (What +the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher +we forbear to conjecture.)—(p. 71.) +</p> + +<p> +(7) <hi rend='smallcaps'>The Troubling of the pool of Bethesda</hi> [S. John v. +3, 4] is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort's +Text. How the accomplished Critic would have set about +persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error +for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine. +</p> + +<p> +XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct +antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. +<pb n='284'/><anchor id='Pg284'/> +<emph>Why</emph>, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same +Ancients for support,—we fail to understand. <q>If Baal be +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, then follow <emph>him</emph>!</q> Dr. Hort has his codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and his +codex א to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that <q>the fullest +consideration does but increase the conviction that the <emph>pre-eminent +relative purity</emph></q> of those two codices <q>is approximately +<emph>absolute</emph>,—<emph>a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the +Autographs</emph>.</q> On the other hand, he has discovered that +the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers +of the Nicene Age (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250-<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350),—exhibits a Text +fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned +but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to +<emph>him</emph>, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits +a place? +</p> + +<p> +Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with +the Fathers of the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own +fantastic hypothesis of a <q>Syrian Text,</q>—the solemn expression +of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment +of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250-<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350),—is the +best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own +pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive +refutation of his own Text. +</p> + +<p> +Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. +9-20 (viz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of his <hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>),—which, carefully +analysed, is found merely to amount to <q>Thank you for showing +us our mistake; but we mean to stick to our <emph>Mumpsimus</emph>!</q>:—those +many inferences as well from what the +Fathers do <emph>not</emph> say, as from what they <emph>do</emph>;—are all effectually +disposed of by his own theory of a <q>Syrian text.</q> A mighty +array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene +period, come back and calmly assure the accomplished Professor +that the evidence on which he relies is but an insignificant +<pb n='285'/><anchor id='Pg285'/> +fraction of the evidence which was before themselves +when they delivered their judgment. <q>Had you known but +the thousandth part of what we knew familiarly,</q> say they, +<q>you would have spared yourself this exposure. You seem +to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief persons +in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, +Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake +of Nyssa,—were all living when we held our Textual Conference, +and some of them, though young men, were even +parties to our decree.</q>... Now, as an <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>argumentum ad +hominem</foreign>, this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no +rejoinder. +</p> + +<p> +XXV. How then about those <q>Syrian <emph>Conflations</emph></q> concerning +which a few pages back we heard so much, and for +which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we +are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that +the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product +of their deliberations), is <q>an eclectic text <emph>combining Readings +from the three principal Texts</emph></q> (p. 145): which Readings in +consequence he calls <q><emph>conflate</emph>.</q> How then is it to be supposed +that these <q>Conflations</q> arose? The answer is obvious. +As <q>Conflations,</q> <emph>they have no existence</emph>,—save in the fertile +brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who +never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning +this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be +allowed for argument sake!)—they would perforce have made +answer,—<q>You quite mistake the purpose for which we came +together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your +Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by +your Bishop</q> [see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273] <q>for ascertaining +the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many +forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues +for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy! +<pb n='286'/><anchor id='Pg286'/> +<emph>Our</emph> business was not to <emph>invent</emph> readings whether by <q>Conflation</q> +or otherwise, but only to distinguish between +spurious Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., +and those which we knew to be trustworthy,—mutilated and +unmutilated Copies. Every one of what <emph>you</emph> are pleased to +call <q>Conflate Readings,</q> learned sir, we found—just as you +find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave +them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the +Text in consequence. We believed them to be,—we are +confident that they <emph>are</emph>,—the very words of the Evangelists +and Apostles of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>: the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ipsissima verba</foreign> of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit</hi>: +<q><emph>the true sayings of the</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>.</q></q> [See p. <ref target='Pg038'>38</ref>, note 2.] +</p> + +<p> +All this however by the way. The essential thing to be +borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,—<emph>on two distinct +occasions between</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 <emph>and</emph> 350—the whole Eastern Church, +meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately +put forth <emph>that</emph> Traditional Text of the N. T. with which we at +this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of +the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q><emph>An authoritative Revision</emph> at Antioch ... was itself subjected +to <emph>a second authoritative Revision</emph> carrying out more completely +the purposes of the first.</q> <q>At what date between <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and +350 <emph>the first process</emph> took place, it is impossible to say with confidence.</q> +<q><emph>The final process</emph> was apparently completed by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350 +or thereabouts.</q>—(p. 137.) +</p> + +<p> +<q>The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally +<emph>is beyond all question</emph> identical with the dominant Antiochian or +Græco-Syrian text of <emph>the second half of the IVth century</emph>.</q>—(p. 92.) +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Be it so. It follows that the Text exhibited by such +codices as <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א <emph>was deliberately condemned</emph> by the assembled +piety, learning, and judgment of the four great Patriarchates +of Eastern Christendom. At a period when there existed +<emph>nothing more modern</emph> than Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א,—nothing <emph>so</emph> +modern as <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>,—all specimens of the former class were +<pb n='287'/><anchor id='Pg287'/> +<emph>rejected</emph>: while such codices as bore a general resemblance to +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> were by common consent pointed out as deserving of +confidence and <emph>recommended for repeated Transcription</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +XXVI. Pass <emph>fifteen hundred</emph> years, and the Reader is invited +to note attentively what has come to pass. Time has made +a clean sweep, it may be, of every Greek codex belonging to +either of the two dates above indicated. Every tradition +belonging to the period has also long since utterly perished. +When lo, in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1831, under the auspices of Dr. Lachmann, +<q>a new departure</q> is made. Up springs what may be called +the new German school of Textual Criticism,—of which the +fundamental principle is a superstitious deference to the +decrees of cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. The heresy prevails for fifty years (1831-81) +and obtains many adherents. The practical result is, +that its chief promoters make it their business to throw discredit +on the result of the two great Antiochian Revisions +already spoken of! The (so-called) <q>Syrian Text</q>—although +assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort to be the product of the +combined wisdom, piety, and learning of the great Patriarchates +of the East from <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350; <q>a <q>Recension</q> +in the proper sense of the word; a work of attempted Criticism, +performed deliberately by Editors and not merely by +Scribes</q> (p. 133):—this <q>Syrian Text,</q> Doctors Westcott and +Hort denounce as <q><emph>showing no marks of either critical or spiritual +insight:</emph></q>— +</p> + +<p> +It <q>presents</q> (say they) <q>the New Testament in a form +smooth and attractive, but <emph>appreciably impoverished in sense and +force</emph>; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for +repeated and diligent study.</q>—(p. 135.) +</p> + +<p> +XXVII. We are content to leave this matter to the +Reader's judgment. For ourselves, we make no secret of +the grotesqueness of the contrast thus, for the second time, +presented to the imagination. On <emph>that</emph> side, by the hypothesis, +<pb n='288'/><anchor id='Pg288'/> +sit the greatest Doctors of primitive Christendom, +assembled in solemn conclave. Every most illustrious name +is there. By ingeniously drawing a purely arbitrary hard-and-fast +line at the year <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350, and so anticipating many +a <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>floruit</foreign></q> by something between five and five-and-twenty +years, Dr. Hort's intention is plain: but the expedient will +not serve his turn. Quite content are we with the names +secured to us within the proposed limits of time. On <emph>that</emph> +side then, we behold congregated choice representatives +of the wisdom, the piety, the learning of the Eastern +Church, from <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350.—On this side sits—Dr. +Hort! ... An interval of 1532 years separates these +two parties. +</p> + +<p> +XXVIII. And first,—How may the former assemblage be +supposed to have been occupying themselves? The object +with which those distinguished personages came together was +the loftiest, the purest, the holiest imaginable: viz. to purge +out from the sacred Text the many corruptions by which, in +their judgments, it had become depraved during the 250 (or +at the utmost 300) years which have elapsed since it first +came into existence; to detect the counterfeit and to eliminate +the spurious. Not unaware by any means are they of the +carelessness of Scribes, nor yet of the corruptions which have +been brought in through the officiousness of critical <q>Correctors</q> +of the Text. To what has resulted from the misdirected +piety of the Orthodox, they are every bit as fully alive as to +what has crept in through the malignity of Heretical Teachers. +Moreover, while the memory survives in all its freshness of +the depravations which the inspired Text has experienced +from these and other similar corrupting influences, the <emph>means +abound</emph> and <emph>are at hand</emph> of <emph>testing</emph> every suspected place of +Scripture. Well, and next,—How have these holy men +prospered in their holy enterprise? +</p> + +<pb n='289'/><anchor id='Pg289'/> + +<p> +XXIX. According to Dr. Hort, by a strange fatality,—a +most unaccountable and truly disastrous proclivity to error,—these +illustrious Fathers of the Church have been at every +instant substituting the spurious for the genuine,—a fabricated +Text in place of the Evangelical Verity. Miserable +men! In the Gospels alone they have interpolated about +3100 words: have omitted about 700: have substituted about +1000; have transposed about 2200: have altered (in respect +of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c.) about 1200.<note place='foot'>To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to +believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 +and <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between +2877 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in +respect of between 536 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) and 839 (א) words:—substituted for as many +genuine words, between 935 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) and 1114 (א) uninspired words:—licentiously +transposed between 2098 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) and 2299 (א):—and in respect of +number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without authority between +1132 (<hi rend='bold'>B</hi>) and 1265 (א) words.</note> This +done, they have amused themselves with the give-and-take +process of mutual accommodation which we are taught to call +<q><emph>Conflation</emph>:</q> in plain terms, <emph>they have been manufacturing +Scripture</emph>. The Text, as it comes forth from their hands,— +</p> + +<p> +(a) <q><emph>Shews no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:</emph></q>— +</p> + +<p> +(b) <q>Presents the New Testament in a form smooth and +attractive, but <emph>appreciably impoverished in sense and force</emph>:</q>— +</p> + +<p> +(c) <q><emph>Is more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation, than for +repeated and diligent study.</emph></q> +</p> + +<p> +Moreover, the mischief has proved infectious,—has spread. +In Syria also, at Edessa or Nisibis,—(for it is as well to be +circumstantial in such matters,)—the self-same iniquity is +about to be perpetrated; of which the Peschito will be the +abiding monument: <emph>one</emph> solitary witness only to the pure Text +being suffered to escape. Cureton's fragmentary Syriac will +<pb n='290'/><anchor id='Pg290'/> +alone remain to exhibit to mankind the outlines of primitive +Truth. (The reader is reminded of the character already +given of the document in question at the summit of page +<ref target='Pg279'>279</ref>. Its extravagance can only be fully appreciated by one +who will be at the pains to read it steadily through.) +</p> + +<p> +XXX. And pray, (we ask,)—<emph>Who</emph> says all this? <emph>Who</emph> is it +who gravely puts forth all this egregious nonsense?... It is +Dr. Hort, (we answer,) at pp. 134-5 of the volume now under +review. In fact, according to <emph>him</emph>, those primitive Fathers +have been the great falsifiers of Scripture; have proved the +worst enemies of the pure Word of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>; have shamefully +betrayed their sacred trust; have done the diametrical reverse +of what (by the hypothesis) they came together for the sole +purpose of doing. They have depraved and corrupted that +sacred Text which it was their aim, their duty, and their professed +object to purge from its errors. And (by the hypothesis) +Dr. Hort, at the end of 1532 years,—aided by codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +and his own self-evolved powers of divination,—has found +them out, and now holds them up to the contempt and scorn +of the British public. +</p> + +<p> +XXXI. In the meantime the illustrious Professor invites +us to believe that the mistaken textual judgment pronounced +at Antioch in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350 had an immediate effect on the Text +of Scripture throughout the world. We are requested to suppose +that it resulted in the instantaneous extinction of codices +the like of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א, wherever found; and caused codices of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> type +to spring up like mushrooms in their place, and <emph>that</emph>, in every +library of ancient Christendom. We are further required to +assume that this extraordinary substitution of new evidence +for old—the false for the true—fully explains why Irenæus +and Hippolytus, Athanasius and Didymus, Gregory of +<pb n='291'/><anchor id='Pg291'/> +Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Ephraem, Epiphanius +and Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isidore +of Pelusium, Nilus and Nonnus, Proclus and Severianus, +the two Cyrils and Theodoret—<emph>one and all</emph>—show themselves +strangers to the text of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א.... We read and +marvel. +</p> + +<p> +XXXII. For, (it is time to enquire,)—Does not the learned +Professor see that, by thus getting rid of the testimony of +the whole body of the Fathers, he leaves the Science which he is +so good as to patronize in a most destitute condition,—besides +placing himself in a most inconvenient state of isolation? If +clear and consentient Patristic testimony to the Text of Scripture +is not to be deemed forcible witness to its Truth,—<emph>whither</emph> +shall a man betake himself for constraining Evidence? +Dr. Hort has already set aside the Traditional Text as a thing +of no manner of importance. The venerable Syriac Version +he has also insisted on reducing very nearly to the level of +the despised cursives. As for the copies of the old Latin, +they had confessedly become so untrustworthy, at the time of +which he speaks, that a modest Revision of the Text they +embody, (the <q><emph>Vulgate</emph></q> namely,) became at last a measure +of necessity. What remains to him therefore? Can he +seriously suppose that the world will put up with the <q>idiosyncrasy</q> +of a living Doctor—his <q>personal instincts</q> (p. xi.)—his +<q>personal discernment</q> (p. 65),—his <q>instinctive processes +of Criticism</q> (p. 66),—his <q>individual mind,</q>—in preference +to articulate voices coming to us across the gulf of Time from +every part of ancient Christendom? How—with the faintest +chance of success—does Dr. Hort propose to remedy the +absence of External Testimony? If mankind can afford to +do without either consent of Copies or of Fathers, why does +mankind any longer adhere to the ancient methods of proof? +Why do Critics of every school <emph>still</emph> accumulate references to +<pb n='292'/><anchor id='Pg292'/> +MSS., explore the ancient Versions, and ransack the Patristic +writings in search of neglected citations of Scripture? That +the ancients were indifferent Textual Critics, is true enough. +The mischief done by Origen in this department,—through +his fondness for a branch of Learning in which his remarks +show that he was all unskilled,—is not to be told. But then, +these men lived within a very few hundred years of the +Apostles of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord Jesus Christ</hi>: and when they witness +to the reading of their own copies, their testimony on the point, +to say the least, is worthy of our most respectful attention. +<emph>Dated codices,</emph> in fact are they, <emph>to all intents and purposes,</emph> +as often as they bear clear witness to the Text of Scripture:—a +fact, (we take leave to throw out the remark in passing,) +which has not yet nearly attracted the degree of attention +which it deserves. +</p> + +<p> +XXXIII. For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, +it is fair that we should add,—We devoutly wish that +Dr. Hort's hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Recension +of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch +first, about A.D. 250, and next, about <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350, were indeed an +historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest +our confidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than +the deliberate verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction +of the collective Church, in the Nicene age. The <emph>Latin</emph> +<q>Vulgate</q> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 385] is the work of a single man—Jerome. The +<emph>Syriac</emph> <q>Vulgate</q> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 616] was also the work of a single +man—Thomas of Harkel. But this <emph>Greek</emph> <q>Vulgate</q> was (by +the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250-<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> +350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail +such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the +Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, +were it introduced to our notice; but we should insist that +no important deviation from such a <q><hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi></q> as <emph>that</emph> +<pb n='293'/><anchor id='Pg293'/> +would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. +Hort's theory about the origin of the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> have +<emph>any foundation at all</emph> in fact, it is <q>all up</q> with Dr. Hort. +He is absolutely <emph>nowhere.</emph> He has most ingeniously placed +himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma. +</p> + +<p> +For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion +becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the compass +of a nutshell. To state the case briefly,—We are invited +to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350,—and Dr. Hort, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1881. The issue is +really reduced to <emph>that.</emph> The general question of <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Text of +Scripture</hi> being the matter at stake; (not any particular +passage, remember, but <emph>the Text of Scripture as a whole;</emph>)—and +the <emph>conflicting parties</emph> being but <emph>two</emph>;—<emph>Which</emph> are we to +believe? the <emph>consentient Voice of Antiquity,</emph>—or the solitary +modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony +of the whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be +guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly +has nothing to offer but conjecture? The question +before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the +alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are +invited to make our election between <hi rend='smallcaps'>fact</hi> and—<hi rend='smallcaps'>fiction</hi>.... +All this, of course, on the supposition that there is <emph>any truth +at all</emph> in Dr. Hort's <q>New Textual Theory.</q> +</p> + +<p> +XXXIV. Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability +of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of +one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever +did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis +that it <emph>did.</emph> It is simply incredible that an incident of such +magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. +As a conjecture—(and it only professes to be a conjecture)—Dr. +Hort's notion of how the Text of the Fathers of +<pb n='294'/><anchor id='Pg294'/> +the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries,—which, as he truly +remarks, is in the main identical with our own <emph>Received Text</emph>,—came +into being, must be unconditionally abandoned. In the +words of a learned living Prelate,—<q><emph>the supposition</emph></q> on which +Drs. Westcott and Hort have staked their critical reputation, +<q><emph>is a manifest absurdity</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>Quoted by Canon Cook, <hi rend='italic'>Revised Version Considered</hi>,—p. 202.</note> +</p> + +<p> +XXXV. We have been so full on the subject of this imaginary +<q>Antiochian</q> or <q>Syrian text,</q> not (the reader may be +sure) without sufficient reason. Scant satisfaction truly is +there in scattering to the winds an airy tissue which its +ingenious authors have been industriously weaving for +30 years. But it is clear that with this hypothesis of a +<q>Syrian</q> text,—the immediate source and actual prototype of +the commonly received Text of the N. T.,—<emph>stands or falls +their entire Textual theory</emph>. Reject it, and the entire fabric is +observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin. And +with it, of necessity, goes the <q>New Greek Text,</q>—and therefore +the <q><emph>New English Version</emph></q> of our Revisionists, which in +the main has been founded on it. +</p> + +<p> +XXXVI. In the meantime the phenomena upon which this +phantom has been based, remain unchanged; and fairly interpreted, +will be found to conduct us to the diametrically +opposite result to that which has been arrived at by Drs. +Westcott and Hort. With perfect truth has the latter +remarked on the practical <q>identity of the Text, more especially +in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, in all the known +cursive MSS., except a few</q> (p. 143). We fully admit the +truth of his statement that— +</p> + +<p> +<q><emph>Before the close of the IVth century</emph>, a Greek Text not materially +differing from the almost universal Text of the IXth,</q>—[and +<pb n='295'/><anchor id='Pg295'/> +why not of the VIth? of the VIIth? of the VIIIth? or again +of the Xth? of the XIth? of the XIIth?]—<q>century, was +dominant at Antioch.</q>—(p. 142.) +</p> + +<p> +And why not throughout the whole of Eastern Christendom? +<emph>Why</emph> this continual mention of <q><emph>Antioch</emph></q>—this perpetual +introduction of the epithet <q><emph>Syrian</emph></q>? Neither designation +applies to Irenæus or to Hippolytus,—to Athanasius or to +Didymus,—to Gregory of Nazianzus or to his namesake of +Nyssa,—to Basil or to Epiphanius,—to Nonnus or to Macarius,—to +Proclus or to Theodoras Mops.,—to the earlier or +to the later Cyril.—In brief, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS. generally +is, beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort +chooses to call] the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text +of the second half of the IVth century.... The Antiochian [and +other] Fathers, and the bulk of extant MSS. written from +about three or four, to ten or eleven centuries later, must +have had, in the greater number of extant variations, a common +original <emph>either contemporary with, or older than, our oldest extant +MSS.</emph></q>—(p. 92.) +</quote> + +<p> +XXXVII. So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The +only question is,—How is this resemblance to be accounted +for? <emph>Not</emph>, we answer,—<emph>not</emph>, certainly, by putting forward so +violent and improbable—so <emph>irrational</emph> a conjecture as that, +first, about <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250,—and then again about <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350,—an +authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch; of +which all other known MSS. (except a very little handful) +are nothing else but transcripts:—but rather, by loyally +recognizing, in the practical identity of the Text exhibited +by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS., the probable general +fidelity of those many transcripts <emph>to the inspired exemplars +themselves from which remotely they are confessedly descended</emph>. +And surely, if it be allowable to assume (with Dr. Hort) +that for 1532 years, (viz. from <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350 to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1882) the +<pb n='296'/><anchor id='Pg296'/> +<emph>Antiochian</emph> standard has been faithfully retained and transmitted,—it +will be impossible to assign any valid reason +why the inspired Original itself, the <emph>Apostolic</emph> standard, +should not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained +from the Apostolic age to the Antiochian,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> say from <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 90 to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250-350.</note>—<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> throughout +an interval of less than 250 years, or <emph>one-sixth</emph> of the period. +</p> + +<p> +XXXVIII. Here, it will obviously occur to enquire,—But +what has been Drs. Westcott and Hort's <emph>motive</emph> for inventing +such an improbable hypothesis? and why is Dr. Hort so +strenuous in maintaining it?... We reply by reminding +the Reader of certain remarks which we made at the +outset.<note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg269'>269</ref>.</note> The <emph>Traditional Text</emph> of the N. T. is a phenomenon +which sorely exercises Critics of the new school. To depreciate +it, is easy: to deny its critical authority, is easier still: +to cast ridicule on the circumstances under which Erasmus +produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is easiest +of all. But <emph>to ignore</emph> the <q>Traditional Text,</q> is impossible. +Equally impossible is it to overlook its practical identity +with the Text of Chrysostom, who lived and taught <emph>at Antioch</emph> +till <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 398, when he became Abp. of <emph>Constantinople</emph>. +Now this is a very awkward circumstance, and must in some +way be got over; for it transports us, at a bound, from the +stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala,—from Erasmus and +Stunica, Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—to Antioch +and Constantinople in the latter part of the IVth century. +What is to be done? +</p> + +<p> +XXXIX. Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this <q>Antiochian +text</q>—found in the later cursives and the Fathers of +the latter half of the IVth century—must be an <emph>artificial</emph>, +an <emph>arbitrarily invented</emph> standard; a text <emph>fabricated</emph> between +<pb n='297'/><anchor id='Pg297'/> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350. And if they may but be so fortunate +as to persuade the world to adopt their hypothesis, then all +will be easy; for they will have reduced the supposed <q>consent +of Fathers</q> to the reproduction of one and the same +single <q>primary documentary witness:</q><note place='foot'><q>If,</q> says Dr. Hort, <q>an editor were for any purpose to make it his aim +to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of Antioch in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> +350, he could not help taking the approximate consent of the cursives as +equivalent to <emph>a primary documentary witness</emph>. And he would not be the +less justified in so doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical +agencies <hi rend='smallcaps'>the one Antiochian original</hi></q>—[note the fallacy!]—<q><emph>was multiplied +into the cursive hosts of the later ages</emph>.</q>—Pp. 143-4.</note>—and <q>it is hardly +necessary to point out the total change in the bearing +of the evidence by the introduction of <emph>the factor of Genealogy</emph></q> +(p. 43) at this particular juncture. <emph>Upset</emph> the +hypothesis on the other hand, and all is reversed in a +moment. Every attesting Father is perceived to be a dated +MS. and an independent authority; and the combined evidence +of several of these becomes simply unmanageable. +In like manner, <q>the approximate consent of the cursives</q> +(see the foot-note), is perceived to be equivalent <emph>not</emph> to <q>A +<hi rend='smallcaps'>primary documentary witness</hi>,</q>—<emph>not</emph> to <q>ONE <hi rend='smallcaps'>Antiochian +original</hi>,</q>—but to be tantamount to the articulate speech of +<emph>many</emph> witnesses <emph>of high character</emph>, coming to us <emph>from every +quarter</emph> of primitive Christendom. +</p> + +<p> +XL. But—(the further enquiry is sure to be made)—In +favour of which document, or set of documents, have all +these fantastic efforts been made to disparage the commonly +received standards of excellence? The ordinary English +Reader may require to be reminded that, prior to the IVth +century, our Textual helps are few, fragmentary, and—to +speak plainly—insufficient. As for sacred Codices of that +date, we possess <hi rend='smallcaps'>not one</hi>. Of our two primitive Versions, +<pb n='298'/><anchor id='Pg298'/> +<q>the Syriac and the old Latin,</q> the second is grossly corrupt; +owing (says Dr. Hort) <q>to a perilous confusion between +transcription and <emph>reproduction</emph>;</q> <q>the preservation of a +record and <emph>its supposed improvement</emph></q> (p. 121). <q>Further +acquaintance with it only increases our distrust</q> (<hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi>). In +plainer English, <q>the earliest readings which can be fixed +chronologically</q> (p. 120) belong to a Version which is licentious +and corrupt to an incredible extent. And though +<q>there is no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient +Syriac] is at least as old as the Latin Version</q> (p. 84), yet +(according to Dr. Hort) it is <q>impossible</q>—(he is nowhere so +good as to explain to us wherein this supposed <q>impossibility</q> +consists),—to regard <q><emph>the present form</emph> of the Version +as a true representation of the original Syriac text.</q> The +date of it (according to <emph>him</emph>) <emph>may</emph> be as late as <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350. +Anyhow, we are assured (but only by Dr. Hort) that important +<q>evidence for the Greek text is hardly to be looked for +from <emph>this</emph> source</q> (p. 85).—The Fathers of the IIIrd century +who have left behind them considerable remains in Greek +are but two,—Clemens Alex. and Origen: and there are +considerations attending the citations of either, which greatly +detract from their value. +</p> + +<p> +XLI. The question therefore recurs with redoubled emphasis,—In +favour of <emph>which</emph> document, or set of documents, +does Dr. Hort disparage the more considerable portion of +that early evidence,—so much of it, namely, as belongs to +the IVth century,—on which the Church has been hitherto +accustomed confidently to rely? He asserts that,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so +deeply affected by mixture that</q> they <q>cannot at most count +for more than so many secondary Greek uncial MSS., <emph>inferior +in most cases to the better sort of secondary uncial MSS. now existing</emph>.</q>—(p. +202.) +</quote> + +<pb n='299'/><anchor id='Pg299'/> + +<p> +And thus, at a stroke, behold, <q>almost <emph>all Greek Fathers +after Eusebius</emph></q>—(who died <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 340)—are disposed of! +washed overboard! put clean out of sight! Athanasius and +Didymus—the 2 Basils and the 2 Gregories—the 2 Cyrils +and the 2 Theodores—Epiphanius and Macarius and +Ephraem—Chrysostom and Severianus and Proclus—Nilus +and Nonnus—Isidore of Pelusium and Theodoret: not to +mention at least as many more who have left scanty, +yet most precious, remains behind them:—all these are +pronounced <emph>inferior</emph> in authority to as many IXth- or Xth-century +copies!... We commend, in passing, the foregoing +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>dictum</foreign> of these accomplished Editors to the critical +judgment of all candid and intelligent Readers. <emph>Not</emph> as +dated manuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity to +the oldest which we now possess:—<emph>not</emph> as the authentic +utterances of famous Doctors and Fathers of the Church, +(instead of being the work of unknown and irresponsible +Scribes):—<emph>not</emph> as sure witnesses of what was accounted +Scripture in a known region, by a famous personage, at a +well-ascertained period, (instead of coming to us, as our +codices <emph>universally</emph> do, without a history and without a +character):—in no such light are we henceforth to regard +Patristic citations of Scripture:—but only <q>as so many +secondary MSS., <emph>inferior to the better sort of secondary uncials +now existing</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +XLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the lump, +must perforce in some such way either be ignored or else +flouted, if the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is to stand,—we +were perfectly well aware. It is simply fatal to them: +<emph>and they know it</emph>. But we were hardly prepared for such a +demonstration as <emph>this</emph>. Let it all pass however. The question +we propose is only the following,—If the Text <q>used by +<emph>great Antiochian theologians</emph> not long after the middle of the +<pb n='300'/><anchor id='Pg300'/> +IVth century</q> (p. 146) is undeserving of our confidence:—if +we are to believe that a systematic depravation of Scripture +was universally going on till about the end of the IIIrd +century; and if at that time, an authoritative and deliberate +recension of it—conducted on utterly erroneous principles—took +place at Antioch, and resulted in the vicious <q>traditional +Constantinopolitan</q> (p. 143), or (as Dr. Hort prefers +to call it) the <q>eclectic Syrian Text:</q>—<emph>What remains to us</emph>? +Are we henceforth to rely on our own <q>inner consciousness</q> +for illumination? Or is it seriously expected that for the +restoration of the inspired Verity we shall be content to +surrender ourselves blindfold to the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ipse dixit</foreign> of an unknown +and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide? If neither of +these courses is expected of us, will these Editors be so good +as to give us the names of the documents on which, in their +judgment, we <emph>may</emph> rely? +</p> + +<p> +XLIII. We are not suffered to remain long in a state +of suspense. The assurance awaits us (at p. 150), that the +Vatican codex, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>—is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout +<emph>Pre-Syrian</emph>, perhaps <emph>purely Pre-Syrian</emph>.... From distinctively +Western readings it seems to be all but entirely free.... +We have not been able to recognize as <emph>Alexandrian</emph> any +readings of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> in any book of the New Testament.... So +that ... neither of the early streams of innovation has touched +it to any appreciable extent.</q>—(p. 150.) +</p> + +<p> +<q>The text of the Sinaitic codex (א)</q> also <q>seems to be entirely, +or all but entirely, <emph>Pre-Syrian</emph>. A very large part of the +text is in like manner free from <emph>Western</emph> or <emph>Alexandrian</emph> elements.</q>—(p. +151.) +</p> + +<p> +<q><emph>Every other</emph> known Greek manuscript has either a mixed or a +Syrian text.</q>—(p. 151.) +</p> + +</quote> +<p> +Thus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 weary pages, +the secret comes out! The one point which the respected +<pb n='301'/><anchor id='Pg301'/> +Editors are found to have been all along driving at:—the +one aim of those many hazy disquisitions of theirs about +<q>Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability,</q>—<q>Genealogical +evidence, simple and divergent,</q>—and <q>the study of Groups:</q>—the +one reason of all their vague terminology,—and of +their baseless theory of <q>Conflation,</q>—and their disparagement +of the Fathers:—the one <foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>raison d'être</foreign> of their fiction +of a <q>Syrian</q> and a <q>Pre-Syrian</q> and a <q>Neutral</q> text:—the +secret of it all comes out at last! A delightful, a truly +Newtonian simplicity characterizes the final announcement. +All is summed up in the curt formula—<emph>Codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>! +</p> + +<p> +Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, +are all to be ruthlessly sacrificed:—the tribunal from which +there shall be absolutely no appeal:—the Oracle which is to +silence every doubt, resolve every riddle, smooth away every +difficulty. All has been stated, where the name has been +pronounced of—codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. One is reminded of an enegmatical +epitaph on the floor of the Chapel of S. John's College, +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Verbum non amplius—Fisher</foreign></q>! To codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> all the Greek +Fathers after Eusebius must give way. Even Patristic +evidence <emph>of the ante-Nicene period</emph> <q>requires critical sifting</q> +(p. 202),—must be distrusted, may be denied (pp. 202-5),—if +it shall be found to contradict Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>! <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> very far +exceeds all other documents in neutrality of Text.</q>—(p. 171.) +</p> + +<p> +XLIV. <q>At a long interval after B, but hardly a less +interval before all other MSS., stands א</q> (p. 171).—Such is +the sum of the matter!... A coarser,—a clumsier,—a +more unscientific,—a more <emph>stupid</emph> expedient for settling the +true Text of Scripture was surely never invented! <emph>But</emph> for the +many foggy, or rather unreadable disquisitions with which +the <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi> is encumbered, <q>Textual Criticism made +easy,</q> might well have been the title of the little +<pb n='302'/><anchor id='Pg302'/> +volume now under Review; of which at last it is discovered +that <emph>the general Infallibility of Codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> is the fundamental +principle. Let us however hear these learned men out. +</p> + +<p> +XLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the <q>General +relations of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א to other documents:</q> wherein we are +assured that,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q><emph>Two striking facts</emph> successively come out with especial clearness. +Every group containing both א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, <emph>is found</emph> ... to +have <emph>an apparently more original Text</emph> than every opposed group +containing neither; and every group containing <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> ... <emph>is found</emph> +in a large preponderance of cases ... to have <emph>an apparently +more original Text</emph> than every opposed group containing א.</q>—(p. +210.) +</quote> + +<p> +<q><emph>Is found</emph></q>! but pray,—<emph>By whom?</emph> And <q><emph>apparently</emph></q>! but +pray,—<emph>To whom?</emph> and <emph>On what grounds of Evidence</emph>? For +unless it be on <emph>certain</emph> grounds of Evidence, how can it +be pretended that we have before us <q>two striking <emph>facts</emph></q>? +</p> + +<p> +Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted +that these <q>two striking facts</q> <q>come out with <emph>especial clearness</emph></q>? +so long as their very existence remains <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in nubibus</foreign>,—has +never been established, and is in fact emphatically +denied? Expressions like the foregoing <emph>then</emph> only begin to +be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher +has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he +occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Readers +at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with: presently +they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for +demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go +on however. We are still at p. 210:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>We found א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> to stand alone in their almost complete +immunity from distinctive Syriac readings ... and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> to stand +far above א in its <emph>apparent</emph> freedom from either Western or +Alexandrian readings.</q>—(p. 210.) +</quote> + +<pb n='303'/><anchor id='Pg303'/> + +<p> +But pray, gentlemen,—<emph>Where</emph> and <emph>when</emph> did <q>we find</q> +either of these two things? We have <q>found</q> nothing of +the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is disposed to reproduce +the Duke of Wellington's courteous reply to the Prince +Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which +resulted in the victory of Waterloo:—<q><emph>I have heard your +Royal Highness say so</emph>.</q>... At the end of a few pages, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q><emph>Having found</emph> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> the constant element in groups of every +size, distinguished by internal excellence of readings, <emph>we found</emph> +no less excellence in the readings in which they concur without +other attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or +Fathers.</q>—(p. 219.) +</quote> + +<p> +What! again? Why, we <q><emph>have found</emph></q> nothing as yet but +Reiteration. Up to this point we have not been favoured +with one particle of Evidence!... In the meantime, the +convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not, unfortunately, +those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen +as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The independence [of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א] can be carried back so far,</q>—(not +a hint is given <emph>how</emph>,)—<q>that their concordant testimony may +be treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +themselves by at least two centuries,—<emph>probably</emph> by a generation +or two more.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +How <emph>that</emph> <q>independence</q> was established, and how <emph>this</emph> +<q>probability</q> has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. +The point to be attended to however, is, that by the process +indicated, some such early epoch as <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 100 has been reached. +So that now we are not surprised to hear that, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The respective ancestries of א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> must have diverged +from a common parent <emph>extremely near the Apostolic autographs</emph>.</q>—(p. +220. See top of p. 221.) +</quote> + +<p> +Or that,—<q><emph>The close approach to the time of the autographs</emph> raises +the presumption of purity to an unusual strength.</q>—(p. 224.) +</p> + +<pb n='304'/><anchor id='Pg304'/> + +<p> +And lo, before we turn the leaf, this <q>presumption</q> is +found to have ripened into certainty:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>This general immunity from substantive error ... in the +common original of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, in conjunction with its very high +antiquity, provides in a multitude of cases <emph>a safe criterion of +genuineness, not to be distrusted</emph> except on very clear internal +evidence. Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings +of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>should be accepted as the true Readings</emph> until strong internal +evidence is found to the contrary; and (2), <emph>That no Readings +of</emph> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>can be safely rejected absolutely</emph>.</q>—(p. 225.) +</quote> + +<p> +XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process +of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the +Imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all +that went before has been steadily tending: viz. the absolute +supremacy of codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א above all other codices,—and, +when they differ, then of codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +And yet, the <q>immunity from substantive error</q> of a <emph>lost</emph> +Codex of <emph>imaginary</emph> date and <emph>unknown</emph> history, cannot but +be a pure imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall +presently show,)—of these respected Critics: while their +proposed practical inference from it,—(viz. to regard two +remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as +<q><emph>a safe criterion of genuineness</emph>,</q>)—this, at all events, is the +reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity +of the Text of א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> to the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed +of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common +source <emph>not much later than the Autographs</emph>,</q> &c.—(p. 247.) +</quote> + +<p> +And again:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q><emph>Near as the divergence</emph> of the respective ancestries of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א +<emph>must have been to the Autographs</emph>,</q> &c.—(p. 273.) +</quote> + +<pb n='305'/><anchor id='Pg305'/> + +<p> +Until at last, we find it announced as a <q>moral certainty:</q>— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q><emph>It is morally certain</emph> that the ancestries of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א <emph>diverged +from a point near the Autographs</emph>, and never came into contact +subsequently.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Text</hi>, p. 556.) +</quote> + +<p> +After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we +are assured that:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that +their pre-eminent relative <emph>purity</emph> is approximately <emph>absolute</emph>,—<emph>a +true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs</emph></q>—(p. +296.) +</quote> + +<p> +XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat +the enquiry, which however we make with unfeigned +astonishment,)—How does it come to pass that a man of +practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and perhaps +as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure +problem like the present after this strangely incoherent, this +foolish and wholly inconclusive fashion? One would have +supposed that Dr. Hort's mathematical training would have +made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had no +idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process +necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader's +mind. Surely, (one tells oneself,) a minimum of <q>pass</q> Logic +would have effectually protected so accomplished a gentleman +from making such a damaging exhibition of himself! +For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has produced +<emph>not one particle of evidence</emph> that his opinion concerning <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א +is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the +circumstance that, unless he is able to <emph>demonstrate</emph> that +those two codices, and especially the former of them, has +<q>preserved not only a very ancient Text, but <emph>a very pure line +of ancient Text</emph></q> also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it +reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, +crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the +<pb n='306'/><anchor id='Pg306'/> +first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that +those who look for Demonstration will refuse to put up with +Rhetoric:—that, with no thoughtful person will Assertion +pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration, however long +persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof. +</p> + +<p> +<q>When I am taking a ride with Rouser,</q>—(quietly remarked +Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)—<q>I observe that, +if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser's practice always +is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words,—<emph>only +in a louder tone of voice</emph></q> ... The delicate rhetorical +device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors +of the University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized +as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell +on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however.—Dr. Hort +has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful +induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious +footnotes, or an <q>Appendix</q> bristling with impregnable facts,—could +sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental +position, viz. that Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> is so exceptionally pure a document +as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining +the Truth of Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when +he had to rebuild the massive central tower of a +southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of +stone,—that he made preparations for the work which +astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused +the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most +unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of +fabulous solidity. The <q>wise master-builder</q> was determined +that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott +and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar anxieties, +or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They +are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve +<pb n='307'/><anchor id='Pg307'/> +their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. +Dr. Hort (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) +considers that his individual <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>strong preference</hi></q> of one +set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine +whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is +pure or the contrary. <q><emph>Formidable arrays of</emph> [hostile] <emph>Documentary +evidence</emph>,</q> he disregards and sets at defiance, when +once his own <q><emph>fullest consideration of Internal Evidence</emph></q> has +<q>pronounced certain Readings to be right</q> [p. 61]. +</p> + +<p> +The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actual +<emph>ground</emph> of Dr. Hort's certainty, and reason of his preference, +is contained in his claim that,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Every binary group [of MSS.] <emph>containing</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> is found to offer +a large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, +have <hi rend='smallcaps'>the ring of genuineness</hi>: while it is difficult to find any +Readings so attested which <hi rend='smallcaps'>look suspicious</hi> after full consideration.</q>—(p. +227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is repeated.) +</quote> + +<p> +XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession +of the ultimate principle which has determined the Text of +the present edition of the N. T. <q><emph>The ring of genuineness</emph></q>! +<emph>This</emph> it must be which was referred to when <q><emph>instinctive +processes of Criticism</emph></q> were vaunted; and the candid avowal +made that <q>the experience which is their foundation needs +perpetual correction and recorrection.</q><note place='foot'>Preface to the <q>limited and private issue</q> of 1870, p. xviii.: reprinted +in the <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi> (1881), p. 66.</note> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>We are obliged</q> (say these accomplished writers) <q>to <emph>come to +the individual mind at last</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi></note> +</quote> + +<p> +And thus, behold, <q>at last</q> we <emph>have</emph> reached the goal!... +<emph>Individual idiosyncrasy</emph>,—<emph>not</emph> external Evidence:—Readings +<q><emph>strongly preferred</emph>,</q>—<emph>not</emph> Readings <emph>strongly attested</emph>:—<q><emph>personal +discernment</emph></q> (self! still self!) <emph>conscientiously exercising +<pb n='308'/><anchor id='Pg308'/> +itself upon Codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>;—this is a true account of the Critical +method pursued by these accomplished Scholars. They +deliberately claim <q><emph>personal discernment</emph></q> as <q>the surest +ground for confidence.</q><note place='foot'>P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), <q><emph>Personal instincts</emph></q> +are substituted for <q><emph>Personal discernment</emph>.</q></note> Accordingly, they judge of Readings +by their <emph>looks</emph> and by their <emph>sound</emph>. When, in <emph>their</emph> opinion, +words <q>look suspicious,</q> words are to be rejected. If a word +has <q>the ring of genuineness,</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <emph>if it seems to them</emph> to have +it,)—they claim that the word shall pass unchallenged. +</p> + +<p> +XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is +wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical +aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external +guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings +which <q>look suspicious</q> to one expert, may easily <emph>not</emph> <q>look</q> +so to another. A man's <q>inner consciousness</q> cannot possibly +furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly +does Bp. Ellicott ridicule <q>the easy method of ... <emph>using a +favourite Manuscript</emph>,</q> combined with <q><emph>some supposed power of +divining the Original Text</emph>;</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The Revisers and the Greek Text</hi>,—p. 19.</note>—unconscious apparently that he +is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends. +</p> + +<p> +As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, +whether or no a reading has <q>the ring of genuineness</q>)—it is +founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation +alluded to may be described as a <q>rough and ready</q> +expedient practised by <emph>receivers of money</emph> in the way of self-defence, +and <emph>only</emph> for their own protection, lest base metal +should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort +is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction +of <emph>him who utters</emph> the suspected article. We therefore disallow +the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we +suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort +<pb n='309'/><anchor id='Pg309'/> +would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to +be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced—(for +reasons <q>plenty as blackberries</q>)—that through some natural +defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent +judge. The man who finds <q><emph>no marks of either Critical or +Spiritual insight</emph></q> (p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was +known to scholars till <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1831,—(although he confesses +that <q>the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of +the IVth century is substantially identical with it</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>,—p. xiii.</note>); and +vaunts in preference <q><emph>the bold vigour</emph></q> and <q><emph>refined scholarship</emph></q> +which is exclusively met with in certain depraved +uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it not +unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> +side (ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in +the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49, <emph>as well as</emph> in S. John +xix. 34:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, p. 22.</note>—the man who is of opinion that the incident of +the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses), <q>presents +serious differences from the diction of S. John's Gospel,</q>—treats +it as <q>an insertion in a comparatively late Western +text</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, p. 88.</note> and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the +ground that it <q>would fatally interrupt</q> the course of the +narrative if suffered to stand:—the man who can deliberately +separate off from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and print +separately, S. Mark's last 12 verses, (on the plea that they +<q>manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are +doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>,—p. 51.</note>)—yet +who straightway proceeds to annex, <emph>as an alternative +Conclusion</emph> (ἄλλως), <q>the wretched supplement derived from +codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi>:</q><note place='foot'>Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Plain Introduction</hi>,—pp. 507-8.</note>—the man (lastly) who, in defiance of <q>solid reason +and pure taste,</q> finds music in the <q>utterly marred</q> <q>rhythmical +arrangement</q> of the Angels' Hymn on the night of the +<pb n='310'/><anchor id='Pg310'/> +Nativity:<note place='foot'>Scrivener's <q><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>,</q> pp. 513-4.</note>—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when +he talks about <q><emph>the ring of genuineness</emph>.</q> He has already +effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted +himself of a natural infirmity of judgment,—has given proof +that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this +department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees nugatory, +and his opinions worthless. +</p> + +<p> +L. But apart from all this, the Reader's attention is invited +to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably +overlooked: but which, the instant it has been stated, is +observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away—like +a snow-wreath in the sunshine. +</p> + +<p> +On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal +deformities of codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>d l</hi> are <emph>instances of Omission</emph>. In +the Gospels alone, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> omits 2877 words. +</p> + +<p> +How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your +proposed test to a <emph>Non-entity</emph>? How will you ascertain +whether something which <emph>does not exist in the Text</emph> has <q>the +ring of genuineness</q> or not? There can be <emph>no</emph> <q>ring of +genuineness,</q> clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! +Will any one pretend that <emph>the omission</emph> of the incident of the +troubling of the pool has in it any <q>ring of genuineness</q>?—or +dare to assert that <q>the ring of genuineness</q> is imparted +to the history of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> Passion, by the omission of +His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His +Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord's Prayer +for His murderers has been <emph>omitted</emph>?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ +(<q>for they were afraid</q>), has <q>the ring of genuineness</q> as the +conclusion of the last chapter of the Gospel according to +S. Mark? +</p> + +<p> +But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious +<pb n='311'/><anchor id='Pg311'/> +that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained +to admit that <emph>the omitted words</emph> actually <emph>have</emph> <q>the ring of +genuineness.</q> The words which he insists on thrusting out +of the Text are often conspicuous <emph>for the very quality</emph> which +(by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of +this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the +note at foot of the present page.<note place='foot'><p>In <hi rend='smallcaps'>S. Matth.</hi> i. 25,—the omission of <q><emph>her first-born</emph>:</q>—in vi. 13, the +omission of the <hi rend='italic'>Doxology</hi>:—in xii. 47, the omission of <emph>the whole verse</emph>:—in +xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> memorable words concerning the +<emph>signs of the weather</emph>:—in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious statement, +<q><emph>But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting</emph>:</q>—in xviii. +11, the omission of the precious words <q><emph>For the Son of man came to save +that which was lost</emph>.</q> +</p> +<p> +In <hi rend='smallcaps'>S. Mark</hi> xvi. 9-20, the omission of the <q><hi rend='italic'>last Twelve Verses</hi>,</q>—(<q>the +contents of which are <emph>not such as could have been invented</emph> by any scribe +or editor of the Gospel,</q>—W. and H. p. 57). All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο +γάρ is an impossible ending. +</p> +<p> +In <hi rend='smallcaps'>S. Luke</hi> vi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (<q>the +very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,</q>—Scrivener, +p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56, the omitted +<emph>rebuke to the</emph> <q><emph>disciples James and John</emph>:</q>—in x. 41, 42, the omitted +<emph>words concerning Martha and Mary</emph>:—in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of the +<emph>Agony in the Garden</emph>,—(which nevertheless, <q><emph>it would be impossible to +regard</emph> as a product of the inventiveness of scribes,</q>—W. and H. p. 67):—in +xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of +our Lord's <emph>prayer for His murderers</emph>,—(concerning which Westcott and +Hort remark that <q><emph>few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer +witness to the truth of what they record than this</emph></q>—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, +the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was <q><emph>in letters of Greek, and +Latin, and Hebrew</emph>:</q>—in xxiv. 12, <emph>the visit of S. Peter to the Sepulchre</emph>. +Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. 43, 44: and +xxiii. 34,—<q><emph>It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other +than authentic</emph>,</q>—(p. 28.) +</p> +<p> +In <hi rend='smallcaps'>S. John</hi> iii. 13, the solemn clause <q><emph>which is in heaven</emph>:</q>—in v. 3, 4, +the omitted incident of <emph>the troubling of the pool</emph>:—in vii. 53 to viii. 11, +<emph>the narrative concerning the woman taken in adultery</emph> omitted,—concerning +which Drs. W. and H. remark that <q><emph>the argument which has always +told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character</emph>. The +story itself has justly seemed <emph>to vouch for its own substantial truth</emph>, and +the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel +narratives</q>—(p. 87). Bishop Lightfoot remarks that <q><emph>the narrative bears +on its face the highest credentials of authentic history</emph></q>—(p. 28).</p></note> In the meantime, the +<pb n='312'/><anchor id='Pg312'/> +matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a +short apologue:— +</p> + +<p> +Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old +church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according +to a learned Cambridge Doctor—were the most +musical in the world. <q>I have listened to those bells,</q> (he +was accustomed to say,) <q>for 30 years. All other bells are +cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the +bells of S. Bee's! <emph>They</emph> alone have <emph>the ring of genuineness</emph>.</q> +... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, +founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of +S. Bee's.—At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one +directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee's is one +of the few churches in that district <emph>without</emph> bells: a discovery +which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the +learned Doctor's theory. +</p> + +<p> +LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it +observed,) reached the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes +after Dr. Hort's extravagant and unsupported estimate of +Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א. On the contrary. Those two documents +are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, +and to darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the +subject with the announcement that, whatever uncertainty +may attach to the evidence for particular readings, +</p> + +<p> +<q><emph>The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the +happy circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two +MSS.</emph> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have +been of exceptional purity among its contemporaries: and +which rise into greater pre-eminence of character the better +the early history of the Text becomes known.</q>—(p. 287.) +</p> + +<pb n='313'/><anchor id='Pg313'/> + +<p> +In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission +to codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א,—(which, he naïvely remarks, +<q><emph>happen likewise to be the oldest extant</emph> Greek MSS. of the New +Testament</q> [p. 212],)—lies all our hope of future progress. +(Just as if we should ever have <emph>heard</emph> of these two codices, +had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary +cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth +century!)... Moreover, Dr. Hort <q>must not hesitate to +express</q> his own robust conviction, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>That no trustworthy improvement can be effected, <emph>except in +accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have +endeavoured to explain</emph>.</q>—(p. 285.) +</quote> + +<p> +LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate +therefore:—(1) Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott +and Hort's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction and Notes on Select Readings</hi> in +vindication of their contents! It is proposed to shut us +up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however +secretly suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, +something may come to light which will effectually dispel +every dream of the new School, and reduce even prejudice +itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it down:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of +Text [<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort] +<emph>from any acquisition of new Evidence</emph>.</q>—(p. 285.) +</quote> + +<p> +And yet, <emph>why</emph> the anticipation of important help from the +acquisition of fresh documentary Evidence <q>would be an +illusion,</q>—does not appear. That the recovery of certain of +the exegetical works of Origen,—better still, of Tatian's +<hi rend='italic'>Diatessaron</hi>,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of +Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) +derived from one and the same depraved archetype;—That +any such windfall, (and it will come, some of these +days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and Hort's +<pb n='314'/><anchor id='Pg314'/> +equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their +most confident conclusions,—we are well aware. <emph>So indeed +are they.</emph> Hence, what those Critics earnestly deprecate, <emph>we</emph> +as earnestly desire. We are therefore by no means inclined +to admit, that +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact +study of the relations between the documents that we already +possess;</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>) +</quote> + +<p> +knowing well that <q><emph>the documents</emph></q> referred to are chiefly, (if +not solely,) <emph>Codices</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and</emph> א: knowing also, that it is further +meant, that in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, +the only thing to be enquired after is whether or no the +attesting document <emph>is generally in agreement with codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +is to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation +from <emph>any</emph> extraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but +it is, as usual, <emph>mere</emph> assertion,) that, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q><emph>Even when</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>stands quite alone</emph>, its readings must never be +lightly rejected.</q>—(p. 557.) +</quote> + +<p> +And yet,—<emph>Why</emph> a reading found <emph>only in codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> should +experience greater indulgence than another reading found +<emph>only in codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, we entirely fail to see. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +On the other hand, <q><emph>an unique criterion</emph> is supplied by the +concord of the independent attestation of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, +p. 46.) +</quote> + +<p> +But pray, how does <emph>that</emph> appear? Since <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א are derived +from one and the same original—Why should not <q>the +concord</q> spoken of be rather <emph><q>an unique criterion</q> of the +utter depravity of the archetype</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort +long enough. And now, since confessedly, a chain is no +<pb n='315'/><anchor id='Pg315'/> +stronger than it is at its weakest link; nor an edifice more +secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must be allowed +to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a +dream, pure and simple; from which it is high time that we +should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on +what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all +along building. A child's house, several stories high, constructed +out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the +frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off +the topmost story; and then, the next: but we might as well +have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has +to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice +down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved +assertions which go before, we assert as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and +א is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.<note place='foot'><p>To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince himself +of this, by examining the rejected <q>alternative</q> Readings in the margin +of the <q>Revised Version.</q> The <q>Many</q> and the <q>Some ancient authorities,</q> +there spoken of, <emph>almost invariably include</emph>—sometimes <emph>denote</emph>—codd. +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the +entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א; but they will give +English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration. +</p> +<p> +Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages <ref target='Pg016'>16</ref> and <ref target='Pg017'>17</ref>:—<ref target='Pg030'>30</ref> +and <ref target='Pg031'>31</ref>:—<ref target='Pg046'>46</ref> and <ref target='Pg047'>47</ref>:—<ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>:—<ref target='Pg249'>249</ref>:—<ref target='Pg262'>262</ref>:—<ref target='Pg289'>289</ref>:—<ref target='Pg316'>316</ref> to 319] concerning <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +and א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now be +added. The piercing of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> side, thrust in after Matt. xxvii. +49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45:—the +monstrous figment concerning Herod's daughter, thrust into Mk. +vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11:—in +Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48: +x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the substitution of οινον (for +οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for +Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ) in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in +Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv. 44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two +important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και +in iii. 6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses +in Mk. iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts +xii. 25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a +heavy indictment against <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א jointly—which are here found in +company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at +Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. +17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4. +</p> +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> (in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting βαπτισαντες +in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix. 1:—<q>seventy-<emph>two</emph>,</q> in Lu. x. +1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. +43, 44 (<hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ's</hi> Agony in the Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His +murderers),—enjoys unenviable distinction.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, singly, is remarkable for +an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts +x. 19—and xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of +δεδομενον in Jo. vii. 39. +</p> +<p> +א (in company with others, but apart from <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>) is conspicuous for its +sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν (for ην) in +S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13:—its textual +blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable for its sorry paraphrase +in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its omissions in Matt. xxiii. +35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its +geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides +the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and +the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated +text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72; of which the object was <q>so far to assimilate +the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as +to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed +twice.</q></p></note> These are +<pb n='316'/><anchor id='Pg316'/> +two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far +from allowing Dr. Hort's position that—<q>A Text formed</q> by +<q>taking Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> as the sole authority,</q> <q>would be incomparably +nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from +any other Greek or other single document</q> (p. 251),—we +venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary, <emph>by far +the foulest Text that had ever seen the light</emph>: worse, that is +to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And +that is saying a great deal. In the brave and faithful words +<pb n='317'/><anchor id='Pg317'/> +of Prebendary Scrivener (<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 453),—words which +deserve to become famous,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the +worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been +subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: +that Irenæus [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150], and the African Fathers, and +the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used +far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or +Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding +the Textus Receptus.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +And Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א are, demonstrably, nothing else but +<emph>specimens of the depraved class thus characterized</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +Next—(2), We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements +jointly and <emph>exclusively</emph> exhibited by codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א,<note place='foot'><p>Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) +The <emph>exclusive</emph> omission by <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The omission +of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder, αποσκιασματος, in +James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) +That <q>vile error,</q> (as Scrivener calls it,) περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) +The impossible order of words in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary +order in Acts i. 5:—(8) The omission of the last clause of the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> prayer, in Lu. xi. 4; and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; +and (10) Of ισχυρον in Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for +τεκνων) in Matt. xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and +(13) of ην τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of +Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides (16) So +minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24, 27: Lu. xi. 15, +18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and (18) The omissions at +Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted that such peculiar blemishes, +taken collectively, constitute a proof of affinity of origin,—community of +descent from one and the same disreputable ancestor. But space fails us. +</p> +<p> +The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the Gospels, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +combines exclusively with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, but 11 times; and with <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, but 38 times: +with <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א, 239 times: (viz. +in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41 times). +</p> +<p> +Contrast it with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>:—which combines exclusively with <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, 21 times: +with א 13 times: with <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, 11 times: with <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, 4 times.</p></note> +<pb n='318'/><anchor id='Pg318'/> +that instead of accepting these codices as two <q>independent</q> +Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to +regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one +and the same scandalously corrupt and (<emph>comparatively</emph>) late +Copy. By consequence, we consider their joint and exclusive +attestation of any particular reading, <q><emph>an unique criterion</emph></q> +of its worthlessness; a sufficient reason—<emph>not</emph> for adopting, +but—for unceremoniously rejecting it. +</p> + +<p> +Then—(3), As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can +perforce only be divined from their contents. That they +exhibit fabricated Texts is demonstrable. No amount of +honest <emph>copying</emph>,—persevered in for any number of centuries,—could +by possibility have resulted in two such documents. +Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by +100 years,<note place='foot'><p>The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They +are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer (in +1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been written +<emph>in Italy</emph>,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [<emph>not</emph> Egypt, but] <emph>either +Palestine or Syria</emph>. Thus, considerations of time and place effectually +dispose of Tischendorf's preposterous notion that the Scribe of Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +wrote <emph>six leaves</emph> of א: an imagination which solely resulted from the +anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own cod. א the same antiquity +which is claimed for the vaunted cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. +</p> +<p> +This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf's rests on the same fanciful basis as his +notion that <emph>the last verse</emph> of S. John's Gospel in א was not written by the +same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There is <emph>no manner of +difference</emph>: though of course it is possible that the scribe took a new pen, +preliminary to writing that last verse, and executing the curious and +delicate ornament which follows. Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, +pp. <ref target='Pg023'>23-4</ref>.</p></note> they must needs have branched off from a +common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed +continuously to fresh depraving influences. The result is, +that codex א, (which evidently has gone through more adventures +and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has +been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, and is +<pb n='319'/><anchor id='Pg319'/> +even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels +alone) <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> has 589 Readings <emph>quite peculiar to itself</emph>, affecting +858 words,—א has 1460 such Readings, affecting 2640 words. +</p> + +<p> +One <emph>solid fact</emph> like the preceding, (let it be pointed out +in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form +a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number +of such <q>reckless and unverified assertions,</q> not to say +peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly +imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort. +</p> + +<p> +(4) Lastly,—We suspect that these two Manuscripts are +indebted for their preservation, <emph>solely to their ascertained evil +character</emph>; which has occasioned that the one eventually +found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the +Vatican library: while the other, after exercising the ingenuity +of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually +(viz. in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1844<note place='foot'>Tischendorf's narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript +(<q><hi rend='italic'>When were our Gospels written?</hi></q>), [1866,] p. 23.</note>) got deposited in the waste-paper basket +of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א +been copies of average purity, they must long since have +shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely <emph>used</emph> and +highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence +and disappeared from sight. But in the meantime, behold, +their very Antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage; +and (strange to relate) is even considered to constitute +a sufficient reason why they should enjoy not merely extraordinary +consideration, but the actual surrender of the +critical judgment. Since 1831, Editors have vied with one +another in the fulsomeness of the homage they have paid to +these <q>two false Witnesses,</q>—for such <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א <emph>are</emph>, as the +concurrent testimony of Copies, Fathers and Versions abundantly +proves. Even superstitious reverence has been claimed +<pb n='320'/><anchor id='Pg320'/> +for these two codices: and Drs. Westcott and Hort are so far +in advance of their predecessors in the servility of their +blind adulation, that they must be allowed to have easily +won the race. +</p> + +<p> +LIV. With this,—so far as the Greek Text under review is +concerned,—we might, were we so minded, reasonably make +an end. We undertook to show that Drs. Westcott and +Hort, in the volumes before us, have built up an utterly +worthless Textual fabric; and we consider that we have +already sufficiently shown it. The Theory,—the Hypothesis +rather, on which their Text is founded, we have <emph>demonstrated</emph> +to be <emph>simply absurd</emph>. Remove that hypothesis, and a heap +of unsightly ruins is all that is left behind,—except indeed +astonishment (not unmingled with concern) at the simplicity +of its accomplished Authors. +</p> + +<p> +Here then, we might leave off. But we are unwilling +so to leave the matter. Large consideration is due to +ordinary English Readers; who must perforce look on with +utter perplexity—not to say distress—at the strange spectacle +presented by <emph>that</emph> Text (which is in the main <emph>the Text of the +Revised English Version</emph>) on the one hand,—and <emph>this</emph> Review +of it, on the other:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) <q>And pray, which of you am I to believe?</q>—will +inevitably be, in homely English, the exclamation with which +not a few will lay down the present number of the <q><hi rend='italic'>Quarterly</hi>.</q> +<q>I pretend to no learning. I am not prepared to +argue the question with you. But surely, the oldest Manuscript +<emph>must</emph> be the purest! It even stands to reason: does +it not?—Then further, I admit that you <emph>seem</emph> to have the +best of the argument so far; yet, since the three most famous +Editors of modern times are against you,—Lachmann, +<pb n='321'/><anchor id='Pg321'/> +Tregelles, Tischendorf,—excuse me if I suspect that you +<emph>must</emph> be in the wrong, after all.</q> +</p> + +<p> +LV. With unfeigned humility, the Reviewer [<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi>] proceeds +to explain the matter to his supposed Objector [<hi rend='italic'>S. O.</hi>], +in briefest outline, as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q>You are perfectly right. The oldest Manuscript +<emph>must</emph> exhibit the purest text: <emph>must</emph> be the most trustworthy. +But then, unfortunately, it happens that <emph>we do not possess it</emph>. +<q>The oldest Manuscript</q> is lost. You speak, of course, of +the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long since +disappeared.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(2) <hi rend='italic'>S. O.</hi> <q>No, I meant to say that the <emph>oldest Manuscript +we possess</emph>, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be +the purest.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q rend='pre'>O, but <emph>that</emph> is an entirely different proposition. Well, +<emph>apart from experience</emph>, the probability that the oldest copy +extant will prove the purest is, if you please, considerable. +Reflection will convince you however that it is <emph>but</emph> a probability, +at the utmost: a probability based upon more than +one false assumption,—with which nevertheless you shall not +be troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means +follow that, <emph>because</emph> a MS. is very ancient, <emph>therefore</emph> the Text, +which it exhibits will be very pure. That you may be +thoroughly convinced of this,—(and it is really impossible +for your mind to be too effectually disabused of a prepossession +which has fatally misled so many,)—you are invited to +enquire for a recent contribution to the learned French +publication indicated at the foot of this page,<note place='foot'><q>Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot. +Nouveaux fragments d'Euripide et d'autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par M. +Henri Weil. (Extrait des <hi rend='italic'>Monumens Grecs publiés par l'Association pour +l'encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France</hi>. Année 1879.)</q> Pp. 36.</note> in which is +<pb n='322'/><anchor id='Pg322'/> +exhibited a fac-simile of 8 lines of the <hi rend='italic'>Medea</hi> of Euripides +(ver. 5-12), written about <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.c.</hi> 200 in small uncials (at +Alexandria probably,) on papyrus. Collated with any printed +copy, the verses, you will find, have been penned with +scandalous, with incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let +the learned Editor of the document in question be listened to, +rather than the present Reviewer:—</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>On voit que le texte du papyrus est hérissé des fautes les +plus graves. <emph>Le plus récent et le plus mauvais de nos manuscrits +d'Euripide vaut infiniment mieux que cette copie,—faite, il y a deux +mille ans, dans le pays où florissaient l'érudition hellénique et la +Critique des textes.</emph></q><note place='foot'><p>The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical +readers:—<q rend='pre'>Ce n'est pas à dire qu'elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt, sans importance: +pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vers 5, +ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield) était déjà l'ancienne +vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s'ils sont altérés, comme l'assurent +quelques éditeurs d'Euripide, l'étaient déjà dans l'antiquité.</q> +</p> +<p> +<q>L'homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour +un Egyptien n'ayant qu'une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue +grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l'orthographe, ni sur les +règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus singulier est +qu'il commence sa copie au milieu d'un vers et qu'il la finisse de même. Il +oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes +pour les autres, il tronque les mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire +quelquefois la suite de la construction et le sens du passage.</q> A faithful +copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification +of Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital +letters:— +</p> +<p> +<q>ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δερος<lb/> +Πελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμην<lb/> +Μηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιας<lb/> +ερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονος<lb/> +οτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουρας<lb/> +πατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιαν<lb/> +συν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μεν<lb/> +φυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.</q> +</p> +<p> +An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—<q>The fragment must have +been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and by an +illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half-educated +reader enunciating Milton for a half-educated writer.</q></p></note>—(p. 17.) +</quote> + +<pb n='323'/><anchor id='Pg323'/> + +<p> +<q>Why, the author of the foregoing remarks might have +been writing concerning Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>!</q> +</p> + +<p> +(3) <hi rend='italic'>S. O.</hi> <q>Yes: but I want <emph>Christian</emph> evidence. The +author of that scrap of papyrus <emph>may</emph> have been an illiterate +slave. What if it should be a <emph>school-boy's exercise</emph> which has +come down to us? The thing is not impossible.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q rend='pre'>Not <q>impossible</q> certainly: but surely highly improbable. +However, let it drop. You insist on Christian +evidence. You shall have it. What think you then of the +following statement of a very ancient Father (Caius<note place='foot'>See p. <ref target='Pg324'>324</ref> <hi rend='italic'>note</hi> 1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that <q>Gaius</q> was a +presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh's <hi rend='italic'>Reliqq.</hi> ii. 125.</note>) writing +against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied the +Divinity of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>? He is bearing his testimony to the +liberties which had been freely taken with the Text of the +New Testament in his own time, viz. about <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 175-200:—</q> +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>The Divine Scriptures,</q> he says, <q rend='pre'>these heretics have audaciously +<emph>corrupted</emph>: ... laying violent hands upon them under +pretence of <emph>correcting</emph> them. That I bring no false accusation, +any one who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has +but to collect the copies belonging to these persons severally; +then, to compare one with another; and he will discover that +their discrepancy is extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all +events, will be found discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, +plenty of specimens of either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as +these men's disciples have industriously multiplied the (so-called) +<q><emph>corrected</emph></q> copies of their respective teachers, which +are in reality nothing else but <q><emph>corrupted</emph></q> copies. With the +foregoing copies again, those of Hermophilus will be found +entirely at variance. As for the copies of Apollonides, they +even contradict one another. Nay, let any one compare the +fabricated text which these persons put forth in the first +instance, with that which exhibits their <emph>latest</emph> perversions of the +Truth, and he will discover that the disagreement between them +is even excessive.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='324'/><anchor id='Pg324'/> + +<p> +<q>Of the enormity of the offence of which these men have been +guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they +do not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of +the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>,—in which case they are to be regarded as +unbelievers: or else, they account themselves wiser than the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>,—and what is that, but to have the faith of devils? +As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing +that the copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; +and they know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures +which they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. +Else, let them produce the originals from which they made +their transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even +condescended to falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and +Prophets alike.</q><note place='foot'>Eusebius, <hi rend='italic'>Hist. Ecol.</hi> v. 28 (ap. Routh's <hi rend='italic'>Reliqq.</hi> ii. 132-4).</note> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +<q>Now, the foregoing statement is in a high decree suggestive. +For here is an orthodox Father <emph>of the IInd century</emph> +inviting attention to four well-known families of falsified +manuscripts of the Sacred Writings;—complaining of the +hopeless divergences which they exhibit (being not only +inconsistent with one another, but <emph>with themselves</emph>);—and +insisting that such <emph>corrected</emph>, are nothing else but shamefully +<emph>corrupted</emph> copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in +his day notorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names +of whose authors—Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, +Apollonides—have (all but the first) long since died out of +the Church's memory. You will allow therefore, (will you +not?), that by this time the claim of the <emph>oldest existing copies</emph> +of Scripture to be the purest, has been effectually disposed of. +For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrupted +copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our +extant MSS. are not derived—remotely if not directly—from +some of <emph>them</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(4) <hi rend='italic'>S. O.</hi> <q>But at all events the chances are even. Are +they not?</q> +</p> + +<pb n='325'/><anchor id='Pg325'/> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q>By no means. A copy like codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, once <emph>recognized</emph> +as belonging to a corrupt family,—once <emph>known</emph> to contain a +depraved exhibition of the Sacred Text,—was more likely by +far to remain unused, and so to escape destruction, than a +copy highly prized and in daily use.—As for Codex א, it +carries on its face its own effectual condemnation; aptly +illustrating the precept <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>fiat experimentum in corpore vili</foreign>. It +exhibits the efforts of many generations of men to restore +its Text,—(which, <q>as proceeding from the first scribe,</q> is +admitted by one of its chief admirers to be <q><emph>very rough</emph>,<note place='foot'>Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.</note></q>)—to +something like purity. <q><emph>At least ten different Revisers</emph>,</q> +from the IVth to the XIIth century, are found to have tried +their hands upon it.<note place='foot'>Scrivener's prefatory <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>,—p. xix.</note>—Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, after having had <q>at least +three correctors very busily at work upon it</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. iii.</note> (in the VIth +and IXth centuries), finally (in the XIIth) was fairly +<emph>obliterated</emph>,—literally <emph>scraped out</emph>,—to make room for the +writings of a Syrian Father.—I am therefore led by <hi rend='italic'>à priori</hi> +considerations to augur ill of the contents of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>. But +when I find them hopelessly at variance <emph>among themselves</emph>: +above all, when I find (1) <emph>all other Manuscripts</emph> of whatever +date,—(2) the <emph>most ancient Versions</emph>,—and (3), the <emph>whole +body of the primitive Fathers</emph>, decidedly opposed to them,—I +am (to speak plainly) at a loss to understand how any man +of sound understanding, acquainted with all the facts of the +case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate to +regard the unsupported (or the <emph>slenderly</emph> supported) testimony +of one or other of them as <emph>simply worthless</emph>. The +craven homage which the foremost of the three habitually +receives at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort, I can only +describe as a weak superstition. It is something more than unreasonable. +It becomes even ridiculous.—Tischendorf's preference +(in his last edition) for the <foreign rend='italic'>bêtises</foreign> of his own codex א, +<pb n='326'/><anchor id='Pg326'/> +can only be defended on the plea of parental partiality. +But it is not on that account the less foolish. His <q>exaggerated +preference for the single manuscript which he had +the good fortune to discover, <emph>has betrayed him</emph></q>—(in the +opinion of Bishop Ellicott)—<q><emph>into an almost child-like +infirmity of critical judgment</emph></q></q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>,—p. 47.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(5) <hi rend='italic'>O. S.</hi> <q>Well but,—be all <emph>that</emph> as it may,—Caius, remember, +is speaking of <emph>heretical</emph> writers. When I said <q>I +want Christian evidence,</q> I meant <emph>orthodox</emph> evidence, of +course. You would not assert (would you?) that <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א +exhibit traces of <emph>heretical</emph> depravation?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q rend='pre'>Reserving my opinion on that last head, good Sir, +and determined to enjoy the pleasure of your company on +any reasonable terms,—(for convince you, I both can and +will, though you prolong the present discussion till tomorrow +morning,)—I have to ask a little favour of you: +viz. that you will bear me company in an imaginary expedition.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>I request that the clock of history may be put back seventeen +hundred years. This is <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 183, if you please: and—(indulge +me in the supposition!)—you and I are walking +in Alexandria. We have reached the house of one Clemens,—a +learned Athenian, who has long been a resident here. +Let us step into his library,—he is from home. What a +queer place! See, he has been reading his Bible, which is +open at S. Mark x. Is it not a well-used copy? It must be +at least 50 or 60 years old. Well, but suppose only 30 or 40. +It was executed therefore <emph>within fifty years of the death of +S. John the Evangelist</emph>. Come, let us transcribe two of the +<pb n='327'/><anchor id='Pg327'/> +columns<note place='foot'>Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 <emph>exactly</emph> fills two columns of +cod. א. (See Tischendorf's reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)</note> (σελίδες) as faithfully as we possibly can, and be +off.... We are back in England again, and the clock has +been put right. Now let us sit down and examine our +curiosity at leisure.<note place='foot'>Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins +§ v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p. <ref target='Pg336'>336</ref>, +note 3.</note>... It proves on inspection to be a +transcript of the 15 verses (ver. 17 to ver. 31) which relate +to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>We make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 +words in those 15 verses,—according to the traditional Text: +of which, in the copy which belonged to Clemens Alexandrinus, +39 prove to have been left out: 11 words are added: +22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase +has been altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a +total of 297, is 38 per cent. What do you think of <emph>that</emph>?</q> +</p> + +<p> +(6) <hi rend='italic'>S. O.</hi> <q>Think? O but, I disallow your entire proceeding! +You have no business to collate with <q>a text of late +and degenerate type, such as is the Received Text of the +New Testament.</q> When <emph>this</emph> <q>is taken as a standard, any +document belonging to a purer stage of the Text must by the +nature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of +omissions: and the nearer the document stands to the autograph, +the more numerous must be the omissions laid to its +charge.</q> I learnt that from Westcott and Hort. See page +235 of their luminous <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q rend='pre'>Be it so! Collate the passage then for yourself +with the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort: which, (remember!) +aspires to reproduce <q>the autographs themselves</q> +<q>with the utmost exactness which the evidence permits</q> +<pb n='328'/><anchor id='Pg328'/> +(pp. 288 and 289).<note place='foot'><q>This Text</q> (say the Editors) <q>is <emph>an attempt to reproduce at once the +autograph Text</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. xxviii.</note> You will find that <emph>this</emph> time the words +omitted amount to 44. The words added are 13: the words +substituted, 23: the words transposed, 34: the words varied +16. And the phrase has been altered 9 times at least. But, +130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You will also bear in +mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our principal +authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.<note place='foot'>Westcott and Hort's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, pp. 112-3.</note></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>And thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been +at last effectually disposed of, that <emph>because</emph> Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א +are the two oldest Greek copies in existence, the Text +exhibited by either must <emph>therefore</emph> be the purest Text which +is anywhere to be met with. <emph>It is impossible to produce a +fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in +a document full two centuries older than either <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> or א,—itself +the property of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene +Fathers.</emph></q> +</p> + +<p> +LVI.—(7) At this stage of the argument, the Reviewer +finds himself taken aside by a friendly Critic [<hi rend='italic'>F. C.</hi>], and +privately remonstrated with somewhat as follows:— +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>F. C.</hi> <q>Do you consider, Sir, what it is you are about? +Surely, you have been proving a vast deal too much! If +the foregoing be a fair sample of the Text of the N. T. with +which Clemens Alex. was best acquainted, it is plain that +the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of the +most ancient and most famous of the Fathers, is absolutely +worthless. Is <emph>that</emph> your own deliberate conviction or not?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q>Finish what you have to say, Sir. After that, you +shall have a full reply.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='329'/><anchor id='Pg329'/> + +<p> +(8) <hi rend='italic'>F. C.</hi> <q>Well then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt +that in your main contention you are right; but I yet +cannot help thinking that this bringing in of a famous +ancient Father—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>obiter</foreign>—is a very damaging proceeding. +What else is such an elaborate exposure of the badness of +the Text which Clemens (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150) employed, but the hopeless +perplexing of a question which was already sufficiently +thorny and difficult? You have, as it seems to me, imported +into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of <q>Various Readings.</q> +Do you seriously propose them as a contribution +towards ascertaining the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ipsissima verba</foreign> of the Evangelist,—the +true text of S. Mark x. 17-31?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q rend='pre'>Come back, if you please, Sir, to the company. +Fully appreciating the friendly spirit in which you just now +drew me aside, I yet insist on so making my reply that all +the world shall hear it. Forgive my plainness: but you are +evidently profoundly unacquainted with the problem before +you,—in which however you do not by any means enjoy the +distinction of standing alone.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>The foulness of a Text which must have been penned +within 70 or 80 years of the death of the last of the Evangelists, +is a matter of fact—which must be loyally accepted, +and made the best of. The phenomenon is surprising certainly; +and may well be a warning to all who (like Dr. +Tregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta +of a Writer,—provided only he can claim to have lived in +the IInd or IIIrd century. To myself it occasions no +sort of inconvenience. You are to be told that the exorbitances +of a <emph>single</emph> Father,—as Clemens; a <emph>single</emph> Version,—as +the Egyptian: a <emph>single</emph> Copy,—as cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, are of no manner +of significancy or use, except as warnings: are of no manner +of interest, except as illustrating the depravation which +systematically assailed the written Word in the age which +immediately succeeded the Apostolic: <emph>are, in fact, of no +<pb n='330'/><anchor id='Pg330'/> +importance whatever</emph>. To make them the basis of an induction +is preposterous. It is not allowable to infer the universal +from the particular. If the bones of Goliath were to be +discovered to-morrow, would you propose as an induction +therefrom that it was the fashion to wear four-and-twenty +fingers and toes on one's hands and feet in the days of the +giant of Gath? All the wild readings of the lost Codex +before us may be unceremoniously dismissed. The critical +importance and value of this stray leaf from a long-since-vanished +Copy is entirely different, and remains to be +explained.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>You are to remember then,—perhaps you have yet to +learn,—that there are but 25 occasions in the course of these +15 verses, on which either Lachmann (L.), or Tischendorf +(T.), or Tregelles (Tr.), or Westcott and Hort (W. H.), or our +Revisionists (R. T.), advocate a departure from the Traditional +Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is +now to be directed,—on them, our eyes are to be riveted,—exclusively. +And the first thing which strikes us as worthy +of notice is, that the 5 authorities above specified fall into no +fewer than <emph>twelve</emph> distinct combinations in their advocacy of +certain of those 25 readings: holding all 5 together <emph>only 4 +times</emph>.<note place='foot'>Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times.<lb/> +All but T. 3 times.<lb/> +All but Tr. 1 time.<lb/> +Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 times<lb/> +T. WH. RT. 1 time<lb/> +Tr. WH. RT. 1 time<lb/> +L. Tr. WH. 1 time<lb/> +Then,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 time<lb/> +L. Tr. 1 time<lb/> +T. WH. 1 time<lb/> +Lastly,—L. stands alone 4 times.<lb/> +Total: 21.</note> The one question of interest therefore which arises, +<pb n='331'/><anchor id='Pg331'/> +is this,—What amount of sanction do any of them experience +at the hands of Clemens Alexandrinus?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>I answer,—<emph>Only on 3 occasions does he agree with any of +them.</emph><note place='foot'><emph>Twice</emph> he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver. 21; +and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—<emph>Once</emph> he agrees with only +Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).</note> The result of a careful analysis shows further that <emph>he +sides with the Traditional Text</emph> 17 <emph>times:—witnessing against +Lachmann, 9 times: against Tischendorf, 10 times: against +Tregelles, 11 times: against Westcott and Hort, 12 times.<note place='foot'>On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits +peculiar readings of his own,—sides with <emph>no one</emph>.</note></emph></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>So far therefore from admitting that <q>the Testimony of +Clemens Al.—one of the most ancient and most famous of +the Fathers—is absolutely worthless,</q>—I have proved it to +be <emph>of very great value</emph>. Instead of <q>hopelessly perplexing +the question,</q> his Evidence is found to have <emph>simplified +matters considerably</emph>. So far from <q>importing into these +15 verses a fresh crop of Various Readings,</q> he has <emph>helped +us to get rid of no less than</emph> 17 of the existing ones.... +<q>Damaging</q> his evidence has certainly proved: but <emph>only to +Lachmann</emph>, <emph>Tischendorf</emph>, <emph>Tregelles</emph>, <emph>Westcott and Hort and our +ill-starred Revisionists</emph>. And yet it remains undeniably true, +that <q>it is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of +S. Mark x. 17-31 than is met with in a document full two +centuries older than either <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> or א,—the property of one of +the most famous of the Fathers.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> p. 360.</note> ... Have you anything +further to ask?</q> +</p> + +<p> +(9) <hi rend='italic'>F. C.</hi> <q>I should certainly like, in conclusion, to be informed +whether we are to infer that the nearer we approach +to the date of the sacred Autographs, the more corrupt we +<pb n='332'/><anchor id='Pg332'/> +shall find the copies. For, if so, pray—Where and when did +purity of Text begin?</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q rend='pre'>You are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such +inference from the premisses. The purest documents of all +existed perforce in the first century: <emph>must</emph> have then existed. +The spring is perforce purest at its source. My whole contention +has been, and is,—That there is nothing at all +unreasonable in the supposition that two stray copies of the +IVth century,—coming down to our own times without a +history and without a character,—<emph>may</emph> exhibit a thoroughly +depraved text. <emph>More</emph> than this does not follow lawfully +from the premisses. At the outset, remember, you delivered +it as your opinion that <q><emph>the oldest Manuscript we possess, if it +be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest</emph>.</q> I asserted, +in reply, that <q>it does not by any means follow, <emph>because</emph> a +manuscript is very ancient, that <emph>therefore</emph> its text will be +very pure</q> (p. <ref target='Pg321'>321</ref>); and all that I have been since saying, +has but had for its object to prove the truth of my assertion. +Facts have been incidentally elicited, I admit, calculated to +inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient documents +generally. But I am neither responsible for these +facts; nor for the inferences suggested by them.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>At all events, I have to request that you will not carry +away so entirely erroneous a notion as that I am the +advocate for <emph>Recent</emph>, in preference to <emph>Ancient</emph>, Evidence concerning +the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as not to +say concerning me that I <q><emph>count</emph></q> instead of <q><emph>weighing</emph></q> my +witnesses. If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and +have understood them, you must by this time be aware that +<emph>in every instance</emph> it is to <hi rend='smallcaps'>Antiquity</hi> that I persistently make +my appeal. I abide by its sentence, and I require that you +shall do the same.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='333'/><anchor id='Pg333'/> + +<p> +<q>You and your friends, on the contrary, reject <emph>the Testimony +of Antiquity</emph>. You set up, instead, some idol of your +own. Thus, Tregelles worshipped <q>codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>.</q> But <q>codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi></q> +is not <q>Antiquity</q>!—Tischendorf assigned the place of +honour to <q>codex א.</q> But once more, <q>codex א</q> is not +<q>Antiquity</q>!—You rejoice in the decrees of the VIth-century-codex +<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>,—and of the VIIIth-century-codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi>,—and of the +Xth, XIth, and XIVth century codices, 1, 33, 69. But will +you venture to tell me that any of these are <q>Antiquity</q>? +<emph>Samples</emph> of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No more! +But then, it is demonstrable that they are <emph>unfair</emph> samples. +Why are you regardless of <emph>all other</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>?—So, with respect +to <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, and <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>. You single out one or two,—the +one or two which suit your purpose; and you are for +rejecting all the rest. But, once more,—The <emph>Coptic</emph> version +is not <q>Antiquity,</q>—neither is <emph>Origen</emph> <q>Antiquity.</q> The +<emph>Syriac</emph> Version is a full set-off against the former,—<emph>Irenæus</emph> +more than counterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in +one of these ancient authorities must confessedly be <hi rend='smallcaps'>an</hi> +<q>ancient Reading:</q> but it does not therefore follow that it is +<hi rend='smallcaps'>the</hi> ancient Reading of the place. Now, it is <hi rend='smallcaps'>the</hi> <emph>ancient +Reading</emph>, of which we are always in search. And he who +sincerely desires to ascertain what actually is <emph>the Witness of +Antiquity</emph>,—(<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi>, what is the prevailing testimony of all +the oldest documents,)—will begin by casting his prejudices +and his predilections to the winds, and will devote himself +conscientiously to an impartial survey of the whole field +of Evidence.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>F. C.</hi> <q>Well but,—you have once and again admitted that +the phenomena before us are extraordinary. Are you able to +explain how it comes to pass that such an one as Clemens +Alexandrinus employed such a scandalously corrupt copy of +the Gospels as we have been considering?</q> +</p> + +<pb n='334'/><anchor id='Pg334'/> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q rend='pre'>You are quite at liberty to ask me any question you +choose. And I, for my own part, am willing to return you +the best answer I am able. You will please to remember +however, that the phenomena will remain,—however infelicitous +my attempts to explain them may seem to yourself. +My view of the matter then—(think what you will about +it!)—is as follows:—</q> +</p> + +<p> +LVII. <q rend='pre'>Vanquished by <emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>the word</hi> Incarnate</emph>, Satan next +directed his subtle malice against <emph>the Word written</emph>. Hence, +as I think,—<emph>hence</emph> the extraordinary fate which befel certain +early transcripts of the Gospel. First, heretical assailants of +Christianity,—then, orthodox defenders of the Truth,—lastly +and above all, self-constituted Critics, who (like +Dr. Hort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to +<q>instinctive processes</q> of Criticism; and who, at first as +well as <q>at last,</q> freely made their appeal <q>to the individual +mind:</q>—<emph>such</emph> were the corrupting influences which +were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty +years after the death of S. John the Divine. Profane literature +has never known anything approaching to it,—can +show nothing at all like it. Satan's arts were defeated +indeed through the Church's faithfulness, because,—(the +good Providence of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> had so willed it,)—the perpetual +multiplication, in every quarter, of copies required for +Ecclesiastical use,—not to say the solicitude of faithful men +in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to retain for +themselves unadulterated specimens of the inspired Text,—proved +a sufficient safeguard against the grosser forms of +corruption. But this was not all.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>The Church, remember, hath been from the beginning +the <q>Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ.</q><note place='foot'>Article xx. § 1.</note> Did not her +Divine Author pour out upon her, in largest measure, <q>the +<pb n='335'/><anchor id='Pg335'/> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit</hi> of Truth;</q> and pledge Himself that it should be that +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit's</hi> special function to <emph><q>guide</q> her children <q>into all the +Truth</q></emph><note place='foot'>Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.</note>?... That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts +would be protected all down the ages against depraving +influences of whatever sort,—was not to have been expected; +certainly, was never promised. But the Church, in her +collective capacity, hath nevertheless—as a matter of fact—been +perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved +copies which once everywhere abounded within her +pale: retaining only such an amount of discrepancy in her +Text as might serve to remind her children that they carry +their <q>treasure in earthen vessels,</q>—as well as to stimulate +them to perpetual watchfulness and solicitude for the purity +and integrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the +present hour, hath there been any complete eradication of +all traces of the attempted mischief,—any absolute getting +rid of every depraved copy extant. These are found to have +lingered on anciently in many quarters. <emph>A few such copies +linger on to the present day.</emph> The wounds were healed, but +the scars remained,—nay, the scars are discernible still.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind +guides—those deluded ones—who would now, if they could, +persuade us to go back to those same codices of which the +Church hath already purged herself? to go back in quest of +those very Readings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church +<emph>in all lands</emph> is found to have rejected with loathing? Verily, +it is <q>happening unto them according to the true proverb</q>—which +S. Peter sets down in his 2nd Epistle,—chapter ii. +verse 22. To proceed however.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>As for Clemens,—he lived at the very time and in the +very country where the mischief referred to was most rife. +For full two centuries after his era, heretical works were so +<pb n='336'/><anchor id='Pg336'/> +industriously multiplied, that in a diocese consisting of 800 +parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz. Theodoret, +who was appointed in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 423,) complains that he found +no less than 200 copies of the <hi rend='italic'>Diatessaron</hi> of Tatian the +heretic,—(Tatian's date being <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 173,)—honourably preserved +in the Churches of his (Theodoret's) diocese, and +mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance.<note place='foot'>Theodoret, <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton, <hi rend='italic'>F. R.</hi> ii. <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>, p. 473.</note> +Clemens moreover would seem to have been a trifle too +familiar with the works of Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, +Heracleon, and the rest of the Gnostic crew. He habitually +mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired Scripture:<note place='foot'>The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)'s <hi rend='italic'>Account +of the writings of Clement of Alexandria</hi>,—and to read the vith and viiith +chapters.</note> and—with +corrupted copies always at hand and before him—he +is just the man to present us with a quotation like the +present, and straightway to volunteer the assurance that he +found it <q>so written in the Gospel according to S. Mark.</q><note place='foot'>Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.</note> +The archetype of Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א,—especially the archetype +from which Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> was copied,—is discovered to have experienced +adulteration largely from the same pestilential source +which must have corrupted the copies with which Clement +(and his pupil Origen after him) were most familiar.—And +thus you have explained to you the reason of the disgust and +indignation with which I behold in these last days a resolute +attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an unlearned +generation the old exploded errors, under the pretence that +they are the inspired Verity itself,—providentially recovered +from a neglected shelf in the Vatican,—rescued from destruction +by a chance visitor to Mount Sinai.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>F. C.</hi> <q>Will you then, in conclusion, tell us how <emph>you</emph> +would have us proceed in order to ascertain the Truth of +Scripture?</q> +</p> + +<pb n='337'/><anchor id='Pg337'/> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>Q. R.</hi> <q rend='pre'>To answer that question fully would require a +considerable Treatise. I will not, however, withhold a +slight outline of what I conceive to be the only safe +method of procedure. I could but <emph>fill up</emph> that outline, and +<emph>illustrate</emph> that method, even if I had 500 pages at my +disposal.</q> +</p> + +<p> +LVIII. <q rend='pre'>On first seriously applying ourselves to these +studies, many years ago, we found it wondrous difficult to +divest ourselves of prepossessions very like your own. Turn +which way we would, we were encountered by the same +confident terminology:—<q>the best documents,</q>—<q>primary +manuscripts,</q>—<q>first-rate authorities,</q>—<q>primitive evidence,</q>—<q>ancient +readings,</q>—and so forth: and we found that thereby +cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. or <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,—cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> or <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>—were <emph>invariably and exclusively meant</emph>. +It was not until we had laboriously collated these documents +(including א) for ourselves, that we became aware of their +true character. Long before coming to the end of our task +(and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had +become convinced that the supposed <q>best documents</q> and +<q>first-rate authorities</q> are in reality among <emph>the worst</emph>:—that +these Copies deserve to be called <q>primary,</q> only because in +any enumeration of manuscripts, they stand foremost;—and +that their <q>Evidence,</q> whether <q>primitive</q> or not, is <emph>contradictory</emph> +throughout.—<emph>All</emph> Readings, lastly, we discovered are +<q>ancient.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>A diligent inspection of a vast number of later Copies +scattered throughout the principal libraries of Europe, and +the exact Collation of a few, further convinced us that the +deference generally claimed for <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, א, <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> is nothing else but +a weak superstition and a vulgar error:—that the date of a +MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the +problem:—and that later Copies, so far from <q>crumbling +down salient points, softening irregularities, conforming +<pb n='338'/><anchor id='Pg338'/> +differences,</q><note place='foot'>Alford's N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.</note> and so forth,—on countless occasions, <emph>and as a +rule</emph>,—preserve those delicate lineaments and minute refinements +which the <q>old uncials</q> are constantly observed to +obliterate. And so, rising to a systematic survey of the +entire field of Evidence, we found reason to suspect more and +more the soundness of the conclusions at which Lachmann, +Tregelles, and Tischendorf had arrived: while we seemed +led, as if by the hand, to discern plain indications of the +existence for ourselves of a far <q>more excellent way.</q></q> +</p> + +<p> +LIX. <q rend='pre'>For, let the ample and highly complex provision +which Divine Wisdom hath made for the effectual conservation +of that crowning master-piece of His own creative skill,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>The +Written Word</hi>,—be duly considered; and surely a +recoil is inevitable from the strange perversity which in +these last days would shut us up within the limits of a very +few documents to the neglect of all the rest,—as though a +revelation from Heaven had proclaimed that the Truth is to +be found exclusively in <emph>them</emph>. The good Providence of the +Author of Scripture is discovered to have furnished His +household, the Church, with (speaking roughly) 1000 copies +of the Gospels:—with twenty Versions—two of which go +back to the beginning of Christianity: and with the writings +of a host of ancient Fathers. <emph>Why</emph> out of those 1000 MSS. +<emph>two</emph> should be singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for +special favour,—to the practical disregard of all the rest: +<emph>why</emph> Versions and Fathers should by them be similarly dealt +with,—should be practically set aside in fact in the lump,—we +fail to discover. Certainly the pleas urged by the learned +Editors<note place='foot'>See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).</note> can appear satisfactory to no one but to themselves.</q> +</p> + +<p> +LX. <q rend='pre'>For our method then,—It is the direct contradictory +to that adopted by the two Cambridge Professors. Moreover, +<pb n='339'/><anchor id='Pg339'/> +it conducts us throughout to directly opposite results. We +hold it to be even axiomatic that a Reading which is supported +by only one document,—out of the 1100 (more or +less) already specified,—whether that solitary unit be a +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>, a <hi rend='smallcaps'>Version</hi>, or a <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copy</hi>,—stands self-condemned; +may be dismissed at once, without concern or enquiry.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>Nor is the case materially altered if (as generally happens) +a few colleagues of bad character are observed to side with +the else solitary document. Associated with the corrupt <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, +is often found the more corrupt א. Nay, six leaves of א are +confidently declared by Tischendorf to have been written by +the scribe of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. The sympathy between these two, and the +Version of Lower Egypt, is even notorious. That Origen +should sometimes join the conspiracy,—and that the same +Reading should find allies in certain copies of the unrevised +Latin, or perhaps in Cureton's Syriac:—all <emph>this</emph> we deem the +reverse of encouraging. The attesting witnesses are, in our +account, of so suspicious a character, that the Reading cannot +be allowed. On such occasions, we are reminded that there +is truth in Dr. Hort's dictum concerning the importance +of noting the tendency of certain documents to fall into +<q>groups:</q> though his assertion that <q>it cannot be too often +repeated that the study of grouping is <emph>the foundation of all +enduring Criticism</emph>,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi> (1870), p. xv.</note> we hold to be as absurd as it is untrue.</q> +</p> + +<p> +LXI. <q rend='pre'>So far negatively.—A safer, the <emph>only</emph> trustworthy +method, in fact, of ascertaining the Truth of Scripture, we hold +to be the method which,—without prejudice or partiality,—simply +ascertains <hi rend='smallcaps'>which form of the text enjoys the +earliest, the fullest, the widest, the most respectable, +and</hi>—above all things—<hi rend='smallcaps'>the most varied attestation</hi>. That +a Reading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest +<pb n='340'/><anchor id='Pg340'/> +and by the latest available evidence,—we hold to be a prime +circumstance in its favour. That Copies, Versions, and Fathers, +should all three concur in sanctioning it,—we hold to be even +more conclusive. If several Fathers, living in different parts +of ancient Christendom, are all observed to recognize the +words, or to quote them in the same way,—we have met with +all the additional confirmation we ordinarily require. Let +it only be further discoverable <emph>how</emph> or <emph>why</emph> the rival Reading +came into existence, and our confidence becomes absolute.</q> +</p> + +<p> +LXII. <q rend='pre'>An instance which we furnished in detail in a +former article,<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref> to 85.</note> may be conveniently appealed to in illustration +of what goes before. Our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> <q>Agony and bloody +sweat,</q>—first mentioned by Justin Martyr (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150), is +found <emph>set down in every MS. in the world except four</emph>. It is +duly exhibited <emph>by every known Version</emph>. It is recognized by +<emph>upwards of forty famous Fathers</emph> writing without concert +in remote parts of ancient Christendom. Whether therefore +Antiquity,—Variety of testimony,—Respectability of +witnesses,—or Number,—is considered, the evidence in +favour of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply overwhelming. +And yet out of superstitious deference to <emph>two</emph> Copies of +bad character, Drs. Westcott and Hort (followed by the +Revisionists) set the brand of spuriousness on those 26 +precious words; professing themselves <q>morally certain</q> +that this is nothing else but a <q>Western Interpolation:</q> +whereas, mistaken zeal for the honour of Incarnate <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jehovah</hi> +alone occasioned the suppression of these two verses in a +few early manuscripts. This has been explained already,—namely, +in the middle of page <ref target='Pg082'>82</ref>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +LXIII. <q rend='pre'>Only one other instance shall be cited. The +traditional reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is vouched for by <emph>every +<pb n='341'/><anchor id='Pg341'/> +known copy of the Gospels but four</emph>—3 of which are of extremely +bad character, viz. א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>. The Versions are divided: but <emph>not</emph> +the Fathers: of whom <emph>more than forty-seven</emph> from every part +of ancient Christendom,—(Syria, Palestine, Alexandria, Asia +Minor, Cyprus, Crete, Gaul,)—come back to attest that the +traditional reading (as usual) is the true one. Yet such is +the infatuation of the new school, that Drs. Westcott and +Hort are content to make <emph>nonsense</emph> of the Angelic Hymn on +the night of the Nativity, rather than admit the possibility +of complicity in error in א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b d</hi>: error in respect of <emph>a single +letter!</emph>... The Reader is invited to refer to what has +already been offered on this subject, from p. <ref target='Pg041'>41</ref> to p. 47.</q> +</p> + +<p> +LXIV. <q rend='pre'>It will be perceived therefore that the method +we plead for consists merely in a loyal recognition of the whole +of the Evidence: setting off one authority against another, +laboriously and impartially; and adjudicating fairly between +them <emph>all</emph>. Even so hopelessly corrupt a document as Clement +of Alexandria's copy of the Gospels proves to have been—(described +at pp. <ref target='Pg326'>326-31</ref>)—is by no means without critical +value. Servilely followed, it would confessedly land us in +hopeless error: but, judiciously employed, as a set-off against +<emph>other</emph> evidence; regarded rather as a check upon the exorbitances +of <emph>other</emph> foul documents, (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> and especially <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>); +resorted to as a protection against the prejudice and caprice of +modern Critics;—that venerable document, with all its faults, +proves invaluable. Thus, in spite of its own aberrations, it +witnesses to <emph>the truth of the Traditional Text</emph> of S. Mark x. +17-31—(the place of Scripture above referred to<note place='foot'>Pp. <ref target='Pg359'>359-60</ref>.</note>)—in several +important particulars; siding with it against Lachmann, +9 times;—against Tischendorf, 10 times;—against Tregelles, +11 times;—against Westcott and Hort, 12 times.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='342'/><anchor id='Pg342'/> + +<p> +<q>We deem this laborious method the only true method, +in our present state of imperfect knowledge: the method, +namely, of <emph>adopting that Reading which has the fullest, the +widest, and the most varied attestation. Antiquity, and Respectability +of Witnesses,</emph> are thus secured. How men can persuade +themselves that 19 Copies out of every 20 may +be safely disregarded, if they be but written in minuscule +characters,—we fail to understand. To ourselves it seems +simply an irrational proceeding. But indeed we hold this to +be no <emph>seeming</emph> truth. The fact is absolutely demonstrable. +As for building up a Text, (as Drs. Westcott and Hort have +done,) with special superstitious deference to a <emph>single codex,</emph>—we +deem it about as reasonable as would be the attempt to +build up a pyramid from its apex; in the expectation that +it would stand firm on its extremity, and remain horizontal +for ever.</q> +</p> + +<p> +And thus much in reply to our supposed Questioner. We +have now reached the end of a prolonged discussion, which +began at page <ref target='Pg320'>320</ref>; more immediately, at page <ref target='Pg337'>337</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +LXV. In the meantime, <emph>a pyramid balanced on its apex</emph> +proves to be no unapt image of the Textual theory of Drs. Westcott +and Hort. When we reach the end of their <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi> +we find we have reached the point to which all that went +before has been evidently converging: but we make the further +awkward discovery that it is the point on which all that +went before absolutely <emph>depends</emph> also. <emph>Apart from</emph> codex +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, +the present theory could have no existence. <emph>But for</emph> codex +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, +it would never have been excogitated. <emph>On</emph> codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, it +entirely rests. <emph>Out of</emph> codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, it has <emph>entirely sprung.</emph> +</p> + +<p> +Take away this one codex, and Dr. Hort's volume becomes +absolutely without coherence, purpose, meaning. <emph>One-fifth</emph> +<pb n='343'/><anchor id='Pg343'/> +of it<note place='foot'>P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.</note> is devoted to remarks on <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א. The fable of <q>the +<emph>Syrian</emph> text</q> is invented solely for the glorification of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and +א,—which are claimed, of course, to be <q><emph>Pre</emph>-Syrian.</q> This +fills 40 pages more.<note place='foot'>Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.</note> And thus it would appear that the +Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost +for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than +half lay <foreign rend='italic'>perdu</foreign> on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. +Tischendorf, that it had been deposited in a waste-paper +basket<note place='foot'><q>I perceived <emph>a large and wide basket</emph> full of old parchments; and the +librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already <emph>committed to +the flames.</emph> What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers,</q> &c.—(<hi rend='italic'>Narrative +of the discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript,</hi> p. 23.)</note> in the convent of S. Catharine at the foot of Mount +Sinai,—from which he rescued it on the 4th February, 1859:—neither, +we venture to think, a very likely circumstance. +We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not +by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of +the Deposit, as these distinguished gentlemen imagine. +</p> + +<p> +Are we asked for the ground of our opinion? We point +without hesitation to the 998 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi> which remain: to the +many ancient <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>: to the many venerable <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>,—<emph>any +one</emph> of whom we hold to be <emph>a more trustworthy authority</emph> +for the Text of Scripture, <emph>when he speaks out plainly,</emph> than +either Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> or Codex א,—aye, or than both of them put +together. Behold, (we say,) the abundant provision which +the All-wise One hath made for the safety of the Deposit: +the <q>threefold cord</q> which <q>is not quickly broken</q>! We hope +to be forgiven if we add, (not without a little warmth,) that +we altogether wonder at the perversity, the infatuation, the +blindness,—which is prepared to make light of all these precious +helps, in order to magnify two of the most corrupt +<pb n='344'/><anchor id='Pg344'/> +codices in existence; and <emph>that</emph>, for no other reason but because, +(as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they <q><emph>happen</emph> likewise to be the +oldest extant Greek MSS. of the New Testament.</q> (p. 212.) +</p> + +<p> +LXVI. And yet, had what precedes been the sum of the +matter, we should for our own parts have been perfectly well +content to pass it by without a syllable of comment. So long +as nothing more is endangered than the personal reputation of +a couple of Scholars—at home or abroad—we can afford to +look on with indifference. Their private ventures are their +private concern. What excites our indignation is the spectacle +of the <emph>Church of England</emph> becoming to some extent +involved in their discomfiture, because implicated in their +mistakes: dragged through the mire, to speak plainly, at the +chariot-wheels of these two infelicitous Doctors, and exposed +with them to the ridicule of educated Christendom. Our +Church has boasted till now of learned sons in abundance +within her pale, ready at a moment's notice to do her right: +to expose shallow sciolism, and to vindicate that precious +thing which hath been committed to her trust.<note place='foot'>τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.</note> Where are +the men <emph>now?</emph> What has come to her, that, on the contrary, +certain of her own Bishops and Doctors have not scrupled to +enter into an irregular alliance with Sectarians,—yes, have +even taken into partnership with themselves one who openly +denies the eternal Godhead of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord Jesus Christ</hi>,—in +order, as it would seem, to give proof to the world of the low +ebb to which Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have +sunk among us? +</p> + +<p> +LXVII. Worse yet. We are so distressed, because the true +sufferers after all by this ill-advised proceeding, are the +90 millions of English-speaking Christian folk scattered over +<pb n='345'/><anchor id='Pg345'/> +the surface of the globe. These have had the title-deeds by +which they hold their priceless birthright, shamefully tampered +with. <emph>Who</emph> will venture to predict the amount of +mischief which must follow, if the <q><emph>New Greek Text</emph></q> which +has been put forth by the men who were appointed <emph>to revise +the English Authorized Version,</emph> should become used in our +Schools and in our Colleges,—should impose largely on the +Clergy of the Church of England?... But to return from +this, which however will scarcely be called a digression. +</p> + +<p> +A pyramid poised on its apex then, we hold to be a fair +emblem of the Theory just now under review. Only, unfortunately, +its apex is found to be constructed of brick without +straw: say rather <emph>of straw—without brick.</emph> +</p> + +<p> +LXVIII. <emph>Why</emph> such partiality has been evinced latterly +for Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, none of the Critics have yet been so good as to +explain; nor is it to be expected that, satisfactorily, any of +them ever will. <emph>Why</emph> again Tischendorf should have suddenly +transferred his allegiance from Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> to Cod. א,—unless, +to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,—must +also remain a riddle. If <emph>one</emph> of the <q>old uncials</q> must +needs be taken as a guide,—(though we see no sufficient +reason why <emph>one</emph> should be appointed to lord it over the rest,)—we +should rather have expected that Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> would have been +selected,<note place='foot'>[While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my +papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented +Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant +communication:—<q>It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from +outside, why <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi>, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each other, and +therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be superior to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. It is +still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as he does) very many grave +faults of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, should yet consider <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> superior in character to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>.</q>]</note>—the text of which +<q>Stands in broad contrast to those of either <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> or א, though the +interval of years [between it and them] is probably small.</q> +<pb n='346'/><anchor id='Pg346'/> +(p. 152.) <q>By a curious and apparently unnoticed coincidence,</q> +(proceeds Dr. Hort,) <q>its Text in several books agrees with the +Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin +attestation, as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS. largely +employed by Jerome</q>—[and why not <q><emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>the</hi> Greek copies</emph> employed +by Jerome</q>?]—<q>in his Revision of the Latin version must have +had to a great extent a common original with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Ibid</hi>.) +</p> + +<p> +Behold a further claim of this copy on the respectful consideration +of the Critics! What would be thought of the +Alexandrian Codex, if some attestation were discoverable in +its pages that it actually <emph>had belonged</emph> to the learned Palestinian +father? According to Dr. Hort, +</p> + +<p> +<q>Apart from this individual affinity, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>—both in the Gospels +and elsewhere—may serve as <emph>a fair example of the Manuscripts +that,</emph> to judge by Patristic quotations, <emph>were commonest in the IVth +century.</emph></q>—(p. 152.) +</p> + +<p> +O but, the evidence in favour of Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> thickens apace! +Suppose then,—(for, after this admission, the supposition is +at least allowable,)—suppose the discovery were made tomorrow +of half-a-score of codices of the <emph>same date as Cod.</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, +but exhibiting the <emph>same Text as Cod.</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. What a complete +revolution would be thereby effected in men's minds on +Textual matters! How impossible would it be, henceforth, +for <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and its henchman א, to obtain so much as a hearing! +Such <q>an eleven</q> would safely defy the world! And yet, +according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may any day become +a fact; for he informs us,—(and we are glad to be able for +once to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)—that +such manuscripts once abounded or rather <emph>prevailed;</emph>—<q><emph>were +commonest</emph> in the IVth century,</q> when codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א +were written. We presume that then, as now, such codices +prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1. +</p> + +<p> +LXIX. But—what need to say it?—we entirely disallow +any such narrowing of the platform which Divine Wisdom +<pb n='347'/><anchor id='Pg347'/> +hath willed should be at once very varied and very ample. +Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> is sometimes in error: sometimes even <emph>conspires in +error exclusively with Cod.</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. An instance occurs in 1 S. John +v. 18,—a difficult passage, which we the more willingly proceed +to remark upon, because the fact has transpired that it +is one of the few places in which <emph>entire unanimity</emph> prevailed +among the Revisionists,—who yet (as we shall show) have +been, one and all, mistaken in substituting <q><emph>him</emph></q> (αὐτόν) for +<q><emph>himself</emph></q> (ἑαυτόν).... We venture to bespeak the Reader's +attention while we produce the passage in question, and briefly +examine it. He is assured that it exhibits a fair average +specimen of what has been the Revisionists' fatal method +in every page:— +</p> + +<p> +LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing +between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΕῚΣ +ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying +influences of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Spirit</hi> which he received when he +became regenerate (ὁ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ). The +latter (he says) <q><emph>sinneth not</emph>:</q> the former, (he says,) <q><emph>keepeth +himself, and the Evil One toucheth him not</emph>.</q> So far, all is +intelligible. The nominative is the same in both cases. +Substitute however <q>keepeth <emph>him</emph> (αὐτόν),</q> for <q>keepeth <emph>himself</emph> +(ἑαυτόν),</q> and (as Dr. Scrivener admits<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 567.</note>), ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ +τοῦ Θεοῦ can be none other than the Only Begotten <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi> of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>. And yet our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> is <emph>nowhere</emph> in the New Testament +designated as ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.<note place='foot'>Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; +1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9 <hi rend='italic'>bis</hi>, iv. 7; v. 1 <hi rend='italic'>bis</hi>, 4, 18 <hi rend='italic'>bis</hi>. <emph>Why</emph> is it to be supposed +that on this last occasion <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Eternal Son</hi> should be intended?</note> Alford accordingly +prefers to make nonsense of the place; which he translates,—<q>he +that hath been begotten of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, <emph>it keepeth him</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='348'/><anchor id='Pg348'/> + +<p> +LXXI. Now, on every occasion like the present,—(instead +of tampering with the text, <emph>as Dr. Hort and our Revisionists +have done without explanation or apology,</emph>)—our safety will be +found to consist in enquiring,—But (1) What have the +Copies to say to this? (2) What have the Versions? and +(3) What, the Fathers?... The answer proves to be—(1) +<emph>All the copies except three,</emph><note place='foot'><hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>*, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, 105.</note> read <q>himself.</q>—(2) So do the +Syriac and the Latin;<note place='foot'>The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691], +Cassian [p. 409],—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Sed generatio Dei conservat eum</foreign>:</q> Chromatius [Gall. +viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Quia (quoniam) +nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum.</foreign></q> In a letter of 5 Bishops to Innocentius +I. (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it is,—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Nativitas quæ ex Deo +est.</foreign></q> Such a rendering (viz. <q><emph>his having been born of</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q>) amounts to an +<emph>interpretation</emph> of the place.</note>—so do the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, +Armenian, and Æthiopic versions.<note place='foot'>From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.</note>—(3) So, Origen clearly +thrice,<note place='foot'>iv. 326 b c.</note>—Didymus clearly 4 times,<note place='foot'>Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> pp. +143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the present passage +included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia published by C. F. +Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].</note>—Ephraem Syrus clearly +twice,<note place='foot'>i. 94, 97.</note>—Severus also twice,<note place='foot'>In <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> p. 124, repeated p. 144.</note>—Theophylact expressly,<note place='foot'>iii. 433 c.</note>—and +Œcumenius.<note place='foot'>ii. 601 d.</note>—So, indeed, Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>; for the original Scribe is +found to have corrected himself.<note place='foot'>By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.</note> The sum of the adverse +attestation therefore which prevailed with the Revisionists, +is found to have been—<emph>Codex</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and a single cursive copy</emph> at +Moscow. +</p> + +<p> +This does not certainly seem to the Reviewer, (as it seemed +to the Revisionists,) <q>decidedly preponderating evidence.</q> +In his account, <q><emph>plain and clear error</emph></q> dwells with their +Revision. But this may be because,—(to quote words recently +addressed by the President of the Revising body to the Clergy +<pb n='349'/><anchor id='Pg349'/> +and Laity of the Diocese of Gloucester and Bristol,)—the +<q>Quarterly Reviewer</q> is <q><emph>innocently ignorant of the now +established principles of Textual Criticism.</emph></q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Diocesan Progress</hi>, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.</note> +</p> + +<p> +LXXII. <q>It is easy,</q>—(says the learned Prelate, speaking +on his own behalf and that of his co-Revisionists,)—<q>to put +forth to the world a sweeping condemnation of many of +our changes of reading; and yet all the while to be <emph>innocently +ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism.</emph></q> +</p> + +<p> +May we venture to point out, that it is easier still to +denounce adverse Criticism in the lump, instead of trying to +refute it in any one particular:—to refer vaguely to <q>established +principles of Textual Criticism,</q> instead of stating +which they be:—to sneer contemptuously at endeavours, +(which, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are +entitled to sympathy at the hands of a successor of the +Apostles,) instead of showing <emph>wherein</emph> such efforts are reprehensible? +We are content to put the following question to +any fair-minded man:—Whether of these two is the more +facile and culpable proceeding;—(1) <emph>Lightly to blot out an +inspired word from the Book of Life, and to impose a wrong +sense on Scripture</emph>, as in this place the Bishop and his colleagues +are found to have done:—or, (2) To fetch the same +word industriously back: to establish its meaning by +diligent and laborious enquiry: to restore both to their +rightful honours: and to set them on a basis of (<emph>hitherto +unobserved</emph>) evidence, from which (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>faxit DEUS!</foreign>) it will be +found impossible henceforth to dislodge them? +</p> + +<p> +This only will the Reviewer add,—That if it be indeed +one of the <q>now established principles of Textual Criticism,</q> +<pb n='350'/><anchor id='Pg350'/> +that the evidence of <emph>two manuscripts and-a-half</emph> outweighs +the evidence of (1) All <emph>the remaining</emph> 997-½,—(2) The whole +body of the Versions,—(3) <emph>Every Father who quotes the place, +from</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 210 to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1070,—and (4) <emph>The strongest possible +internal Evidence</emph>:—if all this <emph>indeed</emph> be so,—he devoutly +trusts that he may be permitted to retain his <q>Innocence</q> +to the last; and in his <q>Ignorance,</q> when the days of his +warfare are ended, to close his eyes in death.—And now +to proceed. +</p> + +<p> +LXXIII. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever +the same. Phantoms of the imagination henceforth usurp the +place of substantial forms. Interminable doubt,—wretched +misbelief,—childish credulity,—judicial blindness,—are the +inevitable sequel and penalty. The mind that has long +allowed itself in a systematic trifling with Evidence, is +observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted +what is <emph>demonstrably</emph> true: has rejected what is <emph>indubitably</emph> +Divine. Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own +fantastic creations for historical facts: to believe things +which rest on insufficient evidence, or on no evidence at all. +Thus, these learned Professors,—who condemn the <q>last +Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark;</q> which +have been accounted veritable Scripture by the Church Universal +for more than 1800 years;—nevertheless accept as +the genuine <q><hi rend='italic'>Diatessaron of Tatian</hi></q> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 170], a production +which was discovered yesterday, and which <emph>does not even claim +to be</emph> the work of that primitive writer.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 283. <hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, pp. 3, 22, and <hi rend='italic'>passim</hi>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Yes, the Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the +same. General mistrust of <emph>all</emph> evidence is the sure result. +In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their +<pb n='351'/><anchor id='Pg351'/> +brother-Revisionists that <q>the prevalent assumption that +throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be found <emph>somewhere</emph> +among recorded Readings, <emph>does not stand the test of experience</emph>.</q> +They are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. +They invent a ghost to be exorcised in every dark +corner. Accordingly, Dr. Hort favours us with a chapter on +the Art of <q>removing Corruptions of the sacred Text <emph>antecedent +to extant documents</emph></q> (p. 71). We are not surprised +(though we <emph>are</emph> a little amused) to hear that,— +</p> + +<p> +<q>The <emph>Art of Conjectural Emendation</emph> depends for its success +so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the +first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too +delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is +easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded +on knowledge and method.</q>—(p. 71.) +</p> + +<p> +LXXIV. <emph>Very</emph> <q>easy,</q> certainly. One sample of Dr. Hort's +skill in this department, (it occurs at page 135 of his <hi rend='italic'>Notes +on Select Readings</hi>,) shall be cited in illustration. We venture +to commend it to the attention of our Readers:— +</p> + +<p> +(a) S. Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Timothy, (whom he had +set as Bp. over the Church of Ephesus,) to <q><emph>hold fast</emph></q> a +certain <q><emph>form</emph></q> or <q>pattern</q> (ὑποτύπωσιν) <q><emph>of sound words</emph>, +<emph>which</emph></q> (said he) <q><emph>thou hast heard of me</emph>.</q> The flexibility and +delicate precision of the Greek language enables the Apostle +to indicate exactly what was the prime object of his solicitude. +It proves to have been the safety of <emph>the very words</emph> which he +had syllabled, (ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὯΝ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσασ). +As learned Bp. Beveridge well points out,—<q><emph>which words</emph>, not +<emph>which form</emph>, thou hast heard of me. So that it is not so much +the <emph>form</emph>, as the <emph>words</emph> themselves, which the Apostle would +have him to hold fast.</q><note place='foot'>Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(<q><hi rend='italic'>A form of sound words to be used by +Ministers.</hi></q>)</note> +</p> + +<pb n='352'/><anchor id='Pg352'/> + +<p> +All this however proves abhorrent to Dr. Hort. <q>This +sense</q> (says the learned Professor) <q>cannot be obtained from +the text except by treating ὧν as put in the genitive by <emph>an +unusual and inexplicable attraction</emph>. It seems more probable +that ὧν is a <emph>primitive corruption</emph> of ὅν after πάντων.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Now, this is quite impossible, since neither ὅν nor πάντων +occurs anywhere in the neighbourhood. And as for the supposed +<q>unusual and inexplicable attraction,</q> it happens to be +one of even common occurrence,—as every attentive reader +of the New Testament is aware. Examples of it may be +seen at 2 Cor. i. 4 and Ephes. iv. 1,—also (in Dr. Hort's text +of) Ephes. i. 6 (ἧς in all 3 places). Again, in S. Luke v. 9 +(whether ᾗ or ὧν is read): and vi. 38 (ῷ):—in S. Jo. xv. 20 +(οὗ):—and xvii. 11 (ᾧ): in Acts ii. 22 (οἷς): vii. 17 (ἧς) and +45 (ὧν): in xxii. 15 (ὧν),&c.... But why entertain the +question? There is absolutely <emph>no room</emph> for such Criticism in +respect of a reading which is found <emph>in every known MS.,—in +every known Version,—in every Father who quotes the place</emph>: a +reading which Divines, and Scholars who were not Divines,—Critics +of the Text, and grammarians who were without +prepossessions concerning Scripture,—Editors of the Greek +and Translators of the Greek into other languages,—all alike +have acquiesced in, from the beginning until now. +</p> + +<p> +We venture to assert that it is absolutely unlawful, in +the entire absence of evidence, to call such a reading as the +present in question. There is absolutely no safeguard for +Scripture—no limit to Controversy—if a place like this may +be solicited at the mere suggestion of individual caprice. +(For it is worth observing that <emph>on this, and similar occasions, +Dr. Hort is forsaken by Dr. Westcott</emph>. Such notes are enclosed +in brackets, and subscribed <q>H.</q>) In the meantime, who +can forbear smiling at the self-complacency of a Critic who +<pb n='353'/><anchor id='Pg353'/> +puts forth remarks like those which precede; and yet congratulates +himself on <q><emph>personal endowments, fertility of resource, +and a too delicate appreciation of language</emph></q>? +</p> + +<p> +(b) Another specimen of conjectural extravagance occurs +at S. John vi. 4, where Dr. Hort labours to throw suspicion +on <q>the Passover</q> (τὸ πάσχα),—in defiance of <emph>every known +Manuscript,—every known Version</emph>,—and <emph>every Father who +quotes or recognizes the place</emph>.<note place='foot'>Quoted by ps.-Ephraem <hi rend='italic'>Evan. Conc.</hi> p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys. +viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> p. 242 l. 25 (which +is <emph>not</emph> from Chrys.):—<hi rend='italic'>Chron. Paschale</hi> 217 a (<hi rend='italic'>diserte</hi>).—Recognized by +Melito (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 170):—Irenæus (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 177):—Hippolytus (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius +Laod., &c.</note> We find <emph>nine columns</emph> devoted +to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so +partial are his <hi rend='italic'>Notes</hi>, that countless <q>various Readings</q> of +great interest and importance are left wholly undiscussed. +Nay, sometimes entire Epistles are dismissed with a single +weak annotation (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> 1 and 2 Thessalonians),—<emph>or with none</emph>, +as in the case of the Epistle to the Philippians. +</p> + +<p> +(c) We charitably presume that it is in order to make +amends for having conjecturally thrust out τὸ πάσχα from S. +John vi. 4,—that Dr. Hort is for conjecturally thrusting into +Acts xx. 28, Υἱοῦ (after τοῦ ἰδίου),—an imagination to which +he devotes a column and-a-half, but <emph>for which he is not able to +produce a particle of evidence</emph>. It would result in our reading, +<q>to feed the Church of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, which He purchased</q>—(not +<q>with <emph>His own</emph> blood,</q> but)—<q>with the <emph>blood of His own</emph> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi>:</q> which has evidently been suggested by nothing so +much as by the supposed necessity of getting rid of a text +which unequivocally asserts that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> is <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>.<note place='foot'>This is the <emph>true</emph> reason of the eagerness which has been displayed in +certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just as nothing +else but a determination that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> shall not be spoken of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ +πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to the construction of +Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr. Westcott refuses to +concur with Dr. Hort.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='354'/><anchor id='Pg354'/> + +<p> +LXXV. Some will be chiefly struck by the conceit and +presumption of such suggestions as the foregoing. A yet +larger number, as we believe, will be astonished by their +essential foolishness. For ourselves, what surprises us most +is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office +of Textual Criticism as applied to the New Testament. It +<emph>never is to invent new Readings</emph>, but only to adjudicate +between existing and conflicting ones. He who seeks to +thrust out <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>the Passover</hi></q> from S. John vi. 4, (where it may +on no account be dispensed with<note place='foot'>See Dr. W. H. Mill's <hi rend='italic'>University Sermons</hi> (1845),—pp. 301-2 and +305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman's library.</note>); and to thrust <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>the Son</hi></q> +into Acts xx. 28, (where His Name cannot stand without +evacuating a grand Theological statement);—will do well to +consider whether he does not bring himself directly under +the awful malediction with which the beloved Disciple concludes +and seals up the Canon of Scripture:—<q>I testify unto +every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this +Book,—If any man shall <emph>add unto</emph> these things, <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> shall +add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. +And if any man shall <emph>take away from</emph> the words of the +Book of this prophecy, <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> shall take away his part out of +the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the +things which are written in this Book.</q><note place='foot'>Rev. xxii. 18, 19.</note> +</p> + +<p> +May we be allowed to assure Dr. Hort that <hi rend='smallcaps'><q>Conjectural +Emendation</q> can be allowed no place whatever in the +Textual Criticism of the New Testament</hi>? He will no +doubt disregard our counsel. May Dr. Scrivener then +<pb n='355'/><anchor id='Pg355'/> +[p. 433] be permitted to remind him that <q>it is now agreed +among competent judges that <emph>Conjectural emendation</emph> must +<emph>never</emph> be resorted to,—even in passages of acknowledged +difficulty</q>? +</p> + +<p> +There is in fact no need for it,—nor can be: so very +ample, as well as so very varied, is the evidence for the +words of the New Testament. +</p> + +<p> +LXXVI. Here however we regret to find we have <emph>both</emph> +Editors against us. They propose <q>the definite question,</q>— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q><q>Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we are +<emph>constrained by overwhelming evidence</emph> to recognize the existence of +Textual error in <emph>all</emph> extant documents?</q> To this question +we have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative.</q>—(p. 279.) +</quote> + +<p> +Behold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. Westcott +and Hort. They flatter themselves that they are able to +produce <q><emph>overwhelming evidence</emph></q> in proof that there are +places where <emph>every extant document</emph> is in error. The instance +on which they both rely, is S. Peter's prophetic announcement +(2 Pet. iii. 10), that in <q>the day of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>,</q> <q>the +earth and the works that are therein <emph>shall be burned up</emph></q> +(κατακαήσεται). +</p> + +<p> +This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased +in an age when men knew no better. Thus, Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> +substitutes—<q><emph>shall vanish away</emph>:</q><note place='foot'>ἀφανισθήσονται.</note> the Syriac and one +Egyptian version,—<q><emph>shall not be found</emph>,</q> (apparently in imitation +of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the <q>not</q> was +accidentally omitted<note place='foot'>This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. A +famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων,—<q><emph>prying +into the things he hath not seen</emph></q>); where א* <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b d</hi>* and a little handful of +suspicious documents leave out the <q><emph>not</emph>.</q> Our Editors, rather than recognize +this blunder (so obvious and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α +ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if +it means anything at all) may as well mean,—<q>proceeding on an airy +foundation to offer an empty conjecture.</q> Dismissing that conjecture as +worthless, we have to set off the whole mass of the copies—against some +6 or 7:—Irenæus (i. 847), Theodoras Mops, (in <hi rend='italic'>loc</hi>.), Chrys. (xi. 372), +Theodoret (iii. 489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers +at all (for Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and +once is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the +diversity of reading, <emph>but only to reject it</emph>.—The Syriac versions, the Vulgate, +Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and Armenian—(we owe the +information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be set against the suspicious +Coptic. All these then are with the Traditional Text: which cannot +seriously be suspected of error.</note> in some very ancient exemplar;—or +<pb n='356'/><anchor id='Pg356'/> +else because it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental +critic who in his simplicity supposed that εὑρεθήσεται +might well represent the Latin <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>urerentur</foreign>,—(somewhat as +Mrs. Quickly warranted <q><emph>hang hog</emph></q> to be Latin for <q>bacon,</q>)—codices +א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> (with four others of later date) exhibit +<q><emph>shall be found</emph>,</q><note place='foot'>εὑρεθήσεται.</note>—which obviously makes utter nonsense of +the place. (Εὑρεθήσεται appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort's +text: <emph>in consequence of which</emph>, the margin of our <q>Revised +Version</q> is disfigured with the statement that <q>The most +ancient manuscripts read <emph>discovered</emph>.</q>) But what is there in +all this to make one distrust the Traditional reading?—supported +as it is by the whole mass of Copies: by the Latin,<note place='foot'>Augustin, vii. 595.</note>—the +Coptic,—the Harkleian,—and the Æthiopic Versions:—besides +the only Fathers who quote the place; viz. Cyril +seven times,<note place='foot'>ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901. <hi rend='italic'>In Luc</hi>. pp. 428, 654.</note> and John Damascene<note place='foot'>ii. 347.</note> once?... As for pretending, +at the end of the foregoing enquiry, that <q>we are <emph>constrained +by overwhelming evidence</emph> to recognize the existence +of textual error <emph>in all extant documents</emph>,</q>—it is evidently a +mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts. +</p> + +<pb n='357'/><anchor id='Pg357'/> + +<p> +LXXVII. And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. +Hort's view of <q>the existence of corruptions</q> of the Text +<q>antecedent to all existing authority,</q><note place='foot'>Preface to <q>Provisional issue,</q> p. xxi.</note>—falls to the ground. +His confident prediction, that such corruptions <q>will sooner +or later have to be acknowledged,</q> may be dismissed with +a smile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not +presume to forecast the Future. +</p> + +<p> +The one <q>matter of fact,</q> which at every step more and +more impresses an attentive student of the Text of Scripture, +is,—(1st), The utterly depraved character of Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and +א: and (2nd), The singular infatuation of Drs. Westcott and +Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices <q><emph>stand alone in their +almost complete immunity from error:</emph></q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 210.</note>—that <q>the fullest +comparison does but increase the conviction that <emph>their pre-eminent +relative purity is approximately absolute</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid</hi>. p. 276.</note> +</p> + +<p> +LXXVIII. Whence is it,—(we have often asked ourselves +the question, while studying these laborious pages,)—How +does it happen that a scholar like Dr. Hort, evidently +accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the +creations of his own brain for material forms? the echoes +of his own voice while holding colloquy with himself, for +oracular responses? We have not hitherto expressed our +astonishment,—but must do so now before we make an end,—that +a writer who desires to convince, can suppose that +his own arbitrary use of such expressions as <q>Pre-Syrian</q> +and <q>Neutral,</q>—<q>Western</q> and <q>Alexandrian,</q>—<q>Non-Western</q> +and <q>Non-Alexandrian,</q>—<q>Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian</q> +and <q>Pre-Syrian Non-Western,</q>—will produce any +(except an irritating) effect on the mind of an intelligent reader. +</p> + +<p> +The delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a +vocabulary a Critic may dispense with the ordinary processes +<pb n='358'/><anchor id='Pg358'/> +of logical proof, might possibly have its beginning in the +retirement of the cloister, where there are few to listen and +none to contradict: but it can only prove abiding if there +has been no free ventilation of the individual fancy. Greatly +is it to be regretted that instead of keeping his Text a +profound secret for 30 years, Dr. Hort did not freely impart +it to the public, and solicit the favour of candid criticism. +</p> + +<p> +Has no friend ever reminded him that assertions concerning +the presence or absence of a <q>Syrian</q> or a <q>Pre-Syrian,</q> +a <q>Western</q> or a <q>Non-Western <emph>element</emph>,</q> are but wind,—the +merest chaff and draff,—<emph>apart from proof</emph>? Repeated <hi rend='italic'>ad +nauseam</hi>, and employed with as much peremptory precision +as if they were recognized terms connoting distinct classes +of Readings,—(whereas they are absolutely without significancy, +except, let us charitably hope, to him who employs +them);—such expressions would only be allowable on the +part of the Critic, if he had first been at the pains to <emph>index +every principal Father</emph>,—and <emph>to reduce Texts to families</emph> by a +laborious process of Induction. Else, they are worse than +foolish. More than an impertinence are they. They bewilder, +and mislead, and for a while encumber and block the way. +</p> + +<p> +LXXIX. This is not all however. Even when these +Editors notice hostile evidence, they do so after a fashion +which can satisfy no one but themselves. Take for example +their note on the word εἰκῆ (<q><emph>without a cause</emph></q>) in S. Matthew +v. 22 (<q>But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his +brother <emph>without a cause</emph></q>). The Reader's attention is specially +invited to the treatment which this place has experienced at +the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort:— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) They unceremoniously eject the word from S. Matthew's +Gospel with their oracular sentence, <q><emph>Western and +Syrian.</emph></q>—Aware that εἰκῆ is recognized by <q>Iren. lat<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>-3</hi>; Eus. +<hi rend='italic'>D. E.</hi> Cyp.,</q> they yet claim for omitting it the authority of +<pb n='359'/><anchor id='Pg359'/> +<q>Just. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242 <hi rend='italic'>fin</hi>.), Tert.; and certainly</q> (they +proceed) <q>Orig. on Eph. iv. 31, noticing both readings, and +similarly Hier. <hi rend='italic'>loc.</hi>, who probably follows Origen: also Ath. +<hi rend='italic'>Pasch.</hi> Syr. 11: Ps.-Ath. <hi rend='italic'>Cast.</hi> ii. 4; and others</q>.... Such +is their <q><hi rend='italic'>Note</hi></q> on S. Matthew v. 22. It is found at p. 8 of +their volume. In consequence, εἰκῆ (<q><emph>without a cause</emph></q>) disappears +from their Text entirely. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) But these learned men are respectfully informed that +neither Justin Martyr, nor Ptolemæus the Gnostic, nor +Irenæus, no, nor Tertullian either,—that <emph>not one of these four +writers</emph>,—supplies the wished-for evidence. As for Origen,—they +are assured that <emph>he</emph>—<emph>not</emph> <q>probably</q> but <emph>certainly</emph>—is the +cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that Athanasius<note place='foot'>Apud Mai, vi. 105.</note> +quotes (<emph>not</emph> S. Matt. v. 22, but) 1 Jo. iii. 15. They are shown +that what they call <q>ps.-Ath. <hi rend='italic'>Cast.</hi></q> is nothing else but a +paraphrastic translation (by <hi rend='italic'>Græculus quidam</hi>) of John Cassian's +<hi rend='italic'>Institutes</hi>,—<q>ii. 4</q> in the Greek representing viii. 20 in +the Latin.... And now, how much of the adverse Evidence +remains? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Only this:—Jerome's three books of Commentary on +the Ephesians, are, in the main, a translation of Origen's +lost 3 books on the same Epistle.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vii. 543. Comp. 369.</note> Commenting on iv. 31, +Origen says that εἰκῆ has been improperly added to the +Text,<note place='foot'>Ap. Cramer, <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> vi. 187.</note>—<emph>which shows that in Origen's copy</emph> εἰκῆ <emph>was found +there</emph>. A few ancient writers in consequence (but only in +consequence) of what Jerome (or rather Origen) thus delivers, +are observed to omit εἰκῆ.<note place='foot'>So, Nilus, i. 270.</note> That is all! +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) May we however respectfully ask these learned +Editors why, besides Irenæus,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Interp.</hi> 595: 607.</note>—Eusebius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dem. Evan.</hi> p. 444.</note>—and Cyprian,<note place='foot'>P. 306.</note>—they +<pb n='360'/><anchor id='Pg360'/> +do not mention that εἰκῆ is <emph>also</emph> the reading of Justin +Martyr,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Epist. ad Zen.</hi> iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered this +to be a <emph>genuine</emph> work of Justin M. (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150).</note>—of Origen himself,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Cantic.</hi> (an early work) <hi rend='italic'>interp.</hi> iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i. 112, 181 +[?]: ii. 305 <hi rend='italic'>int.</hi> [but <emph>not</emph> ii. 419]) he is for leaving out εἰκῆ.</note>—of the <hi rend='italic'>Constitutiones App.</hi>,<note place='foot'>Gall. iii. 72 and 161.</note>—of +Basil three times,<note place='foot'>ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> of Nicetas) <emph>expressly</emph>: 265.</note>—of Gregory of Nyssa,<note place='foot'>i. 818 <emph>expressly</emph>.</note>—of Epiphanius,<note place='foot'>ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome's Latin translation, i. 240).</note>—of +Ephraem Syrus twice,<note place='foot'>i. 132; iii. 442.</note>—of Isidorus twice,<note place='foot'>472, 634.</note>—of +Theodore of Mops.,—of Chrysostom 18 times,—of the +<hi rend='italic'>Opus imp.</hi> twice,<note place='foot'>Ap. Chrys.</note>—of Cyril<note place='foot'>iii. 768: <hi rend='italic'>apud Mai</hi>, ii. 6 and iii. 268.</note>—and of Theodoret<note place='foot'>i. 48, 664; iv. 946.</note>—(each in +3 places). It was also the reading of Severus, Abp. of +Antioch:<note place='foot'>Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi> viii. 12, line 14.</note>—as well as of Hilary,<note place='foot'>128, 625.</note>—Lucifer,<note place='foot'>Gall. vi. 181.</note>—Salvian,<note place='foot'>Gall. x. 14.</note>—Philastrius,<note place='foot'>Gall. vii. 509.</note>—Augustine, +and—Jerome,<note place='foot'>i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he +was 84.</note>—(although, when +translating from Origen, he pronounces against εἰκῆ<note place='foot'>vii. 26,—<q><emph>Radendum est ergo</emph> sine causâ.</q> And so, at p. 636.</note>):—not +to mention Antiochus mon.,<note place='foot'>1064.</note>—J. Damascene,<note place='foot'>ii. 261.</note>—Maximus,<note place='foot'>ii. 592.</note>—Photius,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Amphilochia</hi>, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also in <hi rend='italic'>Cat.</hi></note>—Euthymius,—Theophylact,—and +others?<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Apophthegm. PP.</hi> [ap. Cotel. <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. Gr. Mon.</hi> i. 622].</note>... +We have adduced no less than <emph>thirty</emph> ancient witnesses. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) Our present contention however is but this,—that a +Reading which is attested by <emph>every uncial Copy of the Gospels +except</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and</emph> א; by a whole <emph>torrent of Fathers</emph>; by <emph>every +known copy</emph> of the old Latin,—by <emph>all</emph> the Syriac, (for the +Peschito inserts [not translates] the word εἰκῆ,)—by the +<pb n='361'/><anchor id='Pg361'/> +Coptic,—as well as by the Gothic—and Armenian versions;—that +such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid +dictum, <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Western and Syrian</hi>.</q> By no such methods will the +study of Textual Criticism be promoted, or any progress ever +be made in determining the Truth of Scripture. There really +can be no doubt whatever,—(that is to say, if we are to be +guided by <emph>ancient Evidence</emph>,)—that εἰκῆ (<q><emph>without a cause</emph></q>) was +our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> actual word; and that our Revisers have been +here, as in so many hundred other places, led astray by Dr. +Hort. So true is that saying of the ancient poet,—<q>Evil +company doth corrupt good manners.</q> <q>And if the blind +lead the blind,</q>—(a greater than Menander hath said it,)—<q><emph>both +shall fall into the ditch</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>S. Matth. xv. 14.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) In the meantime, we have exhibited somewhat in detail, +Drs. Westcott and Hort's Annotation on εἰκῆ, [S. Matth. +v. 22,] in order to furnish our Readers with at least <emph>one definite +specimen</emph> of the Editorial skill and Critical ability of +these two accomplished Professors. Their general practice, +as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. <ref target='Pg347'>347-9</ref>,] +is to tamper with the sacred Text, without assigning their +authority,—indeed, without offering apology of any kind. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) The <emph>sum</emph> of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א (the <q>two false Witnesses</q>),—<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, <emph>alone of MSS.</emph>—omit +εἰκῆ. On the strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded +his fellow Revisers to omit <q><emph>without a cause</emph></q> from their +Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that +every Englishman's copy of S. Matthew v. 22 shall be mutilated +in the same way for ever.... <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Delirant reges, plectuntur +Achivi.</foreign> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) But the question arises—Will the Church of England +submit to have her immemorial heritage thus filched from +<pb n='362'/><anchor id='Pg362'/> +her? We shall be astonished indeed if she proves so regardless +of her birthright. +</p> + +<p> +LXXX. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors +have led them so to handle evidence, that the sense of proportion +seems to have forsaken them. <q>He who has long +pondered over a train of Reasoning,</q>—(remarks the elder +Critic,)—<q><emph>becomes unable to detect its weak points</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Gospel of the Resurrection</hi>,—p. vii.</note> Yes, +the <q>idols of the den</q> exercise at last a terrible ascendency +over the Critical judgment. It argues an utter want of +mental perspective, when we find <q>the Man working on the +Sabbath,</q> put on the same footing with <q>the Woman taken +in Adultery,</q> and conjectured to have <q><emph>come from the same +source</emph>:</q>—the incident of <q>the Angel troubling the pool of +Bethesda</q> dismissed, as having <q><emph>no claim to any kind of +association with the true Text</emph>:</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, pp. 300-2.</note>—and <q>the <emph>two</emph> Supplements</q> +to S. Mark's Gospel declared to <q><emph>stand on equal terms</emph> as +independent attempts to fill up a gap;</q> and allowed to be +possibly <q><emph>of equal antiquity.</emph></q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 299.</note> How can we wonder, after +this, to find <emph>anything</emph> omitted,—<emph>anything</emph> inserted,—<emph>anything</emph> +branded with suspicion? And the brand is very freely applied +by Drs. Westcott and Hort. Their notion of the Text +of the New Testament, is certainly the most extraordinary +ever ventilated. It has at least the merit of entire originality. +While they eagerly insist that many a passage is but <q>a +Western interpolation</q> after all; is but an <q>Evangelic Tradition,</q> +<q>rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second +century;</q>—they yet <emph>incorporate those passages with the +Gospel</emph>. Careful enough to clap them into fetters first, they +then, (to use their own queer phrase,)—<q><emph>provisionally +associate them with the Text</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<pb n='363'/><anchor id='Pg363'/> + +<p> +LXXXI. We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who +<q><emph>cannot doubt</emph></q> that a certain verse <q>comes from an extraneous +source,</q>—<q><emph>do not believe</emph> that it belonged originally to the +Book in which it is now included,</q>—are unreasonable if they +proceed to assign to it <emph>any</emph> actual place there at all. When +men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two +Verses of S. Luke's Gospel are <emph>not Scripture</emph>, but <q>only a +fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were +for a while locally current;</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>, p. 66.</note>—what else is it but the +merest trifling with sacred Truth, to promote those two +verses to a place in the inspired context? Is it not to be +feared, that the conscious introduction of <emph>human Tradition</emph> +into <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> <emph>written Word</emph> will in the end destroy the soul's +confidence in Scripture itself? opening the door for perplexity, +and doubt, and presently for Unbelief itself to enter. +</p> + +<p> +LXXXII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand +there <q>provisionally</q> only; and for that reason are <q>enclosed +within double brackets.</q> Suspected felons are <q>provisionally</q> +locked up, it is true: but after trial, they are either convicted +and removed out of sight; or else they are acquitted +and suffered to come abroad like other men. Drs. Westcott +and Hort have <emph>no right</emph> at the end of thirty years of investigation, +<emph>still</emph> to encumber the Evangelists with <q>provisional</q> +fetters. Those fetters either signify that the Judge is <emph>afraid +to carry out his own righteous sentence</emph>: or else, that he <emph>entertains +a secret suspicion that he has made a terrible mistake +after all,—has condemned the innocent</emph>. Let these esteemed +Scholars at least have <q>the courage of their own convictions,</q> +and be throughout as consistent as, in two famous instances +(viz. at pages 113 and 241), they have been. Else, in <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> +Name, let them have the manliness to avow themselves in +<pb n='364'/><anchor id='Pg364'/> +error: abjure their πρῶτον ψεῦδος; and cast the fantastic +Theory, which they have so industriously reared upon it, +unreservedly, to the winds! +</p> + +<p> +LXXXIII. To conclude.—It will be the abiding distinction +of the Revised Version (<emph>thanks to Dr. Hort,</emph>) that it brought +to the front a question which has slept for about 100 years; +but which may not be suffered now to rest undisturbed any +longer. It might have slumbered on for another half-century,—a +subject of deep interest to a very little band of +Divines and Scholars; of perplexity and distrust to all the +World besides;—<emph>but</emph> for the incident which will make the +17th of May, 1881, for ever memorable in the Annals of the +Church of England. +</p> + +<p> +LXXXIV. The Publication on that day of the <q>Revised +English Version of the New Testament</q> instantly concentrated +public attention on the neglected problem: for men +saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 years' +standing,—(the exact number is Dr. Hort's, not ours,)—had +been unceremoniously set aside in favour of <emph>an entirely different +Recension</emph>. The true Authors of the mischief were not far to +seek. Just five days before,—under the editorship of Drs. +Westcott and Hort, (Revisionists themselves,)—had appeared +the most extravagant Text which has seen the light since the +invention of Printing. No secret was made of the fact that, +under pledges of strictest secrecy,<note place='foot'>See Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 432.</note> a copy of this wild performance +(marked <q>Confidential</q>) had been entrusted to +every member of the Revising body: and it has since transpired +that Dr. Hort advocated his own peculiar views in the +Jerusalem Chamber with so much volubility, eagerness, pertinacity, +and plausibility, that in the end—notwithstanding +<pb n='365'/><anchor id='Pg365'/> +the warnings, remonstrances, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener,—his +counsels prevailed; and—the utter shipwreck of the +<q>Revised Version</q> has been, (as might have been confidently +predicted,) the disastrous consequence. Dr. Hort is calculated +to have <emph>talked for three years</emph> out of the ten. +</p> + +<p> +But in the meantime there has arisen <emph>this</emph> good out of the +calamity,—namely, that men will at last require that the +Textual problem shall be fairly threshed out. They will +insist on having it proved to their satisfaction,—(1) That +Codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א are indeed the oracular documents which +their admirers pretend; and—(2) That a narrow selection +of ancient documents is a secure foundation on which to +build the Text of Scripture. Failing this,—(and the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>onus +probandi</foreign> rests wholly with those who are for setting aside +the Traditional Text in favour of another, <emph>entirely dissimilar +in character</emph>,)—failing this, we say, it is reasonable to hope +that the counsels of the <q><hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi></q> will be suffered +to prevail. In the meantime, we repeat that this question +has now to be fought out: for to ignore it any longer is +impossible. Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting +parties, is impossible also; for they simply contradict +one another. Codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א are either among the purest +of manuscripts,—or else they are among the very foulest. +The Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best +which has ever appeared,—or else it is the very worst; the +nearest to the sacred Autographs,—or the furthest from them. +There is no room for <emph>both</emph> opinions; and there cannot exist +any middle view. +</p> + +<p> +The question will have to be fought out; and it must be +fought out fairly. It may not be magisterially settled; but +must be advocated, on either side, by the old logical method. +If Continental Scholars join in the fray, England,—which +<pb n='366'/><anchor id='Pg366'/> +in the last century took the lead in these studies,—will, it +is to be hoped, maintain her ancient reputation and again +occupy the front rank. The combatants may be sure that, +in consequence of all that has happened, the public will be +no longer indifferent spectators of the fray; for the issue +concerns the inner life of the whole community,—touches +men's very heart of hearts. Certain it is that—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> defend +<emph>the Right</emph>!</q> will be the one aspiration of every faithful spirit +among us. <hi rend='smallcaps'>The Truth</hi>,—(we avow it on behalf of Drs. +Westcott and Hort as eagerly as on our own behalf,)—<hi rend='smallcaps'>God's +Truth</hi> will be, as it has been throughout, the one object of +all our striving. Αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='bold'>I HAVE BEEN VERY JEALOUS FOR THE LORD GOD OF HOSTS.</hi> +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='367'/><anchor id='Pg367'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Letter To Bishop Ellicott, In Reply To His Pamphlet.</head> + +<pb n='368'/><anchor id='Pg368'/> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q>Nothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident +feelings of veneration for our Authorized Version, and the very generally-felt +desire for <emph>as little change as possible</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop Ellicott.</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>,—p. 99.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>We may be satisfied with the attempt to correct <emph>plain and clear +errors</emph>, but <emph>there it is our duty to stop</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop Ellicott.</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Speech in Convocation</hi>, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>We have now, at all events, no fear of <emph>an over-corrected Version</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop +Ellicott.</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>,—p. 205.</note> +</p> + +<p> +<q>I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet +in every page with small <emph>changes, which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating, +even the more so because they are small; which seem almost to be +made for the sake of change</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop Wordsworth.</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference</hi>,—p. 25.</note> +</p> + +<p> +[The question arises,]—<q>Whether the Church of England,—which in +her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of +her Authorized Version <emph>under the express condition</emph>, which she most wisely +imposed, that <emph>no Changes should be made in it except what were absolutely +necessary</emph>,—could consistently accept a Version in which 36,000 changes +have been made; <emph>not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even +desirable</emph>.</q>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop Wordsworth.</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>,—p. 27.</note> +</p> + +</quote> + +<pb n='369'/><anchor id='Pg369'/> + +<p> +Letter To<lb/> +The Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D.D.,<lb/> +Bishop Of Gloucester And Bristol,<lb/> +In Reply To His Pamphlet In Defence Of<lb/> +The Revisers And Their Greek Text Of<lb/> +The New Testament. +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'><hi rend='smallcaps'>What course would Revisers have us to follow?... Would +it be well for them to agree on a Critical Greek Text? <emph>To +this question we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in the +negative.</emph></hi></q> +</p> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Though we have much critical material, and a very fair +amount of critical knowledge, <emph>we have certainly not yet acquired +sufficient Critical Judgment</emph> for any body of Revisers +hopefully to undertake such a work as this.</hi></q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bishop Ellicott.</hi><note place='foot'><p><hi rend='italic'>Considerations on Revision</hi>,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May, +1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June. +</p> +<p> +We learn from Dr. Newth's <hi rend='italic'>Lectures on Bible Revision</hi> (1881), +that,—<q>As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be carried +out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened +discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first +meeting was able to enter at once upon its work</q> (p. 118) ... <q>The +portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv.</q> (p. 119) ... +<q>The question of the spelling of proper names ... being settled, the +Company proceeded to the actual details of the Revision, and in a +surprisingly short time settled down to an established method of procedure.</q>—<q>All +proposals made at the first Revision were decided by +simple majorities</q> (p. 122) ... <q><emph>The questions which concerned the Greek +Text were decided for the most part at the First Revision.</emph></q> (Bp. Ellicott's +<hi rend='italic'>Pamphlet</hi>, p. 34.)</p></note> +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>My Lord Bishop</hi>, +</p> + +<p> +Last May, you published a pamphlet of seventy-nine +pages<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two +Members of the New Testament Company</hi>,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79, +price two shillings and sixpence.</note> in vindication of the Greek Text recently put forth by +<pb n='370'/><anchor id='Pg370'/> +the New Testament Company of Revisers. It was (you said) +your Answer to the first and second of my Articles in the +<hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi>:<note place='foot'><q>To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with +the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an +answer.</q>—p. 79.</note>—all three of which, corrected and +enlarged, are now submitted to the public for the second +time. See above, from page 1 to page 367. +</p> + +<div> +<head>[1] Preliminary Statement.</head> + +<p> +You may be quite sure that I examined your pamphlet as +soon as it appeared, with attention. I have since read it +through several times: and—I must add—with ever-increasing +astonishment. First, because it is so evidently the production +of one who has never made Textual Criticism seriously his +study. Next, because your pamphlet is no refutation whatever +of my two Articles. You flout me: you scold me: you lecture +me. But I do not find that you ever <emph>answer</emph> me. You reproduce +the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which I +claim to have demolished.<note place='foot'>See above, pages <ref target='Pg235'>235</ref> to 366.</note> You seek to put me down by +flourishing in my face the decrees of Lachmann, Tischendorf +and Tregelles,—which, as you are well aware, I entirely disallow. +Denunciation, my lord Bishop, is not Argument; +neither is Reiteration, Proof. And then,—Why do you impute +to me opinions which I do not hold? and charge me with a +method of procedure of which I have never been guilty? +Above all, why do you seek to prejudice the question at +issue between us by importing irrelevant matter which can +only impose upon the ignorant and mislead the unwary? +Forgive my plainness, but really you are so conspicuously +unfair,—and at the same time so manifestly unacquainted, +<pb n='371'/><anchor id='Pg371'/> +(except at second-hand and only in an elementary way,) +with the points actually under discussion,—that, were it not +for the adventitious importance attaching to any utterance of +yours, deliberately put forth at this time as Chairman of the +New Testament body of Revisers, I should have taken no +notice of your pamphlet. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[2] The Bishop's pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed +of, three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer's +Third Article.</head> + +<p> +I am bound, at the same time, to acknowledge that you +have been singularly unlucky. While <emph>you</emph> were penning +your Defence, (namely, throughout the first four months of +1882,) <emph>I</emph> was making a fatal inroad into your position, by +showing how utterly without foundation is the <q>Textual +Theory</q> to which you and your co-Revisers have been so +rash as to commit yourselves.<note place='foot'>Article III.,—see last note.</note> This fact I find duly recognized +in your <q>Postscript.</q> <q>Since the foregoing pages were +in print</q> (you say,) <q>a third article has appeared in the +<hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi>, entitled <q>Westcott and Hort's Textual +Theory.</q></q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Pamphlet</hi>, p. 79.</note> Yes. <emph>I</emph> came before the public on the 16th of +April; <emph>you</emph> on the 4th of May, 1882. In this way, your pamphlet +was anticipated,—had in fact been fully disposed of, +three weeks before it appeared. <q>The Reviewer,</q> (you complain +at page 4,) <q>censures their [Westcott and Hort's] Text: +<emph>in neither Article has he attempted a serious examination of +the arguments which they allege in its support</emph>.</q> But, (as +explained,) the <q>serious examination</q> which you reproach +me with having hitherto failed to produce,—had been already +three weeks in the hands of readers of the <hi rend='italic'>Quarterly</hi> before +your pamphlet saw the light. You would, in consequence, +<pb n='372'/><anchor id='Pg372'/> +have best consulted your own reputation, I am persuaded, +had you instantly recalled and suppressed your printed +sheets. <emph>What</emph>, at all events, you can have possibly meant, +while publishing them, by adding (in your <q>Postscript</q> at +page 79,)—<q><emph>In this controversy it is not for us to interpose:</emph></q> and +again,—<q><emph>We find nothing in the Reviewer's third article to +require further answer from us:</emph></q>—passes my comprehension; +seeing that your pamphlet (page 11 to page 29) is an +elaborate avowal that you have made Westcott and Hort's +theory entirely your own. The Editor of the <hi rend='italic'>Speaker's +Commentary</hi>, I observe, takes precisely the same view of +your position. <q>The two Revisers</q> (says Canon Cook) +<q>actually add a Postscript to their pamphlet of a single +short page noticing their unexpected anticipation by the +third <hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi> article; with the remark that <q>in +this controversy (between Westcott and Hort and the +Reviewer) it is not for us to interfere:</q>—as if Westcott and +Hort's theory of Greek Revision could be refuted, or seriously +damaged, without <emph>cutting the ground from under the Committee +of Revisers on the whole of this subject</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its bearings +upon the record of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> Words and of incidents in His Life</hi>,—(1882. +pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook's temperate and very +interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.</note> +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of +procedure.</head> + +<p> +I should enter at once on an examination of your Reply, +but that I am constrained at the outset to remonstrate with you +on the exceeding unfairness of your entire method of procedure. +Your business was to make it plain to the public that you +have dealt faithfully with the Deposit: have strictly fulfilled +the covenant into which you entered twelve years ago with +<pb n='373'/><anchor id='Pg373'/> +the Convocation of the Southern Province: have corrected +only <q><emph>plain and clear errors</emph>.</q> Instead of this, you labour to +enlist vulgar prejudice against me:—partly, by insisting that +I am for determining disputed Readings by an appeal to the +<q>Textus Receptus,</q>—which (according to you) I look upon as +faultless:—partly, by exhibiting me in disagreement with +Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. The irrelevancy of +this latter contention,—the groundlessness of the former,—may +not be passed over without a few words of serious remonstrance. +For I claim that, in discussing the Greek Text, +I have invariably filled my pages as full of <emph>Authorities</emph> +for the opinions I advocate, as the limits of the page would +allow. I may have been tediously demonstrative sometimes: +but no one can fairly tax me with having shrunk from the +severest method of evidential proof. To find myself therefore +charged with <q>mere denunciation,</q><note place='foot'>P. 40.</note>—with substituting +<q>strong expressions of individual opinion</q> for <q>arguments,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi></note>—and +with <q>attempting to cut the cord by reckless and unverified +assertions,</q> (p. 25,)—astonishes me. Such language +is in fact even ridiculously unfair. +</p> + +<p> +The misrepresentation of which I complain is not only +conspicuous, but systematic. It runs through your whole +pamphlet: is admitted by yourself at the close,—(viz. at +p. 77,)—<emph>to be half the sum of your entire contention</emph>. Besides +cropping up repeatedly,<note place='foot'>As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.</note> it finds deliberate and detailed +expression when you reach the middle of your essay,—viz. at +p. 41: where, with reference to certain charges which I not +only bring against codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi>, but laboriously substantiate +by a free appeal to the contemporary evidence of Copies, +Versions, and Fathers,—you venture to express yourself concerning +me as follows:— +</p> + +<pb n='374'/><anchor id='Pg374'/> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>To attempt to sustain such charges by a rough comparison +of these ancient authorities with the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Textus Receptus</hi>, and to +measure the degree of their depravation <emph>by the amount of their +divergence from such a text as we have shown this Received Text +really to be</emph>, is to trifle with the subject of sacred Criticism.</q>—p. +41. +</quote> + +<p> +You add:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Until the depravation of these ancient Manuscripts has been +demonstrated in a manner more consistent with <emph>the recognized +principles of Criticism</emph>, such charges as those to which we allude +must be regarded as expressions of passion, or prejudice, and set +aside by every impartial reader as assertions for which no +adequate evidence has yet been produced.</q>—pp. 41-2. +</quote> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[4] (Which be <q>the recognized principles of Textual Criticism</q>?—a +question asked in passing.)</head> + +<p> +But give me leave to ask in passing,—<emph>Which</emph>, pray, <emph>are</emph> +<q>the recognized principles of Criticism</q> to which you refer? +I profess I have never met with them yet; and I am sure it +has not been for want of diligent enquiry. You have publicly +charged me before your Diocese with being <q>innocently ignorant +of the <emph>now established principles</emph> of Textual Criticism.</q><note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg348'>348-350</ref>.</note> +But why do you not state which those principles <emph>are</emph>? I +am surprised. You are for ever vaunting <q><emph>principles</emph> which +have been established by the investigations and reasonings</q> of +Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles:<note place='foot'>P. 40.</note>—<q>the <emph>principles</emph> of +Textual Criticism which are accepted and recognized by the +great majority of modern Textual Critics:</q><note place='foot'>P. 40.</note>—<q>the <emph>principles</emph> +on which the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years has been +based:</q><note place='foot'>P. 77.</note>—but you never condescend to explain <emph>which be</emph> the +<q>principles</q> you refer to. For the last time,—<emph>Who</emph> established +those <q>Principles</q>? and, <emph>Where</emph> are they to be seen +<q>established</q>? +</p> + +<pb n='375'/><anchor id='Pg375'/> + +<p> +I will be so candid with you as frankly to avow that the +<emph>only two</emph> <q>principles</q> with which I am acquainted as held, +with anything like consent, by <q>the modern Textual Critics</q> +to whom you have surrendered your judgment, are—(1st) +A robust confidence in the revelations of their own inner +consciousness: and (2ndly) A superstitious partiality for +two codices written in the uncial character,—for which partiality +they are able to assign no intelligible reason. You put +the matter as neatly as I could desire at page 19 of your +Essay,—where you condemn, with excusable warmth, <q>those +who adopt the easy method of <emph>using some favourite Manuscript</emph>,</q>—or +of exercising <q><emph>some supposed power of divining the +original Text;</emph></q>—as if those were <q>the only necessary +agents for correcting the Received Text.</q> <emph>Why</emph> the evidence +of codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א,—and perhaps the evidence of the +VIth-century codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>,—(<q>the singular codex</q> as you call it; +and it is certainly a very singular codex indeed:)—<emph>why</emph>, I +say, the evidence of these two or three codices should be +thought to outweigh the evidence of all other documents in +existence,—whether Copies, Versions, or Fathers,—I have +never been able to discover, nor have their admirers ever +been able to tell me. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[5] Bp. Ellicott's and the Reviewer's respective methods, contrasted.</head> + +<p> +Waiving this however, (for it is beside the point,) I venture +to ask,—With what show of reason can you pretend +that I <q><emph>sustain my charges</emph></q> against codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi>, <q><emph>by a +rough comparison of these ancient authorities with the</emph> Textus +Receptus</q>?<note place='foot'>P. 41, and so at p. 77.</note>... Will you deny that it is a mere misrepresentation +of the plain facts of the case, to say so? Have I +not, on the contrary, <emph>on every occasion</emph> referred Readings in +<pb n='376'/><anchor id='Pg376'/> +dispute,—the reading of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c l</hi> on the one hand, the reading +of the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> on the other,—simultaneously to one +and the same external standard? Have I not persistently +enquired for the verdict—so far as it has been obtainable—of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>consentient Antiquity</hi>? If I have sometimes spoken of +certain famous manuscripts (א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d</hi> namely,) as exhibiting +fabricated Texts, have I not been at the pains to establish the +reasonableness of my assertion by showing that they yield +divergent,—that is <emph>contradictory</emph>, testimony? +</p> + +<p> +The task of laboriously collating the five <q>old uncials</q> +throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, +and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the +investigation profoundly convinced that, however important +they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b c d</hi> are +among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction +derived from exact <emph>Knowledge</emph> and based on solid +grounds of <emph>Reason</emph>. You, my lord Bishop, who have never +gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on <emph>Prejudice</emph>. +Never having at any time collated codices א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d</hi> for yourself, +you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine +by a counter-appeal to <emph>facts</emph>. Your textual learning proves +to have been all obtained at second-hand,—taken on trust. +And so, instead of marshalling against me a corresponding +array of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Ancient Authorities</hi>,—you invariably attempt to +put me down by an appeal to <hi rend='smallcaps'>Modern Opinion</hi>. <q>The +<emph>majority of modern Critics</emph></q> (you say) have declared the +manuscripts in question <q>not only to be wholly undeserving +of such charges, but, on the contrary, to exhibit a text of +comparative purity.</q><note place='foot'>P. 41.</note> +</p> + +<p> +The sum of the difference therefore between our respective +methods, my lord Bishop, proves to be this:—that +<pb n='377'/><anchor id='Pg377'/> +whereas <emph>I</emph> endeavour by a laborious accumulation of +<emph>ancient Evidence</emph> to demonstrate that the decrees of Lachmann, +of Tischendorf and of Tregelles, <emph>are untrustworthy</emph>; +<emph>your</emph> way of reducing me to silence, is to cast Lachmann, +Tregelles and Tischendorf at every instant in my teeth. You +make your appeal exclusively to <emph>them</emph>. <q>It would be difficult</q> +(you say) <q>to find a recent English Commentator of +any considerable reputation who has not been influenced, more +or less consistently, by <emph>one or the other of these three Editors</emph>:</q><note place='foot'>P. 5.</note> +(as if <emph>that</emph> were any reason why I should do the same!) +Because I pronounce the Revised reading of S. Luke ii. 14, +<q>a grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture,</q> you bid me +consider <q>that in so speaking I am <emph>censuring Lachmann, +Tischendorf and Tregelles</emph>.</q> You seem in fact to have utterly +missed the point of my contention: which is, that the +ancient Fathers collectively (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150 to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 450),—inasmuch +as they must needs have known far better than Lachmann, +Tregelles, or Tischendorf, (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1830 to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1880,) what was +the Text of the New Testament in the earliest ages,—are +perforce far more trustworthy guides than they. And further, +that whenever it can be clearly shown that the Ancients as a +body say one thing, and the Moderns another, the opinion of +the Moderns may be safely disregarded. +</p> + +<p> +When therefore I open your pamphlet at the first page, +and read as follows:—<q>A bold assault has been made in +recent numbers of the <hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi> upon the whole +fabric of Criticism which has been built up <emph>during the last +fifty years</emph> by the patient labour of successive editors of the +New Testament,</q><note place='foot'>P. 3.</note>—I fail to discover that any practical +inconvenience results to myself from your announcement. +The same plaintive strain reappears at p. 39; where, having +<pb n='378'/><anchor id='Pg378'/> +pointed out <q>that the text of the Revisers is, in all essential +features, the same as that text in which the best critical +editors, <emph>during the past fifty years</emph>, are generally agreed,</q>—you +insist <q>that thus, any attack made on the text of the +Revisers is really an attack on the critical principles that +have been carefully and laboriously established <emph>during the +last half-century</emph>.</q> With the self-same pathetic remonstrance +you conclude your labours. <q>If,</q> (you say) <q>the Revisers +are wrong in the principles which they have applied to +the determination of the Text, <emph>the principles</emph> on which the +Textual Criticism of <emph>the last fifty years</emph> has been based, are +wrong also.</q><note place='foot'>P. 77.</note>... Are you then not yet aware that the alternative +which seems to you so alarming is in fact my whole contention? +What else do you imagine it is that I am proposing +to myself throughout, but effectually to dispel the +vulgar prejudice,—say rather, to plant my heel upon the +weak superstition,—which <q><emph>for the last fifty years</emph></q> has proved +fatal to progress in this department of learning; and which, +if it be suffered to prevail, will make <emph>a science</emph> of Textual +Criticism impossible? A shallow empiricism has been the +prevailing result, up to this hour, of the teaching of +Lachmann, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882.</head> + +<p> +A word in your private ear, (by your leave) in passing. +You seem to have forgotten that, at the time when you +entered on the work of Revision, <emph>your own</emph> estimate of the +Texts put forth by these Editors was the reverse of favourable; +<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> was scarcely distinguishable from that of your +present correspondent. Lachmann's you described as <q>a +text composed on <emph>the narrowest and most exclusive</emph> principles,</q>—<q>really +based on <emph>little more than four manuscripts</emph>.</q>—<q>The +<pb n='379'/><anchor id='Pg379'/> +case of Tischendorf</q> (you said) <q>is still more easily +disposed of. Which of this most inconstant Critic's texts are +we to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated +preference for a single manuscript has betrayed him into <emph>an +almost childlike infirmity of judgment</emph>. Surely also not the +seventh edition, which exhibits all the instability which a +comparatively recent recognition of the authority of cursive +manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce.</q>—As for +poor Tregelles, you said:—<q>His critical principles ... are +now, perhaps justly, called in question.</q> His text <q>is rigid and +mechanical, and sometimes fails to disclose <emph>that critical instinct +and peculiar scholarly sagacity which</emph></q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>, pp. 47-8.</note> have since evidently +disclosed themselves in perfection in those Members of the +Revising body who, with Bp. Ellicott at their head, systematically +outvoted Prebendary Scrivener in the Jerusalem +Chamber. But with what consistency, my lord Bishop, do +you to-day vaunt <q>the principles</q> of the very men whom +yesterday you vilipended precisely because <emph>their <q>principles</q></emph> +then seemed to yourself so utterly unsatisfactory? +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[7] <q>The fabric of modern Textual Criticism</q> (1831-81) +rests on an insecure basis.</head> + +<p> +I have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seems, +because I have ventured to send a shower of shot and shell +into the flimsy decrees of these three Critics which now you +are pleased grandiloquently to designate and describe as +<q><emph>the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up within +the last fifty years</emph>.</q> Permit me to remind you that the +<q>fabric</q> you speak of,—(confessedly a creation of yesterday,)—rests +upon a foundation of sand; and has been already so +formidably assailed, or else so gravely condemned by a succession +of famous Critics, that as <q><emph>a fabric</emph>,</q> its very +<pb n='380'/><anchor id='Pg380'/> +existence may be reasonably called in question. Tischendorf +insists on the general depravity (<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>universa vitiositas</foreign></q>) of +codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>; on which codex nevertheless Drs. Westcott and +Hort chiefly rely,—regarding it as unique in its pre-eminent +purity. The same pair of Critics depreciate the Traditional +Text as <q>beyond all question identical with the dominant +[Greek] Text <emph>of the second half of the fourth century</emph>:</q>—whereas, +<q><emph>to bring the sacred text back to the condition in which +it existed during the fourth century</emph>,</q><note place='foot'>Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>,—p. 423.</note> was Lachmann's one +object; the sum and substance of his striving. <q>The fancy +of a Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that has +been grounded on its presumed existence,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 421.</note> Tregelles +declares to have been <q>swept away at once and for ever,</q> by +Scrivener's published Collations. And yet, what else but +<emph>this</emph> is <q>the fancy,</q> (as already explained,) on which Drs. +Westcott and Hort have been for thirty years building +up their visionary Theory of Textual Criticism?—What +Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], was denounced [1782-1805] +by C. F. Matthæi;—disapproved by Scholz;—demonstrated +to be untenable by Abp. Laurence. Finally, +in 1847, the learned J. G. Reiche, in some Observations +prefixed to his Collations of MSS. in the Paris Library, +eloquently and ably exposed the unreasonableness of <emph>any</emph> +theory of <q>Recension,</q>—properly so called;<note place='foot'><q>Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto silentium,—sed +etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum +viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto, deque +summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones inde a +primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento, neminem +opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et calumniis +obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de singulis locis +disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Codd. +MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova descriptio, et cum textu vulgo +recepto Collatio, &c.</hi> 4to. Gottingæ, 1847. (p. 4.)</note> thereby effectually +<pb n='381'/><anchor id='Pg381'/> +anticipating Westcott and Hort's weak imagination +of a <q><emph>Syrian</emph> Text,</q> while he was demolishing the airy +speculations of Griesbach and Hug. <q>There is no royal +road</q> (he said) <q>to the Criticism of the N. T.: no plain and +easy method, at once reposing on a firm foundation, and +conducting securely to the wished for goal.</q><note place='foot'>He proceeds:—<q>Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto, +continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium singulorum, +ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium testimonium +pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero aliquot duces +auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum, certum firmumque +sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio careamus.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> (p. 19.)</note>... Scarcely +therefore in Germany had the basement-story been laid +of that <q>fabric of Criticism which has been built up during +the last fifty years,</q> and which <emph>you</emph> superstitiously admire,—when +a famous German scholar was heard denouncing the +fabric as insecure. He foretold that the <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>regia via</foreign></q> of +codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א would prove a deceit and a snare: which +thing, at the end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually +come to pass. +</p> + +<p> +Seven years after, Lachmann's method was solemnly +appealed from by the same J. G. Reiche:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Commentarius Criticus in N. T.</hi> (in his Preface to the Ep. to the +Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to this. +See by all means his <hi rend='italic'>Revised Text of the first three Gospels</hi>,—pp. 4-8.</note> whose words of +warning to his countrymen deserve the attention of every +thoughtful scholar among ourselves at this day. Of the +same general tenor and purport as Reiche's, are the utterances +of those giants in Textual Criticism, Vercellone of +Rome and Ceriani of Milan. Quite unmistakable is the +verdict of our own Scrivener concerning the views of +Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to +which their system has severally conducted them.—If Alford +adopted the prejudices of his three immediate predecessors, +<pb n='382'/><anchor id='Pg382'/> +his authority has been neutralized by the far different teaching +of one infinitely his superior in judgment and learning,—the +present illustrious Bishop of Lincoln.—On the same +side with the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey +and Archd. Lee,—Canon Cook and Dr. Field,—the Bishop of +S. Andrews and Dr. S. C. Malan. Lastly, at the end of +fifty-one years, (viz. in 1881,) Drs. Westcott and Hort have +revived Lachmann's unsatisfactory method,—superadding +thereto not a few extravagances of their own. That their +views have been received with expressions of the gravest +disapprobation, no one will deny. Indispensable to their +contention is the grossly improbable hypothesis that the +Peschito is to be regarded as the <q>Vulgate</q> (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> the <emph>Revised</emph>) +Syriac; Cureton's, as the <q>Vetus</q> or <emph>original</emph> Syriac version. +And yet, while I write, the Abbé Martin at Paris is giving it +as the result of his labours on this subject, that Cureton's +Version cannot be anything of the sort.<note place='foot'>It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the +present writer,) the <q>Post-scriptum</q> of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from p. 234 to +p. 236,) is a <foreign lang='fr' rend='italic'>jeu d'esprit</foreign> only,—intended to enliven a dry subject, and to +entertain his pupils.</note> Whether Westcott +and Hort's theory of a <q><emph>Syrian</emph></q> Text has not received an +effectual quietus, let posterity decide. Ἁμέραι δ᾽ ἐπίλοιποι +μάρτυρες σοφώτατοι. +</p> + +<p> +From which it becomes apparent that, at all events, <q>the +fabric of Criticism which has been built up within the last +fifty years</q> has not arisen without solemn and repeated +protest,—as well from within as from without. It may not +therefore be spoken of by you as something which men are +bound to maintain inviolate,—like an Article of the Creed. +It is quite competent, I mean, for any one to denounce the +entire system of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles,—<emph>as I +do now</emph>,—as an egregious blunder; if he will but be at the +<pb n='383'/><anchor id='Pg383'/> +pains to establish on a severe logical basis the contradictory +of not a few of their most important decrees. And you, my +lord Bishop, are respectfully reminded that your defence of +their system,—if you must needs defend what I deem +worthless,—must be conducted, not by sneers and an affectation +of superior enlightenment; still less by intimidation, +scornful language, and all those other bad methods whereby +it has been the way of Superstition in every age to rivet the +fetters of intellectual bondage: but by severe reasoning, and +calm discussion, and a free appeal to ancient Authority, and +a patient investigation of all the external evidence accessible. +I request therefore that we may hear no more of <emph>this</emph> form +of argument. The Text of Lachmann and Tischendorf and +Tregelles,—of Westcott and Hort and Ellicott, (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <emph>of the +Revisers</emph>,)—is just now on its trial before the world.<note place='foot'>It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott's notice, (and yet the fact +well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and +Tregelles on the Church's gratitude, are not by any means founded on +<emph>the Texts</emph> which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill, +Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they <emph>patiently accumulated +evidence</emph>. <q>Tischendorf's reputation as a Biblical scholar rests less on +his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial +authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the world.</q> (Scrivener's +<hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>,—p. 427.)</note> +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[8] Bp. Ellicott's strange notions about the <q>Textus Receptus.</q></head> + +<p> +Your strangest mistakes and misrepresentations however +are connected with the <q>Textus Receptus.</q> It evidently +exercises you sorely that <q>with the Quarterly Reviewer, the +Received Text is a standard, by comparison with which all +extant documents, <emph>however indisputable their antiquity,</emph> are +measured.</q><note place='foot'>P. 12.</note> But pray,— +</p> + +<p> +(1) By comparison with what <emph>other</emph> standard, if not by +the Received Text, would you yourself obtain the measure +<pb n='384'/><anchor id='Pg384'/> +of <q>all extant documents,</q> however ancient?... This +first. And next, +</p> + +<p> +(2) Why should the <q><emph>indisputable antiquity</emph></q> of a document +be supposed to disqualify it from being measured by +the same standard to which (<emph>but only for convenience</emph>) documents +of whatever date,—by common consent of scholars, at +home and abroad,—are invariably referred? And next, +</p> + +<p> +(3) Surely, you cannot require to have it explained to +you that a standard <emph>of <hi rend='smallcaps'>comparison</hi></emph>, is not <emph>therefore</emph> of necessity +a standard <emph>of <hi rend='smallcaps'>excellence</hi></emph>. Did you ever take the trouble to +collate a sacred manuscript? If you ever did, pray with +<emph>what</emph> did you make your collation? In other words, what +<q>standard</q> did you employ?... Like Walton and Ussher,—like +Fell and Mill,—like Bentley, and Bengel, and Wetstein,—like +Birch, and Matthæi, and Griesbach, and Scholz,—like Lachmann, +and Tregelles, and Tischendorf, and Scrivener,—I +venture to assume that you collated your manuscript,—whether +it was of <q>disputable</q> or of <q>indisputable antiquity,</q>—with +<emph>an ordinary copy of the Received Text</emph>. If you did not, +your collation is of no manner of use. But, above all, +</p> + +<p> +(4) How does it come to pass that you speak so scornfully +of the Received Text, seeing that (at p. 12 of your pamphlet) +you assure your readers that <emph>its pedigree may be traced back to +a period perhaps antecedent to the oldest of our extant manuscripts</emph>? +Surely, a traditional Text which (<emph>according to you</emph>) +dates from about <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 300, is good enough for the purpose of +<emph>Collation</emph>! +</p> + +<p> +(5) At last you say,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text +represented <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>verbatim et literatim</foreign> the text which was current at +Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible +to regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal.</q><note place='foot'>P. 13.</note> +</quote> + +<pb n='385'/><anchor id='Pg385'/> + +<p> +Really, my lord Bishop, you must excuse me if I declare +plainly that the more I attend to your critical utterances, the +more I am astonished. From the confident style in which +you deliver yourself upon such matters, and especially from +your having undertaken to preside over a Revision of the +Sacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your +life you must have given the subject a considerable amount +of time and attention. But indeed the foregoing sentence +virtually contains two propositions neither of which could +possibly have been penned by one even moderately +acquainted with the facts of Textual Criticism. For first, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) You speak of <q>representing <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>verbatim et literatim</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>the</hi> +Text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom.</q> +Do you then really suppose that there existed at +Antioch, at any period between <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 354 and <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 407, <emph>some +one definite Text of the N. T. <hi rend='smallcaps'>capable</hi> of being so represented</emph>?—If +you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for +such an extraordinary supposition? Your <q>acquaintance</q> +(Dr. Tregelles) will tell you that such a fancy has long since +been swept away <q>at once and for ever.</q> And secondly, +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that +the <q>Received Text</q> were such-and-such a thing,—<q>it would +still be impossible to regard it as <emph>a standard from which there +was no appeal</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But pray, who in his senses,—what sane man in Great +Britain,—ever dreamed of regarding the <q>Received,</q>—aye, <emph>or +any other known <q>Text,</q></emph>—as <q>a standard <emph>from which there shall +be no appeal</emph></q>? Have I ever done so? Have I ever <emph>implied</emph> +as much? If I have, show me <emph>where</emph>. You refer your +readers to the following passage in my first Article:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical +illustration. It is discovered that, in 111 pages, ... the serious +<pb n='386'/><anchor id='Pg386'/> +deflections of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> from the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> amount in all to only +842: whereas in <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> they amount to 1798: in <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>, to 2370: in א, to +3392: in <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, to 4697. The readings <emph>peculiar to</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> within the same +limits are 133: those peculiar to <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> are 170. But those of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> +amount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar +to <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We +submit that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire +confidence in codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א <hi rend='smallcaps'>c d</hi>.</q>—p. 14. +</quote> + +<p> +But, do you really require to have it explained to you that +it is entirely to misunderstand the question to object to such +a comparison of codices as is found above, (viz. in pages 14 +and 17,) on the ground that it was made with the text of +Stephanus lying open before me? Would not <emph>the self-same +phenomenon</emph> have been evolved by collation with <emph>any other</emph> +text? If you doubt it, sit down and try the experiment for +yourself. Believe me, Robert Etienne in the XVIth century +was not <emph>the cause</emph> why cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> in the IVth and cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> in the +VIth are so widely discordant and divergent from one another: +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> so utterly at variance with both.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.</note> We <emph>must</emph> have <emph>some</emph> +standard whereby to test,—wherewith to compare,—Manuscripts. +What is more, (give me leave to assure you,) <emph>to the +end of time</emph> it will probably be the practice of scholars to compare +MSS. of the N. T. with the <q>Received Text.</q> The hopeless +discrepancies between our five <q>old uncials,</q> can in no more +convenient way be exhibited, than by referring each of them in +turn to one and the same common standard. And,—<emph>What</emph> +standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text +which, by the good Providence of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, was universally +employed throughout Europe for the first 300 years after the +invention of printing? being practically <emph>identical</emph> with the +Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use at the +end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs +themselves: in other word, being more than 1500 years old. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='387'/><anchor id='Pg387'/> + +<div> +<head>[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott's misconceptions.</head> + +<p> +But you are quite determined that I shall mean something +essentially different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is +one who <q>contends that the Received Text needs but little +emendation; and <emph>may be used without emendation as a +standard</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>P. 40.</note> I am, (you say,) one of <q>those who adopt the +easy method of making the Received Text a standard.</q><note place='foot'>P. 19.</note> +My <q>Criticism,</q> (it seems,) <q>often rests ultimately upon the +notion that it is little else but sacrilege to impugn the +tradition of the last three hundred years.</q><note place='foot'>P. 4.</note> (<q><emph>The last three +hundred years</emph>:</q> as if the Traditional Text of the N. Testament +dated from the 25th of Queen Elizabeth!)—I regard the +<q>Textus Receptus</q> therefore, according to you, as the Ephesians +regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, +as a thing which, one fine morning, <q>fell down from Jupiter.</q><note place='foot'>Acts xix. 35.</note> +I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine +Original, the Sacred Autographs,—and erect it into <q>a standard +from which there shall be no appeal,</q>—<q>a tradition which it +is little else but sacrilege to impugn.</q> That is how you state +my case and condition: hopelessly <emph>confusing</emph> the standard of +<emph>Comparison</emph> with the standard of <emph>Excellence</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +By this time, however, enough has been said to convince +any fair person that you are without warrant in your present +contention. Let <emph>any</emph> candid scholar cast an impartial eye +over the preceding three hundred and fifty pages,—open the +volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of any +textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, +my criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that +the Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the +Sacred Text which has <emph>the fullest</emph>, <emph>the widest</emph>, <emph>and the most +varied attestation</emph>.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Suprà</hi>, pp. <ref target='Pg339'>339-41</ref>.</note> Do I not invariably make <emph>the consentient +<pb n='388'/><anchor id='Pg388'/> +voice of Antiquity</emph> my standard? If I do <emph>not</emph>,—if, on the contrary, +I have ever once appealed to the <q>Received Text,</q> and +made <emph>it</emph> my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of +your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular +instance? instead of bringing against me a charge which +is utterly without foundation, and which can have no other +effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead the +unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which +hopelessly divides you and me?... I trust that at least you +will not again confound the standard <emph>of Comparison</emph> with the +standard <emph>of Truth</emph>. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet.</head> + +<p> +You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself +by your pamphlet, is,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'><hi rend='italic'>First</hi>, to supply accurate information, in a popular form, +concerning the Greek text of the Now Testament:</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='italic'>Secondly</hi>, to establish, by means of the information so supplied, +the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers have +acted in their choice of readings; and by consequence, the importance +of the <q>New Greek Text:</q></q>—[or, as you phrase it at p. +29,]—<q>to enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the question +of <emph>the trustworthiness of the readings adopted by the Revisers</emph>.</q> +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +To the former of these endeavours you devote twenty-three +pages: (viz. p. 7 to p. 29):—to the latter, you devote +forty-two; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78). The intervening eight pages +are dedicated,—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) To the constitution of the Revisionist +body: and next, (<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) To the amount of good faith with which +you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon +you by the Southern Houses of Convocation. I propose to +follow you over the ground in which you have thus entrenched +yourself, and to drive you out of every position in turn. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[11] Bp. Ellicott's account of the <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Textus Receptus</hi>.</q></head> + +<p> +First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to +<pb n='389'/><anchor id='Pg389'/> +prejudice the question by pouring contempt on the humblest +ancestor of the <hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi>—namely, the first edition of +Erasmus. You know very well that the <q>Textus Receptus</q> +is <emph>not</emph> the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do you so +describe its origin as to imply that <emph>it is</emph>? You ridicule the +circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family +first saw the light. You reproduce with evident satisfaction +a silly witticism of Michaelis, viz. that, in his judgment, the +Evangelium on which Erasmus chiefly relied was not worth +the two florins which the monks of Basle gave for it. +Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of +the Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse which the same +scholar employed for the rest of his first edition. Having +in this way done your best to blacken a noble house by +dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes were reduced +at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and a +half ago,—you pause to make your own comment on the +spectacle thus exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest +any should fail to draw therefrom the injurious inference +which is indispensable for your argument:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>We have entered into these details, because we desire that +the general reader should know fully the true pedigree of that +printed text of the Greek Testament which has been in common +use for the last three centuries. It will be observed that its +documentary origin is not calculated to inspire any great confidence. +Its parents, as we have seen, were two or three late +manuscripts of little critical value, which accident seems to +have brought into the hands of their first editor.</q>—p. 10. +</quote> + +<p> +Now, your account of the origin of the <q>Textus Receptus</q> +shall be suffered to stand uncontradicted. But the important +<emph>inference</emph>, which you intend that inattentive or incompetent +readers should draw therefrom, shall be scattered to the +winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less distinguished +a witness than yourself. Notwithstanding all that has gone +<pb n='390'/><anchor id='Pg390'/> +before, you are constrained to confess <emph>in the very next page</emph> +that:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most +part, <emph>only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the +cursive manuscripts</emph>. The general character of their text is the +same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text +is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by +Erasmus.... <emph>That</emph> pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. +<emph>The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least +contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older +than any one of them.</emph></q>—pp. 11, 12. +</quote> + +<p> +By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, <q><emph>at +least</emph>,</q> 1550 years old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, +in words which you adopt from p. 92 of Westcott and +Hort's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi> [see above, p. <ref target='Pg257'>257</ref>], and clearly make +your own:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally +is <emph>beyond all question identical</emph> with the dominant Antiochian or +Græco-Syrian <emph>Text of the second half of the fourth century</emph>.</q>—p. +12. +</quote> + +<p> +But, if this be so,—(and I am not concerned to dispute +your statement in a single particular,)—of what possible +significancy can it be to your present contention, that the +ancestry of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>written Word</hi> (like the ancestors of the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Word incarnate</hi>) had at one time declined to the wondrous +low estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident +satisfaction? Though the fact be admitted that Joseph <q>the +carpenter</q> was <q>the husband of Mary, of whom was born +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi>, who is called <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>,</q>—what possible inconvenience +results from that circumstance so long as the only thing contended +for be loyally conceded,—namely, that the descent of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Messiah</hi> is lineally traceable back to the patriarch Abraham, +through David the King? And the genealogy of the +written, no less than the genealogy of the Incarnate <hi rend='smallcaps'>Word</hi>, +<pb n='391'/><anchor id='Pg391'/> +is traceable back by <emph>two distinct lines of descent</emph>, remember: +for the <q>Complutensian,</q> which was printed in 1514, exhibits +the <q>Traditional Text</q> with the same general fidelity as the +<q>Erasmian,</q> which did not see the light till two years later. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Textus Receptus</hi></q> +from Westcott and Hart's fable of a <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Syrian Text</hi>.</q></head> + +<p> +Let us hear what comes next:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>At this point a question suggests itself which we cannot +refuse to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may +be traced back to so early a period, does it not deserve the +honour which is given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?</q>—p. +12. +</quote> + +<p> +A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: +the more so, because you announce that your reply to this +question shall <q>go to the bottom of the controversy with +which we are concerned.</q><note place='foot'>P. 13.</note> That reply is as follows:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text +represented <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>verbatim et literatim</foreign> the text which was current at +Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible +to regard it as a standard <emph>from which there was no appeal</emph>. The +reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as +follows. In the ancient documents which have come down to +us,—amongst which, as is well known, are manuscripts written +in the fourth century,—we possess evidence that other texts of +the Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially +different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers +generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of +extant documents shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall +henceforth call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not +represent an earlier tradition than those other texts, but was +in fact of later origin than the rest. We cannot accept it +therefore as <emph>a final standard</emph>.</q>—pp. 13, 14. +</quote> + +<pb n='392'/><anchor id='Pg392'/> + +<p> +<q>A <emph>final</emph> standard</q>!... Nay but, why do you suddenly +introduce this unheard-of characteristic? <emph>Who</emph>, pray, since +the invention of Printing was ever known to put forward <emph>any</emph> +existing Text as <q>a final standard</q>? Not the Quarterly +Reviewer certainly. <q>The honour which is given to the +<hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi> by the Quarterly Reviewer</q> is no other than +the honour which it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by +universal consent, for the last three centuries. That is to say, +he uses it as a standard of comparison, and employs it for +habitual reference. <emph>So do you.</emph> You did so, at least, in the +year 1870. You did more; for you proposed <q>to proceed +with the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, +<emph>making the current <q>Textus Receptus</q> the standard</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>Bp. Ellicott, <hi rend='italic'>On Revision</hi>, &c.—p. 30.</note> We +are perfectly agreed therefore. For my own part, being fully +convinced, like yourself, that essentially the Received Text is +full 1550 years old,—(yes, and a vast deal older,)—I esteem it +quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And yet, so +far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my +appeal <emph>from</emph> it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, +Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged.—And +with this renewed explanation of my sentiments,—(which one +would have thought that no competent person could require,)—I +proceed to consider the reply which you promise shall <q>go +to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.</q> +I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention +from that which is the real matter of dispute betwixt +you and me. +</p> + +<p> +What kind of argumentation then is this before us? You +assure us that,— +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <q>A rigorous examination of extant documents,</q>—<q>shows</q> +Dr. Hort—<q>that the Syrian text</q>—[which for all +<pb n='393'/><anchor id='Pg393'/> +practical purposes may be considered as only another name +for the <q>Textus Receptus</q>]—was of later origin than <q>other +texts of the Greek Testament</q> which <q>existed in the age of +Chrysostom.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <q>We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.</q> +</p> + +<p> +But,—Of what nature is the logical process by which you +have succeeded in convincing yourself that <emph>this</emph> consequent +can be got out of <emph>that</emph> antecedent? Put a parallel case:—<q>A +careful analysis of herbs <q>shows</q> Dr. Short that the only safe +diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass which grows +in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher's +meat.</q>—Does <emph>that</emph> seem to you altogether a satisfactory +argument? To me, it is a mere <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>non sequitur</foreign>. Do but consider +the matter for a moment. <q>A rigorous examination of +extant documents shows</q> Dr. Hort—such and such things. +<q>A rigorous examination of the</q> same <q>documents shows</q> +<emph>me</emph>—that Dr. Hort <emph>is mistaken</emph>. A careful study of his book +convinces <emph>me</emph> that his theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured +between <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350, is a dream, pure and +simple—<emph>a mere phantom of the brain</emph>. Dr. Hort's course is +obvious. Let him <emph>first</emph> make his processes of proof intelligible, +and <emph>then</emph> public. You cannot possibly suppose that the fable +of <q>a Syrian text,</q> though it has evidently satisfied <emph>you</emph>, +will be accepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. +What prospect do you suppose you have of convincing the +world that Dr. Hort is competent to assign <emph>a date</emph> to this +creature of his own imagination; of which he has hitherto +failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence? +</p> + +<p> +I have, for my own part, established by abundant references +to his writings that he is one of those who, (through +some intellectual peculiarity,) are for ever mistaking +conjectures for facts,—assertions for arguments,—and reiterated +<pb n='394'/><anchor id='Pg394'/> +asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves +sympathy, certainly: for,—(like the man who passed his life +in trying to count how many grains of sand will exactly fill +a quart pot;—or like his unfortunate brother, who made it +his business to prove that nothing, multiplied by a sufficient +number of figures, amounts to something;)—he has evidently +taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle +of an able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inaptitude +for a province of study which, beyond all others, +demands a clear head and a calm, dispassionate judgment,—creates +distress. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort's +Theory.</head> + +<p> +But in the meantime, so confident are <emph>you</emph> of the existence +of a <q>Syrian text,</q>—(<emph>only however because Dr. Hort is</emph>,)—that +you inflict upon your readers all the consequences which +<q>the Syrian text</q> is supposed to carry with it. Your method +is certainly characterized by humility: for it consists in +merely serving up to the British public a <foreign rend='italic'>réchauffé</foreign> of Westcott +and Hort's Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you +contribute anything of your own to the meagre outline you +furnish of it. Everything is assumed—as before. Nothing +is proved—as before. And we are referred to Dr. Hort for +the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has created. +<q>According to Dr. Hort,</q>—<q>as Dr. Hort observes,</q>—<q>to +use Dr. Hort's language,</q>—<q>stated by Dr. Hort,</q>—<q>as Dr. +Hort notices,</q>—<q>says Dr. Hort:</q> yes, from p. 14 of your +pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but reproduce—Dr. +Hort! +</p> + +<p> +First comes the fabulous account of the contents of the +bulk of the cursives:<note place='foot'>P. 15.</note>—then, the imaginary history of the +<pb n='395'/><anchor id='Pg395'/> +<q>Syriac Vulgate;</q> which (it seems) bears <q>indisputable +traces</q> of being a revision, of which you have learned <emph>from +Dr. Hort</emph> the date:<note place='foot'>P. 16.</note>—then comes the same disparagement of +the ancient Greek Fathers,—<q>for reasons which have been +<emph>stated by Dr. Hort</emph> with great clearness and cogency:</q><note place='foot'>P. 17.</note>—then, +the same depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent +to Eusebius,—whose evidence is declared to <q>stand at best +on no higher level than the evidence of inferior manuscripts +in the uncial class:</q><note place='foot'>P. 18.</note> but <emph>only</emph> because it is discovered to be +destructive of the theory <emph>of Dr. Hort</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +Next comes <q>the Method of Genealogy,</q>—which you +declare is the result of <q>vast research, unwearied patience, +great critical sagacity;</q><note place='foot'>P. 19.</note> but which I am prepared to prove +is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for dispensing with +scientific Induction and the laborious accumulation of evidence. +This same <q>Method of Genealogy,</q> you are not +ashamed to announce as <q>the great contribution of our own +times to a mastery over materials.</q> <q>For the full explanation +of it, <emph>you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort's Introduction</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>P. 19.</note> +Can you be serious? +</p> + +<p> +Then come the results to which <q>the application of this +method <emph>has conducted Drs. Westcott and Hort</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>P. 20.</note> And first, +the fable of the <q>Syrian Text</q>—which <q><emph>Dr. Hort considers</emph> to +have been the result of a deliberate Recension,</q> conducted +on erroneous principles. This fabricated product of the IIIrd +and IVth centuries, (you say,) rose to supremacy,—became +dominant at Antioch,—passed thence to Constantinople,—and +once established there, soon vindicated its claim to be +the N. T. of the East: whence it overran the West, and for +300 years as the <q>Textus Receptus,</q> has held undisputed +<pb n='396'/><anchor id='Pg396'/> +sway.<note place='foot'>P. 21.</note> Really, my lord Bishop, you describe imaginary +events in truly Oriental style. One seems to be reading not +so much of the <q>Syrian Text</q> as of the Syrian Impostor. +One expects every moment to hear of some feat of this +fabulous Recension corresponding with the surrender of +the British troops and Arabi's triumphant entry into Cairo +with the head of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his hand! +</p> + +<p> +All this is followed, of course, by the weak fable of the +<q>Neutral</q> Text, and of the absolute supremacy of Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,—which +is <q><emph>stated in Dr. Hort's own words</emph>:</q><note place='foot'>Pp. 23-4.</note>—viz. <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> very +far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of text, being +in fact always, or nearly always, neutral.</q> (The <emph>fact</emph> being +that codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> is demonstrably one of the most corrupt documents +in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) +<q>Syrian,</q> to the (imaginary) <q>Neutral,</q> is insisted upon +next in order, as a matter of course: and declared to rest +upon three other considerations,—each one of which is found +to be pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of <q>Conflation,</q> which +<q><emph>seems</emph> to supply a proof</q> that Syrian readings are posterior +both to Western and to Neutral readings—but, (as I have +elsewhere<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Supra</hi>, pp. <ref target='Pg258'>258-266</ref>.</note> shown, at considerable length,) most certainly <emph>does</emph> +not:—(2) On Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence,—of which +however not a syllable is produced:—(3) On <q><emph>Transcriptional +probability</emph></q>—which is about as useful a substitute for +proof as a sweet-pea for a walking-stick. +</p> + +<p> +Widely dissimilar of course is your own view of the +importance of the foregoing instruments of conviction. To +<emph>you</emph>, <q>these three reasons taken together seem to make up +an argument for the posteriority of the Syrian Text, which it +is impossible to resist. They form</q> (you say) <q>a threefold +cord of evidence which [you] believe will bear any amount +<pb n='397'/><anchor id='Pg397'/> +of argumentative strain.</q> You rise with your subject, and at +last break out into eloquence and vituperation:—<q>Writers +like the Reviewer may attempt to cut the cord <emph>by reckless +and unverified assertions</emph>: but <emph>the knife has not yet been fabricated +that can equitably separate any one of its strands</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>Pp. 25-7.</note>... +So effectually, as well as so deliberately, have you lashed +yourself—for better or for worse—to Westcott and Hort's +New Textual Theory, that you must now of necessity either +share its future triumphs, or else be a partaker in its coming +humiliation. Am I to congratulate you on your prospects? +</p> + +<p> +For my part, I make no secret of the fact that I look +upon the entire speculation about which you are so enthusiastic, +as an excursion into cloud-land: a <emph>dream</emph> and nothing +more. My contention is,—<emph>not</emph> that the Theory of Drs. Westcott +and Hort rests on an <emph>insecure</emph> foundation, but, that it +rests on <emph>no foundation at all</emph>. Moreover, I am greatly mistaken +if this has not been <emph>demonstrated</emph> in the foregoing +pages.<note place='foot'>See <hi rend='italic'>Art.</hi> III.,—viz. from p. <ref target='Pg235'>235</ref> to p. 366.</note> On one point, at all events, there cannot exist a +particle of doubt; namely, that so far from its <q><emph>not being for +you to interpose in this controversy</emph></q>—you are without alternative. +You must either come forward at once, and bring it to +a successful issue: or else, you must submit to be told that +you have suffered defeat, inasmuch as you are inextricably +involved in Westcott and Hort's discomfiture. You are simply +without remedy. <emph>You</emph> may <q><emph>find nothing in the Reviewer's +third article to require a further answer</emph>:</q> but readers of +intelligence will tell you that your finding, since it does not +proceed from stupidity, can only result from your consciousness +that you have made a serious blunder: and that now, +the less you say about <q>Westcott and Hort's new textual +Theory,</q> the better. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='398'/><anchor id='Pg398'/> + +<div> +<head>[14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott's +adoption of Westcott and Hort's <q>new Textual Theory</q> does +not amount to (what lawyers call) <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Conspiracy</hi></q>?</head> + +<p> +But, my lord Bishop, when I reach the end of your +laborious avowal that you entirely accept <q>Westcott and +Hort's new Textual Theory,</q>—I find it impossible to withhold +the respectful enquiry,—Is such a proceeding on your part +altogether allowable? I frankly confess that to <emph>me</emph> the +wholesale adoption by the Chairman of the Revising body, of +the theory of two of the Revisers,—and then, his exclusive +reproduction and vindication of <emph>that theory</emph>, when he undertakes, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>to supply the reader with a few broad outlines of Textual +Criticism, so as to enable him to form <emph>a fair judgment</emph> on the +question of the trustworthiness of <emph>the readings adopted by the +Revisers</emph>,</q>—p. 29, +</quote> + +<p> +all this, my lord Bishop, I frankly avow, to <emph>me</emph>, looks very +much indeed like what, in the language of lawyers, is called +<q>Conspiracy.</q> It appears then that instead of presiding +over the deliberations of the Revisionists as an impartial +arbiter, you have been throughout, heart and soul, an eager +partizan. You have learned to employ freely Drs. Westcott +and Hort's peculiar terminology. You adopt their scarcely-intelligible +phrases: their wild hypotheses: their arbitrary +notions about <q>Intrinsic</q> and <q>Transcriptional Probability:</q> +their baseless theory of <q>Conflation:</q> their shallow <q>Method +of Genealogy.</q> You have, in short, evidently swallowed +their novel invention whole. I can no longer wonder at +the result arrived at by the body of Revisionists. Well +may Dr. Scrivener have pleaded in vain! He found Drs. +Ellicott and Westcott and Hort too many for him.... But +it is high time that I should pass on. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='399'/><anchor id='Pg399'/> + +<div> +<head>[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the +Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern +Province.</head> + +<p> +It follows next to enquire whether your work as Revisers +was conducted in conformity with the conditions imposed +upon you by the Southern House of Convocation, or not. +<q><emph>Nothing</emph></q> (you say)— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q><emph>can be more unjust</emph> on the part of the Reviewer than to suggest, +as he has suggested in more than one passage,<note place='foot'>You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.</note> that the Revisers +<emph>exceeded their Instructions</emph> in the course which they adopted with +regard to the Greek Text. On the contrary, as we shall show, +they adhered most closely to their Instructions; and did neither +more nor less than they were required to do.</q>—(p. 32.) +</quote> + +<p> +<q>The Reviewer,</q> my lord Bishop, proceeds to <emph>demonstrate</emph> +that you <q>exceeded your Instructions,</q> even to an extraordinary +extent. But it will be convenient first to hear you +out. You proceed,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Let us turn to the Rule. It is simply as follows:—<q>That +the text to be adopted be that for which the Evidence <emph>is +decidedly preponderating</emph>: and that when the text so adopted +differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, +the alteration be indicated in the margin.</q></q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi>) +</quote> + +<p> +But you seem to have forgotten that the <q>Rule</q> which +you quote formed no part of the <q><hi rend='italic'>Instructions</hi></q> which were +imposed upon you by Convocation. It was one of the +<q>Principles <emph>agreed to by the Committee</emph></q> (25 May, 1870),—a +Rule <emph>of your own making</emph> therefore,—for which Convocation +neither was nor is responsible. The <q>fundamental Resolutions +adopted by the Convocation of Canterbury</q> (3rd and +5th May, 1870), five in number, contain no authorization +whatever for making changes in the Greek Text. They have +<pb n='400'/><anchor id='Pg400'/> +reference only to the work of revising <q><hi rend='italic'>the Authorized Version</hi>:</q> +an undertaking which the first Resolution declares to +be <q>desirable.</q> <q>In order to ascertain what were the Revisers' +<hi rend='italic'>Instructions</hi> with regard to the Greek Text,</q> we must refer +to the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870: in which the +removal of <q><emph>plain and clear errors</emph>, whether in the Greek +Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation +made from the same,</q>—is for the first and last time +mentioned. That you yourself accepted this as the limit of +your authority, is proved by your Speech in Convocation. +<q>We may be satisfied</q> (you said) <q>with the attempt to +correct <emph>plain and clear errors</emph>: but <emph>there, it is our duty to +stop</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Chronicle of Convocation</hi>, Feb. 1870, p. 83.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Now I venture to assert that not one in a hundred of +the alterations you have actually made, <q>whether in the +Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the +Translation made from the same,</q> are corrections of <q><emph>plain +and clear errors</emph>.</q> Rather,—(to adopt the words of the learned +Bishop of Lincoln,)—<q>I fear we must say in candour that in +the Revised Version we meet in every page with changes +<emph>which seem almost to be made for the sake of change</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg368'>368</ref>.</note> May I +trouble you to refer back to p. 112 of the present volume for +a few words more on this subject from the pen of the same +judicious Prelate? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) <emph>And first</emph>,—<emph>In respect of the New English Version</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +For my own part, (see above, pp. <ref target='Pg171'>171-2</ref>,) I thought the best +thing I could do would be to illustrate the nature of my +complaint, by citing and commenting on an actual instance +of your method. I showed how, in revising eight-and-thirty +words (2 Pet. i. 5-7), you had contrived to introduce no +fewer than <emph>thirty changes</emph>,—every one of them being clearly +<pb n='401'/><anchor id='Pg401'/> +a change for the worse. You will perhaps say,—Find me +another such case! I find it, my lord Bishop, in S. Luke viii. +45, 46,—where you have made <emph>nineteen changes</emph> in revising +the translation of four-and-thirty words. I proceed to +transcribe the passage; requesting you to bear in mind your +own emphatic protestation,—<q>We made <emph>no</emph> change <emph>if the +meaning was fairly expressed</emph> by the word or phrase before +us.</q> +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(25) lw(25)'"> +<row><cell>A.V.</cell><cell>R.V.</cell></row> +<row><cell><q>Peter and they that were +with him said, Master, the +multitude throng thee and +press thee, and sayest thou, +Who touched me? And Jesus +said, Somebody hath touched +me: for I perceive that virtue +is gone out of me.</q></cell> +<cell><q>Peter said [1], and they that +were with him, Master the +multitudes [2] press [3] thee and +crush thee [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.] +But [11] Jesus said, Some one [12] did +touch [14] me: for I perceived [15] that +power [16] had [17] gone forth [18] from [19] +me.</q></cell></row> +</table> + +<p> +Now pray,—Was not <q>the meaning <emph>fairly expressed</emph></q> before? +Will you tell me that in revising S. Luke viii. 45-6, you +<q><emph>made as few alterations as possible</emph></q>? or will you venture +to assert that you have removed none but <q><emph>plain and +clear errors</emph></q>? On the contrary. I challenge any competent +scholar in Great Britain to say <emph>whether every one of these +changes</emph> be not either absolutely useless, or else <emph>decidedly a +change for the worse</emph>: six of them being downright <emph>errors</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +The transposition in the opening sentence is infelicitous, +to say the least. (The English language will not bear such +handling. Literally, no doubt, the words mean, <q>said Peter, +and they that were with him.</q> But you may not so <emph>translate</emph>.)—The +omission of the six interesting words, indicated +within square brackets, is a serious blunder.<note place='foot'>The clause (<q>and sayest thou, Who touched me?</q>) is witnessed to +by <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c d p r x</hi> Γ Δ Λ Ξ Π and <emph>every other known uncial except three of +bad character: by every known cursive but four</emph>:—by the Old Latin and +Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions; +as well as by ps.-Tatian (<hi rend='italic'>Evan. Concord</hi>, p. 77) and Chrysostom (vii. +359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are derived from S. Mark's +Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely imagined);—for the sufficient reason that +<emph>the words are not found there</emph>. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς +μου ἥψατο; in S. Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, +this delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.</note> The words are +<pb n='402'/><anchor id='Pg402'/> +<emph>undoubtedly</emph> genuine. I wonder how you can have ventured +thus to mutilate the Book of Life. And why did you +not, out of common decency and reverence, <emph>at least in the +margin</emph>, preserve a record of the striking clause which +you thus,—with well-meant assiduity, but certainly with +deplorable rashness,—forcibly ejected from the text? +To proceed however.—<q>Multitudes,</q>—<q>but,</q>—<q>one,</q>—<q>did,</q>— <q>power,</q>—<q>forth,</q>—<q>from:</q>—are +all seven either needless +changes, or improper, or undesirable. <q><emph>Did touch</emph>,</q>—<q><emph>perceived</emph>,</q>—<q><emph>had +gone forth</emph>,</q>—are unidiomatic and incorrect +expressions. I have already explained this elsewhere.<note place='foot'>Page <ref target='Pg154'>154</ref> to p. 164.</note> The +aorist (ἥψατο) has here a perfect signification, as in countless +other places:—ἔγνων, (like <q><foreign rend='italic'>novi</foreign>,</q>) is frequently (as here) to +be Englished by the present (<q><emph>I perceive</emph></q>): and <q><emph>is gone out +of me</emph></q> is the nearest rendering of ἐξελθοῦσαν<note place='foot'>You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am +aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only +supported by <emph>four</emph> manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed by +<emph>eighteen uncials</emph>, (with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a c d</hi> at their head,) and <emph>every known cursive but +one</emph>; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i. 313 a, 327 a.) +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the +author of <hi rend='italic'>the Dialogus</hi> (Orig. i. 853 d.) +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 325),—Epiphanius (i. 327 b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two +places,—Basil (iii. 8 c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.) +in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 400),—ps.-Chrysostom (xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text +should be put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are +avowedly (for see page <ref target='Pg369'>369</ref>) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who +were appointed only to revise the authorized <emph>English Version</emph>?</note> ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ +<pb n='403'/><anchor id='Pg403'/> +which our language will bear.—Lastly, <q><emph>press</emph></q> and <q><emph>crush</emph>,</q> +as renderings of συνέχουσι and ἀποθλίβουσι, are inexact and +unscholarlike. Συνέχειν, (literally <q>to encompass</q> or <q>hem +in,</q>) is here to <q>throng</q> or <q>crowd:</q> ἀποθλίβειν, (literally +<q>to squeeze,</q>) is here to <q>press.</q> But in fact the words were +perfectly well rendered by our Translators of 1611, and +ought to have been let alone.—This specimen may suffice, +(and it is a very fair specimen,) of what has been your +calamitous method of revising the A. V. throughout. +</p> + +<p> +So much then for the Revised <emph>English</emph>. The fate of the +Revised <emph>Greek</emph> is even more extraordinary. I proceed to +explain myself by instancing what has happened in respect +of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Gospel according to S. Luke</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) <emph>Next</emph>,—<emph>In respect of the New Greek Text.</emph> +</p> + +<p> +On examining the 836<note place='foot'>This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and +variations in stops.</note> Greek Textual corrections which +you have introduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least +356 of them <emph>do not affect the English rendering at all</emph>. I mean +to say that those 356 (supposed) emendations are either +<emph>incapable</emph> of being represented in a Translation, or at least +are <emph>not</emph> represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3, whether εἶπε +δέ or καὶ εἶπεν is read:—in ver. 7, whether ἐμοῦ or μου:—in +ver. 8, whether Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσκυνήσες, or Προσκυνήσεις +Κ. τὸν Θ. σου; whether ἤγαγε δέ or καὶ ἤγαγεν; +whether υἱός or ὁ υἱός:—in ver. 17, whether τοῦ προφήτου +Ἡσαïου or Ἡ. τοῦ προφήτου; whether ἀνοίξας or ἀναπτύξας:—in +ver. 18, whether εὐαγγελίσασθαι or εὐαγγελίζεσθαι:—in +ver. 20, whether οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ or ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ +οἱ ὀφθαλμοί:—in ver. 23, whether εἰς τήν or ἐν τῇ:—in ver. 27, +whether ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου or ἐπὶ +Ἐλισσ., τοῦ π. ἐν τῷ Ἰ.:—in ver. 29, whether ὀφρύος or τῆς +ὀφρύος; whether ὥστε or εἰς τό:—in ver. 35, whether ἀπ᾽ or +<pb n='404'/><anchor id='Pg404'/> +ἐξ:—in ver. 38, whether ἀπό or ἐκ; whether πενθερά or +ἡ πενθερά:—in ver. 43, whether ἐπί or εἰς; whether +ἀπεστάλην or ἀπέσταλμαι:—in ver. 44, whether εἰς τὰς +συναγωγάς or ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς:—in every one of these +cases, <emph>the English remains the same</emph>, whichever of the +alternative readings is adopted. At least 19 therefore out +of the 33 changes which you introduced into the Greek Text +of S. Luke iv. are plainly gratuitous. +</p> + +<p> +<emph>Thirteen</emph> of those 19, (or about two-thirds,) are also in my +opinion changes <emph>for</emph> the <emph>worse</emph>: are nothing else, I mean, but +substitutions of <emph>wrong for right</emph> Readings. But <emph>that</emph> is not +my present contention. The point I am just now contending +for is this:—That, since it certainly was no part of your +<q>Instructions,</q> <q>Rules,</q> or <q>Principles</q> <emph>to invent a new Greek +Text</emph>,—or indeed to meddle with the original Greek at all, +<emph>except so far as was absolutely necessary for the Revision of the +English Version</emph>,—it is surely a very grave form of inaccuracy +to assert (as you now do) that you <q>adhered most closely to +your Instructions, and did neither more nor less than you +were required.</q>—You <emph>know</emph> that you did a vast deal more +than you had any authority or right to do: a vast deal more +than you had the shadow of a pretext for doing. Worse than +that. You deliberately forsook the province to which you +had been exclusively appointed by the Southern Convocation,—and +you ostentatiously invaded another and a distinct +province; viz. <emph>That</emph> of the critical Editorship of the Greek +Text: for which, <emph>by your own confession</emph>,—(I take leave to +remind you of your own honest avowal, quoted above at +page <ref target='Pg369'>369</ref>,)—you and your colleagues <emph>knew</emph> yourselves to be +incompetent. +</p> + +<p> +For, when those 356 wholly gratuitous and uncalled-for +changes in the Greek of S. Luke's Gospel come to be +examined in detail, they are found to affect far more than +<pb n='405'/><anchor id='Pg405'/> +356 words. By the result, 92 words have been omitted; +and 33 added. No less than 129 words have been substituted +for others which stood in the text before; and there are 66 +instances of Transposition, involving the dislocation of 185 +words. The changes of case, mood, tense, &c., amount in +addition to 123.<note place='foot'>I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for ἐνένκαντες +(xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change of construction.</note> The sum of the words which you have +<emph>needlessly</emph> meddled with in the Greek Text of the third +Gospel proves therefore to be 562. +</p> + +<p> +At this rate,—(since, [excluding marginal notes and +variations in stops,] Scrivener<note place='foot'>MS. communication from my friend, the Editor</note> counts 5337 various readings +in his Notes,)—the number of alterations <emph>gratuitously and +uselessly introduced by you into the Greek Text of the entire +N. T.</emph>, is to be estimated at 3590. +</p> + +<p> +And if,—(as seems probable,)—the same general proportion +prevails throughout your entire work,—it will appear that +the words which, without a shadow of excuse, you have +<emph>omitted</emph> from the Greek Text of the N. T., must amount to +about 590: while you have <emph>added</emph> in the same gratuitous +way about 210; and have needlessly <emph>substituted</emph> about 820. +Your instances of uncalled-for <emph>transposition</emph>, (about 420 in +number,) will have involved the gratuitous dislocation of full +1190 words:—while the occasions on which, at the bidding +of Drs. Westcott and Hort, you have altered case, mood, +tense, &c., must amount to about 780. In this way, the +sum of the changes you have effected in the Greek Text of +the N. T. <emph>in clear defiance of your Instructions</emph>,—would +amount, as already stated, to 3590. +</p> + +<p> +Now, when it is considered that <emph>not one</emph> of those 3590 +<pb n='406'/><anchor id='Pg406'/> +changes <emph>in the least degree affects the English Revision</emph>,—it is +undeniable, not only that you and your friends did what you +were without authority for doing:—but also that you violated +as well the spirit as the letter of your Instructions. As for +your present assertion (at p. 32) that you <q>adhered <emph>most +closely</emph> to the Instructions you received, and <emph>did neither more +nor less than you were required to do</emph>,</q>—you must submit to +be reminded that it savours strongly of the nature of pure +fable. The history of the new Greek Text is briefly this:—A +majority of the Revisers—<emph>including yourself, their Chairman</emph>,—are +found to have put yourselves almost unreservedly +into the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort. The result was +obvious. When the minority, headed by Dr. Scrivener, +appealed to the chair, they found themselves confronted by a +prejudiced Advocate. They ought to have been listened to +by an impartial Judge. <emph>You</emph>, my lord Bishop, are in consequence +(I regret to say) responsible for all the mischief +which has occurred. The blame of it rests at <emph>your</emph> door. +</p> + +<p> +And pray disabuse yourself of the imagination that in +what precedes I have been <emph>stretching</emph> the numbers in order +to make out a case against you. It would be easy to +show that in estimating the amount of needless changes at +356 out of 836, I am greatly under the mark. I have not +included such cases, for instance, as your substitution of ἡ +μνᾶ σου, Κύριε for Κύριε, ἡ μνᾶ σου (in xix. 18), and of Τοίνυν +ἀπόδοτε for Ἀπόδοτε τοίνυν (in xx. 25),<note place='foot'>I desire to keep out of sight the <emph>critical impropriety</emph> of such corrections +of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b l</hi> are <emph>the only +witnesses discoverable</emph> for the former, and <emph>almost the only</emph> witnesses to be +found for the latter of these two utterly unmeaning changes.</note>—only lest you +should pretend that the transposition affects the English, +and therefore <emph>was</emph> necessary. Had I desired to swell the +number I could have easily shown that fully <emph>half</emph> the +<pb n='407'/><anchor id='Pg407'/> +changes you effected in the Greek Text were wholly superfluous +for the Revision of the English Translation, and therefore +were entirely without excuse. +</p> + +<p> +<emph>This</emph>, in fact,—(give me leave to remind you in passing,)—is +the <emph>true</emph> reason why, at an early stage of your proceedings, +you resolved that <emph>none</emph> of the changes you introduced into +the Greek Text should find a record in your English margin. +Had <emph>any</emph> been recorded, <emph>all</emph> must have appeared. And had +this been done, you would have stood openly convicted of +having utterly disregarded the <q>Instructions</q> you had received +from Convocation. With what face, for example, <emph>could</emph> you, +(in the margin of S. Luke xv. 17,) against the words <q>he +said,</q>—have printed <q>ἔφη not εἶπε</q>? or, (at xxiv. 44,) against +the words <q>unto them,</q>—must you not have been ashamed +to encumber the already overcrowded margin with such an +irrelevant statement as,—<q>πρὸς αὐτούς <emph>not</emph> αὐτοῖς</q>? +</p> + +<p> +Now, if this were all, you might reply that by my own +showing the Textual changes complained of, if they do +no good, at least do no harm. But then, unhappily, you +and your friends have not confined yourselves to colourless +readings, when silently up and down every part of the N. T. +you have introduced innovations. I open your New English +Version at random (S. John iv. 15), and invite your attention +to the first instance which catches my eye. +</p> + +<p> +You have made the Woman of Samaria <emph>complain of the +length of the walk</emph> from Sychar to Jacob's well:—<q>Sir, give +me this water, that I thirst not, neither <emph>come all the way</emph> +hither to draw.</q>—What has happened? For ἔρχωμαι, I +discover that you have silently substituted ΔΙέρχωμαι. +(Even διέρχωμαι has no such meaning: but let <emph>that</emph> pass.) +What then was your authority for thrusting διέρχωμαι (which +by the way is a patent absurdity) into the Text? The word +<pb n='408'/><anchor id='Pg408'/> +is found (I discover) <emph>in only two Greek MSS. of had character</emph><note place='foot'>Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not able +to convey even <emph>this</emph> short message correctly. In reporting the two words +ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> substitutes +διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter eccentricity +Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in his note ... <q>These +be thy gods, O Israel!</q></note> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א), which, being derived from a common corrupt original, +can only reckon for <emph>one</emph>: and the reasoning which is supposed +to justify this change is thus supplied by Tischendorf:—<q>If +the Evangelist had written ἔρχ-, who would ever have +dreamed of turning it into δι-έρχωμαι?</q>... No one, +of course, (is the obvious answer,) except the inveterate +blunderer who, some 1700 years ago, seeing ΜΗΔΕΕΡΧΩΜΑΙ +before him, <emph>reduplicated the antecedent</emph> ΔΕ. The sum of the +matter is <emph>that</emph>!... Pass 1700 years, and the long-since-forgotten +blunder is furbished up afresh by Drs. Westcott and +Hort,—is urged upon the wondering body of Revisers as the +undoubted utterance of <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Spirit</hi>,—is accepted by yourself;—finally, +(in spite of many a remonstrance from Dr. Scrivener +and his friends,) is thrust upon the acceptance of 90 millions +of English-speaking men throughout the world, as the long-lost-sight-of, +but at last happily recovered, utterance of the +<q>Woman of Samaria!</q>... Ἄπαγε. +</p> + +<p> +Ordinary readers, in the meantime, will of course assume +that the change results from the Revisers' skill in translating,—the +advances which have been made in the study of Greek; +for no trace of the textual vagary before us survives in the +English margin. +</p> + +<p> +And thus I am reminded of what I hold to be your gravest +fault of all. The rule of Committee subject to which you +commenced operations,—the Rule which re-assured the +public and reconciled the Church to the prospect of a Revised +<pb n='409'/><anchor id='Pg409'/> +New Testament,—expressly provided that, whenever the +underlying Greek Text was altered, <emph>such alteration should be +indicated in the margin</emph>. This provision you entirely set at +defiance from the very first. You have <emph>never</emph> indicated in +the margin the alterations you introduced into the Greek +Text. In fact, you made so many changes,—in other words, +you seem to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and +your compact,—that compliance with this condition would +have been simply impossible. I see not how your body is to +be acquitted of a deliberate breach of faith. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>(c) Fatal consequences of this mistaken officiousness.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +How serious, in the meantime, <emph>the consequences</emph> have been, +<emph>they</emph> only know who have been at the pains to examine your +work with close attention. Not only have you, on countless +occasions, thrust out words, clauses, entire sentences of +genuine Scripture,—but you have been careful that no trace +shall survive of the fatal injury which you have inflicted. I +wonder you were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such +a proceeding in a high degree sinful? Has not the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit</hi> +pronounced a tremendous doom<note place='foot'>Rev. xxii. 19.</note> against those who do such +things? Were you not afraid, for instance, to leave out +(from S. Mark vi. 11) those solemn words of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi>,—<q>Verily +I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom +and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city</q>? +Surely you will not pretend to tell me that those fifteen +precious words, witnessed to as they are by <emph>all the known +copies but nine</emph>,—by the Old Latin, the Peschito and the +Philoxenian Syriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the Æthiopic +Versions,—besides Irenæus<note place='foot'>iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is <emph>not</emph> +to S. Matt. x. 15.</note> and Victor<note place='foot'>P. 123.</note> of Antioch:—you +will not venture to say (will you?) that words so attested are +<pb n='410'/><anchor id='Pg410'/> +so evidently a <q>plain and clear error,</q> as not to deserve even +a marginal note to attest to posterity <q>that such things +were</q>! I say nothing of the witness of the Liturgical usage +of the Eastern Church,—which appointed these verses to be +read on S. Mark's Day:<note place='foot'>Viz. vi. 7-13.</note> nor of Theophylact,<note place='foot'>i. 199 and 200.</note> nor of +Euthymius.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>In loc.</hi></note> I appeal to <emph>the consentient testimony of Catholic +antiquity</emph>. Find me older witnesses, if you can, than the +<q>Elders</q> with whom Irenæus held converse,—men who must +have been contemporaries of S. John the Divine: or again, +than the old Latin, the Peschito, and the Coptic Versions. +Then, for the MSS.,—Have you studied S. Mark's Text to so +little purpose as not to have discovered that the six uncials +on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably +corrupt Recension of the second Gospel? +</p> + +<p> +But you committed a yet more deplorable error when,—without +leaving behind either note or comment of any sort,—you +obliterated from S. Matth. v. 44, the solemn words +which I proceed to underline:—<q><emph>Bless them that curse you</emph>, +<emph>do good to them that hate you</emph>, and pray for them which <emph>despitefully +use you and</emph> persecute you.</q> You relied almost exclusively +on those two false witnesses, of which you are so +superstitiously fond, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א: regardless of the testimony of +almost all the other <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi> besides:—of almost all the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>:—and of a host of primitive <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>: for the +missing clauses are more or less recognized by Justin Mart. +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 140),—by Theophilus Ant. (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 168),—by Athenagoras +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 177),—by Clemens Alexan. (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 192),—by Origen +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 210),—by the Apostolic Constt. (IIIrd cent.),—by +Eusebius,—by Gregory Nyss.,—by Chrysostom,—by Isidorus,—by +Nilus,—by Cyril,—by Theodoret, and certain others. +Besides, of the Latins, by Tertullian,—by Lucifer,—by +<pb n='411'/><anchor id='Pg411'/> +Ambrose,—by Hilary,—by Pacian,—by Augustine,—by +Cassian, and many more.... Verily, my lord Bishop, your +notion of what constitutes <q><emph>clearly preponderating Evidence</emph></q> +must be freely admitted to be at once original and peculiar. +I will but respectfully declare that if it be indeed one of <q><emph>the +now established Principles of Textual Criticism</emph></q> that a bishop +is at liberty to blot out from the Gospel such precepts of +the Incarnate <hi rend='smallcaps'>Word</hi>, as these: to reject, on the plea that they +are <q>plain and clear errors,</q> sayings attested by twelve primitive +Fathers,—half of whom lived and died before our two +oldest manuscripts (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א) came into being:—If all this be +so indeed, permit me to declare that I would not exchange +<hi rend='smallcaps'>my</hi> <q><emph>innocent ignorance</emph></q><note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg349'>347-9</ref>.</note> of those <q>Principles</q> for <hi rend='smallcaps'>your</hi> <emph>guilty +knowledge</emph> of them,—no, not for anything in the wide world +which yonder sun shines down upon. +</p> + +<p> +As if what goes before had not been injury enough, you +are found to have adopted the extraordinary practice of encumbering +your margin with doubts as to the Readings +which after due deliberation you had, as a body, <emph>retained</emph>. +Strange perversity! You could not find room to retain a +record in your margin of the many genuine words of our +Divine <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>,—His Evangelists and Apostles,—to which +Copies, Versions, Fathers lend the fullest attestation; but +you <emph>could</emph> find room for an insinuation that His <q>Agony and +bloody sweat,</q>—together with His <q>Prayer on behalf of His +murderers,</q>—<emph>may</emph> after all prove to be nothing else but +spurious accretions to the Text. And yet, the pretence for +so regarding either S. Luke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is confessedly +founded on a minimum of documentary evidence: +while, as has been already shown elsewhere,<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg079'>79-85</ref>.</note> an overwhelming +amount of ancient testimony renders it <emph>certain</emph> that not a +<pb n='412'/><anchor id='Pg412'/> +particle of doubt attaches to the Divine record of either of +those stupendous incidents.... Room could not be found, +it seems, for a <emph>hint</emph> in the margin that such ghastly wounds +as those above specified had been inflicted on S. Mark vi. 11 +and S. Matth. v. 44;<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg409'>409-411</ref>.</note> but <emph>twenty-two lines</emph> could be spared +against Rom. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the vile +Socinian gloss with which unbelievers in every age have +sought to evacuate one of the grandest assertions of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's Godhead</hi>. May I be permitted, without offence, +to avow myself utterly astonished? +</p> + +<p> +Even this however is not all. The 7th of the Rules under +which you undertook the work of Revision, was, that <q><emph>the +Headings of Chapters should be revised</emph>.</q> This Rule you have +not only failed to comply with; but you have actually +deprived us of those headings entirely. You have thereby +done us a grievous wrong. We demand to have the headings +of our chapters back. +</p> + +<p> +You have further, without warrant of any sort, deprived +us of our <emph>Marginal References</emph>. These we cannot afford to be +without. We claim that <emph>they</emph> also may be restored. The +very best Commentary on Holy Scripture are they, with +which I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious +Revision, certainly; and they might be profitably enlarged. +But they may never be taken away. +</p> + +<p> +And now, my lord Bishop, if I have not succeeded in +convincing you that the Revisers not only <q><emph>exceeded their Instructions</emph> +in the course which they adopted with regard to +the Greek Text,</q> but even acted in open defiance of their +Instructions; did both a vast deal <emph>more</emph> than they were +authorized to do, and also a vast deal <emph>less</emph>;—it has certainly +been no fault of mine. As for your original contention<note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg399'>399</ref>.</note> that +<pb n='413'/><anchor id='Pg413'/> +<q><emph>nothing can be more unjust</emph></q> than <hi rend='smallcaps'>the charge</hi> brought +against the Revisers of having exceeded their Instructions,—I +venture to ask, on the contrary, whether anything can +be more unreasonable (to give it no harsher name) than <hi rend='smallcaps'>the +denial</hi>? +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[16] The calamity of the <q>New Greek Text</q> traced to its source.</head> + +<p> +There is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious +of the foregoing phenomena. They are the inevitable consequence +of your having so far succumbed at the outset to +Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to communicate +bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous +Revised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied +by a printed disquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar +critical views. One would have expected in the Chairman +of the Revising body, that the instant he became aware of +any such <foreign rend='italic'>manœuvre</foreign> on the part of two of the society, he +would have remonstrated with them somewhat as follows, or +at least to this effect:— +</p> + +<p> +<q>This cannot be permitted, Gentlemen, on any terms. We +have not been appointed to revise the <emph>Greek Text</emph> of the N. T. +Our one business is to revise the <emph>Authorized English Version</emph>,—introducing +such changes only as are absolutely necessary. +The Resolutions of Convocation are express on this head: +and it is my duty to see that they are faithfully carried out. +True, that we shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill +in Textual Criticism—(such as it is)—to correct <q><emph>plain and +clear errors</emph></q> in the Greek: but <emph>there</emph> we shall be obliged to +stop. I stand pledged to Convocation on this point by my +own recent utterances. That two of our members should be +solicitous (by a side-wind) to obtain for their own singular +Revision of the Greek Text the sanction of our united body,—is +<pb n='414'/><anchor id='Pg414'/> +intelligible enough: but I should consider myself guilty +of a breach of Trust were I to lend myself to the promotion +of their object. Let me hope that I have you all with me +when I point out that on every occasion when Dr. Scrivener, +on the one hand, (who in matters of Textual Criticism is +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>facile princeps</foreign> among us,) and Drs. Westcott and Hort on the +other, prove to be irreconcileably opposed in their views,—<emph>there</emph> +the Received Greek Text must by all means be let +alone. We have agreed, you will remember, to <q>make <emph>the +current Textus Receptus the standard; departing from it only +when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is +clearly necessary</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>Bp. Ellicott <hi rend='italic'>on Revision</hi>, p. 30.</note> It would be unreasonable, in my judgment, +that anything in the Received Text should be claimed to +be <q>a clear and plain error,</q> on which those who represent the +two antagonistic schools of Criticism find themselves utterly +unable to come to any accord. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott +and Hort are earnestly recommended to submit to public +inspection that Text which they have been for twenty years +elaborating, and which for some time past has been in print. +Their labours cannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly +examined, too generally known: but I strongly deprecate +their furtive production <emph>here</emph>. All too eager advocacy of the +novel Theory of the two accomplished Professors, I shall +think it my duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A +printed volume, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its two +producers, gives to one side an unfair advantage. But indeed +I must end as I began, by respectfully inviting Drs. Westcott +and Hort to remember that we meet here, <emph>not</emph> in order <emph>to +fabricate a new Greek Text</emph>, but in order to <emph>revise our <q>Authorized +English Version.</q></emph></q>... Such, in substance, is the kind +of Allocution which it was to have been expected that the +Episcopal Chairman of a Revising body would address to +<pb n='415'/><anchor id='Pg415'/> +his fellow-labourers the first time he saw them enter the +Jerusalem chamber furnished with the sheets of Westcott +and Hort's N. T.; especially if he was aware that those +Revisers had been individually talked over by the Editors of +the work in question, (themselves Revisionists); and perceived +that the result of the deliberations of the entire body +was in consequence, in a fair way of becoming a foregone +conclusion,—unless indeed, by earnest remonstrance, he +might be yet in time to stave off the threatened danger. +</p> + +<p> +But instead of saying anything of this kind, my lord +Bishop, it is clear from your pamphlet that you made the +Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort <emph>your own Theory</emph>; and their +Text, by necessary consequence, in the main <emph>your own Text</emph>. +You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in Convocation. +You suddenly became a partizan. Having secured the +precious advocacy of Bp. Wilberforce,—whose sentiments on +the subject you had before adopted,—you at once threw him +and them overboard.<note place='foot'>The Bp. attended <emph>only one meeting</emph> of the Revisers. (Newth, p. 125.)</note>... I can scarcely imagine, in a good +man like yourself, conduct more reckless,—more disappointing,—more +unintelligible. But I must hasten on. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the <q>New Greek Text,</q> in sixteen +particulars, examined.</head> + +<p> +It follows to consider the strangest feature of your +pamphlet: viz. those two-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in +which, descending from generals, you venture to dispute in +sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon your new Greek +Text by the <hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi>. I call this part of your +pamphlet <q>strange,</q> because it displays such singular inaptitude +to appreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, +(<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>sit venia verbo</foreign>) your entire method is quite unworthy of you. +Whereas I appeal throughout to <emph>Ancient Testimony</emph>, you seek +<pb n='416'/><anchor id='Pg416'/> +to put me down by flaunting in my face <emph>Modern Opinion</emph>. +This, with a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be literally +the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25, +the Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (<hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi> pp. <ref target='Pg123'>123-4</ref>) that +the testimony of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> א, together with that of the VIth-century +fragment <hi rend='smallcaps'>z</hi>, and two cursive copies of bad character,—cannot +possibly stand against the testimony of <hi rend='smallcaps'>all other</hi> copies. +You plead in reply that on <q>those two oldest manuscripts +<emph>the vast majority of Critics set a high value</emph>.</q> Very likely: but +for all <emph>that</emph>, you are I suppose aware that <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א are two of +the most corrupt documents in existence? And, inasmuch +as they are confessedly derived from one and the same +depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may +not be adduced as two independent authorities? At all events, +when I further show you that almost all the Versions, and +literally <emph>every one</emph> of the Fathers who quote the place, (they +are <emph>eighteen</emph> in number,) are against you,—how can you possibly +think there is any force or relevancy whatever in your +self-complacent announcement,—<q>We cannot hesitate to +<emph>express our agreement with Tischendorf and Tregelles</emph> who see +in these words an interpolation derived from S. Luke. <emph>The +same appears to have been the judgment of Lachmann.</emph></q> Do +you desire that <emph>that</emph> should pass for argument? +</p> + +<p> +To prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were +plainly futile. Instead of repeating what I have already +delivered—briefly indeed, yet sufficiently in detail,—I will +content myself with humbly imitating what, if I remember +rightly, was Nelson's plan when he fought the battle of the +Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those +of the enemy;—lashed himself to the foe;—and poured in +his broadsides. We remember with what result. The sixteen +instances which you have yourself selected, shall now +be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference shall be +<pb n='417'/><anchor id='Pg417'/> +made to the place in the present volume where my own Criticism +on your Greek Text is to be found in detail. Readers +of your pamphlet are invited next to refer to your own several +attempts at refutation, which shall also be indicated by a +reference to your pages. I am quite contented to abide by +the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average understanding +and fair education:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) <emph>Four words omitted in</emph> S. Matth. i. 25,—complained of, +above, pp. <ref target='Pg122'>122-4</ref>.—You defend the omission in your pamphlet +at pages 43-4,—falling back on Tischendorf, Tregelles +and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite page. (p. <ref target='Pg416'>416</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +(2) <emph>The omission of</emph> S. Matth. xvii. 21,—proved to be indefensible, +above, pp. <ref target='Pg091'>91-2</ref>.—The omission is defended by +you at pp. 44-5,—on the ground, that although Lachmann +retains the verse, and Tregelles only places it in brackets, +(Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it entirely,)—<q>it +must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were +not acquainted with א.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(3) <emph>The omission of</emph> S. Matth. xviii. 11,—shown to be +unreasonable, above, p. <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>.—You defend the omission in your +pp. 45-7,—remarking that <q>here there is even less room for +doubt than in the preceding cases. The three critical editors +are all agreed in rejecting this verse.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(4) <emph>The substitution of</emph> ἠπόρει for ἐποίει, in S. Mark vi. 20,—strongly +complained of, above, pp. <ref target='Pg066'>66-9</ref>.—Your defence is +at pp. 47-8. You urge that <q>in this case again the Revisers +have Tischendorf only on their side, and not Lachmann nor +Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics had +not the reading of א before them.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(5) <emph>The thrusting of</emph> πάλιν (after ἀποστελεῖ) into S. Mark +xi. 3,—objected against, above, pp. <ref target='Pg056'>56-8</ref>.—You defend yourself +<pb n='418'/><anchor id='Pg418'/> +at pp. 48-9,—and <q>cannot doubt that the Revisers were +perfectly justified</q> in doing <q>as Tischendorf and Tregelles +had done before them,</q>—viz. <emph>inventing</emph> a new Gospel incident. +</p> + +<p> +(6) <emph>The mess you have made</emph> of S. Mark xi. 8,—exposed by +the Quarterly Reviewer, above, pp. <ref target='Pg058'>58-61</ref>,—you defend at +pp. 49-52. You have <q>preferred to read with Tischendorf and +Tregelles.</q> About, +</p> + +<p> +(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,—and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,—I shall +have a few serious words to say immediately. About, +</p> + +<p> +(9) the 20 <emph>certainly genuine</emph> words you have omitted from +S. Luke ix. 55, 56,—I promise to give you at no distant date +an elaborate lecture. <q>Are we to understand</q> (you ask) +<q>that the Reviewer honestly believes the added words to +have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?</q> (<q>The <emph>omitted</emph> +words,</q> you mean.) To be sure you are!—I answer. +</p> + +<p> +(10) <emph>The amazing blunder</emph> endorsed by the Revisers in +S. Luke x. 15; which I have exposed above, at pp. <ref target='Pg054'>54-6</ref>.—You +defend the blunder (as usual) at pp. 55-6, remarking +that the Revisers, <q><emph>with Lachmann</emph>, <emph>Tischendorf</emph>, <emph>and Tregelles</emph>, +adopt the interrogative form.</q> (This seems to be a part +of your style.) +</p> + +<p> +(11) <emph>The depraved exhibition of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> Prayer</emph> (S. Luke +xi. 2-4) which I have commented on above, at pp. <ref target='Pg034'>34-6</ref>,—you +applaud (as usual) at pp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, <q>with +Tischendorf and Tregelles.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(12) <emph>The omission</emph> of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. +38, I have commented on, above, at pp. <ref target='Pg085'>85-8</ref>.—You defend +the omission, and <q>the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles,</q> +at pp. 58-9. +</p> + +<pb n='419'/><anchor id='Pg419'/> + +<p> +(13) <emph>The gross fabrication</emph> in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have +exposed, above, at pp. <ref target='Pg061'>61-5</ref>.—You defend it, at pp. 59-61. +</p> + +<p> +(14) <emph>A plain omission</emph> in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed +out, above, at pp. <ref target='Pg072'>72-3</ref>.—You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your +pamphlet. +</p> + +<p> +(15) <q><emph>Titus Justus</emph>,</q> thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. +7, I have shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at +pp. <ref target='Pg053'>53-4</ref>.—You stand up for the interesting stranger at pp. +62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly, +</p> + +<p> +(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (<hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi> pp. <ref target='Pg098'>98-106</ref>),—you +contend against from p. 64 to p. 76.—The true reading of +this important place, (which is not <emph>your</emph> reading,) you will +find fully discussed from p. <ref target='Pg424'>424</ref> to p. 501. +</p> + +<p> +I have already stated why I dismiss <emph>thirteen</emph> out of your +sixteen instances in this summary manner. The remaining +<emph>three</emph> I have reserved for further discussion for a reason I +proceed to explain. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[18] Bp. Ellicott's claim that the Revisers were guided by <q>the +consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,</q>—disproved +by an appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and +of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The self-same claim,—(namely, of +abiding by the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,)—vindicated, +on the contrary, for the <q>Quarterly Reviewer.</q></head> + +<p> +You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it +appear that the point at which our methods, (yours and mine,) +respectively diverge,—is, that <emph>I</emph> insist on making my appeal +to the <q><hi rend='italic'>Textus Receptus</hi>;</q> <emph>you</emph>, to <emph>Ancient Authority</emph>. But +happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of +being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. <emph>You</emph> shall first +<pb n='420'/><anchor id='Pg420'/> +be heard: and you are observed to express yourself on behalf +of the Revising body, as follows: +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>It was impossible to mistake the conviction upon which its +Textual decisions were based.</q> +</p> + +<p> +<q>It was a conviction that (1) <hi rend='smallcaps'>The true Text was not to be +sought in the Textus Receptus</hi>; or (2) In the bulk of the +Cursive Manuscripts; or (3) In the Uncials (with or without +the support of the <hi rend='italic'>Codex Alexandrinus</hi>;) or (4) In the Fathers +who lived after Chrysostom; or (5) In Chrysostom himself and +his contemporaries; <hi rend='smallcaps'>but</hi> (6) <hi rend='smallcaps'>In the consentient testimony of +the most ancient authorities</hi>.</q>—(p. 28.) +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +In such terms you venture to contrast our respective +methods. You want the public to believe that I make the +<q>Textus Receptus</q> <q><emph>a standard from which there shall be no +appeal</emph>,</q>—entertain <q>the notion that it is <emph>little else than sacrilege +to impugn the tradition of the last 300 years</emph>,</q><note place='foot'>Page 4.</note>—and so +forth;—while <emph>you</emph> and your colleagues act upon the conviction +that the Truth is rather to be sought <q><emph>in the consentient +testimony of the most ancient Authorities</emph>.</q> I proceed to show +you, by appealing to an actual instance, that neither of these +statements is correct. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding +that you challenge the Received reading of S. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Luke</hi> ii. 14, +(<q><emph>good will towards men</emph></q>);—and that, (on the authority of 4 +Greek Codices [א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b d</hi>], all <emph>Latin</emph> documents, and the Gothic +Version,) you contend that <q><emph>peace among men in whom he is +well pleased</emph></q> ought to be read, instead;—I make my appeal +unreservedly to <hi rend='smallcaps'>Antiquity</hi>.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg041'>41</ref> to 47.</note> I request the <emph>Ancients</emph> to adjudicate +between you and me by favouring us with their +verdict. Accordingly, I find as follows: +</p> + +<p> +That, in the IInd century,—the Syriac Versions and +Irenæus <emph>support the Received Text</emph>: +</p> + +<pb n='421'/><anchor id='Pg421'/> + +<p> +That, in the IIIrd century,—the Coptic Version,—Origen +in 3 places, and—the Apostolical Constitutions in 2, do the +same: +</p> + +<p> +That, in the IVth century, (<emph>to which century</emph>, you are +invited to remember, <emph>codices</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and</emph> א <emph>belong</emph>,)—Eusebius,—Aphraates +the Persian,—Titus of Bostra,—each in 2 places:—Didymus +in 3:—Gregory of Nazianzus,—Cyril of Jer.,—Epiphanius +2—and Gregory of Nyssa—4 times: Ephraem +Syr.,—Philo bp. of Carpasus,—Chrysostom 9 times,—and an +unknown Antiochian contemporary of his:—these eleven, I +once more find, are <emph>every one against you</emph>: +</p> + +<p> +That, in the Vth century,—besides the Armenian Version, +Cyril of Alex. in 14 places:—Theodoret in 4:—Theodotus of +Ancyra in 5:—Proclus:—Paulus of Emesa:—the Eastern +bishops of Ephesus collectively, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 431;—and Basil of +Seleucia:—<emph>these contemporaries of cod.</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> I find are <emph>all eight +against you</emph>: +</p> + +<p> +That, in the VIth century,—besides the Georgian—and +Æthiopic Versions,—Cosmas, 5 times:—Anastasius Sinait. +and Eulogius, (<emph>contemporaries of cod.</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>,) are <emph>all three with the +Traditional Text</emph>: +</p> + +<p> +That, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries,—Andreas of +Crete, 2:—pope Martinus at the Lat. Council:—Cosmas, bp. +of Maiume near Gaza,—and his pupil John Damascene;—together +with Germanus, abp. of Constantinople:—are again +<emph>all five with the Traditional Text</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +To these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities +with which the reader has been already made acquainted +(viz. at pp. 44-5): all of which bear the self-same evidence. +</p> + +<p> +Thus I have enumerated <emph>fifty-three</emph> ancient Greek authorities,—of +which <emph>sixteen</emph> belong to the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth +centuries: and <emph>thirty-seven</emph> to the Vth, VIth, VIIth, and +VIIIth. +</p> + +<pb n='422'/><anchor id='Pg422'/> + +<p> +And now, which of us two is found to have made the +fairer and the fuller appeal to <q>the consentient testimony of +the most ancient authorities:</q> <emph>you</emph> or <emph>I</emph>?... This first. +</p> + +<p> +And next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some +of the most famous personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: +are dotted over every region of ancient Christendom: in +many instances are <emph>far more ancient than codices</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> <emph>and</emph> א:—with +what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence +concerning S. Luke ii. 14 <q><emph>clearly preponderates</emph></q> in favour +of the reading which you and your friends prefer? +</p> + +<p> +I claim at all events to have demonstrated that <emph>both</emph> your +statements are unfounded: viz. (1) That <emph>I</emph> seek for the truth +of Scripture in the <q>Textus Receptus:</q> and (2) That <emph>you</emph> +seek it in <q>the consentient testimony of the <emph>most ancient +authorities</emph>.</q>—(Why not frankly avow that you believe the +Truth of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in <q><emph>the +consentient testimony of codices</emph> א <emph>and</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi></q>?) +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) Similarly, concerning <hi rend='smallcaps'>the last 12 Verses of S. Mark</hi>, +which you brand with suspicion and separate off from +the rest of the Gospel, in token that, in your opinion, +there is <q>a breach of continuity</q> (p. 53), (whatever <emph>that</emph> may +mean,) between verses 8 and 9. <emph>Your</emph> ground for thus +disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that +<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א omit them:—that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched +alternative for them:—and that Eusebius says they were +often away. Now, <emph>my</emph> method on the contrary is to refer all +such questions to <q><emph>the consentient testimony of the most +ancient authorities</emph>.</q> And I invite you to note the result of +such an appeal in the present instance. The Verses in +question I find are recognized, +</p> + +<pb n='423'/><anchor id='Pg423'/> + +<p> +In the IInd century,—By the Old Latin—and Syriac +Verss.:—by Papias;—Justin M.;—Irenæus;—Tertullian. +</p> + +<p> +In the IIIrd century,—By the Coptic—and the Sahidic +Versions:—by Hippolytus;—by Vincentius at the seventh +Council of Carthage;—by the <q>Acta Pilati;</q>—and by the +<q>Apostolical Constitutions</q> in two places. +</p> + +<p> +In the IVth century,—By Cureton's Syr. and the Gothic +Verss.:—besides the Syriac Table of Canons;—Eusebius;—Macarius +Magnes;—Aphraates;—Didymus;—the Syriac +<q>Acts of the Ap.;</q>—Epiphanius;—Leontius;—ps.-Ephraem;—Ambrose;—Chrysostom;—Jerome;—Augustine. +</p> + +<p> +In the Vth century,—Besides the Armenian Vers.,—by +codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>;—by Leo;—Nestorius;—Cyril of Alexandria;—Victor +of Antioch;—Patricius;—Marius Mercator. +</p> + +<p> +In the VIth and VIIth centuries,—Besides cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>,—the +Georgian and Æthiopic Verss.:—by Hesychius;—Gregentius;—Prosper;—John, +abp. of Thessalonica;—and Modestus, +bishop of Jerusalem.... (See above, pages <ref target='Pg036'>36-40</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +And now, once more, my lord Bishop,—Pray which of us +is it,—<emph>you</emph> or <emph>I</emph>,—who seeks for the truth of Scripture <q>in +<emph>the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities</emph></q>? On +<emph>my</emph> side there have been adduced in evidence <emph>six</emph> witnesses of +the IInd century:—<emph>six</emph> of the IIIrd:—<emph>fifteen</emph> of the IVth:—<emph>nine</emph> +of the Vth:—<emph>eight</emph> of the VIth and VIIth,—(44 in all): +while <emph>you</emph> are found to rely on codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א (as before), +supported by a single <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>obiter dictum</foreign> of Eusebius. I have +said nothing as yet about <emph>the whole body of the Copies</emph>: +nothing about <emph>universal, immemorial, Liturgical use</emph>. Do you +seriously imagine that the testimony on your side is <q>decidedly +preponderating</q>? Above all, will you venture +again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet +you have done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I +recognize neither myself nor you. +</p> + +<pb n='424'/><anchor id='Pg424'/> + +<p> +Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of +S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to be the gravest and most damaging of +all the many mistakes which you and your friends have +committed. <q>The textual facts,</q> (say you, speaking of the +last 12 Verses,)—<q>have been placed before the reader, +because Truth itself demanded it.</q> This (with Canon Cook<note place='foot'>Pages 17, 18.</note>) +I entirely deny. It is because <q>the textual facts have</q> <hi rend='smallcaps'>not</hi> +<q>been placed before the reader,</q> that I am offended. As +usual, you present your readers with a one-sided statement,—a +partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the facts,—facts +which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you +cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention. +</p> + +<p> +But, I forbear to state so much as <emph>one</emph> of them. The evidence +has already filled a volume.<note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref>, note 1.</note> Even if I were to allow that in +your marginal note, <q>the textual facts <emph>have been</emph> [fully and +fairly] <emph>placed before the reader</emph></q>—what possible pretence do +you suppose they afford for severing the last 12 Verses from +the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no part of +the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. +I have proved to you that it is <emph>I</emph>—not <emph>you</emph>—who rest my +case on an appeal to <hi rend='smallcaps'>Catholic Antiquity</hi>: and this is the +only thing I am concerned just now to establish. +</p> + +<p> +I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism +of a famous place in S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy,—on +which you have challenged me to a trial of strength. +</p> + +</div> + +<div> +<head>[19] <q>GOD was manifested in the flesh</q> +Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.</head> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>A Dissertation.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion +concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages +<pb n='425'/><anchor id='Pg425'/> +to this subject.<note place='foot'>Pages <ref target='Pg098'>98-106</ref>.</note> You reply in twelve.<note place='foot'>Pages 64-76.</note> That I may not be +thought wanting in courtesy, the present rejoinder shall +extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating myself, +to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it +will be convenient that I should define at the outset what is +precisely the point in dispute between you and me. I presume +it to be undeniably <emph>this</emph>:—That whereas the Easterns from +time immemorial, (and we with them, since Tyndale in 1534 +gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the +place thus:—(I set the words down in plain English, because +the issue admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in +the vernacular, as in Greek: and because I am determined +that all who are at the pains to read the present <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dissertation</hi> +shall understand it also:)—Whereas, I say, we have hitherto +read the place thus, +</p> + +<p> +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Great is the mystery of godliness:—God was manifest +in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, +preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, +received up into glory</hi>:</q> +</p> + +<p> +<emph>You</emph> insist that this is a <q><emph>plain and clear error</emph>.</q> You +contend that there is <q><emph>decidedly preponderating evidence</emph></q> for +reading instead, +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'><q>Great Is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested +in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,</q> &c.</hi>: +</p> + +<p> +Which contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, +and proceed to prove is a complete misconception. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>A</hi>) <hi rend='italic'>Preliminary explanations and cautions.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +But English readers will require to have it explained to +them at the outset, that inasmuch as ΘΕΟΣ (<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>) is invariably +<pb n='426'/><anchor id='Pg426'/> +written <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> in manuscripts, the only difference between the +word <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> and the word <q><emph>who</emph></q> (ΟΣ) consists of two horizontal +strokes,—one, which distinguishes Θ from Ο; and +another similar stroke (above the letters ΘΣ) which indicates +that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was +the custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous +faintly that they sometimes actually elude observation. +Throughout cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, in fact, the letter Θ is often scarcely +distinguishable from the letter Ο. +</p> + +<p> +It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same +English reader,—(and it will do learned readers no harm to +be reminded,)—that <q><emph>mystery</emph></q> (μυστήριον) being a neuter +noun, <emph>cannot</emph> be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὅς),—<q><emph>who</emph>.</q> +Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Grammar +and to Logic,—is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By +consequence, ὅς (<q><emph>who</emph></q>) is found to have been early exchanged +for ὅ (<q><emph>which</emph></q>). From a copy so depraved, the +Latin Version was executed in the second century. Accordingly, +every known copy or quotation<note place='foot'>The exceptions are not worth noticing <emph>here</emph>.</note> of <emph>the Latin</emph> exhibits +<q>quod.</q> <emph>Greek</emph> authorities for this reading (ὅ) are few +enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref>. +And with this brief statement, the reading in question might +have been dismissed, seeing that it has found no patron since +Griesbach declared against it. It was however very hotly +contended for during the last century,—Sir Isaac Newton +and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it +would be unfair entirely to lose sight of it now. +</p> + +<p> +The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,—Θεὸς +ἐφανερώθη (<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> <emph>was manifested</emph></q>), on the one hand; +and τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ὅς (<q><emph>the mystery of godliness, +who</emph></q>), on the other. <emph>These</emph> are the two readings, I say, +<pb n='427'/><anchor id='Pg427'/> +between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate. For +I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,—(though +it has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics +whom <emph>you</emph> follow,)—that the expression ὂς ἐφανερώθη in +Patristic quotations, <emph>unless it be immediately preceded by</emph> the +word μυστήριον, is nothing to the purpose; at all events, does +not prove the thing which <emph>you</emph> are bent on proving. English +readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,—with +reference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,—may surely speak of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> as One <q><emph>who</emph> was manifested in the flesh,</q>—without +risk of being straightway suspected of employing a copy of +the English Version which exhibits <q><emph>the mystery of godliness +who</emph>.</q> <q>Ex hujusmodi locis</q> (as Matthæi truly remarks) +<q>nemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit ὅς.</q><note place='foot'>N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.</note> +</p> + +<p> +When Epiphanius therefore,—<emph>professing to transcribe</emph><note place='foot'>i. 887 c.</note> from +an earlier treatise of his own<note place='foot'>Called <hi rend='italic'>Ancoratus</hi>, written in Pamphylia, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 373. The extract in +<hi rend='italic'>Adv. Hær.</hi> extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (= <hi rend='italic'>Ancor.</hi> ii. 67-79).</note> where ἐφανερώθη stands +<emph>without a nominative</emph>,<note place='foot'>ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη was +a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough had been +said already to make it plain that it was of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi> they were speaking, +or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to begin with Θεός. +Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 John <hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> Galland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius, +<hi rend='italic'>apud</hi> Cyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost. x. 763 c, 764 c:—and +the Latin of Cyril v.<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>1</hi> 785. So indeed ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.</note> writes (if he really does write) ὂς +ἐφανερώθη,<note place='foot'>i. 894 c.</note>—we are not at liberty to infer therefrom that +Epiphanius is opposed to the reading Θεός.—Still less is it +lawful to draw the same inference from the Latin Version of +a letter of Eutherius [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 431] in which the expression <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>qui +manifestatus est in carne</foreign>,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Apud</hi> Theodoret, v. 719.</note> occurs.—Least of all should we be +warranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading ὅς in +<pb n='428'/><anchor id='Pg428'/> +this place, because (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks +of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi> as One who <q>was manifested in the flesh, +justified in the Spirit.</q><note place='foot'>iv. 622 a,—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu</foreign>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +As for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is +demonstrably inadmissible: seeing that at the least on two +distinct occasions, this Father exhibits Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. I am +not unaware that in a certain place, apostrophizing the +Docetæ, he says,—<q>Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, +nor indeed the <emph>great mystery of godliness</emph>, that is <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>, who +(ὅς) <emph>was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit</emph>,</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>De incarn. Unig.</hi> v. part i. 680 d e = <hi rend='italic'>De rectâ fide</hi>, v. part ii. b c.</note> +&c. &c. And presently, <q>I consider <emph>the mystery of godliness</emph> +to be no other thing but the Word of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>, who +(ὅς) Himself <emph>was manifested in the flesh</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> 681 a = <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> 6 d e.</note> But there is +nothing whatever in this to invalidate the testimony of those +other places in which Θεός actually occurs. It is logically inadmissible, +I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is found +actually to write Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, because in other places he +employs 1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred—(which +indeed is abundantly plain)—that Θεός is always +his reading, from the course of his argument and from the +nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading ὅς +in</hi> 1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +[a] <hi rend='italic'><q>The state of the evidence,</q> as declared by Bp. Ellicott.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +When last the evidence for this question came before us, I +introduced it by inviting a member of the Revising body +(Dr. Roberts) to be spokesman on behalf of his brethren.<note place='foot'>Page <ref target='Pg098'>98</ref>.</note> +This time, I shall call upon a more distinguished, a wholly +unexceptionable witness, viz. <emph>yourself</emph>,—who are, of course, +<pb n='429'/><anchor id='Pg429'/> +greatly in advance of your fellow-Revisers in respect of +critical attainments. The extent of your individual familiarity +with the subject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed +to revise the Greek Text of the N. T. for the Church of +England on the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>solvere-ambulando</foreign> principle,—may I presume +be lawfully inferred from the following annotation in your +<q><hi rend='italic'>Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral +Epistles</hi>.</q> I quote from the last Edition of 1869; only +taking the liberty—(1) To break it up into short paragraphs: +and—(2) To give <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in extenso</foreign> the proper names which you +abbreviate. Thus, instead of <q>Theod.</q> (which I take leave to +point out to you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or +his namesake of Mopsuestia,—either Theodotus the Gnostic +or his namesake of Ancyra,) <q>Euthal.,</q> I write <q>Theodoret, +Euthalius.</q> And now for the external testimony, as <emph>you</emph> give +it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your readers +that,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> + +<p> +<q rend='pre'>The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:—</q> +</p> + +<p> +(1) Ὅς is read with <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi><hi rend='vertical-align: super'>1</hi> [<emph>indisputably</emph>; after minute personal +inspection; see note, p. 104.] <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi><hi rend='vertical-align: super'>1</hi> [Tischendorf <hi rend='italic'>Prol. Cod. +Ephraemi</hi>, § 7, p. 39.] <hi rend='smallcaps'>F G</hi> א (see below); 17, 73, 181; Syr.-Philoxenian, +Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (ὅς or ὅ) Syriac, +Arabic (Erpenius), Æthiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus +Mopsuest., Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus <hi rend='italic'>in Esaiam</hi> liii. 11. +</p> + +<p> +(2) ὅ, with <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi><hi rend='vertical-align: super'>1</hi> (Claromontanus), Vulgate; nearly all Latin +Fathers. +</p> + +<p> +(3) Θεός, with <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi><hi rend='vertical-align: super'>3</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>k l</hi>; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott), +Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), +Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius,—Ignatius +<hi rend='italic'>Ephes</hi>. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th +century has prefixed θε to ος, the reading of א; see Tischendorf +<hi rend='italic'>edit. major</hi>, Plate xvii. of Scrivener's Collation of א, facsimile +(13). +</p> + +<p> +<q rend='post'>On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important +uncial MSS., but <emph>all</emph> the Versions older than the 7th century +are distinctly in favour of a <emph>relative</emph>,—as ὅ seems only a Latinizing +<pb n='430'/><anchor id='Pg430'/> +variation of ὅς,—and lastly, as ὅς is the more difficult, +though really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, <hi rend='italic'>Schriftb.</hi> +Vol. I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been +changed into Θεός (Macedonius is actually said to have been +expelled for making the change, <hi rend='italic'>Liberati Diaconi Breviarium</hi> +cap. 19) than <hi rend='italic'>vice versâ</hi>, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of ὅς.</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>Pastoral +Epistles</hi>, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.) +</p> + +</quote> + +<p> +Such then is your own statement of the evidence on this +subject. I proceed to demonstrate to you that you are +completely mistaken:—mistaken as to what you say +about ὅς,—mistaken as to ὅ,—mistaken +as to Θεός:—mistaken +in respect of Codices,—mistaken in respect of +Versions,—mistaken in respect of Fathers. Your slipshod, +inaccurate statements, (<emph>all</emph> obtained at second-hand,) will +occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; but I am +determined, now at last, if the thing be possible, to set this +question at rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I +beg to repeat that all I propose to myself is to <emph>prove</emph>—beyond +the possibility of denial—that the evidence for Θεός +(in 1 Timothy iii. 16) <emph>vastly preponderates over the evidence for +either</emph> ὅς <emph>or</emph> ὅ. It will be for <emph>you</emph>, afterwards, to come forward +and prove that, on the contrary, Θεός is a <q><emph>plain and clear +error</emph>:</q> <emph>so</emph> plain and <emph>so</emph> clear that you and your fellow-Revisers +felt yourselves constrained to thrust it out from the +place it has confessedly occupied in the New Testament for +at least 1530 years. +</p> + +<p> +You are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless +you do this, you will be considered by the whole Church to +have dealt unfaithfully with the Word of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>. For, (as I +shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself who have +invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages +to it (pp. 64 to 76),—<q>compelled to do so by the Reviewer.</q> +<q>Moreover</q> (you announce) <q>this case is of great importance +as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the +<pb n='431'/><anchor id='Pg431'/> +complete isolation of the Reviewer's position. If he is right +all other Critics are wrong,</q> &c., &c., &c.—Permit me to +remind you of the warning—<q>Let not him that girdeth on +his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.</q> +</p> + +<p> +[b] <hi rend='italic'>Testimony of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Manuscripts</hi> concerning</hi> 1 Tim. iii. 16: +<hi rend='italic'>and first as to the testimony of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Codex</hi></hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +You begin then with the <emph>Manuscript</emph> evidence; and you +venture to assert that ΟΣ is <q>indisputably</q> the reading of +Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. I am at a loss to understand how a <q>professed +Critic,</q>—(who must be presumed to be acquainted with the +facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)—can permit +himself to make such an assertion. Your certainty is based, +you say, on <q>minute personal inspection.</q> In other words, +you are so good as to explain that you once tried a coarse +experiment,<note place='foot'>Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott's Commentary on 1 Timothy.</note> by which you succeeded in convincing yourself +that the suspected diameter of the Ο is exactly coincident with +the sagitta of an <hi rend='italic'>epsilon</hi> (Ε) which happens to stand <emph>on the +back of the page</emph>. But do you not see that unless you start +with <emph>this</emph> for your major premiss,—<q><hi rend='italic'>Theta</hi> cannot exist on +one side of a page if <hi rend='italic'>epsilon</hi> stands immediately behind it on +the other side,</q>—your experiment is <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>nihil ad rem</foreign>, and proves +absolutely nothing? +</p> + +<p> +Your <q>inspection</q> happens however to be <emph>inaccurate</emph> besides. +You performed your experiment unskilfully. A man +need only hold up the leaf to the light on a very brilliant +day,—as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many besides (including +your present correspondent) have done,—to be aware that +the sagitta of the <hi rend='italic'>epsilon</hi> on fol. 145<hi rend='italic'>b</hi> does not cover much +more than a third of the area of the <hi rend='italic'>theta</hi> on fol. 145<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>. +Dr. Scrivener further points out that it cuts the circle <emph>too +<pb n='432'/><anchor id='Pg432'/> +high</emph> to have been reasonably mistaken by a careful observer +for the diameter of the <hi rend='italic'>theta</hi> (Θ). The experiment which you +describe with such circumstantial gravity was simply +nugatory therefore. +</p> + +<p> +How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that +the way to ascertain the reading of Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> at 1 Tim. iii. 16, +is,—(1) To investigate <emph>not</emph> what is found at <emph>the back</emph> of the leaf, +but what is written on <emph>the front</emph> of it? and (2), Not so much +to enquire what can be deciphered of the original writing by +the aid of a powerful lens <emph>now</emph>, as to ascertain what was +apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex +was first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That +Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex +[1628-1652], read <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>, is certain.—Young communicated the +<q>various Readings</q> of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> to Abp. Ussher:—and the latter, +prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who clearly +knew nothing of ΟΣ.—It is plain that <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> was the reading +seen by Huish—when he sent his collation of the Codex +(made, according to Bentley, with great exactness,<note place='foot'>Berriman's MS. Note in the British Museum copy of his <hi rend='italic'>Dissertation</hi>,—p. +154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.</note>) to Brian +Walton, who published the fifth volume of his Polyglott in +1657.—Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such matters, +says <q>we find not ὅς <emph>in any copy</emph>,</q>—a sufficient proof how <emph>he</emph> +read the place in 1659.—Bp. Fell, who published an edition +of the N. T. in 1675, certainly considered <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> the reading of +Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>.—Mill, who was at work on the Text of the N. T. +from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that he saw the +remains of <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> in this place.<note place='foot'><q>Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa +quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud +dubitarim ipse scriptum <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi>, quod proinde in variantes lectiones conjeceram.... +Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ primam +aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, præsertim +ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ pertingit,</q> &c.—<hi rend='italic'>In loco.</hi></note> Bentley, who had himself +<pb n='433'/><anchor id='Pg433'/> +(1716) collated the MS. with the utmost accuracy (<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>accuratissime +ipse contuli</foreign></q>), knew nothing of any other reading.—Emphatic +testimony on the subject is borne by Wotton in +1718:—<q>There can be no doubt</q> (he says) <q>that this MS. +always exhibited <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>. Of this, <emph>any one may easily convince +himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with attention</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Clem. Rom.</hi> ed. Wotton, p. 27.</note>—Two +years earlier,—(we have it on the testimony of Mr. +John Creyk, of S. John's Coll., Cambridge,)—<q>the old line in +the letter θ was plainly to be seen.</q><note place='foot'>Berriman, pp. 154-5.</note>—It was <q>much about +the same time,</q> also, (viz. about 1716) that Wetstein +acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax,—<q>who took it down +in writing from his own mouth,—that though the middle +stroke of the θ has been evidently retouched, yet the fine +stroke which was originally in the body of the θ is discoverable +at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> (<hi rend='italic'>MS. Note.</hi>) Berriman adds other important testimony, p. 156.</note>—And +Berriman himself, (who delivered a course of Lectures on the +true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,) attests emphatically +that he had seen it also. <q><emph>If therefore</emph></q> (he adds) <q><emph>at any +time hereafter the old line should become altogether undiscoverable, +there will never be just cause to doubt but that the genuine, +and original reading of the MS. was</emph> <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>: and that the new +strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector +were not designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and +perpetuate the true reading, which was in danger of being +lost by the decay of Time.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dissertation</hi>, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in +recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading of the +place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common black ink, +and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There has been no +attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could deceive no one.</note>—Those memorable words +(which I respectfully commend to your notice) were written +in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1741. How <emph>you</emph> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1882), after surveying all this +<pb n='434'/><anchor id='Pg434'/> +accumulated and consistent testimony (borne <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1628 to <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> +1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this +kind as yourself; and fully as deserving of credit, when they +solemnly declare what they have seen:—how <emph>you</emph>, I say, after +a survey of this evidence, can gravely sit down and inform +the world that <q><emph>there is no sufficient evidence that there was +ever a time when this reading was patent as the reading which +came from the original scribe</emph></q> (p. 72):—<emph>this</emph> passes my comprehension.—It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a +very careful enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alexandrinus +as a witness for Θεός in 1734:<note place='foot'><q>Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur, +sublesta videtur nonnullis.</q>—N. T. p. 710.</note>—and that Woide, the +learned and conscientious editor of the Codex, declares that +so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the θ which twenty +years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.<note place='foot'>Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—<q>Manibus hominum +inepte curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo +detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere possit ... +Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur, ut primitivam +illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Symb. Crit.</hi> i. p. x.) +The MS. was evidently in precisely the same state when the Rev. J. C. +Velthusen (<hi rend='italic'>Observations on Various Subjects</hi>, pp. 74-87) inspected it in +1773.</note> +</p> + +<p> +That Wetstein subsequently changed his mind, I am not +unaware. He was one of those miserable men whose visual +organs return a false report to their possessor whenever they +are shown a text which witnesses inconveniently to the <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>-head +of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus Christ</hi>.<note place='foot'>As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi. <hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi> pp. lii.-iii.] remarks:—<q><emph>cum +de Divinitate</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christi</hi> <emph>agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur</emph>.</q> +Woide instances it as an example of the force of prejudice, that Wetstein +<q>apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, <emph>quia eam abesse volebat</emph>.</q> +[<hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi> p. xxxi.]</note> I know too that Griesbach in 1785 +announced himself of Wetstein's opinion. It is suggestive +<pb n='435'/><anchor id='Pg435'/> +however that ten years before, (N. T. ed. 1775,) he had rested +the fact <emph>not</emph> on the testimony borne by the MS. itself, but on +<q><emph>the consent of Versions, Copies, and Fathers</emph> which exhibit the +Alexandrian Recension.</q><note place='foot'><q>Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,</q> &c.—ii. 149.</note>—Since Griesbach's time, Davidson, +Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Ellicott have +announced their opinion that <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> was never written at 1 Tim. +iii. 16: confessedly only because <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> is to them invisible <emph>one +hundred years after</emph> <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> <emph>has disappeared from sight</emph>. The fact +remains for all <emph>that</emph>, that the original reading of <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> is attested +so amply, that no sincere lover of Truth can ever hereafter +pretend to doubt it. <q>Omnia testimonia,</q> (my lord Bishop,) +<q>omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere +non licet; nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, +antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.</q><note place='foot'>Woide, <hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi></note> +</p> + +<p> +The sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a +former occasion,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Supra</hi>, p. <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref>.</note>) is this,—That it is too late by 150 years to +contend on the negative side of this question. Nay, a famous +living Critic (long may he live!) assures us that when his +eyes were 20 years younger (Feb. 7, 1861) he actually discerned, +<emph>still lingering</emph>, a faint trace of the diameter of the Θ +which Berriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. <q>I have +examined Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> at least twenty times within as many +years</q> (wrote Prebendary Scrivener in 1874<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 553.</note>), <q>and ... seeing +(as every one must) with my own eyes, I have always +felt convinced that it reads <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi></q>.... For <emph>you</emph> to assert, in +reply to all this mass of positive evidence, that the reading is +<q>indisputably</q> ΟΣ,—and to contend that what makes this +indisputable, is the fact that behind part of the <hi rend='italic'>theta</hi> (Θ), [but +too high to mislead a skilful observer,] an <hi rend='italic'>epsilon</hi> stands on +the reverse side of the page;—strikes me as bordering +inconveniently on the ridiculous. If <emph>this</emph> be your notion of +<pb n='436'/><anchor id='Pg436'/> +what does constitute <q>sufficient evidence,</q> well may the +testimony of so many <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>testes oculati</foreign> seem to you to lack sufficiency. +Your notions on these subjects are, I should think, +peculiar to yourself. You even fail to see that your statement +(in Scrivener's words) is <q><emph>not relevant to the point at +issue.</emph></q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introd.</hi> p. 553.</note> The plain fact concerning cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> is <emph>this</emph>:—That at +1 Tim. iii. 16, two delicate horizontal strokes in <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> which +were thoroughly patent in 1628,—which could be seen +plainly down to 1737,—and which were discernible by an +expert (Dr. Woide) so late as A.D. 1765,<note place='foot'>Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should +(besides Berriman's admirable <hi rend='italic'>Dissertation</hi>) read Woide's <hi rend='italic'>Præfatio</hi> to +his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§ 87).—<q>Erunt fortasse +quidam</q> (he writes in conclusion) <q>qui suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc +lineolam diametralem in medio Θ vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. +Nec negari potest præsumptarum opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed +idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem +lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis +placere aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque +historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec +mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem +vidissemus, evanuerant.</q></note>—have for the +last hundred years entirely disappeared; which is precisely +what Berriman (in 1741) predicted would be the case. Moreover, +he solemnly warned men against drawing from this +circumstance the mistaken inference which <emph>you</emph>, my lord +Bishop, nevertheless <emph>insist</emph> on drawing, and representing as +an <q>indisputable</q> fact. +</p> + +<p> +I have treated so largely of the reading of the Codex +Alexandrinus, not because I consider the testimony of a +solitary copy, whether uncial or cursive, a matter of much +importance,—certainly not the testimony of Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, which +(in defiance of every other authority extant) exhibits <q><emph>the +body of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></emph></q> in S. John xix. 40:—but because <emph>you</emph> insist +that <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> is a witness on your side: whereas it is demonstrable, +<pb n='437'/><anchor id='Pg437'/> +(and I claim to have demonstrated,) that you cannot honestly +do so; and (I trust) you will never do so any more. +</p> + +<p> +[c] <hi rend='italic'>Testimony of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Codices</hi> א <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> <hi rend='italic'>concerning</hi> 1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +That א reads ΟΣ is admitted.—Not so Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, which the +excessive application of chemicals has rendered no longer +decipherable in this place. Tischendorf (of course) insists, +that the original reading was ΟΣ.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Prolegomena</hi> to his ed. of Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>,—pp. 39-42.</note> Wetstein and Griesbach +(just as we should expect,) avow the same opinion,—Woide, +Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the +original reading was <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>. As in the case of cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, it is too +late by full 100 years to re-open this question. Observable +it is that the witnesses yield contradictory evidence. Wetstein, +writing 150 years ago, before the original writing had +become so greatly defaced,—(and Wetstein, inasmuch as he +collated the MS. for Bentley [1716], must have been +thoroughly familiar with its contents,)—only <q><emph>thought</emph></q> that +he read ΟΣ; <q>because the delicate horizontal stroke which +makes Θ out of Ο,</q> was to him <q><emph>not apparent</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><q>Ος habet codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit +Θ, non apparet.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>In loc.</hi>) And so Griesbach, <hi rend='italic'>Symb. Crit.</hi> i. p. viii. +(1785).</note> Woide on the +contrary was convinced that <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> had been written by the first +hand: <q>for</q> (said he) <q>though there <emph>exists no vestige</emph> of the +delicate stroke which out of Ο makes Θ, <emph>the stroke written above +the letters is by the first hand</emph>.</q> What however to Wetstein +and to Woide was not apparent, was visible enough to +Weber, Wetstein's contemporary. And Tischendorf, so late +as 1843, expressed his astonishment that the stroke in +question had hitherto escaped the eyes of every one; <q><emph>having +been repeatedly seen by himself</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><q>Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium +sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.</q> <q>Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque +omnium oculos fugisse.</q> [<hi rend='italic'>Prolegg.</hi> p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.</note> He attributes it, (just as we +<pb n='438'/><anchor id='Pg438'/> +should expect) to a corrector of the MS.; partly, because of +<emph>its colour</emph>, (<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>subnigra</foreign></q>); partly, because of <emph>its inclining upwards +to the right</emph>. And yet, <emph>who</emph> sees not that an argument +derived from <emph>the colour</emph> of a line which is already well-nigh +invisible, must needs be in a high degree precarious? while +Scrivener aptly points out that the cross line in Θ,—the +ninth letter further on, (which has never been questioned,)—<emph>also</emph> +<q>ascends towards the right.</q> The hostile evidence +collapses therefore. In the meantime, what at least is +certain is, that the subscribed musical notation indicates that +<emph>a thousand years ago, a word of two syllables</emph> was read here. +From a review of all of which, it is clear that the utmost +which can be pretended is that some degree of uncertainty +attaches to the testimony of cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>. Yet, <emph>why</emph> such a plea +should be either set up or allowed, I really see not—except +indeed by men who have made up their minds beforehand +that ΟΣ <emph>shall be</emph> the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Let the sign of +uncertainty however follow the notation of <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> for this +text, if you will. That cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> is an indubitable witness for ΟΣ, +I venture at least to think that no fair person will ever +any more pretend. +</p> + +<p> +[d] <hi rend='italic'>Testimony of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Codices F</hi> <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>G</hi> <hi rend='italic'>of S. Paul, concerning</hi> +1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +The next dispute is about the reading of the two IXth-century +codices, <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>,—concerning which I propose to +trouble you with a few words in addition to what has been +already offered on this subject at pp. <ref target='Pg100'>100-1</ref>: the rather, +because you have yourself devoted one entire page of your +pamphlet to the testimony yielded by these two codices; and +because you therein have recourse to what (if it proceeded +from any one but a Bishop,) I should designate the <emph>insolent</emph> +method of trying to put me down by authority,—instead of +seeking to convince me of my error by producing some good +<pb n='439'/><anchor id='Pg439'/> +reasons for your opinion. You seem to think it enough to +hurl Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, +and (cruellest of all) my friend Scrivener, at my head. Permit +me to point out that this, <emph>as an argument</emph>, is the feeblest to +which a Critic can have recourse. He shouts so lustily for +help only because he is unable to take care of himself. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> then are confessedly independent copies of one +and the same archetype: and <q>both <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi></q> (you say) +<q>exhibit <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi>.</q><note place='foot'>Page 75.</note> Be it so. The question arises,—What does +the stroke above the <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> signify? I venture to believe that +these two codices represent a copy which originally exhibited +<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>, but from which the diameter of the Θ had disappeared—(as +very often is the case in codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>)—through tract of time. +The effect of this would be that <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> are in reality +witnesses for Θεός. Not so, you say. <emph>That</emph> slanting stroke +represents the aspirate, and proves that these two codices are +witnesses for ὅς.<note place='foot'>Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that opposite <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> in <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi>—above +<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> in <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>,—is written <q>quod.</q> Yes, but not <q><emph>qui</emph>.</q> The Latin +version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above ΑΓΡΩΝ is +written <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>arboribus</foreign>;</q> and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is translated +by <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>maledicimur</foreign>,</q>—by <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>, <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>exprobramur vel maledicimur</foreign>.</q></note> Let us look a little more closely into this +matter. +</p> + +<p> +Here are two documents, of which it has been said that +they <q>were separately derived from some early codex, in +which there was probably no interval between the words.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction to</hi> Cod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.</note> +They were <emph>not immediately</emph> derived from such a codex, I +remark: it being quite incredible that two independent +copyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd +way of dividing the uncial letters.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>E.g.</hi> Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make +Ο · μεν · το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει · +ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και · νηκτισις:—for +ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ · κλητοιον · εχοντες +(<q>nullum crimen habentes</q>):—for ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. +17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G) νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above +the words <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>sicut cancer ut serpat</foreign></q>).</note> The common archetype +<pb n='440'/><anchor id='Pg440'/> +which both employed must have been the work of a late +Western scribe every bit as licentious and as unacquainted +with Greek as themselves.<note place='foot'><p>He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει +[1 Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]: +ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author +of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv. 1. +</p> +<p> +But the scribes of <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> also were curiously innocent of Greek. +<hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> suggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be <q>infinitivus</q>—(of course +from γυναίκω).</p></note> <emph>That</emph> archetype however may +very well have been obtained from a primitive codex of the +kind first supposed, in which the words were written continuously, +as in codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>. Such Manuscripts were furnished +with neither breathings nor accents: accordingly, <q>of the +ordinary breathings or accents there are no traces</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 155.</note> in either +<hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> or <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +But then, cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> occasionally,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> much oftener,—exhibits +a little straight stroke, nearly horizontal, over the initial +vowel of certain words. Some have supposed that this was +designed to represent the aspirate: but it is not so. The +proof is, that it is found <emph>consistently</emph> introduced over the same +vowels <emph>in the interlinear Latin</emph>. Thus, the Latin preposition +<q>a</q> <emph>always</emph> has the slanting stroke above it:<note place='foot'>Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.</note> and the Latin +interjection <q>o</q> is furnished with the same appendage,—alike +in the Gospels and in the Epistles.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>E.g.</hi> Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ο</hi>ς and <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ο</hi>). Those who +have Matthæi's reprint of <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> at hand are invited to refer to the last line of +fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is exhibited thus:—<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>Ο</hi> Ὦ +ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.</note> This observation +<pb n='441'/><anchor id='Pg441'/> +evacuates the supposed significance of the few instances +where ἃ is written <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>Α</hi>:<note place='foot'>Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.</note> as well as of the much fewer places +where ὁ or ὃ are written <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>Ο</hi>:<note place='foot'>As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice of <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> in +1 Thess. i. 9 (<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>Ο</hi>; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>Ο</hi>; ΠΩΣ).</note> especially when account is taken +of the many hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) +when nothing at all is to be seen above the <q>ο.</q><note place='foot'>Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin <q>e</q>: but we +meet with <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>spē</foreign></q> (Col. i. 23): <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>sē</foreign></q> (ii. 18): <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>rēpēntes</foreign> (2 Tim. iii. 6), &c. +So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ written <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>Η</hi> are most unusual.—A few instances +are found of <q>u</q> with this appendage, as <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>domūs</foreign></q> (1 Tim. v. 13): <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>spiritū</foreign></q> +(1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.</note> As for the +fact that ἵνα is always written <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>Ι</hi>ΝΑ (or ΪΝΑ),—let it only be +noted that besides ιδωμεν, ιχθυς, ισχυρος, &c., Ιακωβος, +Ιωαννης, Ιουδας, &c., (which are all distinguished in the +same way,)—<emph>Latin words also beginning with an</emph> <q>I</q> are +similarly adorned,—and we become convinced that the little +stroke in question is to be explained on some entirely +different principle. At last, we discover (from the example +of <q>sī,</q> <q>sīc,</q> <q>etsī,</q> <q>servītus,</q> <q>saeculīs,</q> <q>idolīs,</q> &c.) that the +supposed sign of the rough breathing <emph>is nothing else but +an ancient substitute for the modern dot over the <q>I.</q></emph>—We may +now return to the case actually before us. +</p> + +<p> +It has been pointed out that the line above the ΟΣ in both +<hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> <q>is not horizontal, but rises a little towards the +right.</q> I beg to call attention to the fact that there are 38 +instances of the slight super-imposed <q>line</q> here spoken of, in +the page of cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> where the reading under discussion +appears: 7 in the Greek, 31 in the Latin. In the corresponding +page of cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>, the instances are 44: 8 in the +Greek, 36 in the Latin.<note place='foot'>This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured +from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor +Dr. Forstemann.</note> These short horizontal strokes +<pb n='442'/><anchor id='Pg442'/> +(they can hardly be called <emph>lines</emph>) generally—not by any +means always—slant upwards; and <emph>they are invariably the +sign of contraction</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +The problem before us has in this way been divested of a +needless encumbrance. The suspicion that the horizontal +line above the word ΟΣ may possibly represent the aspirate, +has been disposed of. It has been demonstrated that +throughout these two codices a horizontal line slanting upwards, +set over a vowel, is either—(1) The sign of contraction; +or else—(2) A clerical peculiarity. In the place +before us, then, <emph>which</emph> of the two is it? +</p> + +<p> +<emph>The sign of contraction</emph>, I answer: seeing that whereas +there are, in the page before us, 9 aspirated, and (including +<hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi>) 8 contracted Greek words, not one of those <emph>nine</emph> aspirated +words has <emph>any mark at all</emph> above its initial letter; while +every one of the <emph>eight</emph> contracted words is duly furnished +with the symbol of contraction. I further submit that inasmuch +as ὅς is <emph>nowhere</emph> else written <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> in either codex, it is unreasonable +to assume that it is so written in this place. Now, +that almost every codex in the world reads <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> in 1 Tim. iii. +16,—is a plain fact; and that <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi> (in verse 16) <emph>would be</emph> Θεός +if the delicate horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from +Ο, were not away,—no one denies. Surely, therefore, the +only thing which remains to be enquired after, is,—Are there +<emph>any other</emph> such substitutions of one letter for another discoverable +in these two codices? And it is notorious that +instances of the phenomenon abound. The letters Σ, Ε, Ο, Θ +are confused throughout.<note place='foot'>See Rettig's <hi rend='italic'>Prolegg.</hi> pp. xxiv.-v.</note> And what else are ΠΕΝΟΟΥΝΤΕΣ +for πενθουντες (Matth. v. 4),—ΕΚΡΙΖΩΟΗΤΙ for εκριζωθητι +(Luc. xvii. 16),—ΚΑΤΑΒΗΟΙ for καταβηθι (xix. 6),—but +<pb n='443'/><anchor id='Pg443'/> +instances of the <emph>self-same mistake</emph> which (as I contend) has +in this place turned <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi> into <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΟΣ</hi>? +</p> + +<p> +My lord Bishop, I have submitted to all this painful +drudgery, not, you may be sure, without a sufficient reason. +<emph>Never any more must we hear of <q>breathings</q> in connexion with +codices</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> <emph>and</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>. The stroke above the ΟΣ in 1 Tim. iii. 16 +has been proved to be <emph>probably the sign of contraction</emph>. I +forbear, of course, to insist that the two codices are witnesses +<emph>on my side</emph>. I require that you, in the same spirit of fairness, +will abstain from claiming them as certainly witnessing <emph>on +yours</emph>. The Vth-century codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>, and the IXth-century +codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>f-g</hi> must be regarded as equivocal in the testimony +they render, and are therefore not to be reckoned to either +of the contending parties. +</p> + +<p> +These are many words about the two singularly corrupt +IXth-century documents, concerning which so much has +been written already. But I sincerely desire,—(and so I +trust do you, as a Christian Bishop,)—to see the end of a +controversy which those only have any right to re-open (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>pace +tuâ dixerim</foreign>) who have <emph>something new to offer on the subject</emph>: +and certain it is that the bearing of <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi> on this matter +has never before been fully stated. I dismiss those two +codices with the trite remark that they are, at all events, but +one codex: and that against them are to be set <hi rend='smallcaps'>k l p</hi>,—<emph>the +only uncials which remain</emph>; for <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> (of <q>Paul</q>) exhibits ὅ, and +the Vatican codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> no longer serves us. +</p> + +<p> +[fe] <hi rend='italic'>Testimony of the</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>cursive copies</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>and specially of</hi> +<q>Paul 17,</q> <q>73</q> <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> <q>181,</q> <hi rend='italic'>concerning</hi> 1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +Next, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,—and +<emph>only because you find that men have claimed them before +you</emph>,—Nos. 17, 73, 181, as witnesses for ὅς. Will you permit +me to point out that no progress will ever be made in these +<pb n='444'/><anchor id='Pg444'/> +studies so long as <q>professed Critics</q> will persevere in the +evil practice of transcribing one another's references, and thus +appropriating one another's blunders? +</p> + +<p> +About the reading of <q>Paul 17,</q> (the notorious <q>33</q> of the +Gospels,) there is indeed no doubt.—Mindful however of +President Routh's advice to me always <q>to verify my references,</q>—concerning +<q>Paul 73</q> I wrote a letter of enquiry to +Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) +received a beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called +the <q>1 Thim. iii. 16 <foreign rend='italic'>paraphe</foreign>.</q> It proved to be an abridged +exhibition of 21 lines of Œcumenius. I instantly wrote to +enquire whether this was really all that the codex in question +has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received no reply. +I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the +business. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to +Dr. Belsheim of Christiania, and got his answer last October. +By that time he had visited Upsala: had verified for me +readings in other MSS., and reported that the reading here is +ὅς. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the +word with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to +look further into <emph>this</emph> matter on some future occasion,—the +MS. in question being (he says) a difficult one to handle. +I am still awaiting his final report, which he promises to +send me when next he visits Upsala. (<q>Aurivillius</q> says +nothing about it.) Let <q>Paul 73</q> in the meantime stand +with a note of interrogation, or how you will. +</p> + +<p> +About <q>Paul 181,</q> (which Scholz describes as <q>vi. 36</q> in +the Laurentian library at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in +a foot-note) what (in a letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained +in the <q>Guardian</q> ten years ago.<note place='foot'><q>You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every +Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the exception +of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c., which is said to +<q>contain also the Psalms.</q> I assure you no such Codex exists in the +Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist there. Dr. Anziani devoted +full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me [for I was very incredulous] to +see the process whereby he convinced himself that Scholz is in error. It +was just such an intelligent and exhaustive process as Coxe of the +Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel before him, would have gone through +under similar circumstances. Pray strike that Codex off your list; and +with it <q>Acts 145</q> and <q>Paul 181.</q> I need hardly say that Bandini's +Catalogue knows nothing of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that +I cannot even find out the history of Scholz's mistake.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Guardian</hi>, +August 27, 1873.</note> In consequence however +<pb n='445'/><anchor id='Pg445'/> +of your discourteous remarks (which you will be gratified to +find quoted at foot,<note place='foot'><q><emph>Whose</emph> word on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word +of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators +of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public +libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or beauty or +completeness (<hi rend='italic'>sic</hi>), know that the answer <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>non est inventus</foreign></q> is no conclusive +reason for believing that the object of their quest has not been +seen and collated in former years by those who profess to have actually +seen and collated it. That 181 <q>is non-existent</q> must be considered +unproven.</q>—Bp. Ellicott's <hi rend='italic'>Pamphlet</hi>, p. 72.</note>) I have written (not for the first time) to +the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject; +stating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity +in 1871. He replies,—<q>Scholz fallitur huic bibliothecæ +tribuendo codicem sign. <q>plut. vi. n. 36.</q> Nec est in præsenti, +nec fuit antea, neque exstat in aliâ bibliothecâ apud nos.</q>... +On a review of what goes before, I submit that one +who has taken so much pains with the subject does not +deserve to be flouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of +Gloucester and Bristol,—who has not been at the pains to +verify <emph>one single point</emph> in this entire controversy for himself. +</p> + +<p> +<emph>Every other known copy of S. Paul's Epistles</emph>, (written in +the cursive character,) I have ascertained (by laborious +correspondence with the chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in +exhibiting Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. The importance of this +<pb n='446'/><anchor id='Pg446'/> +testimony ought to be supremely evident to yourself who +contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181. +But because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of +the manuscripts is not only <q>important</q> but <emph>conclusive</emph>, I +shall presently recur to it (viz. at pages <ref target='Pg494'>494-5</ref>,) more in detail. +For do but consider that these copies were one and all derived +from yet older MSS. than themselves; and that the +remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher +antiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive +Christendom. How is it credible that they should, one and +all, conspire to mislead? I cannot in fact express better +than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the logical result of +such a concord of the copies:—<q>From whence can it be +supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent +of the Greek MSS. should arise, but from hence,—That +Θεός is the genuine original reading of this Text?</q> (p. 325.) +</p> + +<p> +In the meantime, you owe me a debt of gratitude: for, in +the course of an enquiry which I have endeavoured to make +exhaustive, I have discovered <emph>three</emph> specimens of the book +called <q><hi rend='italic'>Apostolus</hi>,</q> or <q><hi rend='italic'>Praxapostolus</hi></q> (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> Lections from +the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit ὅς in this place. +One of these is Reg. 375 (our <q>Apost. 12</q>) in the French +collection, a <emph>Western</emph> codex, dated <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1022.<note place='foot'>The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the +18 copies of the <q>Praxapostolus</q> in the Paris library, reports as follows +concerning <q>Apost. 12</q> ( = Reg. 375),—<q>A very foul MS. of small value, +I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental scholarship. It was +copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits many Latin words; having +been apparently revised on the Latin. The lection is assigned to +Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.</q></note> The story of +the discovery of the other two (to be numbered <q>Praxapost.</q> +85, 86,) is interesting, and will enliven this dull page. +</p> + +<p> +At Tusculum, near Rome,—(the locality which Cicero +<pb n='447'/><anchor id='Pg447'/> +rendered illustrious, and where he loved to reside surrounded +by his books,)—was founded early in the XIth century a +Christian library which in process of time became exceedingly +famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this +day. Nilus <q>Rossanensis</q> it was, who, driven with his monks +from Calabria by invading hordes, established in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1004 a +monastery at Tusculum, to which either he, or his successors, +gave the name of <q>Crypta Ferrata.</q> It became the headquarters +of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century. +Hither habitually resorted those illustrious men, Sirletus, +Mabillon, Zacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,—and more lately +Mai and Dom Pitra. To Signor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned +and enlightened chief of the Vatican library, (who is himself +<q>Abbas Monachorum Basiliensium Cryptæ Ferratæ,</q>) I am +indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of +publication<note place='foot'><q><hi rend='italic'>Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano, +digesti et illustrati cura et studio</hi> D. Antonii Rocchi, Hieromonachi +Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Tusculani</hi>, fol. 1882.—I have received +424 pages (1 May, 1883).</note>) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging +to the society over which he presides. +</p> + +<p> +In consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi +sent me, I put myself in communication with the +learned librarian of the monastery, the <q>Hieromonachus</q> +D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in question,) +whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness. +The sum of the matter is briefly this:—There are +still preserved in the library of the Basilian monks of Crypta +Ferrata,—(notwithstanding that many of its ancient treasures +have found their way into other repositories,<note place='foot'>Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the Vatican.</note>)—4 manuscripts +of S. Paul's Epistles, which I number 290, -1, -2, -3: +and 7 copies of the book called <q>Praxapostolus,</q> which I +<pb n='448'/><anchor id='Pg448'/> +number 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective +hereabouts: 5 read Θεός: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit ὅς; +and 1 (Apost. 83) contains an only not unique reading, to be +mentioned at p. <ref target='Pg478'>478</ref>. Hieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me +with references besides to 3 Liturgical Codices out of a +total of 22, (Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια), which also exhibit Θεός.<note place='foot'>In an <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi> to the present volume, I will give fuller information. +I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my troublesome +interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few continental libraries.</note> +I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110. +</p> + +<p> +And now, we may proceed to consider the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +[f] <hi rend='italic'>Testimony of the</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi> <hi rend='italic'>to the reading of</hi> 1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Turning to the ancient Versions</q> (you assert) <q>we find +them almost unanimous against Θεός</q> (p. 65). But your +business, my lord Bishop, was to show that some of them +witness <emph>in favour of</emph> ὅς. If you cannot show that several +ancient Versions,—besides a fair proportion of ancient Fathers,—are +clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable +as well as hopeless. What then do the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi> say? +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Latin</hi> Version +was made from copies which must have exhibited μυστήριον +ὅ ἐφανερώθη. The agreement of the Latin copies is +absolute. The Latin Fathers also conspire in reading +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>mysterium quod</foreign>:</q> though some of them seem to have +regarded <q>quod</q> as a conjunction. Occasionally, (as by the +Translator of Origen,<note place='foot'>Rufinus, namely (<hi rend='italic'>fl.</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 395). <hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iv. 465</note>) we even find <q>quia</q> substituted <emph>for</emph> +<q>quod.</q> Estius conjectures that <q>quod</q> <emph>is</emph> a conjunction in +this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin Fathers is +observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing +else but <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Deus</hi></q> in the text before them. They bravely +assume that the Eternal <hi rend='smallcaps'>Word</hi>, the second Person in the +<pb n='449'/><anchor id='Pg449'/> +Trinity, is <emph>designated</emph> by the expression <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>magnum pietatis +sacramentum</foreign>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) It is, I admit, a striking circumstance that such a +mistake as this in the old Latin should have been retained in +the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Vulgate</hi>. But if you ever study this subject with attention, +you will find that Jerome,—although no doubt he <q>professedly +corrected the old Latin Version by the help of +ancient Greek manuscripts,</q> (p. 69,)—on many occasions +retains readings which it is nevertheless demonstrable that +he individually disapproved. No certain inference therefore +as to what Jerome <emph>found</emph> in ancient Greek MSS. can be +safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) Next, for the <emph>Syriac</emph> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>Peschito</hi>) Version. I beg to +subjoin the view of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,—the +editor of Cyril, and who at the time of his death was +engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He says,—<q>In 1 Tim. +iii. 16, the Syriac has <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>qui manifestatus est</foreign>.</q> The relative is +indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however +μυστήριον is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be +to take μυστήριον as the antecedent, and translate <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quod +manifestatum est</foreign>.</q> <emph>No one would have thought of any other +way of translating the Syriac</emph>—but for the existence of the +various reading ὅς in the Greek, and the <emph>possibility</emph> of its +affecting the translation into Syriac. But the Peschito is so +really a translation into good Syriac, (not into word-for-word +Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the +Greek ὅς, in so difficult a passage, <emph>he would have turned it +differently</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.</note>—The Peschito therefore yields the same +testimony as the Latin; and may not be declared (as you +declare it) to be indeterminate. Still less may it be +represented as witnessing to ὅς. +</p> + +<pb n='450'/><anchor id='Pg450'/> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of +1 Tim. iii. 16 in the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Philoxenian</hi>, or rather the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Harkleian</hi> +Version (VIIth cent.), concerning which I have had recourse +to the learned Editor of that Version. He writes:—<q>There +can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either +Θεός or Θεοῦ before them: while their marginal note shows +that they were aware of the reading ὅς. They exhibit,—<q><emph>Great +is the mystery of the goodness of the fear</emph> (feminine) +<emph>of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, who-was-manifested</emph> (masculine) <emph>in the flesh</emph>.</q> The +marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference +to <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> all the plainer.</q><note place='foot'>MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John's College, Oxford.</note> See more below, at p. <ref target='Pg489'>489</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +Now this introduction of the word Θεός into the text, +however inartistic it may seem to you and to me, is a fatal +circumstance to those who would contend on your side. It +shows translators divided between two rival and conflicting +readings: but determined to give prominence to the circumstance +which constituted the greatness of the mystery: viz. +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God incarnate</hi>. <q>May I suggest</q> (adds the witty scholar +in his Post-script) <q>that there would be no mystery in <q>a +man being manifested in the flesh</q>?</q> +</p> + +<p> +The facts concerning the Harkleian Version being such, +you will not be surprised to hear me say that I am at a loss +to understand how, without a syllable expressive of doubt, +you should claim this version (the <q>Philoxenian</q> you call it—but +it is rather the Harkleian), as a witness on your side,—a +witness for ὅς.<note place='foot'>See above, page <ref target='Pg429'>429</ref>.</note> It not only witnesses <emph>against</emph> you, (for +the Latin and the Peschito do <emph>that</emph>,) but, as I have shown +you, it is a witness on <emph>my</emph> side. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) and (<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>). Next, for the Versions of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lower</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>Upper +Egypt</hi>. +</p> + +<pb n='451'/><anchor id='Pg451'/> + +<p> +<q>We are content</q> (you say) to <q>refer our readers to +Tischendorf and Tregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the +Memphitic [or Coptic] and the Thebaic [or Sahidic] for ὅς.</q><note place='foot'>Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.</note> +But surely, in a matter of this kind, my lord Bishop—(I +mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language of +which personally we know absolutely nothing,)—we may +never <q>be content to refer our readers</q> to individuals who +are every bit as ignorant of the matter as ourselves. Rather +should we be at the pains to obtain for those whom we propose +to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have +made the subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must +be heartily sick of me by this time), in reply to my repeated +enquiries, assures me that in Coptic and in Sahidic alike, +<q>the relative pronoun always takes the gender of the Greek +antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking +no neuter in either language, the masculine does duty <emph>for</emph> +the neuter; the gender of the definite article and relative +pronoun being determined by the gender of the word +referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic <q><hi rend='italic'>pi</hi></q> and +<q><hi rend='italic'>phè</hi></q> respectively represent the definite article and the +relative, alike in the expression ὁ Παράκλητος ὅν, and in the +expression τὸ Πνεῦμα ὅ: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. +16, therefore, <q><foreign rend='italic'>pi mustèrion phè</foreign>,</q> must perforce be rendered, τὸ +μυστήριον ὅ:—not, surely, ὁ μυστήριον ὅς. And yet, if <emph>the relative</emph> +may be masculine, why not <emph>the article</emph> also? But in fact, +we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) +relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage +where a neuter noun (<hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone +before. <emph>In this particular case</emph>, of course a pretence may be +set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as +an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far +otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having +to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, +<pb n='452'/><anchor id='Pg452'/> +would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον +ὅ.</q><note place='foot'>MS. letter to myself.</note> And now I trust I have made it plain to you +that <emph>you are mistaken</emph> in your statement (p. 69),—that <q>Ὅς +is <emph>supported by the two Egyptian Versions</emph>.</q> It is supported +by <emph>neither</emph>. You have been shown that they both witness +against you. You will therefore not be astonished to hear +me again declare that I am at a loss to understand how you +can cite the <q>Philoxenian, <emph>Coptic and Sahidic</emph>,</q><note place='foot'>See above, page <ref target='Pg429'>429</ref>.</note>—as witnesses +on your side. It is not in this way, my lord Bishop, that +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> Truth is to be established. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>) As for the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Gothic</hi> Version,—dissatisfied with the verdict +of De Gabelentz and Loebe,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ supersunt</hi>, +&c. 4to. 1843.</note> I addressed myself to +Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of +the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preserved <emph>the +only known copy</emph> of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He inclines +to the opinion that <q><foreign rend='italic'>saei</foreign></q> is to be read,—the rather, because +Andreas Uppström, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent +and able scholar, has decided in favour of that <q><emph>obscure</emph></q> +reading.<note place='foot'><p><q>Si tamen Uppström <q><emph>obscurum</emph></q> dixit, non <q><emph>incertum</emph>,</q> fides illi +adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me enim +præsente in aula codicem tractabat.</q>—(Private letter to myself.) +</p> +<p> +Ceriani proceeds,—<q>Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. +iii. 16, nota <hi rend='vertical-align: super'>54</hi> <hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi> Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός. Putarem +ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos +Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti <q><emph>Let me recommend to you the +practice of always verifying your references, sir</emph>.</q></q> +</p> +<p> +The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the +former editor of the codex, was in favour of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> in 1835, and of <q><foreign rend='italic'>soei</foreign></q> +(<foreign rend='italic'>quæ</foreign> [ = ὅ], to agree with <q><foreign rend='italic'>runa</foreign>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <q>mystery,</q> which is feminine in +Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured to print <q><foreign rend='italic'>saei</foreign></q> = ὅς. +<q>Et <q>saei</q> legit etiam diligentissimus Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis +Ambrosiani investigator et editor, in opere <hi rend='italic'>Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani +sive Epist. Pauli, &c.</hi> Holmiæ et Lipsiæ, 1868.</q></p></note> The Gothic therefore must be considered to +<pb n='453'/><anchor id='Pg453'/> +witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p. <ref target='Pg452'>452</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the +same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, +Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania. <q>But</q> (he adds) <q>the +reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to +his edition,<note place='foot'>Stuttgard, 1857.</note> at page 657, says,—<q><emph>saei</emph> [qui] is altogether +obliterated.</q></q>—In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness +for ὅς, you will (I trust) agree with me that a single <emph>scarcely +legible copy</emph> of a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while +certainly <q><emph>magnus</emph> est pietatis sacramentum, +<emph>qui</emph> manifestat<emph>us</emph> est in corpore</q>—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. +iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>h</hi>) For the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Æthiopic</hi>. Version,—Dr. Hoerning, (of the +British Museum,) has at my request consulted six copies of +1 Timothy, and informs me that they present no variety of +text. <emph>The antecedent, as well as the relative, is masculine in +all.</emph> The Æthiopic must therefore be considered to favour +the reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη, and to represent the +same Greek text which underlies the Latin and the Peschito +Versions. The Æthiopic therefore is against you. +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>i</hi>) <q>The <hi rend='smallcaps'>Armenian</hi> Version,</q> (writes Dr. Malan) <q>from +the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There is +<emph>no grammatical distinction of genders</emph> in Armenian.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>j</hi>) The <hi rend='smallcaps'>Arabic</hi> Version, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu<note place='foot'>Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives +his text from <q>the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic Version +of the Epistles: viz. <hi rend='italic'>Harl.</hi> 5474 (dated <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1332):—<hi rend='italic'>Oriental</hi> 1328 (Xth +cent.):—<hi rend='italic'>Arundel Orient.</hi> 19 (dated <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1616).</q>—Walton's Polyglott, he +says, exhibits <q>a garbled version, quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: +viz. <q><emph>These glories commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of +fair piety. <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> appeared in the flesh</emph>,</q></q> &c.</note> informs me,) +<pb n='454'/><anchor id='Pg454'/> +exhibits,—<q>In <emph>truth the mystery of this justice is great. It is +that he</emph></q> (or <q><emph>it</emph>,</q> for the Arabic has no distinction between +masculine and neuter) <q><emph>was manifested in the body, and was +justified in the spirit</emph></q> &c.—This version therefore witnesses +for neither <q>who,</q> <q>which,</q> nor <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +(<hi rend='italic'>k</hi>) and (<hi rend='italic'>l</hi>). There only remain the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Georgian</hi> Version, +which is of the VIth century,—and the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Slavonic</hi>, which is +of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me) +<emph>unequivocally witness to</emph> Θεός. +</p> + +<p> +Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Manuscripts</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi> of S. Paul's Epistles. +</p> + +<p> +[<hi rend='italic'>g</hi>] <hi rend='italic'>Review of the progress which has been hitherto made in +the present Enquiry.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Up to this point, you must admit that wondrous little +sanction has been obtained for the reading for which <emph>you</emph> +contend, (viz. μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη,) as the true reading +of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your enjoyment of the +testimony borne by Cod. א, you cannot but feel that such +testimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>: +and further, that the conjoined evidence of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Harkleian</hi>, +the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Georgian</hi>, and the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Slavonic</hi> Versions outweighs the +single evidence of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Gothic</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +But what is to be said about the consent of the manuscripts +of S. Paul's Epistles for reading Θεός in this place, +<emph>in the proportion of</emph> 125 <emph>to</emph> 1? You must surely see that, +(as I explained above at pp. <ref target='Pg445'>445-6</ref>,) such multitudinous testimony +is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At +<pb n='455'/><anchor id='Pg455'/> +p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a <q>lesson of +primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ponderari debere testes, non numerari</foreign>.</q> You might have +added with advantage,—<q><emph>and oftenest of all, misunderstood</emph>.</q> +For are you not aware that, generally speaking, <q>Number</q> +<emph>constitutes</emph> <q>Weight</q>? If you have discovered some <q>regia +via</q> which renders the general consent of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>,—the +general consent of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>,—the general consent of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>, a consideration of secondary importance, why do +you not at once communicate the precious secret to mankind, +and thereby save us all a world of trouble? +</p> + +<p> +You will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort's wild +theory of a <q><emph>Syrian Text</emph>,</q>—executed by authority at Antioch +somewhere between <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref> to 294.</note> Be it so. Let +that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what +follows? That <emph>at a period antecedent to the date of any existing +copy</emph> of the Epistle before us, the Church in her corporate +capacity declared Θεός (not ὅς) to be the true reading of +1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +Only one other head of Evidence (the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Patristic</hi>) remains +to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, +and to conclude the present Dissertation. +</p> + +<p> +[h] <hi rend='italic'>Testimony of the</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi> <hi rend='italic'>concerning the true reading of</hi> +1 <hi rend='italic'>Tim.</hi> iii. 16:—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Gregory of Nyssa</hi>,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Didymus</hi>,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Theodoret</hi>,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>John +Damascene</hi>,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Chrysostom</hi>,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Gregory Naz.</hi>,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Severus +Of Antioch</hi>,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Diodorus of Tarsus</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +It only remains to ascertain what the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi> have to +say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, +we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually +<pb n='456'/><anchor id='Pg456'/> +closes this discussion. You contended just now as +eagerly for the Vth-century Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, as if its witness were +a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to +show that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Gregory of Nyssa</hi> (a full century before Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> +was produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading +but Θεός.<note place='foot'><p>i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a <hi rend='italic'>bis</hi>.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b +(these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615, from +which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, <hi rend='italic'>supra</hi>, p. <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref>.]—iii. +39 b <hi rend='italic'>bis</hi>: 67 a b.—<hi rend='italic'>Ap. Galland.</hi> vi. 518 c: 519 d: 520 b: 526 d: +532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these places, I believe, +exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the reading of this Father. +The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four instances of it,—(they will +be found distinctly specified below, page <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>note</hi> 1),—are known to +exist. More places must have been overlooked. +</p> +<p> +Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name +Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for Θεός; +seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus:—τὸ +μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and +that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in turn by Scholz +and Alford. And yet, the words in question are <emph>not the words of Gregory +Nyss. at all</emph>; but of Apolinaris, against whom Gregory is writing,—as +Gregory himself explains. [<hi rend='italic'>Antirrh. adv. Apol.</hi> apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]</p></note> Of his weighty testimony you appear to have +been wholly unaware in 1869, for you did not even mention +Gregory by name (see p. <ref target='Pg429'>429</ref>). Since however you now admit +that his evidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing +to hasten forward,—only supplying you (at foot) with the +means of verifying what I have stated above concerning +the testimony of this illustrious Father. +</p> + +<p> +You are besides aware that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Didymus</hi>,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>De Trin.</hi> p. 83. The testimony is express.</note> another illustrious +witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable +testimony. +</p> + +<p> +You are also aware that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Theodoret</hi>,<note place='foot'>i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.</note> in <emph>four</emph> places, is +certainly to be reckoned on the same side: +</p> + +<pb n='457'/><anchor id='Pg457'/> + +<p> +And further, that <hi rend='smallcaps'>John Damascene</hi><note place='foot'>i. 313:—ii. 263.</note> <emph>twice</emph> adds his +famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Chrysostom</hi><note place='foot'>i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first of +these places occurs in the Homily <hi rend='italic'>de Beato Philogonio</hi>, which Matthæi in +the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited from an independent +source [<hi rend='italic'>Lectt. Mosqq.</hi> 1779]. Gallandius [xiv. <hi rend='italic'>Append.</hi> 141-4] reprints +Matthæi's labours).—Concerning this place of Chrysostom (<hi rend='italic'>vide suprà</hi>, p. +<ref target='Pg101'>101</ref>), Bp. Ellicott says (p. 66),—<q>The passage which he [the Quarterly +Reviewer] does allege, deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as +an illustration of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this +passage attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest the +reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator has introduced +it?</q>... I can but say, in reply,—<q>No, certainly not.</q> May I be permitted +to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible how Bp. Ellicott can +show himself so <foreign rend='italic'>planè hospes</foreign> in this department of sacred Science as to be +capable of gravely asking such a very foolish question?</note> again, whose testimony you called in question +in 1869, you now admit is another of your opponents. +I will not linger over his name therefore,—except to remark, +that how you can witness a gathering host of ancient Fathers +illustrious as these, without misgiving, passes my comprehension. +Chrysostom is <emph>three</emph> times a witness. +</p> + +<p> +Next come two quotations from <hi rend='smallcaps'>Gregory of Nazianzus</hi>,—which +I observe you treat as <q>inconclusive.</q> I retain +them all the same.<note place='foot'>i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quoted <hi rend='italic'>suprà</hi>, p. <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref>.</note> You are reminded that this most +rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting +Scripture. +</p> + +<p> +And to the same century which Gregory of Nazianzus +adorned, is probably to be referred,—(it cannot possibly be +later than <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 350, though it may be a vast deal more +ancient,)—<hi rend='smallcaps'>the title</hi> bestowed, in the way of summary, on +that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is +contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ +<pb n='458'/><anchor id='Pg458'/> +ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh +of the <q><hi rend='italic'>Euthalian</hi></q> κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself +declares that those 18 titles were <q>devised by a certain very +wise and pious Father;</q><note place='foot'>The place is quoted in Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, p. 59.</note> and this particular title (Περὶ θείας +σαρκώσεως) is freely employed and discussed in Gregory of +Nyssa's treatise against Apolinaris,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Antirrheticus</hi>, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.</note>—which latter had, in +fact, made it part of the title of his own heretical treatise.<note place='foot'>The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽ +ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου. <hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> 518 b, c: 519 a.</note> +That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, +ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a +memorable proof moreover that Θεός<note place='foot'>Apolinaris did not deny that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> was very <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>. His heresy (like +that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the Godhead +with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ ἑνωθεὶς +ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν ἐμψυχίαν? Α. +Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί. <hi rend='italic'>Dial.</hi> vi. <hi rend='italic'>adv. Apol.</hi> +(<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)</note> must have been universally +read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which +witnessed the production of codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Severus, bp. of Antioch</hi>, you also consider a <q>not unambiguous</q> +witness. I venture to point out to you that when +a Father of the Church, who has been already insisting on +the <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>head of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> (καθ᾽ ὅ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεός,) goes on to +speak of Him as τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν, there is +no <q>ambiguity</q> whatever about the fact that he is quoting +from 1 Tim. iii. 16.<note place='foot'>Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Actus</hi>, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena on +the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in his <hi rend='italic'>Anecdota Græca</hi>, iii. 137-8. +The place is quoted above, p. <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +And why are we only <q><emph>perhaps</emph></q> to add the testimony of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Diodorus of Tarsus</hi>; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's +<pb n='459'/><anchor id='Pg459'/> +actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says +that he finds them in <hi rend='italic'>S. Paul's Epistle to Timothy</hi>?<note place='foot'>Cramer's <hi rend='italic'>Cat. in Rom.</hi> p. 124.</note> How—may +I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation +made plainer? +</p> + +<p> +[i] <hi rend='italic'>Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Euthalius</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>animus</foreign> +you display in conducting the present critical disquisition +not only astonishes, but even shocks me. You seem to say,—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Non +persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris</foreign>. The plainest testimony +you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an unsatisfactory +quotation, if it makes for your side, you roundly declare to +be <q>evidence</q> which <q>stands the test of examination.</q><note place='foot'>P. 67.</note>... +<q>We have examined his references carefully</q> (you say). +<q>Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Theodoret and +John Damascene (<emph>who died</emph> severally about 394, 396, 457 and +756<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi>) <emph>seem</emph> unquestionably to have read Θεός.</q><note place='foot'>P. 65.</note> Excuse +me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid +enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the <emph>unequivocal</emph> +evidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers:—your +attempt to detract from the importance of their testimony +by screwing down their date <q>to the sticking place:</q>—your +assertion that the testimony of a fifth Father <q><emph>is not +unambiguous</emph>:</q>—your insinuation that the emphatic witness +of a sixth may <q><emph>perhaps</emph></q> be inadmissible:—all this kind of +thing is not only quite unworthy of a Bishop when he turns +disputant, but effectually indisposes his opponent to receive +his argumentation with that respectful deference which else +would have been undoubtedly its due. +</p> + +<p> +Need I remind you that men do not write their books when +they are <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in articulo mortis</foreign>? Didymus <emph>died</emph> in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 394, to be +<pb n='460'/><anchor id='Pg460'/> +sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore +born in <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How +old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employed +<emph>till then</emph>? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text +of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong to <emph>the first +quarter of the IVth century</emph>?—is more ancient in short (and +infinitely more important) than that of any written codex +with which we are acquainted? +</p> + +<p> +Pressed by my <q>cloud of witnesses,</q> you seek to get rid of +<emph>them</emph> by insulting <emph>me</emph>. <q>We pass over</q> (you say) <q><emph>names +brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius</emph>,—<emph>for whom +no reference is given</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>P. 65.</note> Do you then suspect me of the baseness,—nay, +do you mean seriously to impute it to me,—of +introducing <q>names</q> <q>to swell the number</q> of witnesses on +my side? Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently +gave no reference in the case of <q>Euthalius,</q> because I was +unable to specify any place where his testimony is found?... +I should really pause for an answer, but that a trifling circumstance +solicits me, which, if it does not entertain the +Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every +one else who takes the trouble to read these pages. +</p> + +<p> +<q>Such as <hi rend='italic'>Euthalius</hi></q>! You had evidently forgotten when +you penned that offensive sentence, that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Euthalius</hi> is one of +the few Fathers <emph>adduced by yourself</emph><note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg429'>429</ref>.</note> (but for whom you +<q>gave no reference,</q>) in 1869,—when you were setting down +the Patristic evidence in favour of Θεός.... This little incident +is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice +has evidently been to appropriate Patristic references<note place='foot'>Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce <q><hi rend='italic'>Euthalius</hi>.</q></note> without +thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping +<pb n='461'/><anchor id='Pg461'/> +a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like +dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally +enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed +vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who +comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by +his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. +Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) +that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department +of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my +Patristic references are <emph>never</emph> obtained at second hand: for +the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met +with. But waiving this, you have made it <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>luce clarius</foreign> to all +the world that so late as the year 1882, to <emph>you</emph> <q>Euthalius</q> +was nothing else but <q>a name.</q> And this really does astonish +me: for not only was he a famous Ecclesiastical personage, +(a Bishop like yourself,) but his work (the date of which is +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 458,) is one with which no Author of a <q><emph>Critical</emph> Commentary</q> +on S. Paul's Epistles can afford to be unacquainted. +Pray read what Berriman has written concerning Euthalius +(pp. 217 to 222) in his admirable <q><hi rend='italic'>Dissertation on</hi> 1 <hi rend='italic'>Tim.</hi> iii. +16.</q> Turn also, if you please, to the <hi rend='italic'>Bibliotheca</hi> of Gallandius +(vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact +that the <emph>only</emph> reason why, in the <q>Quarterly Review,</q> <q>no +reference is given for Euthalius,</q> is because the only reference +possible is—1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +[j] <hi rend='italic'>The testimony of the letter ascribed to</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dionysius Of +Alexandria</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>Six other primitive witnesses to</hi> 1 Tim. iii. +16, <hi rend='italic'>specified</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +Then further, you absolutely take no notice of the remarkable +testimony which I adduced (p. 101) from a famous Epistle +purporting to have been addressed by <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dionysius of Alexandria</hi> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and +<pb n='462'/><anchor id='Pg462'/> +interesting composition in question<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.</note> was not actually the +work of the great Dionysius, is inferred—(whether rightly or +wrongly I am not concerned to enquire)—from the fact that +the Antiochian Fathers say expressly that Dionysius did not +deign to address Paul personally. But you are requested to +remember that the epistle must needs have been written by +<emph>somebody</emph>:<note place='foot'><q>Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam epistolam +Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non fuisse ab aliquo +ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. +Innumeris enim exemplis constat indubitatæ antiquitatis +Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos titulos præferre.</q>—(Pagi ad <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 264, +apud Mansi, <hi rend='italic'>Concil.</hi> i. 1039.)</note> that it may safely be referred to the IIIrd century; +and that it certainly witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη,<note place='foot'>εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ +πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ +ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς +πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—<hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, i. 853 a.</note>—which +is the only matter of any real importance to my argument. +Its testimony is, in fact, as express and emphatic as +words can make it. +</p> + +<p> +And here, let me call your attention to the circumstance +that there are at least <hi rend='smallcaps'>six other primitive witnesses</hi>, +<emph>some</emph> of whom must needs have recognized the reading for +which I am here contending, (viz. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,) +though not one of them quotes the place <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>in extenso</foreign>, nor indeed +refers to it in such a way as effectually to bar the door against +reasonable dispute. The present is in fact just the kind of +text which, from its undeniable grandeur,—its striking +rhythm,—and yet more its dogmatic importance,—was sure +to attract the attention of the earliest, no less than the latest +of the Fathers. Accordingly, the author of the Epistle <hi rend='italic'>ad +Diognetum</hi><note place='foot'>Cap. xi.</note> clearly refers to it early in the IInd century; +<pb n='463'/><anchor id='Pg463'/> +though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present +enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance. +</p> + +<p> +The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Ignatius</hi> +(three in number) <emph>are</emph> helpful, and may not be overlooked. +They are as follows:—Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου:—ἐν +σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός—εἶς Θεός ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ +Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ Λόγος ἀΐδιος.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ad Ephes.</hi> c. 19: c. 7. <hi rend='italic'>Ad Magnes.</hi> c. 8.</note> +It is to be wished, no doubt, that these references had been a +little more full and explicit: but the very early Fathers are +ever observed to quote Scripture thus partially,—allusively,—elliptically. +</p> + +<p> +(2) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Barnabas</hi> has just such another allusive reference to +the words in dispute, which seems to show that he must have +read Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: viz. Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ +Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.<note place='foot'>Cap. xii.</note>—(3) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Hippolytus</hi>, on two +occasions, even more unequivocally refers to this reading. +Once, while engaged in proving that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> is <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, he +says:—Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Contra Hæresim Noeti</hi>, c. xvii. (Routh's <hi rend='italic'>Opuscula</hi>, i. 76.) Read the +antecedent chapters.</note>—and +again, in a very similar passage which Theodoret +quotes from the same Father's lost work on the +Psalms:—Οὗτος ὁ προελθὼν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος +ἐφανερώθη.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Dialog.</hi> ii. '<hi rend='italic'>Inconfusus.</hi>'—<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> iv. 132.</note>—(4) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Gregory Thaumaturgus</hi>, (if it really be he,) +seems also to refer directly to this place when he says (in a +passage quoted by Photius<note place='foot'>Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.</note>),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος +ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Apostolical +Constitutions</hi>, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος +ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν εν σαρκί.<note place='foot'>vii. 26, <hi rend='italic'>ap. Galland</hi>. iii. 182 a.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='464'/><anchor id='Pg464'/> + +<p> +And when (6) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Basil the Great</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 377], writing to the +men of Sozopolis whose faith the Arians had assailed, remarks +that such teaching <q>subverts the saving Dispensation of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord Jesus Christ</hi>;</q> and, blending Rom. xvi. 25, 26 with +<q>the great mystery</q> of 1 Tim. iii. 16,—(in order to afford +himself an opportunity of passing in review our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour's</hi> +work for His Church in ancient days,)—viz. <q>After all these, +at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ +γυναικός:</q><note place='foot'>iii. 401-2, <hi rend='italic'>Epist.</hi> 261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4 follows.</note>—<emph>who</emph> will deny that such an one probably found +neither ὅς nor ὅ, but Θεός, in the copy before him? +</p> + +<p> +I have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give +a distinct place to the foregoing evidence—such as it is—of +Ignatius, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the +Apostolical Constitutions, and Basil. But I shall not <emph>build</emph> +upon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable. +</p> + +<p> +[k] <hi rend='italic'>The testimony of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Cyril of Alexandria</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +Next, for <hi rend='smallcaps'>Cyril of Alexandria</hi>, whom you decline to +accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to +submit to the logic of <emph>facts</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and +Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> is very +and eternal <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>.<note place='foot'>μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ, +θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.</note> His method is to establish several short +theses all tending to this one object, by citing from the +several books of the N. T., in turn, the principal texts which +make for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,) he +announces as his thesis,—<q><hi rend='italic'>Faith in</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> <hi rend='italic'>as</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>;</q> +and when he comes to 1 Timothy, <emph>he quotes</emph> iii. 16 <emph>at length</emph>; +<pb n='465'/><anchor id='Pg465'/> +reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here +spoken of.<note place='foot'>καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς +ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—<hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (= <hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, +iii. 221 c d.)</note> There can be no doubt about this quotation, +which exhibits no essential variety of reading;—a quotation +which Euthymius Zigabenus reproduces in his <q><hi rend='italic'>Panoplia</hi>,</q>—and +which C. F. Matthæi has with painful accuracy edited +from that source.<note place='foot'>N. T. vol. xi. <hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi> p. xli.</note>—Once more. In a newly recovered treatise +of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is again <emph>quoted at length with</emph> +Θεός,—followed by the remark that <q>our Nature was justified, +by <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> <emph>manifested in Him</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—<hi rend='italic'>De Incarnatione Domini</hi>, Mai, +<hi rend='italic'>Nov. PP. Bibliotheca</hi>, ii. 68.</note> I really see not how you +would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη +ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.<note place='foot'>Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim. +iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον; +αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς κτίσεως, ὁ +ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ +φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ +τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν ἀναλαμβάνει.—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 37.</note> +</p> + +<p> +You are requested to observe that in order to prevent cavil, I +forbear to build on two other famous places in Cyril's writings +where the evidence for reading Θεός is about balanced by a +corresponding amount of evidence which has been discovered +for reading ὅς. Not but what the <emph>context</emph> renders it plain +that Θεός must have been Cyril's word on both occasions. +Of this let the reader himself be judge:— +</p> + +<p> +(1) In a treatise, addressed to the Empresses Eudocia and +Pulcheria, Cyril quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 <hi rend='italic'>in extenso</hi>.<note place='foot'>P. 153 d. (= <hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 264 c d.)</note> <q>If</q> (he +begins)—<q>the Word, being <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, could be said to inhabit +<pb n='466'/><anchor id='Pg466'/> +Man's nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to be <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, +but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great +indeed is the mystery of Godliness.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid</hi>, d e.</note> He proceeds in the +same strain at much length.<note place='foot'>εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ +μᾶλλον Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα +γὰρ τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν +σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν +ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι μόνον +ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, τετίμηται δὲ καὶ +ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι πεπιστευμένος.—<hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> +p. 170 d e.</note> Next (2) the same place of +Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril's <hi rend='italic'>Explanatio xii. capitum</hi>: +where not only the Thesis,<note place='foot'>Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι +τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, +τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.</note> but also the context constrains +belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—<q>What then means +<q>was manifested in the flesh</q>? It means that the Word of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi> was made flesh.... In this way therefore +we say that He was both <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> and Man.... Thus</q> (Cyril concludes) +<q>is He <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> of all.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> b, c, down to 149 a. (= <hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, iii. 815 b-e.)</note> +</p> + +<p> +But, as aforesaid, I do not propose to rest my case on either +of these passages; but on those two other places concerning +which there exists no variety of tradition as to the reading. +Whether the passages in which the reading is <emph>certain</emph> ought +not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning +which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether +in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not +be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take +my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other +hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril +of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally +<pb n='467'/><anchor id='Pg467'/> +balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of +course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes +say that <q>the mystery</q> here spoken of is <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> who <q>was +manifested in the flesh,</q> &c. A man with nothing else but +the A. V. of the <q>Textus Receptus</q> before him might equally +well say <emph>that</emph>. See above, pages <ref target='Pg427'>427-8</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium<note place='foot'>Preserved by Œcumenius in his <hi rend='italic'>Catena</hi>, 1631, ii. 228.</note> which the +Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), +and which <emph>as they quote it</emph>, (viz. so mutilated as effectually to +conceal its meaning,) certainly seems to be express in its testimony. +But the thing is all a mistake. Rightly understood, +the Scholium in question renders no testimony at all;—as I +proceed to explain. The only wonder is that such critics as +Bentley,<note place='foot'>Ellis, p. 67.</note> Wetstein,<note place='foot'>In loc.</note> Birch,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Variæ Lect.</hi> ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found it,—but +he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.</note> Tischendorf,<note place='foot'>In loc.</note> or even Tregelles,<note place='foot'>P. 227 <hi rend='italic'>note</hi>.</note> +should not have seen this for themselves. +</p> + +<p> +The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting +on our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord's</hi> absolute exemption from sin, although for our +sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes +Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—<q><emph>Who did no sin, neither +was guile found in His mouth</emph>.</q> <q>S. Cyril</q> (he proceeds) <q>in +the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—<q><emph>Who was manifested in the +flesh, justified in the Spirit</emph>;</q> for He was in no way subject to +our infirmities,</q> and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance +that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose +that it is any part of the Scholiast's object, in what precedes, +to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that +Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of +<pb n='468'/><anchor id='Pg468'/> +Θεός.<note place='foot'>Pointed out long since by Matthæi, <hi rend='italic'>N. T.</hi> vol. xi. <hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi> p. xlviii. +Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4. <q>Nec ideo laudatus est, ut doceret +Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum factum legeret +hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse crederet.</q></note> As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,<note place='foot'>See Berriman's <hi rend='italic'>Dissertation</hi>, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)</note> +the Scholiast's one object was to show how Cyril interpreted +the expression <q><emph>justified in the Spirit</emph>.</q> Altogether misleading +is it to quote <emph>only the first line</emph>, beginning at ὅς and ending at +πνεύματι, as the Critics <emph>invariably</emph> do. The point to which in +this way prominence is exclusively given, was clearly, to the +Commentator, a matter of no concern at all. He quotes from +Cyril's <q><hi rend='italic'>Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti</hi>,</q><note place='foot'>Not from the 2nd article of his <hi rend='italic'>Explanatio xii. capitum</hi>, as Tischendorf +supposes.</note> in preference to any +other of Cyril's writings, for a vastly different reason.<note place='foot'>See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the <q>Scholia,</q> in his <hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi> to +vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.</note> And +yet <emph>this</emph>—(viz. Cyril's supposed substitution of ὅς for Θεός)—is, +in the account of the Critics, the one thing which the +Scholiast was desirous of putting on record. +</p> + +<p> +In the meanwhile, on referring to the place in Cyril, we +make an important discovery. The Greek of the Scholium +in question being lost, we depend for our knowledge of its +contents on the Latin translation of Marius Mercator, Cyril's +contemporary. And in that translation, no trace is discoverable +of either ὅς or ὅ.<note place='foot'>Cyril's Greek, (to judge from Mercator's Latin,) must have run somewhat +as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν εἶναι τὸ +τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, +Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.</note> The quotation from Timothy begins +abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—<q>Divinus +Paulus <emph>magnum quidem</emph> ait <emph>esse mysterium pietatis</emph>. Et vere ita +se res habet: <emph>manifestatus est</emph> enim <emph>in carne</emph>, cum sit <hi rend='smallcaps'>Deus</hi> +Verbum.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the extant +Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey's ed. vi. p. 520,]) +abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not require,) that Θεός +went before: <hi rend='italic'>e.g.</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'><q>quasi Deus homo factus:</q>—<q>erant ergo gentes in +mundo sine Deo, cum absque Christo essent:</q>—<q>Deus enim erat incarnatus:</q>—<q>in +humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, +carne assumptâ, non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus +simul et homo,</q></foreign> &c.</note> The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter +proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on. +</p> + +<pb n='469'/><anchor id='Pg469'/> + +<p> +[l] <hi rend='italic'>The argument</hi> e silentio <hi rend='italic'>considered.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The argument <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>e silentio</foreign>,—(of all arguments the most +precarious,)—has not been neglected.—<q>But we cannot +stop here,</q> you say:<note place='foot'>P. 67.</note> <q>Wetstein observed long ago +that Cyril does not produce this text when he does produce +Rom. ix. 5 in answer to the allegation which he +quotes from Julian that S. Paul never employed the word +Θεός of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> vi. 327.</note> Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa +produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to +prove the <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>head of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Son</hi> and of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>. +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Grave est</foreign>,</q>—says Tischendorf.<note place='foot'>ii. 852.</note> No, not <q><emph>grave</emph></q> at all, I +answer: but whether <q><emph>grave</emph></q> or not, that <emph>Gregory of Nyssa</emph> +read Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, +you have been reminded already, that <q><emph>ubi de Divinitate</emph> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Christi</hi> <emph>agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>Matthæi, N. T. xi. <hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi> pp. lii.-iii.</note> +Examine the place in Cyril Alex. for yourself, reading +steadily on from p. 327 a to p. 333 b. Better still, read—paying +special attention to his Scriptural proofs—Cyril's two +Treatises <q><hi rend='italic'>De rectâ Fide</hi>.</q><note place='foot'>Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.</note> But in fact attend to the method +of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;<note place='foot'><q>How is the Godhead of Christ proved?</q> (asks Ussher in his <hi rend='italic'>Body of +Divinity</hi>, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only Jo. i. 1, +xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—He <emph>had</emph> quoted 1 Tim. iii. 16 in p. 160 +(with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two natures.</note> +and you will speedily convince yourself that the argument +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>e silentio</foreign> is next to valueless on occasions like the present. +</p> + +<pb n='470'/><anchor id='Pg470'/> + +<p> +Certain of the Critics have jumped to the conclusion that the +other Cyril cannot have been acquainted with S. Mark xvi. 19 +(and therefore with the <q>last Twelve Verses</q> of his Gospel), +because when, in his Catechetical Lectures, he comes to the +<q>Resurrection,</q> <q>Ascension,</q> and <q>Session at the Right Hand,</q>—he +does not quote S. Mark xvi. 19. And yet,—(as it has +been elsewhere<note place='foot'>Burgon's <hi rend='italic'>Last Twelve Verses</hi>, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook +on this subject,—pp. 146-7.</note> fully shown, and in fact the reason is assigned +by Cyril himself,)—this is only because, on the previous +day, being Sunday, Cyril of Jerusalem had enlarged upon the +Scriptural evidence for those august verities, (viz. S. Mark +xvi. 19,—S. Luke xxiv. 51,—Acts i. 9); and therefore was +unwilling to say over again before the same auditory what +he had so recently delivered. +</p> + +<p> +But indeed,—(the remark is worth making in passing,)—many +of our modern Critics seem to forget that the heretics +with whom Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, &c., were chiefly +in conflict, did not by any means deny the Godhead of our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> +<emph>was</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>. This, in fact, has been pointed out already. Very +differently indeed would the ancient Fathers have expressed +themselves, could they have imagined the calamitous use +which, at the end of 1500 years, perverse wits would make of +their writings,—the astonishing inferences they would propose +to extract from their very silence. I may not go further +into the subject in this place. +</p> + +<p> +[m] <hi rend='italic'>The story about</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Macedonius</hi>. <hi rend='italic'>His testimony.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +It follows to say a few words concerning <hi rend='smallcaps'>Macedonius</hi> II., +patriarch of Constantinople [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 496-511], of whom it has +been absurdly declared that he was <emph>the inventor</emph> of the reading +for which I contend. I pointed out on a former occasion +<pb n='471'/><anchor id='Pg471'/> +that it would follow from that very circumstance, (as far as it +is true,) that Macedonius <q><emph>is a witness for</emph> Θεός—<emph>perforce</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Suprà</hi>, p. <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Instead of either assenting to this, (which is surely a self-evident +proposition!),—or else disproving it,—you are at the +pains to furbish up afresh, as if it were a novelty, the stale +and stupid figment propagated by Liberatus of Carthage, +that Macedonius was expelled from his see by the Emperor +Anastasius for falsifying 1 Timothy iii. 16. This exploded +fable you preface by announcing it as <q><emph>a remarkable fact</emph>,</q> +that <q>it was the <emph>distinct belief of Latin writers</emph> as early as the +VIth century that the reading of this passage had been +corrupted by the Greeks.</q><note place='foot'>Pp. 68-9.</note> How you get your <q>remarkable +fact,</q> out of your premiss,—<q>the distinct belief of Latin +writers,</q> out of the indistinct rumour [<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>dicitur</foreign></q>] vouched for +by a single individual,—I see not. But let that pass. +</p> + +<p> +<q>The story shows</q> (you proceed) <q>that the Latins in the +sixth century believed ὅς to be the reading of the older Greek +manuscripts, and regarded Θεός as a false reading made out +of it.</q> (p. 69.)—My lord Bishop, I venture to declare that +the story shows nothing of the sort. The Latins in the VIth +(and <emph>every other</emph>) century believed that—<emph>not</emph> ὅς, but—ὅ, was +the right reading of the Greek in this place. Their belief on +this subject however has nothing whatever to do with the +story before us. Liberatus was not the spokesman of <q>the +Latins of the VIth,</q> (or any other bygone) <q>century:</q> but (as +Bp. Pearson points out) a singularly ill-informed Archdeacon +of Carthage; who, had he taken ever so little pains with the +subject, would have become aware that for no such reason as he +assigns was Macedonius [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 511] thrust out of his bishopric. +If, however, there were at least thus much of truth in the story,—namely, +that one of the charges brought against Macedonius +<pb n='472'/><anchor id='Pg472'/> +was his having corrupted Scripture, and notably his having +altered ὅς into Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16;—surely, the most +obvious of all inferences would be, that Θεός <emph>was found in copies +of S. Paul's epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal +authority between</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 496 <emph>and</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 511. To say the least,—Macedonius, +by his writings or by his discourses, certainly +by his influence, <emph>must have shown himself favourable to</emph> Θεός +(<emph>not</emph> ὅς) ἐφανερώθη. Else, with what show of reason could the +charge have been brought against him? <q>I suppose</q> (says +our learned Dr. John Mill) <q>that the fable before us arose +out of the fact that Macedonius, on hearing that in several +MSS. of the Constantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. +16 (which witnesses expressly to the Godhead of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>) had +been depraved, was careful that those copies should be corrected +in conformity with the best exemplars.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Proleg. in N. T.</hi>,—§ 1013.</note> +</p> + +<p> +But, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the +whole matter. You speak of <q><emph>the</emph> story.</q> But pray,—<emph>Which</emph> +<q>story</q> do you mean? <q>The story</q> which Liberatus +told in the VIth century? or the ingenious gloss which +Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, put upon it in the IXth? You +<emph>mention</emph> the first,—you <emph>reason from</emph> the second. Either will +suit me equally well. But—<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>una la volta, per carità!</foreign> +</p> + +<p> +Hincmar, (whom the critics generally follow,) relates that +Macedonius turned ΟΣ into ΘΕΟΣ (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>).<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Opp.</hi> (ed. 1645) ii. 447.</note> <emph>If Macedonius +did, he preferred</emph> Θεός <emph>to</emph> ὅς.... But the story which Liberatus +promulgated is quite different.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier's ed. of the <hi rend='italic'>Breviarium</hi>, +reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.</note> Let him be heard:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>At this time, Macedonius, bp. of CP., is said to have been +deposed by the emperor Anastasius on a charge of having +falsified the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, +<pb n='473'/><anchor id='Pg473'/> +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Quia apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu.</foreign></q> He was +charged with having turned the Greek monosyllable ΟΣ (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>qui</foreign></q>), by the change of a single letter (Ω for Ο) into ΩΣ: <hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> +<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem.</foreign></q></q> +</quote> + +<p> +Now, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting +the passage in Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>qui</foreign>,</q> +nor <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quod</foreign>,</q> nor <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Deus</foreign>,</q>—but <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>quia</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>apparuit in carne</foreign>.</q> (The +translator of Origen, by the way, does the same thing.<note place='foot'>iv. 465 c.</note>) +And yet, Liberatus straightway adds (as the effect of the +change) <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem</foreign>:</q> as if that were +possible, unless <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Deus</foreign></q> stood in the text already! Quite +plain in the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, +ὡς was the word which Macedonius introduced into 1 Tim. +iii. 16. And it is worth observing that the scribe who +rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.'s fifth Letter (written +on the occasion of the Lateran Council <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 649),—having +to translate the Pope's quotation from the Vulgate (<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quod +manifestatus est</foreign>,</q>)—exhibits ὡς ἐφανερώθη in this place.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].</note> +</p> + +<p> +High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion +that those Critics are right (Cornelius à Lapide [1614] and +Cotelerius [1681]) who, reasoning from what Liberatus +actually says, shrewdly infer that there must have existed +codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited ΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ +in this place; and that <emph>this</emph> must be the reading to which +Liberatus refers.<note place='foot'><q>Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et +Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς, intelligeretur +<emph>ut esset Deus</emph>.</q> (Cotelerii, <hi rend='italic'>Eccl. Gr. Mon.</hi> iii. 663)—<q>Q. d. Ut hic homo, +qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset Deus,</q> &c. (Cornelius, <hi rend='italic'>in loc.</hi> He +declares absolutely <q>olim legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.</q>)—All this was noticed +long since by Berriman, pp. 243-4.</note> <emph>Such codices exist still.</emph> One, is preserved +in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, +<pb n='474'/><anchor id='Pg474'/> +already spoken of at pp. <ref target='Pg446'>446-8</ref>: another, is at Paris. I call +them respectively <q>Apost. 83</q> and <q>Paul 282.</q><note place='foot'><p><q>Apost. 83,</q> is <q><hi rend='italic'>Crypta-Ferrat.</hi> A. β. iv.</q> described in the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi>. +I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta Ferrata, the +Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe the letter which +conveyed information which the writer knew would be acceptable to me:—<q>Clme +Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci illius Paulini non +modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his ipsis variationes, adsequutus +es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam, descriptis prope sexcentis et +quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel MSS. Tres autem, quos primum +nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam +felici omine tuas prosoquere elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et +labore nimio valetudinem tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. +Maias, an. R. S. <hi rend='smallcaps'>mdccclxxxiii</hi>. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Antonius Rocchi</hi>, Hieromonachus +Basilianus.</q> +</p> +<p> +For <q>Paul 282,</q> (a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as <q>Arménien 9,</q>) I +am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in his <hi rend='italic'>Introduction +à la Critique Textuelle du N. T.</hi>, 1883,—pp. 660-1. See <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi>.</p></note> This is new. +</p> + +<p> +Enough of all this however. Too much in fact. I must +hasten on. The entire fable, by whomsoever fabricated, has +been treated with well-merited contempt by a succession of +learned men ever since the days of Bp. Pearson.<note place='foot'>Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous +of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the Rev. John +Berriman's interesting and exhaustive <hi rend='italic'>Dissertation</hi>,—pp. 229-263.</note> And although +during the last century several writers of the unbelieving +school (chiefly Socinians<note place='foot'>The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his +<q><hi rend='italic'>Dissertation</hi></q> while Bp. Butler was writing the <q>Advertisement</q> prefixed +to his <q><hi rend='italic'>Analogy</hi></q> [1736],) has written on this part of the subject,—pp. +120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.</note>) revived and embellished the silly +story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses +inconveniently to the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Godhead</hi> of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>, one would have +hoped that, in these enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of +the same Church which the learned, pious, and judicious John +Berriman adorned a century and a-half ago, would have been +ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell the Socinian +<pb n='475'/><anchor id='Pg475'/> +chorus. I shall be satisfied if I have at least convinced +you that Macedonius is a witness for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +[n] <hi rend='italic'>The testimony of an</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Anonymous</hi> <hi rend='italic'>writer</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 430),—<hi rend='italic'>of</hi> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Epiphanius</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 787),—<hi rend='italic'>of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Theodorus Studita</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> +795?),—<hi rend='italic'>of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Scholia</hi>,—<hi rend='italic'>of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Œcumenius</hi>,—<hi rend='italic'>of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Theophylact</hi>,—<hi rend='italic'>of</hi> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Euthymius</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +The evidence of an <hi rend='smallcaps'>Anonymous</hi> Author who has been mistaken +for Athanasius,—you pass by in silence. That this +writer lived in the days when the Nestorian Controversy was +raging,—namely, in the first half of the Vth century,—is at +all events evident. He is therefore at least as ancient a +witness for the text of Scripture as codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi> itself: and Θεὸς +ἐφανερώθη is clearly what he found written in this place.<note place='foot'>Apud Athanasium, <hi rend='italic'>Opp</hi>. ii. 33; and see Garnier's introductory Note.</note> +Why do you make such a fuss about Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, and yet ignore +this contemporary witness? We do not know <emph>who wrote</emph> the +Epistle in question,—true. Neither do we know who wrote +Codex <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. What <emph>then</emph>? +</p> + +<p> +Another eminent witness for Θεός, whom also you do not +condescend to notice, is <hi rend='smallcaps'>Epiphanius, deacon of Catana</hi> in +Sicily,—who represented Thomas, Abp. of Sardinia, at the +2nd Nicene Council, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 787. A long discourse of this +Ecclesiastic may be seen in the Acts of the Council, translated +into Latin,—which makes his testimony so striking. +But in fact his words are express,<note place='foot'><q>Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem: <emph>Deus manifestatus est in carne</emph> +[down to] <emph>assumptus est in gloriâ</emph>. O magni doctoris affatum! <emph>Deus</emph>, +inquit, <emph>manifestatus est in carne</emph>,</q> &c.—<hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, vii. p. 618 e.</note> and the more valuable +because they come from a region of Western Christendom +from which textual utterances are rare. +</p> + +<p> +A far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Theodorus Studita</hi> of CP, [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 759-826,] is also a witness +<pb n='476'/><anchor id='Pg476'/> +for Θεός.<note place='foot'>Theodori Studitæ, <hi rend='italic'>Epistt</hi>. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi's <hi rend='italic'>Opera +Varia</hi>, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)</note> How does it happen, my lord Bishop, that you +contend so eagerly for the testimony of codices <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>, +which are but <emph>one</emph> IXth-century witness after all,—and yet +entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known +men,—who belonged to known places,—and wrote at a +known time? Is it because they witness unequivocally +against you? +</p> + +<p> +Several ancient <hi rend='smallcaps'>Scholiasts</hi>, expressing themselves diversely, +deserve enumeration here, who are all witnesses for +Θεός exclusively.<note place='foot'>Paul 113, (Matthæi's a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς +ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi's d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul +118, (Matthæi's h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi's n). See Matthæi's N. T. +vol. xi. <hi rend='italic'>Præfat.</hi> pp. xlii.-iii.</note> Lastly,— +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Œcumenius</hi><note place='foot'>ii. 228 a.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 990),—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Theophylact</hi><note place='foot'>ii. 569 e: 570 a.</note> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1077),—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Euthymius</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Panoplia</hi>,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.</note> +(<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1116),—close this enumeration. They +are all three clear witnesses for reading not ὅς but Θεός. +</p> + +<p> +[o] <hi rend='italic'>The testimony of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Ecclesiastical Tradition</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +Nothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical +usage with respect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. +iii. 16 occurs in a lection consisting of nine verses (1 Tim. +iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be publicly read in almost all +the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the Saturday before +Epiphany.<note place='foot'>Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.</note> It was also read, in not a few Churches, on the +34th Saturday of the year.<note place='foot'>But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽) Saturday.—In +Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26 (Reg. +320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi. 11.—Apostt. +26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar order of lessons.</note> Unfortunately, the book which +<pb n='477'/><anchor id='Pg477'/> +contains lections from S. Paul's Epistles, (<q><hi rend='italic'>Apostolus</hi></q> it is +technically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,—is +often found in a mutilated condition,—and (for this and +other reasons) is, as often as not, without this particular +lesson.<note place='foot'>For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of +<q>Apostolus</q>) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which +are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the Epistles: +such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi>.</note> Thus, an analysis of 90 copies of the <q>Apostolus</q> +(No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:—10 are +found to have been set down in error;<note place='foot'>No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (<q>Evstt.</q>). No. 29, 35 and +36 are Euchologia; <q>the two latter probably Melchite, for the codices +exhibit some Arabic words</q> (Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must be +erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M. <hi rend='italic'>Addit.</hi> 32051).</note> while 41 are +declared—(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of +those who profess to have examined them),—not to contain +1 Tim. iii. 16.<note place='foot'>Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few +Gospel lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: +47: 50: 53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: +75: 76: 78: 79: 80: 87: 88: 90.</note> Of 7, I have not been able to obtain tidings.<note place='foot'>Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: +54 at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.</note> +Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book called <q>Apostolus</q> +available for our present purpose. +</p> + +<p> +But of these thirty-two, <emph>twenty-seven</emph> exhibit Θεός.<note place='foot'>Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit. +29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the Propaganda +(verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris (verified by +Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the Vatican (verified by +Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by Dr. Young): 46 at +Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon (verified by M. Castan): +57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 <hi rend='smallcaps'>b-c</hi> (all three verified by Scrivener): 58 +at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow: 82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): +84 and 89 at Crypta Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).</note> You +will be interested to hear that <emph>one</emph> rejoices in the unique +<pb n='478'/><anchor id='Pg478'/> +reading Θεοῦ:<note place='foot'>Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin +assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note +however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation, proves +that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very instructive. What +if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>?</note> while another Copy of the 'Apostolus' keeps +<q>Paul 282</q> in countenance by reading ὅς Θεός.<note place='foot'>Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)</note> In other +words, <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q> is found in 29 copies out of 32: while <q>who</q> +(ὅς) is observed to survive in only 3,—and they, Western +documents of suspicious character. Two of these were produced +in one and the same Calabrian monastery; and they +still stand, side by side, in the library of Crypta Ferrata:<note place='foot'>Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits +μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits μυστίριον; +ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [<hi rend='italic'>sic.</hi>]). Concerning these codices, see +above, pp. <ref target='Pg446'>446</ref> to 448.</note> +being exclusively in sympathy with the very suspicious +Western document at Paris, already described at page <ref target='Pg446'>446</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Ecclesiastical Tradition</hi> is therefore clearly against <emph>you</emph>, +in respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How <emph>you</emph> estimate +this head of Evidence, I know not. For my own part, +I hold it to be of superlative importance. It transports us +back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be +infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of +any extant uncial documents which can be produced. And +why? For the plain reason that it must needs have been +once attested by <emph>an indefinitely large number of codices more +ancient by far than any which we now possess</emph>. In fact, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Ecclesiastical Tradition</hi>, when superadded to the testimony +of Manuscripts and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming +consideration. +</p> + +<p> +And now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me +gather out the result of the foregoing fifty pages; and remind +<pb n='479'/><anchor id='Pg479'/> +the reader briefly of the amount of external testimony producible +in support of each of these rival readings:—ὅ,—ὅς—Θεός. +</p> + +<p> +[I.] <hi rend='italic'>Sum of the Evidence of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>in +favour of reading</hi> μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη <hi rend='italic'>in</hi> 1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +(α) The reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη,—(which Wetstein +strove hard to bring into favour, and which was highly +popular with the Socinian party down to the third quarter of +the last century,)—enjoys, as we have seen, (pp. <ref target='Pg448'>448-53</ref>,) +the weighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito,—of +the Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the Æthiopic Versions. +</p> + +<p> +No one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence +as this. It is the oldest which can be produced for the +truth of anything in the inspired Text of the New Testament; +and it comes from the East as well as from the West. +Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics +of Truth are wanting to it,—two credentials,—unfurnished +with which, it cannot be so much as seriously +entertained. It demands <emph>Variety</emph> as well as <emph>Largeness of +attestation</emph>. It should be able to exhibit in support of its +claims the additional witness of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>. But, +</p> + +<p> +(β) On the contrary, ὅ is found besides in <emph>only one Greek +Manuscript</emph>,—viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus, <hi rend='smallcaps'>D.</hi> +And further, +</p> + +<p> +(γ) <emph>Two ancient writers</emph> alone bear witness to this reading, +viz. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Gelasius of Cyzicus</hi>,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).</note> whose date is <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 476;<note place='foot'>He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces +the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as Cave +thinks) of his own brain.</note> and the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Unknown Author</hi> of a homily of uncertain date in the +<pb n='480'/><anchor id='Pg480'/> +Appendix to Chrysostom<note place='foot'>viii. 214 b.</note>.... It is scarcely intelligible +how, on such evidence, the Critics of the last century can +have persuaded themselves (with Grotius) that μυστήριον; ὅ +ἐφανερώθη is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii. 16. And yet, +in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended +from the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. +Wetstein (1752) freely transferred the astronomer's +labours to his own pages, and thus gave renewed currency to +an opinion which the labours of the learned Berriman (1741) +had already <emph>demonstrated</emph> to be untenable. +</p> + +<p> +Whether <hi rend='smallcaps'>Theodore of Mopsuestia</hi> (in his work <q><hi rend='italic'>de Incarnatione</hi></q>) +wrote ὅς or ὅ, must remain uncertain till a sight has +been obtained of his Greek together with its context. I find +that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least three times:—Of the +first place, there is only a Latin translation, which begins +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Quod</hi> <emph>justificat</emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>us</hi> <emph>est in spiritu</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>Cited at the Council of CP. (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 553). [<hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, ed. Labbe et +Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]</note> The second place +comes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily +in all three:—(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) The Latin version introduces the +quotation thus,—<q>Consonantia et Apostolus dicit, <emph>Et manifeste +magnum est pietatis mysterium</emph>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>qui</hi><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi>, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.</note> (or <hi rend='smallcaps'>quod</hi><note place='foot'>Harduin, iii. 32 d.</note>) <emph>manifestat</emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>us</hi> +(or <hi rend='smallcaps'>tum</hi>) <emph>est in carne, justificat</emph><hi rend='smallcaps'>us</hi> (or <hi rend='smallcaps'>tum</hi>) <emph>est +in spiritu</emph>:</q>—(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The Greek, (for which we are indebted +to Leontius Byzantinus, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 610,) reads,—Ὅς ἐφανερώθη +ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι<note place='foot'>A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (<hi rend='italic'>Contra Nestor. et +Eutych.</hi>), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in <hi rend='italic'>lib.</hi> xiii., +may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage under consideration +being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (<hi rend='italic'>Script. Vett.</hi> vi. 290-312), having +discovered in the Vatican the original text of the excerpts from Theod. +Mops., published (from the xiith book of Theod. <hi rend='italic'>de Incarnatione</hi>) the +Greek of the passage [vi. 308]. From this source, Migne [<hi rend='italic'>Patr. Gr.</hi> vol. +66, col. 988] seems to have obtained his quotation.</note>—divested of all +<pb n='481'/><anchor id='Pg481'/> +preface.<note place='foot'>Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation of +Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [<hi rend='italic'>Antiquæ Lectt.</hi>, +1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply reprinted it in 1788.</note> Those seven words, thus isolated from their context, +are accordingly printed by Migne as <emph>a heading</emph> only:—(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) +The Syriac translation unmistakably reads, <q>Et Apostolus +dixit, <emph>Vere sublime est hoc mysterium</emph>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>quod</hi>,</q>—omitting +τῆς εὐσεβείας.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertit</hi> Ed. Sachau, Lips. 1869,—p. 53.—I +am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these Syriac +quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I venture to +predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.</note> The third quotation, which is found +only in Syriac,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Ibid.</hi> p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from Lagarde's +<hi rend='italic'>Analecta Syriaca</hi>, p. 102, top,) is as follows: <q>Deitas enim inhabitans +hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam gratia Spiritus Sancti +adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque Apostolus dixit: <q><emph>Vere +grande ... in spiritu</emph>;</q> quoniam nos quoque auxilium Spiritûs accepturi +sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.</q> A further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at +page 69, does not help us.</note> begins,—<q><emph>For truly great is the-mystery of-the-fear-of</emph> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, <emph>who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified +in-the-spirit</emph>.</q> This differs from the received text of +the Peschito by substituting a different word for εὐσέβεια, +and by employing the emphatic state <q>the-flesh,</q> <q>the-spirit</q> +where the Peschito has the absolute state <q>flesh,</q> <q>spirit.</q> +The two later clauses agree with the Harkleian or Philoxenian.<note place='foot'>I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my +learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John's.</note>—I +find it difficult from all this to know what precisely +to do with Theodore's evidence. It has a truly +oracular ambiguity; wavering between ὅ—ὅς—and even +Θεός. You, I observe, (who are only acquainted with the +second of the three places above cited, and but imperfectly +with <emph>that</emph>,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply +claiming the heretic's authority for the reading you advocate,—viz. +ὅς. I have thought it due to my readers to tell +<pb n='482'/><anchor id='Pg482'/> +them all that is known about the evidence furnished by +Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost which +can be advanced in favour of reading μυστήριον; ὅ in 1 +Timothy iii. 16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore +at liberty to pass on to the next opinion. +</p> + +<p> +[II.] <hi rend='italic'>Sum of the Evidence of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi> <hi rend='italic'>in +favour of reading</hi> μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη <hi rend='italic'>in</hi> 1 Timothy +iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +Remarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in +diverting the current of opinion with respect to the place before +us, into a new channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he +retained Θεός in his Text, timidly printing ὅς in small type +above it; and remarking,—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Judicium de hâc lectionis varietate +lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit</foreign>.</q> But, at the end of +thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach substituted +ὅς for Θεός,—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ut ipsi</foreign></q> (as he says) <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>nobis constaremus</foreign>.</q> +Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and +the Revisers, under your guidance, have followed him: +which is to me unaccountable,—seeing that even less authority +is producible for ὅς, than for ὅ, in this place. But let +the evidence for μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί be briefly +recapitulated:— +</p> + +<p> +(α) It consists of <emph>a single uncial copy</emph>, viz. the corrupt cod. +א,—(for, as was fully explained above,<note place='foot'>Pages <ref target='Pg437'>437-43</ref>.</note> codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>f-g</hi> yield +uncertain testimony): and <emph>perhaps two cursive copies</emph>, viz. +Paul 17, (the notorious <q>33</q> of the Gospels,)—and a copy +at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to require further verification.<note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg444'>444</ref>.</note> +To these, are to be added three other liturgical witnesses +in the cursive character—being Western copies of the +book called <q><hi rend='italic'>Apostolus</hi>,</q> which have only recently come to +<pb n='483'/><anchor id='Pg483'/> +light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabrian +origin.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg446'>446-8</ref>; also the <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>.</note> A few words more on this subject will be found +above, at pages <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref> and <ref target='Pg478'>478</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(β) <emph>The only Version</emph> which certainly witnesses in favour +of ὅς, is the Gothic: which, (as explained at pp. <ref target='Pg452'>452-3</ref>) exhibits +a hopelessly obscure construction, and rests on the +evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian library. +</p> + +<p> +(γ) Of Patristic testimonies (to μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη) +<emph>there exists not one</emph>. That <hi rend='smallcaps'>Epiphanius</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 360] <emph>professing +to transcribe</emph> from an early treatise of his own, in which +ἐφανερώθη stands <emph>without a nominative</emph>, should prefix ὅς—proves +nothing, as I have fully explained elsewhere.<note place='foot'>See pp. <ref target='Pg426'>426-8</ref>.</note>—The +equivocal testimony rendered by <hi rend='smallcaps'>Theodore of Mopsuestia</hi> +[<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 390] is already before the reader.<note place='foot'>See pp. <ref target='Pg480'>480-2</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came +in,—and (I venture to predict) will go out,—with the +present century. My only wonder is, how an exhibition of +1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,—so almost <emph>without</emph> attestation,—can +have come to be seriously entertained by any. +<q>Si,</q>—(as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)—<q>si +tam pauci ... testes ... sufficerent ad demonstrandam +lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa +tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; <emph>nullum prorsus +superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium</emph>, et <emph>textus Novi +Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>N. T. 1806 ii. <hi rend='italic'>ad calcem</hi>, p. [25].</note> +</p> + +<p> +Yet <emph>this</emph> is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not +only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so +<pb n='484'/><anchor id='Pg484'/> +much as <q><emph>open to reconsideration</emph>.</q> You are, it seems, for +introducing the <foreign rend='italic'>clôture</foreign> into Textual debate. But in fact you +are for inflicting pains and penalties as well, on those who +have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself. You +discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and +Bristol on <emph>me</emph> for my presumption in daring to challenge the +verdict of <q>the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years,</q>—of +the Revisers,—and of yourself;—my folly, in venturing to +believe that the traditional reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, (which +you admit is at least 1530 years old,) is the right reading +after all. You hold me up to public indignation. <q>He has +made</q> (you say) <q>an elaborate effort to shake conclusions +<emph>about which no professed Scholar has any doubt whatever</emph>; but +which an ordinary reader (and to such we address ourselves) +might regard as <emph>still open to reconsideration</emph>.</q>—<q>Moreover</q> +(you proceed) <q>this case is of great importance as an +example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete +isolation of the Reviewer's position. If he is right, all other +Critics are wrong.</q><note place='foot'>Page 76.</note> +</p> + +<p> +Will you permit me, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary +writer, addressing (like yourself) <q>ordinary readers,</q>—respectfully +to point out that you entirely mistake the problem +in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not to be +settled by <hi rend='smallcaps'>Modern Opinion</hi>, but by <hi rend='smallcaps'>Ancient Authority</hi>.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg376'>376-8</ref>.</note> +In this department of enquiry therefore, <q><emph>complete isolation</emph></q> +is his, and <emph>his only</emph>, who is forsaken by <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>. The man who is able, on the contrary, to point to +an overwhelming company of Ancient Witnesses, and is +contented modestly to take up his station at their feet,—such +an one can afford to disregard <q><emph>The Textual Criticism +of the last fifty years</emph>,</q> if it presumes to contradict <emph>their</emph> plain +<pb n='485'/><anchor id='Pg485'/> +decrees; can even afford to smile at the confidence of <q>professed +Scholars</q> and <q>Critics,</q> if they are so ill advised as +to set themselves in battle array against that host of ancient +men. +</p> + +<p> +To say therefore of such an one, (as <emph>you</emph> now say of <emph>me</emph>,) +<q>If he is right, all other Critics are wrong,</q>—is to present +an irrelevant issue, and to perplex a plain question. The +business of Textual Criticism (as you state at page 28 of your +pamphlet) is nothing else but to ascertain <q><emph>the consentient +testimony of the most ancient Authorities</emph>.</q> The office of the +Textual Critic is none other but to interpret rightly <emph>the +solemn verdict of Antiquity</emph>. Do <emph>I</emph> then interpret that verdict +rightly,—or do I not? The whole question resolves itself +into <emph>that</emph>! If I do <emph>not</emph>,—pray show me wherein I have mistaken +the facts of the case. But if I <emph>do</emph>,—why do you not +come over instantly to my side? <q><emph>Since</emph> he is right,</q> (I +shall expect to hear you say,) <q>it stands to reason that the +<q>professed Critics</q> whom he has been combating,—myself +among the number,—must be wrong.</q>... I am, you see, +loyally accepting the logical issue you have yourself raised. +I do but seek to reconcile your dilemma with the actual +facts of the problem. +</p> + +<p> +And now, will you listen while I state the grounds on +which I am convinced that your substitution of ὅς for Θεός +in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else but a calamitous perversion +of the Truth? May I be allowed at least to exhibit, in the +same summary way as before, the evidence for reading in +this place neither ὅ nor ὅς,—but Θεός? +</p> + +<p> +[III.] <hi rend='italic'>Sum of the Evidence of</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>, <hi rend='italic'>in +favour of reading</hi> Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη <hi rend='italic'>in</hi> 1 Tim. iii 16. +</p> + +<p> +Entirely different,—in respect of variety, of quantity and +<pb n='486'/><anchor id='Pg486'/> +of quality,—from what has gone before, is the witness of +Antiquity to the Received Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16: viz. καὶ +ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ΘΕῸΣ +ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ.τ.λ.... I proceed to rehearse it in +outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it +as has been made the subject of controversy.<note place='foot'>Viz. from p. <ref target='Pg431'>431</ref> to p. 478.</note> The reader is +fully aware<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg462'>462-4</ref>.</note> that I do not propose to make argumentative +use of the first six names in the ensuing enumeration. To +those names, [enclosed within square brackets,] I forbear +even to assign numbers; not as entertaining doubt concerning +the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build +exclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it +but reasonable that the whole of the Evidence for Θεὸς +ἐφανερώθη should be placed before the reader: and <emph>he</emph> is in +my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can attentively +survey the evidence which I thus forego, without +secretly acknowledging that its combined Weight is considerable; +while its Antiquity makes it a serious question +whether it is not simply contrary to reason that it should +be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present. +</p> + +<p> +[(<hi rend='italic'>a</hi>) In the Ist century then,—it has been already shown +(at page <ref target='Pg463'>463</ref>) that <hi rend='smallcaps'>Ignatius</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 90) probably recognized +the reading before us in three places.] +</p> + +<p> +[(<hi rend='italic'>b</hi>) The brief but significant testimony of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Barnabas</hi> will +be found in the same page.] +</p> + +<p> +[(<hi rend='italic'>c</hi>) In the IInd century,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Hippolytus</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 190] (as was +explained at page <ref target='Pg463'>463</ref>,) twice comes forward as a witness on +the same side.] +</p> + +<p> +[(<hi rend='italic'>d</hi>) In the IIIrd century,—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Gregory Thaumaturgus</hi>, (if +<pb n='487'/><anchor id='Pg487'/> +it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page <ref target='Pg463'>463</ref>) probably +to testify to the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.] +</p> + +<p> +[(<hi rend='italic'>e</hi>) To the same century is referred the work entitled +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Constitutiones Apostolicæ</hi>: which seems also to witness to +the same reading. See above, p. <ref target='Pg463'>463</ref>.] +</p> + +<p> +[(<hi rend='italic'>f</hi>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Basil the Great</hi> also [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 355], as will be found +explained at page <ref target='Pg464'>464</ref>, must be held to witness to Θεὸς +ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though his testimony, like that +of the five names which go before, being open to cavil, is not +here insisted on.]—And now to get upon <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>terra firma</foreign>. +</p> + +<p> +(1) To the IIIrd century then [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 264?], belongs the +Epistle ascribed to <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dionysius of Alexandria</hi>, (spoken of +above, at pages <ref target='Pg461'>461-2</ref>,) in which 1 Tim. iii. 16 is distinctly +quoted in the same way. +</p> + +<p> +(2) In the next, (the IVth) century, unequivocal Patristic +witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη abound. Foremost is <hi rend='smallcaps'>Didymus</hi>, +who presided over the Catechetical School of Alexandria,—the +teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Born <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 309, and +becoming early famous, he clearly witnesses to what was the +reading of the first quarter of the IVth century. His testimony +has been set forth at page <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(3) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 355], a contemporary +of Basil, in <emph>two</emph> places is found to bear similar +witness. See above page <ref target='Pg457'>457</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(4) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Diodorus</hi>, (or <q>Theodorus</q> as Photius writes his +name,) the teacher of Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards +the heretical <hi rend='smallcaps'>bishop of Tarsus</hi> in Cilicia,—is next to +be cited [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 370]. His testimony is given above at pages +<ref target='Pg458'>458-9</ref>. +</p> + +<pb n='488'/><anchor id='Pg488'/> + +<p> +(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz. +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Gregory, bishop of Nyssa</hi> in Cappadocia [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 370]. References +to at least <emph>twenty-two</emph> places of his writings have +been already given at page <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, +is <hi rend='smallcaps'>Chrysostom</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 380], first of Antioch,—afterwards +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Patriarch of Constantinople</hi>,—who in <emph>three</emph> places witnesses +plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page <ref target='Pg457'>457</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(7) And to this century, (not later certainly than the last +half of it,) is to be referred the title of that κεφάλαιον, or +chapter, of St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy which contains +chap. iii. 16,—(indeed, which <emph>begins</emph> with it,) viz. Περὶ +θείας σαρκώσεως. Very eloquently does that title witness to +the fact that Θεός was the established reading of the place +under discussion, before either cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> or cod. א was produced. +See above, pages <ref target='Pg457'>457-8</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(8) In the Vth century,—besides the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Codex Alexandrinus</hi> +(cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>,) concerning which so much has been said +already (page <ref target='Pg431'>431</ref> to page 437),—we are able to appeal for +the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, to, +</p> + +<p> +(9) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria</hi>, [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 410,] who in +<emph>at least two</emph> places witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, +pp. <ref target='Pg464'>464</ref> to 470. So does, +</p> + +<p> +(10) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus</hi> in Syria, [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 420]: +who, in at least <emph>four</emph> places, (see above, page <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>) renders +unequivocal and important witness on the same side. +</p> + +<p> +(11) Next, the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Anonymous Author</hi> claims notice [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> +430], whose composition is found in the Appendix to the +works of Athanasius. See above, page <ref target='Pg475'>475</ref>. +</p> + +<pb n='489'/><anchor id='Pg489'/> + +<p> +(12) You will be anxious to see your friend <hi rend='smallcaps'>Euthalius, +bishop of Sulca</hi>, duly recognized in this enumeration. He +comes next. [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 458.] The discussion concerning him will +be found above, at page <ref target='Pg459'>459</ref> to page 461. +</p> + +<p> +(13) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Macedonius II, Patriarch of CP.</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 496] must of +necessity be mentioned here, as I have very fully explained +at page <ref target='Pg470'>470</ref> to page 474. +</p> + +<p> +(14) To the VIth century belongs the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Georgian</hi> Version, +as already noted at page <ref target='Pg454'>454</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Severus, bishop of Antioch</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 512], which has been +already particularly set down at page <ref target='Pg458'>458</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(16) To the VIIth century [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 616] belongs the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Harkleian</hi> +(or <hi rend='smallcaps'>Philoxenian</hi>) Version; concerning which, see above, +page <ref target='Pg450'>450</ref>. <q>That Θεός was the reading of the manuscripts +from which this Version was made, is put beyond reach of doubt +by the fact that in twelve of the other places where εὐσέβεια +occurs,<note place='foot'>Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1; +2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.</note> the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) +(<q><emph>beauty-of-fear</emph></q>) are +found <emph>without</emph> the addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ) +(<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi></q>). It is noteworthy, +that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the +Peschito reads <q><emph>fear of</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>,</q> the Harkleian reads <q><emph>fear</emph></q> +only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts +iii. 12 expressly states that εὐσέβια is the Greek equivalent +of ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) +(<q><emph>beauty-of-fear</emph></q>). This effectually establishes +the fact that the author of the Harkleian recension +found Θεός in his Greek manuscript of 1 Tim. iii. 16.</q><note place='foot'>From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp. <ref target='Pg450'>450</ref>, <ref target='Pg481'>481</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='490'/><anchor id='Pg490'/> + +<p> +(17) In the VIIIth century, <hi rend='smallcaps'>John Damascene</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 730] +pre-eminently claims attention. He is <emph>twice</emph> a witness for +Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at page <ref target='Pg457'>457</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(18) Next to be mentioned is <hi rend='smallcaps'>Epiphanius, deacon Of +Catana</hi>; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene +Council [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 787] has been set down above, at page <ref target='Pg475'>475</ref>. +And then, +</p> + +<p> +(19) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Theodorus Studita</hi> of CP. [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 790],—concerning +whom, see above, at pages <ref target='Pg475'>475-6</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(20), (21) <emph>and</emph> (22). To the IXth century belong the +three remaining uncial codices, which alike witness to Θεὸς +ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:—viz. the <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Cod. Mosquensis</hi></q> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>k</hi>); the +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Cod. Angelicus</hi></q> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi>); and the <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Cod. Porphyrianus</hi></q> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>p</hi>). +</p> + +<p> +(23) The <hi rend='smallcaps'>Slavonic Version</hi> belongs to the same century, +and exhibits the same reading. +</p> + +<p> +(24) Hither also may be referred several ancient <hi rend='smallcaps'>Scholia</hi> +which all witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, as I explained +at page <ref target='Pg476'>476</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(25) To the Xth century belongs <hi rend='smallcaps'>Œcumenius</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 990], +who is also a witness on the same side. See page <ref target='Pg476'>476</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(26) To the XIth century, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Theophylact</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1077], who +bears express testimony to the same reading. See page <ref target='Pg476'>476</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +(27) To the XIIth century, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Euthymius</hi> [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1116], who +closes the list with his approving verdict. See page <ref target='Pg476'>476</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +And thus we reach a period when there awaits us a mass +of testimony which transports us back (<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>per saltum</foreign>) to the +Church's palmiest days; testimony, which rightly understood, +<pb n='491'/><anchor id='Pg491'/> +is absolutely decisive of the point now under discussion. +I allude to the testimony of <hi rend='smallcaps'>every known copy of +S. Paul's Epistles</hi> except the three, or four, already specified, +viz. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi> of S. Paul; א, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on +this last head of Evidence may not be without the grace of +novelty even to yourself. They are supplementary to what +has already been offered on the same subject from page <ref target='Pg443'>443</ref> +to page 446. +</p> + +<p> +The copies of S. Paul's Epistles (in cursive writing) +supposed to exist in European libraries,—not including +those in the monasteries of Greece and the Levant,<note place='foot'>Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must +exist a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine, +at Meteora, &c., &c.</note>—amount +to at least 302.<note place='foot'>In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to the +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi> at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing words +have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about 34 more +copies of S. Paul's Epistles; raising the present total to 336. The +known copies of the book called <q><hi rend='italic'>Apostolus</hi></q> now amount to 127.]</note> Out of this number, 2 are fabulous:<note place='foot'>Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>, 3rd ed. p. 251): and +Paul 181 (see above, at pp. <ref target='Pg444'>444-5</ref>).</note>—1 +has been destroyed by fire:<note place='foot'>Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.</note>—and 6 have strayed into +unknown localities.<note place='foot'>Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>): 15 (which is not in +the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>): +209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are no longer +preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the suppression of the +Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become of them).</note> Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are +said not to contain the verse in question;<note place='foot'>Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (<hi rend='italic'>Vat.</hi> 165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: +64: 66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: +161: 162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (<hi rend='italic'>Milan</hi> N. 272 <hi rend='italic'>sup.</hi>,—from +Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (<hi rend='italic'>Modena</hi> II. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. 13,—from +Sig. Cappilli [Acts, 195—<hi rend='italic'>see Appendix</hi>]): 286 (<hi rend='italic'>Milan</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>e.</hi> 2 <hi rend='italic'>inf.</hi>—from +Dr. Ceriani [<hi rend='italic'>see Appendix</hi>]): 287 (<hi rend='italic'>Milan</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi> 241 <hi rend='italic'>inf.</hi>—from Dr. Ceriani +[<hi rend='italic'>see Appendix</hi>]): 293 (<hi rend='italic'>Crypta Ferrata</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi> β. vi.—from the Hieromonachus +A. Rocchi [<hi rend='italic'>see Appendix</hi>]): 302 (<hi rend='italic'>Berlin, MS. Græc.</hi> 8vo. No. 9.—from +Dr. C. de Boor [<hi rend='italic'>see Appendix</hi>]).</note> while of 2, I +<pb n='492'/><anchor id='Pg492'/> +have been hitherto unsuccessful in obtaining any account:<note place='foot'>Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener's <hi rend='italic'>Introduction</hi>): +and Paul 261 (Muralt's 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).</note>—and +it will be seen that the sum of the available cursive +copies of S. Paul's Epistles is exactly 254. +</p> + +<p> +Now, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 +and 73)—exhibit ὅς,—you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of +your pamphlet) to establish, that I am unwilling to do more +than refer you back to pages <ref target='Pg443'>443</ref>, -4, -5, where a few words +have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however, to +submit to your consideration, as a set-off against those <emph>two +copies</emph> of S. Paul's Epistles which read ὅς,—the following +<emph>two-hundred and fifty-two copies</emph> which read Θεός.<note place='foot'><p>I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul's Epistles at 1 Tim. +iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the labours +of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz, Reiche, +and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute to the +number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names follow:— +</p> +<p> +In the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Vatican</hi> (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose +friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. +See the <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294, 295, +296, 297.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Propaganda</hi> (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Crypta Ferrata</hi> (the +Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See the <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>,) No. 290, 291, 292.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Venice</hi> +(Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Milan</hi> (Dr. Ceriani, the most learned +and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288, 289.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Ferrara</hi>, +(Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Modena</hi> (Sig. Cappilli) No. 285.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Bologna</hi> +(Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Turin</hi> (Sig. Gorresio) No. 165, 168.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Florence</hi> +(Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Messina</hi> (Papas Filippo Matranga. +See the <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>,) No. 216, 283.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Palermo</hi> (Sig. Penerino) No. 217.—The +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Escurial</hi> (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the British Legation. He +executed a difficult task with rare ability, at the instance of his Excellency, +Sir Robert Morier, who is requested to accept this expression of my +thanks,) No. 228, 229.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Paris</hi> (M. Wescher, who is as obliging as he is +learned in this department,) No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, +157, 164.—(L'Abbé Martin. See the <hi rend='italic'>Appendix</hi>) No. 282. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Arsenal</hi> +(M. Thierry) No. 130.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>S. Genevieve</hi> (M. Denis) No. 247.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Poictiers</hi> +(M. Dartige) No. 276.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Berlin</hi> (Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, +300, 301.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Dresden</hi> (Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Munich</hi> (Dr. Laubmann) +No. 55, 125, 126, 128.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Gottingen</hi> (Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Wolfenbuttel</hi> +(Dr. von Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Basle</hi> (Mons. +Sieber) No. 7.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Upsala</hi> (Dr. Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lincoping</hi> (the +same) No. 272.—<hi rend='smallcaps'>Zurich</hi> (Dr. Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener +verified for me Paul 252: 253: 255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: +277.—Rev. T. Randell, has verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., +No. 278.—Personally, I have inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: +234: 235: 236: 240: 242: 249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: +269: 270: 279: 280: 281.</p></note> To speak +<pb n='493'/><anchor id='Pg493'/> +with perfect accuracy,—4 of these (252) exhibit ὁ Θεὸς +ἐφανερώθη;<note place='foot'>Viz. Paul 37 (the <hi rend='italic'>Codex Leicest.</hi>, 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85 (Vat. +1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b.</hi> 12) +which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros. <hi rend='smallcaps'>f.</hi> 125 +<hi rend='italic'>sup.</hi>) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p. <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref> <hi rend='italic'>note</hi> 1.</note>—1, ὅς Θεός;<note place='foot'>Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p. <ref target='Pg474'>474</ref>, note 1.</note>—and 247, Θεός absolutely. The +numbers follow:— +</p> + +<p> +1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. +13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. +26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. +37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. +49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. +69. 70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. +83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. +95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. +106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. +117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. +132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. +143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. +158. 159. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. +174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 182. 183. 184. 185. +186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. +199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. +<pb n='494'/><anchor id='Pg494'/> +213. 215. 216. 217. 218.<note place='foot'>The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218) +is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the +<q>Seminario</q> at Syracuse are an <q>Evst.</q> and an <q>Apost.</q> (which I number +respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218, is Birch +[<hi rend='italic'>Proleg.</hi> p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his collations.</note> 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. +226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. +237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. +249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. +264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. +277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282.<note place='foot'>For the ensuing codices, see the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi>.</note> 283. 285. 288. 289. 290. +291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. +</p> + +<p> +Behold then the provision which <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Author</hi> of Scripture +has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this +portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred +years have run their course since the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi> by His +servant, Paul, rehearsed the <q>mystery of Godliness;</q> declaring +<emph>this</emph> to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God was +manifested in the flesh</hi>.</q> And lo, out of <emph>two hundred and +fifty-four</emph> copies of S. Paul's Epistles no less than <emph>two hundred +and fifty-two</emph> are discovered to have preserved that expression. +Such <q>Consent</q> amounts to <emph>Unanimity</emph>; and, (as I explained +at pp. <ref target='Pg454'>454-5</ref>,) unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive. +</p> + +<p> +The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) +were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being +derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; +which again were transcripts of copies older still. +They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, +into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, +for hundreds of years they have been jealously +guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at +pp. <ref target='Pg445'>445-6</ref>, and now respectfully propose it to <emph>you</emph>, my +<pb n='495'/><anchor id='Pg495'/> +lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour +me publicly with an answer;)—For what conceivable reason +can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered +into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind? +</p> + +<p> +True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, +or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 +years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand +proclamation of the Divinity of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>,—in order to prove +that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, +which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) +the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that +the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing +but <emph>this</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out +of 254 cursive <emph>Copies</emph> of S. Paul's Epistles,—is to be added +the evidence supplied by the <emph>Lectionaries</emph>. It has been already +explained (viz. at pp. <ref target='Pg477'>477-8</ref>) that out of 32 copies of the +<q>Apostolus,</q> 29 concur in witnessing to Θεός. I have just +(May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.<note place='foot'>Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number <q>Apost. 115</q> (see <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi>.)</note> To these 30, +should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. +<ref target='Pg448'>448</ref> and <ref target='Pg474'>474</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>note</hi> 1. Now this is emphatically the voice +of <emph>ancient Ecclesiastical Tradition</emph>. The numerical result of +our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:— +</p> + +<p> +(I.) In 1 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Timothy</hi> iii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν +σαρκί, is witnessed to by 289 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Manuscripts</hi>:<note place='foot'>Viz. by 4 uncials (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>k</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>l</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>p</hi>), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278 cursive +manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1 Paul, 1 Apost.) +reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See above, pp. <ref target='Pg473'>473-4</ref>: 478.)</note>—by 3 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>:<note place='foot'>The Harkleian (see pp. <ref target='Pg450'>450</ref>, <ref target='Pg489'>489</ref>): the Georgian, and the Slavonic +(p. <ref target='Pg454'>454</ref>).</note>—by +upwards of 20 Greek <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg487'>487-490</ref>,—which is the summary of what will be +found more largely delivered from page <ref target='Pg455'>455</ref> to page 476.</note> +</p> + +<pb n='496'/><anchor id='Pg496'/> + +<p> +(II) The reading ὅ (in place of Θεός) is supported by a +single MS. (D):—by 5 ancient <hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>:<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg448'>448-453</ref>: also p. <ref target='Pg479'>479</ref>.</note>—by 2 late Greek +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg479'>479-480</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced +by 6 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Manuscripts</hi> in all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by +<emph>only one</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Version</hi> for certain (viz. the Gothic<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg452'>452-3</ref>.</note>):—<emph>not for +certain by a single Greek</emph> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Father</hi>.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg482'>482</ref>, <ref target='Pg483'>483</ref>.</note> +</p> + +<p> +I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general +survey of the evidence in favour of ὅς ἐφανερώθη: but I +must request you to refer back to those remarks, now that +we have reached the end of the entire discussion. They +extend from the middle of p. <ref target='Pg483'>483</ref> to the bottom of p. 485. +</p> + +<p> +The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes +before, can first persuade itself, and then seek to persuade +others, that Θεός is a <q><emph>plain and clear error</emph>;</q> and that +there is <q><emph>decidedly preponderating evidence</emph>,</q> in favour of +reading ὅς in 1 Timothy iii. 16;—must needs be of a sort +with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. +I commend the case between you and myself to the +judgment of Mankind; and trust you are able to await the +common verdict with the same serene confidence as I am. +</p> + +<p> +Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, +to assure you that in your present contention you <q>have not +a leg to stand upon</q>? <q>Moreover</q> (to quote from your +own pamphlet [p. 76],) <q><emph>this case is of great importance as an +example</emph>.</q> You made deliberate choice of it in order to convict +me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. +Let the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as +<pb n='497'/><anchor id='Pg497'/> +a trial-place,—a test of our respective methods, yours and +mine. I cheerfully abide the issue, +</p> + +<p> +(p) <hi rend='smallcaps'>Internal Evidence</hi> <emph>for reading</emph> Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη <emph>in</emph> +1 Tim. iii. 16, <emph>absolutely overwhelming</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading +the <emph>probabilities</emph> of the case; and for a sufficient reason. +Men's notions of what is <q>probable</q> are observed to differ +so seriously. <q>Facile intelligitur</q> (says Wetstein) <q>lectiones +ὅς et Θεός esse interpretamenta pronominis ὅ: sed nec ὅ +nec ὅς posse esse interpretamentum vocis Θεός.</q> Now, I +should have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as +the day. <emph>What</emph> more obvious than that <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>ΘΣ</hi>, by exhibiting +indistinctly either of its delicate horizontal strokes, (and +they were often so traced as to be scarcely discernible,<note place='foot'>See above, page <ref target='Pg436'>436</ref>, and middle of page <ref target='Pg439'>439</ref>.</note>) would +become mistaken for ΟΣ? What more natural again than +that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement +with its neuter antecedent? Why, <emph>the thing has actually +happened</emph> at Coloss. i. 27; where ὍΣ ἐστι Χριστός has been +altered into ὅ, only because μυστήριον is the antecedent. +But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of Θεός +must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save +one determined that the reading <emph>shall be</emph> ὅς or ὅ. I trust we +are at least agreed that the maxim <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>proclivi lectioni præstat +ardua</foreign>,</q> does not enunciate so foolish a proposition as that +in choosing between two or more conflicting readings, we +are to prefer <emph>that</emph> one which has the feeblest external +attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible? +</p> + +<p> +And yet, in the present instance,—How (give me leave to +ask) will you translate? To those who acquiesce in the +<pb n='498'/><anchor id='Pg498'/> +notion that the μέγα μυστήριον τῆς εὐσεβείας means our +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour Christ</hi> Himself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,) it is obvious +to translate <q><emph>who</emph>:</q> yet how harsh, or rather how intolerable +is this! I should have thought that there could be no real +doubt that <q><emph>the mystery</emph></q> here spoken of must needs be +that complex exhibition of Divine condescension which +the Apostle proceeds to rehearse in outline: and of which +the essence is that it was very and eternal <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> who was the +subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet +adopt the reading ὅς, are obliged to refer it to the remote +antecedent Θεός. <emph>You</emph> do not advocate this view: neither +do I. For reasons of their own, Alford<note place='foot'>See his long and singular note.</note> and Lightfoot<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Fresh Revision</hi>, p. 27.</note> both +translate <q><emph>who</emph>.</q> +</p> + +<p> +Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a +point of taste or scholarship is under discussion) proposes to +render:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified +in the spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was +preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the +world, (he who) was received up in glory.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Printed Text</hi>, p. 231.</note> +</quote> + +<p> +I question if his motion will find <emph>a seconder</emph>. You yourself +lay it down magisterially that ὅς <q>is <emph>not emphatic</emph> (<q>He +who,</q> &c.): nor, by a <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>constructio ad sensum</foreign>, is it the relative +to μυστήριον; but is a relative to an <emph>omitted</emph> though +easily recognized antecedent, viz. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi>.</q> You add that it +is not improbable <q>that the words are quoted from some +known <emph>hymn</emph>, or probably from some familiar <emph>Confession of +Faith</emph>.</q> Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to +exhibit the words within inverted commas <emph>as a quotation</emph>:—<q>And +confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: <q>who +<pb n='499'/><anchor id='Pg499'/> +was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,</q></q> &c.,<note place='foot'>P. 226.</note>—for +which you are without warrant of any kind, and which +you have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the <q>chartered +libertines</q>) are even more licentious. Acting on their own +suggestion that these clauses are <q>a quotation from <emph>an early +Christian hymn</emph>,</q> they proceed to print the conclusion of +1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a <emph>six-line stanza</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +This notwithstanding, the Revising body <emph>have adopted</emph> <q>He +who,</q> as the rendering of ὅς; a mistaken rendering as it +seems to me, and (I am glad to learn) to yourself also. +Their translation is quite a curiosity in its way. I proceed +to transcribe it:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, +seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the +world, received up in glory.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I +understand what the proposed construction is. Any arrangement +which results in making the six clauses last quoted +part of the subject, and <q>great</q> the predicate of one long +proposition,—is unworthy.—Bentley's wild remedy testifies +far more eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for +revising the text of Scripture. He suggests,—<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> <emph>was +put to death</emph> in the flesh, justified in the spirit, ... seen <emph>by +Apostles</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><q><hi rend='italic'>Forte</hi> μυστήριον; ὁ <hi rend='text-decoration: underline'>χς</hi> ἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη +ἀποστόλοις.</q>—Bentleii <hi rend='italic'>Critica Sacra</hi>, p. 67.</note>—<q>According to the ancient view,</q> (says the Rev. +T. S. Green,) <q>the sense would be: <q>and confessedly great +is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who +[mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, +&c.</q></q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Developed Criticism</hi>, p. 160.</note>... But, with submission, <q>the ancient view</q> was +not this. The Latins,—calamitously shut up within the +<pb n='500'/><anchor id='Pg500'/> +limits of their <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>pietatis sacramentum, quod</foreign>,</q>—are found to +have habitually broken away from that iron bondage, and to +have discoursed of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour Christ</hi>, as being Himself the +<q>sacramentum</q> spoken of. The <q>sacramentum,</q> in their +view, was the incarnate <hi rend='smallcaps'>Word</hi>.<note place='foot'>Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>In carne manifestatus +est</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Filius Dei</hi>.</q>—And Marius Victorinus, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 390 (ap. Galland. viii. +161),—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quod</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Deus</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>exanimavit semet +ipsum cum esset in</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dei</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>formá:</foreign></q> <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>fuit ergo antequam esset in carne, sed +manifestatum dixit in carne</foreign>.</q>—And Fulgentius, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 513, thus expands +the text (ap. Galland. xi. 232):—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio +erat, et apud</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Deum</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>erat, et</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Deus</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>erat, id est</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dei</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>unigenitus Filius</foreign>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dei</hi> +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>virtus et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idem</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Deus</hi> +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>unigenitus</foreign>,</q> &c. &c.—And Ferrandus, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 356 (<hi rend='italic'>ibid.</hi> p. 356):—<q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ita pro +redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus suscepisse, ut ille +qui Trinitate perfecta</foreign> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Deus</hi> <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>unigenitus permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex +Maria fieret primogenitus in multis fratribus</foreign>,</q> &c.</note>—Not so the Greek Fathers. +These all, without exception, understood S. Paul to say,—what +Ecclesiastical Tradition hath all down the ages faithfully +attested, and what to this hour the copies of his Epistles +prove that he actually wrote,—viz. <q><emph>And confessedly great is +the mystery of godliness</emph>:—<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> <emph>was manifested in the flesh, +justified in the spirit</emph>,</q> and so on. Moreover this is the view +of the matter in which all the learning and all the piety +of the English Church has thankfully acquiesced for the last +350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and +Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher +and Beveridge, Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. +The enumeration of names is easily brought down to our +own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned non-conformist +commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following +title:— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir +Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a +corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the +<pb n='501'/><anchor id='Pg501'/> +charges brought against the passage; an examination of the +various readings; and a confirmation of that in the received +text on principles of general and biblical criticism.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +And,—to turn one's eyes in quite a different direction,—<q>Veruntamen,</q> +wrote venerable President Routh, at the end +of a life-long critical study of Holy Writ,—(and his days were +prolonged till he reached his hundredth year,)— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textûs historia, illud vero +haud certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta +præferre lectionem Θεός, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres +interpretes, Theodoretus cæterique, duabus alteris ὅς et ὅ.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T.</hi> He adds, <q>Hæc +addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i. <hi rend='italic'>Scriptor. +Ecclesiast. Opusculorum.</hi></q></note> +</quote> + +<p> +And here I bring my <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dissertation</hi> on 1 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Tim.</hi> iii. 16 to a +close. It began at p. <ref target='Pg424'>424</ref>, and I little thought would extend +to seventy-six pages. Let it be clearly understood that I rest +my contention not at all on Internal, but entirely on External +Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they are +alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.—Having now +incontrovertibly, as I believe, established ΘΕΌΣ as the best +attested Reading of the place,—I shall conclude the present +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Letter</hi> as speedily as I can. +</p> + +<p> +(1) <hi rend='italic'><q>Composition of the Body which is responsible for the +<q>New Greek Text.</q></q></hi> +</p> + +<p> +There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into +which I have not yet followed you. I allude to your <q>few +words about the composition of the body which is responsible +for the <q>New Greek Text,</q></q><note place='foot'>Page 29.</note>—which extend from the latter +part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet. +<q>Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,</q> +(you say) <q>were to be found most of those persons who +<pb n='502'/><anchor id='Pg502'/> +were presumably best acquainted with the subject of Textual +Criticism.</q><note place='foot'>P. 29.</note> And with this insinuation that you had <q>all +the talents</q> with you, you seek to put me down. +</p> + +<p> +But (as you truly say) <q>the number of living Scholars +in England who have connected their names with the study +of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is exceedingly +small.</q><note place='foot'>P. 30.</note> And, <q>of that exceedingly small number,</q> +you would be puzzled to name so much as <emph>one</emph>, besides the +three you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, +and Dr. Hort,)—who were members of the Revision company. +On the other hand,—(to quote the words of the most +learned of our living Prelates,)—<q>it is well known that +there are <emph>two opposite Schools</emph> of Biblical Criticism among us, +<emph>with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our +Manuscripts of the Greek Testament</emph>.</q><note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Address</hi>, on the Revised Version, p. 10.</note> And in proof of his +statement, the Bishop of Lincoln cites <q>on the one side</q>—<emph>Drs. +Westcott and Hort</emph>; <q>and on the other</q>—<emph>Dr. Scrivener</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and +which you admit to be correct) of the extraordinary method +by which the <q>New Greek Text</q> was <q><emph>settled</emph>,</q><note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref> to 39.</note> <q>for the +most part at the First Revision,</q><note place='foot'>Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 34.</note>—and it becomes plain that +it was not by any means the product of the independently-formed +opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); +but resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be +guided by the sober counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one +hand, or to be carried away by the eager advocacy of +Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected colleague +Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well +puts it,—<q>The question really is, Were the members competent +to form a correct judgment?</q><note place='foot'>P. 231.</note> <q>In most cases,</q> <q><emph>a +<pb n='503'/><anchor id='Pg503'/> +simple majority</emph></q><note place='foot'>Fifth Rule of the Committee.</note> determined what the text should be. But +<foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ponderari debent testes</foreign>, my lord Bishop, <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>non numerari</foreign>.<note place='foot'>Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 30.</note> The +vote of the joint Editors should have been reckoned practically +as only <emph>one</emph> vote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener and +they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional +Text ought to have been let alone. All pretence that it was +<emph>plainly and clearly erroneous</emph> was removed, when the only +experts present were hopelessly divided in opinion. As for +the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they extemporized +their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote +at all. Certainly they were not entitled individually to an +equal voice with Dr. Scrivener in determining what the +text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in short, it was, not +Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the Jerusalem +Chamber. A more unscientific,—to speak truly, a +coarser and a clumsier way of manipulating the sacred +Deposit, than that which you yourself invented, it would be +impossible, in my judgment, to devise. +</p> + +<p> +(2) <hi rend='italic'>An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable.</hi>—<hi rend='italic'>The Westminster-Abbey +Scandal.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the +constituent elements of the Revising body, and congratulate +yourself on its miscellaneous character as providing a +guarantee that it has been impartial. +</p> + +<p> +I frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you +thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed +severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed +to me your discreeter course. Moreover, had you not, in +this marked way, invited attention to the component elements +of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject +the go-by. The <q><emph>New Greek Text</emph>,</q> no less than the <q><emph>New +<pb n='504'/><anchor id='Pg504'/> +English Version</emph>,</q> must stand or fall on its own merits; and I +have no wish to prejudice the discussion by importing into it +foreign elements. Of this, you have had some proof already; +for, (with the exception of what is offered above, in pages +<ref target='Pg006'>6</ref> and <ref target='Pg007'>7</ref>,) the subject has been, by your present correspondent, +nowhere brought prominently forward. +</p> + +<p> +Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which +you evidently court. And so, I candidly avow that it was +in my account a serious breach of Church order that, on +engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the Revision of the +Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act +under the authority of the Southern Convocation should +spontaneously associate with themselves Ministers of various +denominations,<note place='foot'><p>No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing +paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall effectually +protect me from being misunderstood. +</p> +<p> +Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the +Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All, +(for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and attainment, +as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in early life, I +numbered several professing Unitarians among my friends. It were base +in me to forget how wondrous kind I found them: how much I loved +them: how fondly I cherish their memory. +</p> +<p> +Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are +bound to seek help at the hands of <emph>any</emph> who are able to render help,—<emph>who</emph> +ever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a devotee of +Buddha,—could contribute anything,—<emph>who</emph> would hesitate to sue to him +for enlightenment? As for Abraham's descendants,—they are our very +brethren. +</p> +<p> +But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the +Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even +Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of +Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when the +Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th <q>Resolution</q> of the Upper +House,—viz., that the Revising body <q>shall be at liberty to invite the +co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious +body they may belong;</q>—the Synod of Canterbury did not suppose that +it was pledging itself to sanction <emph>such</emph> <q>co-operation</q> as is implied by +actual <emph>co-optation</emph>! +</p> +<p> +It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the +5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that <q>in framing +it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the admission of any +member of the Socinian body.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Chronicle of Convocation</hi> (Feb. 1871,) +p. 4. +</p> +<p> +<q>I am aware,</q> (says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,) <q>that the +ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the translation of a +renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish heretics, like Symmachus +and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine profited by the expository rules of +Tychonius the Donatist. But I very much doubt whether the ancient +Church would have looked for a large outpouring of a blessing from <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> +on a work of translating His Word, where the workmen were not all +joined together in a spirit of Christian unity, and in the profession of the +true Faith; and in which the opinions of the several translators were to +be counted and not weighed; and where everything was to be decided +by numerical majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius +were to be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or +a Cyril.</q> (<hi rend='italic'>Address on the Revised Version</hi>, 1881, pp. 38.)</p></note>—Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan +<pb n='505'/><anchor id='Pg505'/> +Methodists, Independents, and the like: and especially that +a successor of the Apostles should have presided over the +deliberations of this assemblage of Separatists. In my +humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness of +Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the +subject, and even set an example of irregularity to our +flocks. My Divinity may appear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: +but I am not prepared to unlearn the lessons +long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and +Hooker, of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, +of Beveridge and Bramhall. I am much mistaken, moreover, +if I may not claim the authority of a greater doctor than +any of these,—I mean S. Paul,—for the fixed views I entertain +on this head. +</p> + +<p> +All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the +scandal occasioned by the co-optation into your body of +<pb n='506'/><anchor id='Pg506'/> +Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian Minister of S. Saviour's +Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the work of +interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly +and by choice associated with yourselves one who, not +only openly denies the eternal Godhead of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, but in +a recent publication is the avowed assailant of that fundamental +doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well as of the +Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>The Bible and Popular Theology</hi>, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.</note>—filled me (and many +besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were +respectfully memorialized on the subject;<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an +earnest Remonstrance and Petition</hi>,—addressed to yourself by your +present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.</note> but you treated +the representations which reached you with scornful indifference. +</p> + +<p> +Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not +scruple publicly to repeat that it seems to me nothing else +but an insult to our Divine Master and a wrong to the +Church, that the most precious part of our common Christian +heritage, the pure Word of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, should day by day, week +by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus +handled; for the avowed purpose of producing a Translation +which should supersede our Authorized Version. That +the individual in question contributed aught to your deliberations +has never been pretended. On the contrary. No +secret has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have +been anticipated from his published writings,) the most +unprofitable member of the Revising body. Why then was +he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his election +afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by +his continued presence among you was that it might be +thereby made to appear that the Church of England no +<pb n='507'/><anchor id='Pg507'/> +longer insists on Belief in the eternal Godhead of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>, +as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim to +definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of +Faith in the Blessed <hi rend='smallcaps'>Trinity</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, +my objection would remain in full force; for I hold, (and +surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> +Word may not be attained without the guidance of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy +Spirit</hi>, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer. +</p> + +<p> +In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate +with his fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, +and did accordingly, on the 22nd of June, 1870, receive the +Holy Communion, in Henry VII.'s Chapel, at the hands of +Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the +Sacrament on this occasion without <q>joining in reciting +the Nicene Creed</q> and without <q>compromise</q> (as he expressed +it,) of his principles as an <q>Unitarian.</q><note place='foot'>See letter of <q>One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.</q> in <hi rend='italic'>the Times</hi> of +July 11, 1870.</note> So conspicuous +a sacrilege led to a public Protest signed by some +thousands of the Clergy.<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster +Abbey on June</hi> 22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.</note> It also resulted, in the next +ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the +Upper House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.<note place='foot'><p>See the <hi rend='italic'>Chronicle of Convocation</hi> (Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a +Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of Winchester,—<q rend='pre'>That +it is the judgment of this House that no person who denies the +Godhead of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord Jesus Christ</hi> ought to be invited to join either +company to which is committed the Revision of the Authorized +Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this +House that any such person now on either Company should cease to +act therewith.</q> +</p> +<p> +<q>And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, +and their concurrence requested:</q>—which was done. See p. 143.</p></note>... +</p> + +<pb n='508'/><anchor id='Pg508'/> + +<p> +How a good man like you can revive the memory of these +many painful incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. +That no blessing from Him, <q><foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>sine Quo nihil +validum, nihil sanctum</foreign>,</q> could be expected to attend an +undertaking commenced under such auspices,—was but +too plain. The Revision was a foredoomed thing—in the +account of many besides myself—from the outset. +</p> + +<p> +(3) <hi rend='italic'>The probable Future of the Revision of</hi> 1881. +</p> + +<p> +Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once +and again confidently predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, +Pamphlets, that ultimate success is in store for the +Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a suspicious +circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably +proceeded from members of the Revising body. +</p> + +<p> +It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to +skill in forecasting the future. But of <emph>this</emph> at least I feel +certain:—that if, in an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church +of England shall ever be induced to commit herself to the +adoption of the present Revision, she will by so doing expose +herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well as +incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding +on her part will be inexcusable, for she has been at least +faithfully forewarned. Moreover, in the end, she will most +certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow and confusion. +</p> + +<p> +Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, +who refer to what happened in the case of the Authorized +Version when it originally appeared, some 270 years ago; +and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at first encountered +opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it fare +in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those +who so reason forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar. +</p> + +<pb n='509'/><anchor id='Pg509'/> + +<p> +If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 +and the Revision of 1881 were only this.—That the latter is +characterized by a mechanical, unidiomatic, and even repulsive +method of rendering; which was not only unattempted, +but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;—there +would have been something to urge on behalf of the later +performance. The plea of zeal for <hi rend='smallcaps'>God's</hi> Word,—a determination +at all hazards to represent with even servile precision +the <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>ipsissima verba</foreign> of Evangelists and Apostles,—<emph>this</emph> +plea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to +some extent, it must have been allowed,—although a grave +diversity of opinion might reasonably have been entertained +as to <emph>what constitutes</emph> <q>accuracy</q> and <q>fidelity</q> of translation. +</p> + +<p> +But when once it has been made plain that <emph>the underlying +Greek</emph> of the Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,—<emph>is a +manufactured article throughout</emph>,—all must see that the contention +has entirely changed its character. The question +immediately arises, (and it is the <emph>only</emph> question which +remains to be asked,)—Were then the Authors of this <q>New +Greek Text</q> <emph>competent</emph> to undertake so perilous an enterprise? +And when, in the words of the distinguished Chairman +of the Revising body—(words quoted above, at page +<ref target='Pg369'>369</ref>,)—<q><emph>To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly +in the negative</emph>,</q>—What remains but, with blank +astonishment, not unmingled with disgust, to close the +volume? Your own ingenuous admission,—(volunteered by +yourself a few days before you and your allies <q>proceeded +to the actual details of the Revision,</q>)—that <q><emph>we have +certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgment</emph> for any body +of Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,</q>—is +decisive on the subject. +</p> + +<p> +The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to +over-estimate. We find ourselves at once and entirely +<pb n='510'/><anchor id='Pg510'/> +lifted out of the region originally proposed for investigation. +It is no longer a question of the degree of skill which +has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our +heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those +title-deeds themselves have been empirically submitted to a +process which, <emph>rightly or wrongly</emph>, seriously affects their integrity. +Not only has a fringe of most unreasonable textual +mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every inspired +page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):—not only has many +a grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, +(as, by the shameful mis-statement found in the margin +against S. John iii. 13,<note place='foot'>The Reader is invited to refer back to pp. <ref target='Pg132'>132-135</ref>.</note> and the vile Socinian gloss which +disfigures the margin of Rom. ix. 5<note place='foot'>The Reader is requested to refer back to pp. <ref target='Pg210'>210-214</ref>.</note>):—but we entirely miss +many a solemn utterance of the <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit</hi>,—as when we are +assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by +<q><emph>the best ancient authorities</emph>,</q> (whereas, on the contrary, the +MSS. referred to are <emph>the worst</emph>). Let the thing complained of +be illustrated by a few actual examples. Only five shall be +subjoined. The words in the first column represent what +<emph>you</emph> are pleased to designate as among <q>the most certain +conclusions of modern Textual Criticism</q> (p. 78),—but what +<emph>I</emph> assert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the +inspired Text. The second column contains the indubitable +Truth of Scripture,—the words which have been read by our +Fathers' Fathers for the last 500 years, and which we +propose, (<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> helping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our +Children, and to our Children's Children, for many a century +to come:— +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(25) lw(25)'"> +<row><cell><hi rend='smallcaps'>Revised</hi> (1881).</cell><cell><hi rend='smallcaps'>Authorized</hi> (1611).</cell></row> +<row><cell><q>And come, follow me.</q></cell> + <cell><q>And come, <emph>take up the cross and</emph> follow me.</q><note place='foot'>S. Mark x. 21.</note></cell></row> +<pb n='511'/><anchor id='Pg511'/> +<row><cell><q>And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy.</q></cell> + <cell><q>And when they had blindfolded him, <emph>they struck him on +the face</emph>, and asked him, saying, Prophesy.</q><note place='foot'>S. Luke xxii. 64.</note></cell></row> +<row><cell><q>And there was also a superscription over him, This is the King of the Jews.</q></cell> + <cell><q>And a superscription also was <emph>written</emph> over him <emph>in letters of Greek, and Latin, and +Hebrew</emph>, This is the King of the Jews.</q><note place='foot'>S. Luke xxiii. 38.</note></cell></row> +<row><cell><q>And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.</q></cell> + <cell><q>And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, <emph>and of an honeycomb</emph>.</q><note place='foot'>S. Luke xxiv. 42.</note></cell></row> +</table> + +<p> +But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:— +</p> + +<table rend="latexcolumns: 'p{3.5cm} p{3.5cm}'; tblcolumns: 'lw(25) lw(25)'"> +<row><cell><q><q>Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?</q> +But he turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village.</q></cell> +<cell><q><q>Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume +them, <emph>even as Elias did</emph>?</q> But he turned and rebuked them, <emph>and said, <q>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</q></emph>. And they went to another village.</q></cell></row> +</table> + +<p> +The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference +of <emph>Translation</emph> here is the substitution of <q>bid</q> for +<q>command.</q>—which by the way, is not only uncalled for, +but is a change <emph>for the worse</emph>.<note place='foot'><p>Εἰπεῖν is <q><emph>to command</emph></q> in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S. Mark +v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand, the Revisers +have thrust <q><emph>command</emph></q> into S. Matth. xx. 21, where <q><emph>grant</emph></q> had far +better have been let alone: and have overlooked other places (as S. Matth. +xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where <q><emph>command</emph></q> might perhaps have been +introduced with advantage. (I nothing doubt that when the Centurion of +Capernaum said to our Lord μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], +he entreated Him <q>only to give <emph>the word of command</emph>.</q>) +</p> +<p> +We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered <q><emph>grant</emph></q> in +the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S. Mark x. 37), +that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to represent Εἰπέ in the +earlier Gospel differently; and so they bethought themselves of <q><emph>command</emph>.</q> +(Infelicitously enough, as I humbly think. <q><emph>Promise</emph></q> would +evidently have been a preferable substitute: the word in the original +(εἰπεῖν) being one of that large family of Greek verbs which vary their +shade of signification according to their context.) But it is plainly +impracticable to <emph>level up</emph> after this rigid fashion,—to translate in this +mechanical way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after +an impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably +sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon above, at +pp. <ref target='Pg187'>187-206</ref>. +</p> +<p> +Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with +their Mother, have evidently agreed together to <q><emph>ask a favour</emph></q> of their +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi> (cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the sons +begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by the +Mother in <emph>a different spirit</emph> from the sons? Why are we to impose upon +her language the imperious sentiment which the very mention of +<q><emph>command</emph></q> unavoidably suggests to an English ear? +</p> +<p> +A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The +Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond their +prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized Version +after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct <q><emph>plain and +clear errors</emph>,</q>—<emph>not</emph> to produce a <q>New English Version.</q></p></note> On the other hand, how +<pb n='512'/><anchor id='Pg512'/> +grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation of the +blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = ) +<emph>forty-three</emph> (in English <emph>fifty-seven</emph>) undoubtedly inspired as +well as most precious words,—even <q>ordinary Readers</q> are +competent to discern. +</p> + +<p> +I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,—<emph>always</emph> +inexcusable,—liberties which have been taken with +the Greek Text by the Revisionists of 1881, constitute a +ground of offence against their work for which no pretext +was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue therefore +from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to +be the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only +not parallel: they are even wholly dissimilar. +</p> + +<pb n='513'/><anchor id='Pg513'/> + +<p> +The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least +exhibit the Word of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> faithfully and helpfully. Could +the same be said of a cheap edition of the work of the +Revisionists,—destitute of headings to the Chapters, and +containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text +has undergone depravation throughout? +</p> + +<p> +Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and +the most learned Divines of which our Church could boast, +conducted the work of Revision in King James' days; and +it will be acknowledged that the promiscuous assemblage +which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any +corresponding claim on public attention. <emph>Then</emph>, the Bishops +of Lincoln of 1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood +without and found fault. But in the affair of 1881, +Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from within:<note place='foot'>Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author's proofs +that the <q>Results of the Revision</q> are <q>unfavourable to Orthodoxy:</q>—<q>The +only instance in the N. T. in which the religious worship or +adoration of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> was apparently implied, has been <emph>altered</emph> by the +Revision: <q><emph>At</emph> the name of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi> every knee shall bow,</q> [Philipp. ii. 10] +is now to be read <q><emph>in</emph> the name.</q> Moreover, no alteration of text or +of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed +it is well understood that the N. T. contains neither precept nor example +which really sanctions the religious worship of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus Christ</hi>.</q>—<hi rend='italic'>Texts and +Margins</hi>,—p. 47.</note> +the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the severest +Critics of the work.—Disappointed men are said to have been +conspicuous among the few assailants of our <q>Authorized +Version,</q>—Scholars (as Hugh Broughton) who considered +themselves unjustly overlooked and excluded. But on the +present occasion, among the multitude of hostile voices, +there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from +the deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to +share them. +</p> + +<pb n='514'/><anchor id='Pg514'/> + +<p> +To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision +of 1881 from the known history of our Authorized Version +of 1611, is to argue concerning things essentially dissimilar. +With every advance made in the knowledge of the subject, +it may be confidently predicted that there will spring up +increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever +increasing aversion from it. +</p> + +<p> +(4) <hi rend='italic'>Review of the entire subject, and of the respective +positions of Bp. Ellicott and myself.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Here I lay down my pen,—glad to have completed what +(because I have endeavoured to do my work <emph>thoroughly</emph>) has +proved a very laborious task indeed. The present rejoinder +to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you have yourself +traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire +contention. +</p> + +<p> +I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you +individually in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For +you have now no alternative but to come forward and +disprove my statements as well as refute my arguments: or +to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in +the cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. +You constrained me to reduce you to this alternative when +you stood forth on behalf of the Revising body, and saw fit +to provoke me to a personal encounter. +</p> + +<p> +But you must come provided with something vastly more +formidable, remember, than denunciations,—which are but +wind: and vague generalities,—which prove nothing and +persuade nobody: and appeals to the authority of <q>Lachmann, +Tischendorf, and Tregelles,</q>—which I disallow and +disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained +facts; and you must build thereupon irrefragable +<pb n='515'/><anchor id='Pg515'/> +arguments. In other words, you must conduct your cause +with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will make +the painful discovery that <q>the last error is worse than the +first.</q> You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously +admit that you made a grievous mistake when you put yourself +into the hands of those ingenious theorists, Drs. Westcott +and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary decrees,—than persevere +in your present downward course, only to sink deeper +and deeper in the mire. +</p> + +<p> +(5) <hi rend='italic'>Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of</hi> +1 Timothy iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +I like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of +arms has resulted in such a vindication<note place='foot'><hi rend='italic'>Supra</hi>, p. <ref target='Pg424'>424</ref> to p. 501.</note> of the traditional +Reading of 1 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Timothy</hi> iii. 16, as will effectually secure that +famous place of Scripture against further molestation. <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>Faxit +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Deus</hi>!</foreign>... In the margin of the Revision of 1881, I +observe that you have ventured to state as follows,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The word <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, in place of <emph>He who</emph>, rests on no sufficient +ancient evidence.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,— +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, +as it has long been known to be by all careful students of +the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the +facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word +God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural +result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to +look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and +therefore as <q>God manifested in the flesh</q></q> (p. 39). +</quote> + +<p> +Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no +surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what were <emph>you</emph> +thinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious +<pb n='516'/><anchor id='Pg516'/> +mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must +needs have meant thereby that,—<q>The word <emph>He who</emph> in +place of <hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>, on the contrary, <emph>does</emph> rest on sufficient ancient +evidence.</q> I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him +by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the +truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages +are a refutation.—You add, +</p> + +<quote rend='display'> +<q>Some ancient authorities read <emph>which</emph>.</q> +</quote> + +<p> +But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, +viz.: that a great many <q><emph>More</emph> ancient authorities</q> read +<q>which</q> (ὅ), than read <q>who</q> (ὅς)? +</p> + +<p> +(6) <hi rend='italic'>The nature of this contention explained.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, +when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness +of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit +to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: +the essential rottenness of the foundation on which +the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by +yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to +expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire +superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but +also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In +no vaunting spirit, (<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> is my witness!), but out of sincere +and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your +work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in +the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its +essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced +beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a +shapeless ruin. +</p> + +<p> +A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being +repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief, +<pb n='517'/><anchor id='Pg517'/> +which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, +as already explained, in every part of the foundation. +</p> + +<p> +And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too +plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our +respective methods,—yours and mine: between the <hi rend='smallcaps'>new +German</hi> system in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable +form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally +given in your adhesion; and the <hi rend='smallcaps'>old English</hi> school of +Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. +Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you +have made your own) and the method of your present +Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because +the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, +nothing in common,—except certain documents; which <emph>I</emph> +insist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: +while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing +your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations +of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of +which I am able to disprove. +</p> + +<p> +Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) +That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, +you style <q><hi rend='italic'>The Syrian text</hi>,</q>) is the result of a deliberate +Recension made at Antioch, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 250 and 350:<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg272'>272-275</ref>, pp. <ref target='Pg278'>278-281</ref>.</note>—(2) That the +Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made +at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:<note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg275'>275</ref>.</note>—(3) That Cureton's +is the Syriac <q>Vetus,</q> and the Peschito the Syriac <q>Vulgate:</q><note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg276'>276-7</ref>.</note>—(4) +That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century +Codices, <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, <q>diverged from a common parent +extremely near the apostolic autographs:</q><note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg303'>303-305</ref>.</note>—(5) That this common +<pb n='518'/><anchor id='Pg518'/> +original enjoyed a <q>general immunity from substantive +error;</q> and by consequence—(6) That <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א provide <q>a safe +criterion of genuineness,</q> so that <q>no readings of א <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> can be +safely rejected absolutely.</q><note place='foot'>See above, p. <ref target='Pg304'>304</ref>.</note>—(7) Similar wild imaginations +you cherish concerning <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>,—which, together with <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א +<emph>you</emph> assume to be among the most trustworthy guides in +existence; whereas <emph>I</emph> have convinced myself, by laborious +collation, that they are <emph>the most corrupt of all</emph>. We are thus +diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8) <emph>You</emph> assume +that you possess a power of divination which enables you +to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, +on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture +is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony +of the largest number of the best <hi rend='smallcaps'>Copies</hi>, <hi rend='smallcaps'>Fathers</hi>, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Versions</hi>.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg339'>339-42</ref>; also pp. <ref target='Pg422'>422</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>.</note> There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the +attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only +through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing +labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine. +<emph>They</emph> do but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead +others, who first <emph>invent their facts</emph>, and then proceed to +build thereupon their premisses. +</p> + +<p> +Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom +(by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg391'>391-7</ref>.</note> +I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and +remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics +is,—<emph>not</emph> that their superstructure rests upon an insecure +foundation; but that it rests on <emph>no foundation at all</emph>. My +complaint is,—<emph>not</emph> that they are <emph>somewhat</emph> and <emph>frequently</emph> +mistaken; but that they are mistaken <emph>entirely</emph>, and that they +are mistaken <emph>throughout</emph>. There is no possibility of approximation +<pb n='519'/><anchor id='Pg519'/> +between <emph>their</emph> mere assumptions and the results of <emph>my</emph> +humble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of +Scripture. We shall only <emph>then</emph> be able to begin to reason +together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, +when they have unconditionally abandoned all their +preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every +one of their postulates to the four winds. +</p> + +<p> +(7) <hi rend='italic'>Parting Counsels.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your +attention and that of your friends,—(I.) <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>The last Twelve +Verses of S. Mark's Gospel</hi>:</q>—(II.) <hi rend='smallcaps'>the Angelic +Hymn</hi> on the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of +1 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Timothy</hi> iii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to +this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as +convenient <emph>Test places</emph>. When you are prepared frankly +to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting +the genuineness of S. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Mark</hi> xvi. 9-20:<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg036'>36-40</ref>: <ref target='Pg047'>47-9</ref>: <ref target='Pg422'>422-4</ref>.</note>—(II.) That ἐν +ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of +S. <hi rend='smallcaps'>Luke</hi> ii. 14:<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg041'>41-7</ref>: <ref target='Pg420'>420-2</ref>.</note>—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is +what the great Apostle must be held to have written in +1 <hi rend='smallcaps'>Timothy</hi> iii 16,<note place='foot'>See above, pp. <ref target='Pg098'>98-106</ref>: <ref target='Pg424'>424-501</ref>.</note>—we shall be in good time to proceed to +something else. <emph>Until</emph> this happy result has been attained, it +is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to +extend the area of our differences. +</p> + +<p> +I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an +avowal on your part will amount to an admission that <q>the +whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up +during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New +Testament,</q>—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is +worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence +<pb n='520'/><anchor id='Pg520'/> +of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as +Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, +from end to end. +</p> + +<p> +(8) <hi rend='italic'>The subject dismissed.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, +with deep humility, to <hi rend='smallcaps'>Almighty God</hi>. The <hi rend='smallcaps'>Spirit of Truth</hi> +will, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the +Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, +and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall +prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to +maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an +impatient and unlearned generation. +</p> + +<p> +But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my +conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men +freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from +our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few +months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an +utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New +Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable +'Revision' of the English. +</p> + +<p> +My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully +farewell. +</p> + +<p> +J. W. B. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Deanery, Chichester</hi>,<lb/> +<hi rend='italic'>July, 1883</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: +BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<pb n='521'/><anchor id='Pg521'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Appendix'/> +<head>Appendix Of Sacred Codices.</head> + +<p> +The inquiries into which I was led (January to June 1883) +by my <hi rend='smallcaps'>Dissertation</hi> in vindication of the Traditional Reading +of 1 Tim. iii. 16, have resulted in my being made aware of the +existence of a vast number of Sacred Codices which had eluded +the vigilance of previous Critics. +</p> + +<p> +I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener +in greatly enlarging Scholz's list. We had in fact raised the +enumeration of <q><hi rend='italic'>Evangelia</hi></q> to 621: of <q><hi rend='italic'>Acts and Catholic +Epistles</hi></q> to 239: of <q><hi rend='italic'>Paul</hi></q> to 281: of <q><hi rend='italic'>Apocalypse</hi></q> to 108: of +<q><hi rend='italic'>Evangelistaria</hi></q> to 299: of the book called <q><hi rend='italic'>Apostolus</hi></q> to 81:—making +a total of 1629.—But at the end of a protracted and +somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not +a few great Continental Libraries, I am able to state that our +available <q><hi rend='italic'>Evangelia</hi></q> amount to at least 739<note place='foot'>Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of 130 foll. slightly <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> +Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323 [xiii.], 8vo. <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 183, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> Brought from Ephesus, +and obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.</note>: our <q><hi rend='italic'>Acts and +Cath. Epp.</hi></q> to 261: our <q><hi rend='italic'>Paul</hi></q> to 338: our <q><hi rend='italic'>Apoc.</hi></q> to 122: our +<q><hi rend='italic'>Evstt.</hi></q> to 415<note place='foot'>Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.], <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 219, mutilated throughout. He +obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> Olympus.) It +came from a monastery on the mountain.</note>: our copies of the <q><hi rend='italic'>Apostolus</hi></q> to 128<note place='foot'>Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p. <ref target='Pg528'>528</ref>.</note>: making +a total of 2003. This shows an increase of <emph>three hundred and +seventy-four</emph>. +</p> + +<p> +My original intention had been to publish this enumeration +of Sacred Codices in its entirety as an <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi> to the present +volume: but finding that the third edition of Dr. Scrivener's +<q>Introduction</q> would appear some months before my own +pages could possibly see the light, I eagerly communicated my +discoveries to my friend. I have indeed proposed to myself no +<pb n='522'/><anchor id='Pg522'/> +other object throughout but the advancement of the study +of Textual Criticism: and it was reasonable to hope that by +means of his widely circulated volume, the great enlargement +which our previously ascertained stores have suddenly experienced +would become more generally known to scholars. I +should of course still have it in my power to reproduce here the +same enumeration of Sacred Codices. +</p> + +<p> +The great bulk however which the present volume has +acquired, induces me to limit myself in this place to some +account of those Codices which have been expressly announced +and discoursed about in my Text (as at pp. <ref target='Pg474'>474</ref> and <ref target='Pg492'>492-5</ref>). +Some other occasion must be found for enlarging on the rest of +my budget. +</p> + +<p> +It only remains to state that for most of my recent discoveries +I am indebted to the Abbate Cozza-Luzi, Prefect of the Vatican; +who on being informed of the object of my solicitude, with +extraordinary liberality and consideration at once set three +competent young men to work in the principal libraries of +Rome. To him I am further indebted for my introduction to +the MS. treasures belonging to the Basilian monks of Crypta-Ferrata, +the ancient Tusculum. Concerning the precious +library of that monastery so much has been offered already +(viz. at pp. <ref target='Pg446'>446-448</ref>, and again at pp. <ref target='Pg473'>473-4</ref>), as well as +concerning its learned chief, the Hieromonachus Antonio +Rocchi, that I must be content to refer my readers to those +earlier parts of the present volume. I cannot however sufficiently +acknowledge the patient help which the librarian of +Crypta Ferrata has rendered me in the course of these researches. +</p> + +<p> +For my knowledge of the sacred Codices preserved at Messina, +I am indebted to the good offices and learning of Papas Filippo +Matranga. In respect of those at Milan, my learned friend +Dr. Ceriani has (not for the first time) been my efficient helper. +M. Wescher has kindly assisted me at Paris; and Dr. C. de +Boor at Berlin. It must suffice, for the rest, to refer to the +Notes at foot of pp. <ref target='Pg491'>491-2</ref> and <ref target='Pg477'>477-8</ref>. +</p> + +<pb n='523'/><anchor id='Pg523'/> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Additional Codices of S. Paul's Epistles.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +282. ( = Act. 240. Apoc. 109). Paris, <q>Arménien 9</q> (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> Reg. 2247). +<hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 323. This bilingual codex (Greek and Armenian) is +described by the Abbé Martin in his <hi rend='italic'>Introduction à la Critique Textuelle +du N. T.</hi> (1883), p. 660-1. See above, p. <ref target='Pg474'>474</ref>, note 1. An Italian +version is added from the Cath. Epp. onwards. <hi rend='italic'>Mut.</hi> at beginning +(Acts iv. 14) and end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, +see above, p. <ref target='Pg473'>473-4</ref>.) +</p> + +<p> +283. ( = Act. 241). Messina <hi rend='smallcaps'>p k z</hi> (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> 127) [xii.], <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 224. <hi rend='italic'>Mut.</hi> +begins at Acts viii. 2,—ends at Hebr. viii. 2; also a leaf is lost between +foll. 90 and 91. Has ὑποθθ. and Commentary of an unknown author. +</p> + +<p> +284. ( = Act. 195). Modena, ii. <hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>. 13 [xiii.?], <hi rend='italic'>Mut.</hi> at the end. +</p> + +<p> +285. ( = Act. 196), Modena, ii. <hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>f. 4 [xi. or xii.]. Sig. Ant. Cappelli (sub-librarian) +sends me a tracing of 1 Tim. iii. 16. +</p> + +<p> +286. Ambrosian library, <hi rend='smallcaps'>e.</hi> 2, <hi rend='italic'>inf.</hi>the Catena of Nicetas. <q>Textus particulatim +præmittit Commentariis.</q> +</p> + +<p> +287. Ambrosian <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi> 241, <hi rend='italic'>inf.</hi>, <q>est Catena ejusdem auctoris ex initio, sed non +complectitur totum opus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +288. Ambrosian <hi rend='smallcaps'>d.</hi> 541 <hi rend='italic'>inf.</hi> [x. or xi.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> Text and Catena on all +S. Paul's Epp. <q>Textus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.</q> It was +brought from Thessaly. +</p> + +<p> +289. Milan <hi rend='smallcaps'>c.</hi> 295 <hi rend='italic'>inf.</hi> [x. or xi.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> with a Catena. <q>Textus continuatus. +Catena in marginibus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +290. ( = Evan. 622. Act. 242. Apoc. 110). Crypta Ferrata, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi> α. i. +[xiii. or xiv.] foll. 386: <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> a beautiful codex of the entire N. T. +described by Rocchi, p. 1-2. Menolog. <hi rend='italic'>Mut.</hi> 1 Nov. to 16 Dec. +</p> + +<p> +291. ( = Act. 243). Crypta Ferrata, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi> β. i. [x.] foll. 139: in two columns,—letters +almost uncial. Particularly described by Rocchi, pp. 15, 16. +Zacagni used this codex when writing about Euthalius. <hi rend='italic'>Mut.</hi>, beginning +with the argument for 1 S. John and ending with 2 Tim. +</p> + +<p> +†292. ( = Act. 244). Crypta Ferrata, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi> β. iii. [xi. or xii.]. <hi rend='italic'>Membr.</hi>, foll. 172. +in 2 columns beautifully illuminated: described by Rocchi, p. 18-9. +Zacagni employed this codex while treating of Euthalius. <hi rend='italic'>Menolog.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +293. ( = Act. 245). Crypta Ferrata, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi> β. vi. [xi.], foll. 193. <hi rend='italic'>Mut.</hi> at the end, +Described by Rocchi, p. 22-3. +</p> + +<p> +294. ( = Act. 246). Vat. 1208. Abbate Cozzi-Luzi confirms Berriman's +account [p. 98-9] of the splendour of this codex. It is written in gold +letters, and is said to have belonged to Carlotta, Queen of Jerusalem, +Cyprus, and Armenia, who died at Rome <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1487, and probably gave +the book to Pope Innocent VIII., whose arms are printed at the +beginning. It contains effigies of S. Luke, S. James, S. Peter, S. John, +S. Jude, S. Paul. +</p> + +<p> +295. ( = Act 247). Palatino-Vat. 38 [xi.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 35. Berriman (p. 100) +says it is of quarto size, and refers it to the IXth cent. +</p> + +<p> +296. Barberini iv. 85 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 19), dated <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1324. For my knowledge of this +codex I am entirely indebted to Berriman, who says that it contains +<q>the arguments and marginal scholia written</q> (p. 102). +</p> + +<pb n='524'/><anchor id='Pg524'/> + +<p> +297. Barberini, vi. 13 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 229), <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xi.] foll. 195: contains S. Paul's +14 Epp. This codex also was known to Berriman, who relates (p. 102), +that it is furnished <q>with the old marginal scholia.</q> +</p> + +<p> +298. (= Act. 248), Berlin (Hamilton: N<hi rend='vertical-align: super'>o</hi> 625 in the English printed +catalogue, where it is erroneously described as a <q>Lectionarium.</q>) It +contains Acts, Cath. Epp. and S. Paul,—as Dr. C. de Boor informs me. +</p> + +<p> +299. (= Act. 249), Berlin, 4to. 40 [xiii.]: same contents as the preceding. +</p> + +<p> +300. (= Act. 250), Berlin, 4to. 43 [xi.], same contents as the preceding, but +commences with the Psalms. +</p> + +<p> +301. (= Act. 251), Berlin, 4to. 57 [xiv.], <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> Same contents as Paul 298. +</p> + +<p> +302. (= Evan. 642. Act. 252.) Berlin, 8vo. 9 [xi.], probably once contained +all the N. T. It now begins with S. Luke XXIV. 53, and is <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> after +1 Thess. +</p> + +<p> +303. Milan, <hi rend='smallcaps'>n.</hi> 272 <hi rend='italic'>inf.</hi> <q>Excerpti loci.</q> +</p> + +<p> +304. (= Act. 253) Vat. 369 [xiv.] foll. 226, <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +305. Vat. 549, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xii.] foll. 380. S. Paul's Epistles, with Theophylact's +Commentary. +</p> + +<p> +306. Vat. 550, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xii.] foll. 290; contains Romans with Comm. of +Chrysostom. +</p> + +<p> +307. Vat 551, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [x.] foll. 283. A large codex, containing some of +S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom. +</p> + +<p> +308. Vat. 552, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xi.] foll. 155. Contains Hebrews with Comm. of +Chrysostom. +</p> + +<p> +309. Vat. 582, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xiv.] foll. 146. S. Paul's Epistles with Comm. of +Chrysostom. +</p> + +<p> +310. Vat. 646 [xiv.], foll. 250: <q>cum supplementis.</q> <hi rend='italic'>Chart.</hi> S. Paul's Epp. +with Comm. of Theophylact and Euthymius. Pars <hi rend='smallcaps'>i.</hi> et <hi rend='smallcaps'>ii.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +311. (= Evan. 671). Vat. 647. <hi rend='italic'>Chart.</hi> foll. 338 [xv.]. S. Paul's Epistles and +the Gospels, with Theophylact's Commentary. +</p> + +<p> +312. Vat. 648, written <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1232, at Jerusalem, by Simeon, <q>qui et Saba +dicitur:</q> foll. 338, <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> S. Paul's Epistles, with Comm. of Theophylact. +</p> + +<p> +313. (= Act. 239). Vat. 652, <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> [xv.] foll. 105. The Acts and Epistles +with Commentary. See the <hi rend='italic'>Preface</hi> to Theophylact, ed. 1758, vol. iii. +p. v.-viii., also <q>Acts 239</q> in Scrivener's 3rd. edit. (p. 263). +</p> + +<p> +314. Vat. 692, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xii.] foll. 93, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, +with Commentary. +</p> + +<p> +315. Vat. 1222, <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> [xvi.] foll. 437. S. Paul's Epp. with Theophylact's +Comm. +</p> + +<p> +316. (= Act. 255). Vat. 1654, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [x. or xi.], foll. 211. Acts and +Epistles of S. Paul with Chrysostom's Comm. +</p> + +<p> +317. Vat. 1656, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xii.], foll. 182. Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom, +<hi rend='italic'>folio</hi>. +</p> + +<p> +318. Vat. 1659, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xi.] foll. 444. S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. of +Chrysostom. +</p> + +<p> +319. Vat. 1971 (Basil 10) <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [x.] foll. 247. Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων σὺν +τοῖς τοῦ Εὐθαλίου. +</p> + +<p> +320. Vat. 2055 (Basil 94), <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [x.] foll. 292. S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. +of Chrysostom. +</p> + +<pb n='525'/><anchor id='Pg525'/> + +<p> +321. Vat. 2065 (Basil 104), [x.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 358. Romans with Comm. +of Chrysostom. +</p> + +<p> +322. (= Act. 256) Vat. 2099 (Basil 138) <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 120 [x.]. Note that +though numbered for the Acts, this code only contains ἐπιστολαὶ ιδ᾽ +καὶ καθολικαὶ, σὺν ταῖς σημειώσεσι λειτουργικαῖς περὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν αἷς +λεκτέαι. +</p> + +<p> +323. Vat. 2180 [xv.] foll. 294, <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> With Comm. of Theophylact. +</p> + +<p> +324. Alexand. Vat. 4 [x.] foll. 256, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> <q>Optimæ notæ.</q> Romans with +Comm. of Chrysostom, λογ. κβ᾽. <q>Fuit monasterii dicti τοῦ Περιβλέπτου.</q> +</p> + +<p> +325. (= Evan. 698. Apoc. 117). Alexand. Vat. 6. <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 336 [xvi.], a +large codex. The Gospels with Comm. of Nicetas: S. Paul's Epp. +with Comm. of Theophylact: Apocalypse with an anonymous Comm. +</p> + +<p> +326. Vat. Ottob. 74 [xv.] foll. 291, <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> Romans with Theodoret's Comm. +</p> + +<p> +327. Palatino-Vat. 10 [x.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 268. S. Paul's Epp. with a Patristic +Commentary. <q>Felkman adnotat.</q> +</p> + +<p> +328. Palatino-Vat. 204 [x.] foll. 181, cum additamentis. With the interpretation +of Œcumenius. +</p> + +<p> +329. Palatino-Vat. 325 [x.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 163, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> Inter alia adest εἰς ἐπιστ. +πρὸς Τιμόθεον ὁμιλεῖαι τινες Χρυσοστόμου. +</p> + +<p> +330. Palatino-Vat. 423 [xii.], partly <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> Codex miscell. habet ἐπιστολῶν +πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς καὶ Θεσσαλονικεῖς περικοπὰς σὺν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ. +</p> + +<p> +331. Angelic. <hi rend='smallcaps'>t.</hi> 8, 6 [xii.] foll. 326. S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. of +Chrysostom. +</p> + +<p> +332. (= Act. 259). Barberini iii. 36 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 22): <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 328 [xi.]. Inter +alia ἐπιτομαὶ κεφαλ. τῶν Πράξεων καὶ ἐπιστολῶν τῶν ἁγ. ἀποστόλων. +</p> + +<p> +333. (= Act. 260). Barberini iii. 10 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 259) <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 296 [xiv.]. +Excerpta ἐκ Πράξ. (f. 152): Ἰακώβου (f. 159): Πέτρου (f. 162): Ἰωάνν. +(f. 165): Ἰούδ. (f. 166): πρὸς Ρωμ. (f. 167): πρὸς Κορ. (f. 179): πρὸς +Κολ. (fol. 189): πρὸς Θεσς. (f. 193): πρὸς Τιμ. α᾽ (def. infin.). +</p> + +<p> +334. Barb. <hi rend='smallcaps'>v.</hi> 38 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 30) [xi.] foll. 219, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> Hebrews with Comm. of +Chrysostom. +</p> + +<p> +335. Vallicell. <hi rend='smallcaps'>f.</hi> [xv.], <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> miscell. Inter alia, εἰς τὰς ἐπιστολὰς τῶν +Ἀποστόλων ἐξηγήσεις τινες. +</p> + +<p> +336. (= Act. 261), Casanatensis, <hi rend='smallcaps'>g.</hi> 11, 6.—Note, that though numbered for +<q>Acts,</q> it contains only the Catholic Epp. and those of S. Paul with a +Catena. +</p> + +<p> +337. Ottob. 328. [All I know as yet of this and of the next codex is that +Θεός is read in both at 1 Tim. iii. 16]. +</p> + +<p> +338. Borg. <hi rend='smallcaps'>f.</hi> vi. 16. [See note on the preceding.] +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Additional copies of the <q>Apostolus.</q></hi> +</p> + +<p> +82. Messina ΠΓ (<hi rend='italic'>i.e.</hi> 83) foll. 331, 8vo. Perfect. +</p> + +<p> +83. Crypta Ferrata, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.</hi> β. iv. [x.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 139, Praxapostolus. Rocchi +gives an interesting account of this codex, pp. 19-20. It seems to be +an adaptation of the liturgical use of C P. to the requirements of the +Basilian monks in the Calabrian Church. This particular codex is <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> +in the beginning and at the end. (For its extraordinary reading at +1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. <ref target='Pg473'>473-4</ref>). +</p> + +<pb n='526'/><anchor id='Pg526'/> + +<p> +84. Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. v. [xi.], <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 245, a most beautiful codex. +Rocchi describes it carefully, pp. 20-2. At the end of the Menology is +some liturgical matter. <q>Patet Menologium esse merum ἀπόγραφον +alicujus Menologii CPtani, in usum. si velis, forte redacti Ecclesiae +Rossanensis in Calabria.</q> A suggestive remark follows that from this +source <q>rituum rubricarumque magnum segetem colligi posse, nec non +Commemorationem <emph>Sanctorum</emph> mirum sane numerum, quas in aliis +Menologiis vix invenies.</q> +</p> + +<p> +85. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. vii. [xi.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 64, Praxapostolus. This +codex and the next exhibit ὅς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The +Menology is <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> after 17 Dec. +</p> + +<p> +86. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. viii. [xii. or xiii.] fragments of foll. 127. <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> +Praxapostolus. (See the preceding.) Interestingly described by +Rocchi, p. 23-4. +</p> + +<p> +87. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. ix. [xii.], foll. 104, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> Praxapostolus. +Interestingly described by Rocchi, p. 24-5. The Menology is unfortunately +defective after 9th November. +</p> + +<p> +88. Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. x. [xiii.?] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> 16 fragmentary leaves. <q>Vere +lamentanda est quæ huic Eclogadio calamitas evenit</q> (says the learned +Rocchi, p. 25), <q>quoniam ex ejus residuis, multa Sanctorum nomina +reperies quæ alibi frustra quæsieris.</q> +</p> + +<p> +89. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. xi. [xi.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 291, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi>, written in two +columns. The Menology is defective after 12 June, and elsewhere. +Described by Rocchi, p. 26. +</p> + +<p> +90. (= Evst. 322) Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. ii. [xi.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 259, with many +excerpts from the Fathers, fully described by Rocchi, p. 17-8, fragmentary +and imperfect. +</p> + +<p> +91. (= Evst. 323) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. ii. [x.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 155, a singularly +full lectionary. Described by Rocchi, p. 38-40. +</p> + +<p> +92. (= Evst. 325) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. iv. [xiii.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 257, a +beautiful and interesting codex, <q>Calligrapho Joanne Rossanensi Hieromonacho +Cryptæferratæ</q>: fully described by Rocchi, p. 40-3. Like +many other in the same collection, it is a palimpsest. +</p> + +<p> +93. (= Evst. 327) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. vi. [xiii.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 37, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> +at beginning and end, and otherwise much injured: described by +Rocchi, p. 45-6. +</p> + +<p> +94. (= Evst. 328) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. ix. [xii.], <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 117, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> +at beginning and end. +</p> + +<p> +95. (= Evst. 334) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. xx. [xii.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 21, a mere +fragment. (Rocchi, p. 51.) +</p> + +<p> +96. (= Evst. 337) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. xxiv. A collection of fragments. +(Rocchi, p. 53.) +</p> + +<p> +97. (= Evst. 339) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. ii. [xi.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 151, elaborately +described by Rocchi, p. 244-9. This codex once belonged to +Thomasius. +</p> + +<p> +98. (= Evst. 340) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β iii. [xiv.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 201. Goar +used this codex: described by Rocchi, p. 249-51. +</p> + +<p> +99. (= Evst. 341) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. vi. [xiii. or xiv.], <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 101: +described by Rocchi, p. 255-7. +</p> + +<pb n='527'/><anchor id='Pg527'/> + +<p> +100. (= Evst. 344) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. ix. [xvi.], <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 95, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> +at beginning and end, and much injured. +</p> + +<p> +101. (= Evst. 346) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xii. [xiv.], <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 98, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> +at beginning and end. +</p> + +<p> +102. (= Evst. 347) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xiii. [xiii.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 188: written +by John of Rossano, Hieromonachus of Cryptaferrata, described by +Rocchi, p. 265-7. +</p> + +<p> +103. (= Evst. 349) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xv. [xi. to xiv.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 41.—Described +p. <ref target='Pg268'>268-9</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +104. (= Evst. 350) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xvii. [xvi.]. <hi rend='italic'>Chart.</hi> foll. 269. +Described, p. 269-70. +</p> + +<p> +105. (= Evst. 351), Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xviii. [xiv.] <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 54. +</p> + +<p> +106. (= Evst. 352) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xix. [xvi.] <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi>, foll. 195, described +p. <ref target='Pg271'>271</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +107. (= Evst. 353) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxiii. [xvii.], <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 75,—the +work of Basilius Falasca, Hieromonachus, and head of the monastery, +<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1641,—described p. <ref target='Pg273'>273-4</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +108. (= Evst. 354) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxiv. [xvi.] <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 302,—the +work of Lucas Felix, head of the monastery; described, p. +<ref target='Pg274'>274-5</ref>. +</p> + +<p> +109. (= Evst. 356) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxxviii. [xvii.]. <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 91, the +work of <q>Romanus Vasselli</q> and <q>Michael Lodolinus.</q> +</p> + +<p> +110. (= Evst. 357) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xlii. [xvi.] <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 344. +</p> + +<p> +111. (= Evst. 358) Crypta Ferrata, Δ. β. xxii. [xviii.] <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 77,—described +foll. 365-6. +</p> + +<p> +112. (= Evst. 312) Messina, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> in 8vo. foll. 60 [xiii.],—<q>fragmentum +parvi momenti.</q> +</p> + +<p> +113. Syracuse (<q>Seminario</q>) <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 219, <hi rend='italic'>mut.</hi> given by the Cav. Landolina. +</p> + +<p> +114. (= Evan. 155) Alex. Vat. +</p> + +<p> +115. [I have led Scrivener into error by assigning this number (Apost. 115) +to <q>Vat. 2068 (Basil 107).</q> See above, p. <ref target='Pg495'>495</ref>, note 1. I did not +advert to the fact that <q>Basil 107</q> had <emph>already</emph> been numbered <q>Apost. +49.</q>] +</p> + +<p> +116. Vat. 368 (Praxapostolus) [xiii.] foll. 136, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +117. (= Evst. 381) Vat. 774 [xiii.], foll. 160, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +118. (= Evst. 387) Vat. 2012 (Basil 51), foll. 211 [xv.] <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> +</p> + +<p> +119. Vat. 2116 (Basil 155) [xiii.] foll. 111. +</p> + +<p> +120. Alexand. Vat. 11 (Praxapostolus), [xiv.] <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> foll. 169. +</p> + +<p> +121. (= Evst. 395) Alexand. Vat. 59 [xii.] foll. 137. +</p> + +<p> +122. Alexand. Vat. 70, <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1544, foll. 18: <q>in fronte pronunciatio Græca +Latinis literis descripta.</q> +</p> + +<p> +123. (= Evst. 400) Palatino-Vat. 241 [xv.] <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 149. +</p> + +<p> +124. (= Evst. 410) Barb. iii. 129 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 234) <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> [xiv.] foll. 189. +</p> + +<p> +125. Barb. iv. 11 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 193), <hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 1566, <hi rend='italic'>chart.</hi> foll. 158, Praxapostolus. +</p> + +<p> +126. Barb. iv. 60 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 116) [xi.] foll. 322, a fine codex with <hi rend='italic'>menologium</hi>. +Praxapostolus. +</p> + +<p> +127. Barb. iv. 84 (<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 117) [xiii.] foll. 185, with menologium. <hi rend='italic'>Mut.</hi> +</p> + +<pb n='528'/><anchor id='Pg528'/> + +<p> +128. Paris, <hi rend='italic'>Reg. Greek</hi>, 13, <hi rend='italic'>membr.</hi> [xiii. or xiv.], a huge folio of Liturgical +Miscellanies, consisting of between 6 and 900 unnumbered leaves. (At +the σαββ. πρὸ των φωτων, line 11, θς ἐφα.) Communicated by the +Abbé Martin. +</p> + +<p> +<hi rend='smallcaps'>Postscript</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>Nov</hi>. 1883.) +</p> + +<p> +It will be found stated at p. <ref target='Pg495'>495</ref> (line 10 from the bottom) +that the Codices (of <q>Paul</q> and <q>Apost.</q>) which exhibit Θεὸς +ἐφανερώθη amount in all to 289. +</p> + +<p> +From this sum (for the reason already assigned above), <emph>one</emph> +must be deducted, viz., <q>Apost. 115.</q> +</p> + +<p> +On the other hand, 8 copies of <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Paul</hi></q> (communicated by the +Abbate Cozza-Luzi) are to be added: viz. <hi rend='italic'>Vat.</hi> 646 (Paul 310): +647 (Paul 311): 1971 (Paul 319). <hi rend='italic'>Palat. Vat.</hi> 10 (Paul 327): +204 (Paul 328). <hi rend='italic'>Casanat.</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>. 11, 16 (Paul 336). <hi rend='italic'>Ottob.</hi> 328 +(Paul 337). <hi rend='italic'>Borg.</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi>. vi. 16 (Paul 338). So that no less than +260 out of 262 cursive copies of St. Paul's Epistle,—[not 252 out +of 254, as stated in p. <ref target='Pg495'>495</ref> (line 21 from the bottom)],—are found +to witness to the Reading here contended for. The enumeration +of Codices at page <ref target='Pg494'>494</ref> is therefore to be continued as +follows:—310, 311, 319, 327, 328, 336, 337, 338. +</p> + +<p> +To the foregoing are also to be added 4 copies of the +<q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Apostolus</hi>,</q> viz. <hi rend='italic'>Vat.</hi> 2116 (Apost. 119). <hi rend='italic'>Palat. Vat.</hi> 241 +(Apost. 123). <hi rend='italic'>Barb.</hi> iv. 11 [<hi rend='italic'>olim</hi> 193] (Apost. 125). Paris, +<hi rend='italic'>Reg. Gr.</hi> 13 (Apost. 128). +</p> + +<p> +From all which, it appears that, (including copies of the +<q>Apostolus,</q>) <hi rend='smallcaps'>the codices which are known to witness to</hi> +ΘΕῸΣ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ <hi rend='smallcaps'>in</hi> 1 Tim. iii. 16, <hi rend='smallcaps'>amount</hi> [289-1+8+4] +<hi rend='smallcaps'>to exactly three hundred</hi>. +</p> + +</div> + +<pb n='529'/><anchor id='Pg529'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Index-I'/> +<head>Index I, of Texts of Scripture,—quoted, discussed, or only referred to in +this volume.</head> + +<p> +Note, that an asterisk (*) distinguishes references to +the Greek Text from references to the English Translation. [Where +either the Reading of the Original, or the English Translation is +largely discussed, the sign is doubled (** or ++).] +</p> + +<lg> +<l>Genesis ii. 4, <ref target='Pg119'>119</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 7, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 1, <ref target='Pg119'>119</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xviii. 14, <ref target='Pg183'>183</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Exodus x. 21-23, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Leviticus iv. 3, <ref target='Pg183'>183</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Deut. xxxiv. 1-12, <ref target='Pg048'>48</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Judges iv. 13, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>2 Sam. vii. 2, 3, <ref target='Pg192'>192</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>1 Kings viii. 17, 18, <ref target='Pg192'>192</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2, <ref target='Pg192'>192</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11, <ref target='Pg201'>201</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Job xxxviii. 2, <ref target='Pg235'>235</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Psalms xxxiii. 18, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xlv. 6, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>lxxxiii. 9, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Isaiah xiv. 15, <ref target='Pg056'>56</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>lvii. 15, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>liii. 9, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jeremiah xv. 9, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Amos viii. 9, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Zecharia xi. 12, <ref target='Pg150'>150</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Apocrypha—Baruch iii. 38 [or 37] <ref target='Pg177'>177*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>S. Matt. i. (genealogy), <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>1, <ref target='Pg119'>119-21+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, 7, 10, 12, <ref target='Pg186'>186+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg119'>119-22+**</ref>, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref>, <ref target='Pg224'>224+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg165'>165+</ref>, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg173'>173+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, <ref target='Pg123'>123-4**+</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref>, <ref target='Pg416'>416*</ref>, <ref target='Pg417'>417</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 1, <ref target='Pg156'>156+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>2, <ref target='Pg155'>155+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg156'>156+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg173'>173+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, 7, <ref target='Pg156'>156+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg155'>155+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, 12, 13, <ref target='Pg156'>156+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg155'>155+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg156'>156+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg156'>156+</ref>, <ref target='Pg157'>157+</ref>, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 5, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg175'>175+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg175'>175+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 3, <ref target='Pg511'>511+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, 15, <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, 20, 21, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 15, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref>, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref>, <ref target='Pg358'>358-61**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg161'>161+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>37, <ref target='Pg214'>214+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref>, <ref target='Pg214'>214+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>40, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>44, <ref target='Pg410'>410-1**</ref>, <ref target='Pg412'>412</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 8, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg163'>163+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, 14, 15, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<pb n='530'/><anchor id='Pg530'/> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 29, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>30, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vii. 4, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>28, <ref target='Pg199'>199+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 3, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg259'>259</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>8, <ref target='Pg511'>511+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 2, <ref target='Pg032'>32</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg033'>33</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg032'>32</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg259'>259</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 18, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>33, <ref target='Pg033'>33</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>x. 8, <ref target='Pg108'>108*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg201'>201+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg511'>511+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>35, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xi. 11, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref>, <ref target='Pg166'>166+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg054'>54-56**</ref>, <ref target='Pg217'>217*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 24, 27, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref>, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>38, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>40, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>43, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>47, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiii. 3, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg154'>154+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, 38, <ref target='Pg214'>214+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>35, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, <ref target='Pg195'>195++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiv. 2, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>2, 3, 13, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, 22, 23, <ref target='Pg195'>195+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg154'>154+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>30, <ref target='Pg071'>71*</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>31, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xv. 14, <ref target='Pg361'>361</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, 39, <ref target='Pg195'>195+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvi. 2, 3, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg159'>159+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg199'>199+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvii. 15, <ref target='Pg205'>205++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg091'>91-2**</ref>, <ref target='Pg206'>206**</ref>, <ref target='Pg217'>217+</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref>, <ref target='Pg417'>417</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg176'>176*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>24, <ref target='Pg147'>147+</ref>, <ref target='Pg150'>150</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref>, <ref target='Pg147'>147+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xviii. 6, <ref target='Pg181'>181+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg092'>92**</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref>, <ref target='Pg417'>417</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>35, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xix. 17, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref>, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xx. 15, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref>, <ref target='Pg512'>512+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg512'>512+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>34, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxi. 1-3, <ref target='Pg057'>57</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>2, <ref target='Pg154'>154+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>8, <ref target='Pg059'>59</ref>, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref>, <ref target='Pg145'>145+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>28, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>31, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxii. 9, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>33, <ref target='Pg199'>199+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxiii. 35, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxiv. 3, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxv. 18, 27, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>46, <ref target='Pg207'>207+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxvi. 3, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg200'>200++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg149'>149-150++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>24, <ref target='Pg173'>173+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, <ref target='Pg182'>182+</ref>, <ref target='Pg210'>210*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>48, <ref target='Pg203'>203+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>53, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>69, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>74, <ref target='Pg154'>154</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxvii. 34, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>37, <ref target='Pg087'>87</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>45, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>46, <ref target='Pg159'>159+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>49, <ref target='Pg033'>33-4*</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309*</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>50, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>60, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref>, <ref target='Pg198'>198++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>61, <ref target='Pg088'>88</ref></l> +<pb n='531'/><anchor id='Pg531'/> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxvii. <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref>, <ref target='Pg066'>66</ref>, <ref target='Pg198'>198+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxviii. 1, <ref target='Pg198'>198+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>2, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg174'>174+</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg182'>182+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>S. Mark i. 1, <ref target='Pg132'>132**</ref>, <ref target='Pg135'>135</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>8, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg174'>174+</ref>, <ref target='Pg175'>175+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg165'>165+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, 18, 19, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref>, <ref target='Pg194'>194+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg199'>199+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg172'>172+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref>, <ref target='Pg139'>139+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>28, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>44, <ref target='Pg259'>259</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 1-12, <ref target='Pg030'>30-33**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg259'>259</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 5, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, 16, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 13, <ref target='Pg170'>170+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, <ref target='Pg145'>145+</ref>, <ref target='Pg195'>195+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 31, <ref target='Pg402'>402*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>43, <ref target='Pg511'>511*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 11, <ref target='Pg118'>118</ref>, <ref target='Pg137'>137-8**</ref>, <ref target='Pg409'>409-10**</ref>, <ref target='Pg412'>412*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, 16, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg070'>70</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg066'>66-69**</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref>, <ref target='Pg417'>417</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>24, 25, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg147'>147+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>30, 32, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>33, <ref target='Pg258'>258*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, <ref target='Pg045'>45</ref>, <ref target='Pg195'>195+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vii. 8, <ref target='Pg194'>194+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg179'>179+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>31, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>33, 35, &c., <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 7, <ref target='Pg511'>511+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 9, <ref target='Pg195'>195+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>26, <ref target='Pg259'>259*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 1, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, 20, 22, 26, <ref target='Pg205'>205+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg217'>217*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, 24, 29, <ref target='Pg069'>69-71*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>38, <ref target='Pg260'>260*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>42, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>44, 46, <ref target='Pg510'>510</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>49, <ref target='Pg260'>260*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>x. 17-31, <ref target='Pg326'>326-31**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg217'>217*</ref>, <ref target='Pg510'>510*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>35, 37, <ref target='Pg512'>512*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>44, 46, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xi. 1-6, <ref target='Pg057'>57</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg056'>56-58**</ref>, <ref target='Pg217'>217*</ref>, <ref target='Pg417'>417</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg182'>182+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>8, <ref target='Pg058'>58-61**</ref>, <ref target='Pg418'>418</ref>, <ref target='Pg439'>439*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>26, <ref target='Pg217'>217*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 37, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>42, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiii. 19, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, <ref target='Pg210'>210**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiv. 3, <ref target='Pg200'>200++</ref>, <ref target='Pg184'>184-5++*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg193'>193+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>8, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg150'>150</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>30, <ref target='Pg071'>71**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>30, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref>, <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, <ref target='Pg182'>182+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>50, <ref target='Pg194'>194+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>65, <ref target='Pg139'>139*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>68, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>72, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xv. 8, <ref target='Pg139'>139*</ref>, <ref target='Pg191'>191+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>31, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>33, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg071'>71-2**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>47, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvi. 9-20, <ref target='Pg033'>33</ref>, <ref target='Pg036'>36-40**</ref>, <ref target='Pg047'>47-9**</ref>, <ref target='Pg051'>51*</ref>, <ref target='Pg281'>281-4*</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref>, <ref target='Pg418'>418</ref>, <ref target='Pg419'>419</ref>, <ref target='Pg422'>422-4**</ref>, <ref target='Pg519'>519*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, 20, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg470'>470</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>S. Luke i. 15, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref>, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<pb n='532'/><anchor id='Pg532'/> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>26, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>37, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>42, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>51, <ref target='Pg172'>172+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>78, <ref target='Pg179'>179+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 9, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg203'>203+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg041'>41-7**</ref>, <ref target='Pg051'>51</ref>, <ref target='Pg139'>139+</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref>, <ref target='Pg340'>340-1**</ref>, <ref target='Pg418'>418</ref>, <ref target='Pg419'>419</ref>, <ref target='Pg420'>420-2**</ref>, <ref target='Pg519'>519*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>33, <ref target='Pg161'>161+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>38, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 3, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg115'>115**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 1, <ref target='Pg218'>218-219*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg403'>403*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg511'>511+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, 8, 17, 18, 21, 23, 27, 35, <ref target='Pg403'>403*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref>, <ref target='Pg403'>403+*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, <ref target='Pg199'>199+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>38, 43, <ref target='Pg404'>404*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg144'>144</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>44, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref>, <ref target='Pg404'>404*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 2, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref>, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg159'>159+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref>, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, 19, <ref target='Pg032'>32</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg032'>32</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg033'>33</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, <ref target='Pg139'>139+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>37, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg110'>110</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 1 (δευτ.) <ref target='Pg073'>73-5**</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>1 (ἤσθ.) <ref target='Pg093'>93-4*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>35, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>38, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg235'>235</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>48, <ref target='Pg110'>110</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vii. 7, <ref target='Pg511'>511*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg172'>172+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>37, <ref target='Pg200'>200++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 35-44, <ref target='Pg016'>16-7**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>45-6, <ref target='Pg401'>401-3**+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>46, <ref target='Pg158'>158+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 7, <ref target='Pg066'>66-9**</ref>, <ref target='Pg405'>405*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, 8, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref>, <ref target='Pg260'>260-1*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg195'>195+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>31, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, 42, <ref target='Pg205'>205+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>54-6, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref>, <ref target='Pg511'>511*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>55, 56, <ref target='Pg093'>93*</ref>, <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref>, <ref target='Pg418'>418</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>x. 1, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg068'>68</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg054'>54-6**</ref>, <ref target='Pg418'>418</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>40, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>41, 42, <ref target='Pg116'>116-117*</ref> , <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>41 to xi. 11, <ref target='Pg510'>510*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>42, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xi. 2-4, <ref target='Pg034'>34-6**</ref>, <ref target='Pg418'>418</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg163'>163+</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg179'>179+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, 18, 19, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>54, <ref target='Pg261'>261*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 2, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg261'>261*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg194'>194+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>45, <ref target='Pg195'>195-6++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiv. 1, <ref target='Pg179'>179+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xv. 16, <ref target='Pg181'>181+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, 17, <ref target='Pg139'>139+*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg407'>407*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg405'>405*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>31, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvi. 3, <ref target='Pg159'>159+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg139'>139+*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg139'>139+*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvii. 2, <ref target='Pg181'>181+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xviii. 7, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xix. 10, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg406'>406*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<pb n='533'/><anchor id='Pg533'/> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29-34, <ref target='Pg033'>33</ref>, <ref target='Pg057'>57</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xix., xx., <ref target='Pg094'>94-5**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xx. 1, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, <ref target='Pg406'>406*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>44, <ref target='Pg170'>170+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxi. 24, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>34, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>37, <ref target='Pg184'>184+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxii. 5, 6, <ref target='Pg150'>150</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, 20 to xxiv. 53 <ref target='Pg075'>75-7*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, 20, <ref target='Pg078'>78-9**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg173'>173+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>43-4, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79-82**</ref>, <ref target='Pg131'>131</ref>, <ref target='Pg281'>281*</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref>, <ref target='Pg340'>340**</ref>, <ref target='Pg411'>411*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>60, <ref target='Pg154'>154</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>64, <ref target='Pg511'>511*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxiii. 8, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, 25, <ref target='Pg191'>191+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>33, <ref target='Pg165'>165+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>34, reverse of title, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg082'>82-5**</ref>, <ref target='Pg131'>131</ref>, <ref target='Pg281'>281-3*</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref>, <ref target='Pg411'>411*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>38, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg085'>85-8**</ref>, <ref target='Pg281'>281-3</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg418'>418</ref>, <ref target='Pg511'>511*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>42, <ref target='Pg072'>72*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>45, <ref target='Pg061'>61-5**</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref> <ref target='Pg419'>419</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>55, <ref target='Pg088'>88-9**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxiv. 1, <ref target='Pg075'>75</ref>, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg088'>88-9**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg096'>96-7**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89-90**</ref>, <ref target='Pg281'>281-3*</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref>, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, 40, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90-1**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>41, <ref target='Pg093'>93*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>42, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg511'>511*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>44, <ref target='Pg407'>407*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>51, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg281'>281-3*</ref>, <ref target='Pg470'>470</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>52, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>53, <ref target='Pg076'>76</ref>, <ref target='Pg261'>261-2*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>S. John i. 1, <ref target='Pg469'>469</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg132'>132*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg135'>135</ref>, <ref target='Pg174'>174+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref>, <ref target='Pg174'>174</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg174'>174+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg182'>182+</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>34, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>42, <ref target='Pg181'>181+*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 3, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg132'>132-5**</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref>, <ref target='Pg510'>510*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 6, <ref target='Pg145'>145</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg407'>407-8**+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 2, <ref target='Pg005'>5-6**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, 4, <ref target='Pg282'>282-3</ref>, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>34, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 4, <ref target='Pg353'>353**</ref>, <ref target='Pg354'>354*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg154'>154+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>33, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>51, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>70, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vii. 39, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>53 to viii. 11, <ref target='Pg311'>311*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 4, <ref target='Pg139'>139+*</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg140'>140+*</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>35, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>38, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>x. 14, <ref target='Pg220'>220-1**+</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xi. 12, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg163'>163+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 3, <ref target='Pg184'>184-5*++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg201'>201+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg139'>139*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>41, <ref target='Pg140'>140*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>43, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiii. 10, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg145'>145+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21-6, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref></l> +<pb n='534'/><anchor id='Pg534'/> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>24, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>24-5, <ref target='Pg145'>145*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg201'>201+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiv. 4, <ref target='Pg072'>72-3*+</ref>, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref>, <ref target='Pg419'>419</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, 9, <ref target='Pg170'>170+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, 14, <ref target='Pg140'>140+*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg163'>163+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xv. 1, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg179'>179+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>26, <ref target='Pg451'>451*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvi. 13, <ref target='Pg335'>335</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg210'>210</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, 17, 19, <ref target='Pg163'>163+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, τ <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg140'>140*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>32, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvii. 4, <ref target='Pg140'>140*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, 6, <ref target='Pg158'>158+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, 12, <ref target='Pg140'>140*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg158'>158+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>24, <ref target='Pg217'>217-8**+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, <ref target='Pg158'>158+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xviii. 1, <ref target='Pg181'>181+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg161'>161+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>24, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>35, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>37, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xix. 16, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg087'>87</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg086'>86</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>34, 33, <ref target='Pg309'>309*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>39, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>40, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref>, <ref target='Pg436'>436</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>41, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>42, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xx. 2, <ref target='Pg159'>159+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref>, <ref target='Pg165'>165+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg159'>159+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg140'>140+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>28, <ref target='Pg469'>469</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>30, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxi. 1, 9, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxi. 12, 15, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref>, <ref target='Pg181'>181*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, 16, 17, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, <ref target='Pg023'>23-4**</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Acts i. 2, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg470'>470</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg150'>150</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 22, <ref target='Pg173'>173+</ref>, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>43, <ref target='Pg173'>173+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 6, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg191'>191+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 1, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg173'>173+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, 22, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>24, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 24, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 7, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vii. 13, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>45, <ref target='Pg186'>186+</ref>, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>46, <ref target='Pg191'>191+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 3, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 13, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, <ref target='Pg171'>171+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>x. 11, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref>, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg144'>144</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xi. 5, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 7, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg195'>195+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg192'>192+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<pb n='535'/><anchor id='Pg535'/> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiii. 28, <ref target='Pg191'>191+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiv. 9, <ref target='Pg161'>161+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvi. 16, <ref target='Pg195'>195+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg192'>192+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvii. 5, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>28, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>31, <ref target='Pg150'>150+</ref>, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xviii. 2, 24, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg053'>53-4**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xix. <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg140'>140+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xx. 28, <ref target='Pg353'>353-4*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxi. 37, <ref target='Pg149'>149++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxii. 13, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxiii. 1, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg027'>27</ref>, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxv. 13, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxvi. 28, 29, <ref target='Pg151'>151-2*++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxvii. 14, <ref target='Pg176'>176+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>26, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>37, <ref target='Pg051'>51-3**</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxviii. 1, <ref target='Pg177'>177-8**+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>2, <ref target='Pg144'>144+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg177'>177+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg147'>147+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rom. i. 7, <ref target='Pg127'>127*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7-xiii. 1, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg207'>207+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 22, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 8, <ref target='Pg315'>315*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 5, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 2, <ref target='Pg160'>160</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vii. 1, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref>, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg142'>142-3+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 5., <ref target='Pg208'>208++</ref>, <ref target='Pg210'>210-4**++</ref>, <ref target='Pg354'>354*</ref>, <ref target='Pg412'>412*</ref>, <ref target='Pg469'>469</ref>, <ref target='Pg510'>510</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg160'>160</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xi. 2, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg156'>156+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 6, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 9, <ref target='Pg214'>214+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiv. 4, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xv. 20, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvi. 23, <ref target='Pg127'>127+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>25, 26, <ref target='Pg464'>464</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>1 Cor. i. 27, <ref target='Pg160'>160</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 21, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 20, <ref target='Pg160'>160</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 6, <ref target='Pg174'>174+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 11, <ref target='Pg160'>160</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>x. 1, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 8-10, <ref target='Pg166'>166+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref>, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiii., <ref target='Pg201'>201-2++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'> 3, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiv. 7, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>36, <ref target='Pg168'>168+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xv. 34, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref>, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>44, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>55, <ref target='Pg142'>142+</ref>, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvi. 12, <ref target='Pg164'>164*</ref>, <ref target='Pg170'>170+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>2 Cor. i. 3-7, <ref target='Pg189'>189+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'> 4, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 12, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 3, <ref target='Pg140'>140*+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 8, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, 19, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 11, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 11, 14, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 7, <ref target='Pg219'>219-20**+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiii. 1, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gal. ii. 4, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 1, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 21-31, <ref target='Pg196'>196++</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eph. i. 1., <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg173'>173+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 13, <ref target='Pg192'>192+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 1, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref>, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +<pb n='536'/><anchor id='Pg536'/> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg199'>199+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg160'>160</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 16, <ref target='Pg214'>214+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Phil. i. 1, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>8, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg139'>139+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 6, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg513'>513*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 16, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 3, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Col. i. 9, <ref target='Pg192'>192+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg172'>172+</ref>, <ref target='Pg174'>174+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg497'>497-8*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 8, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg355'>355-6**</ref>, <ref target='Pg140'>140+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, 23, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 2, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>1 Thess. i. 9, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 15, <ref target='Pg127'>127+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>2 Thess. i. 3, <ref target='Pg127'>127+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>1 Tim. ii. 2, <ref target='Pg489'>489*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg439'>439*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 1, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13 to iv. 5, <ref target='Pg476'>476</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg098'>98-106***</ref>, <ref target='Pg165'>165+</ref>, <ref target='Pg316'>316*</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref>, <ref target='Pg419'>419</ref>, <ref target='Pg424'>424-501***</ref>, <ref target='Pg515'>515</ref>, <ref target='Pg519'>519*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 1, 2, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg439'>439*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 13, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 15, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg344'>344</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>2 Tim. i. 13, 28, <ref target='Pg351'>351*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 1, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, 25, <ref target='Pg440'>440*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 6, <ref target='Pg441'>441*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg208'>208-9++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 3, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg166'>166+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg215'>215</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Titus i. 2, <ref target='Pg178'>178+*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>2, 3, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, 9, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg439'>439*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 1, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Philemon, ver. 12, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Heb. i. 1, 2, <ref target='Pg172'>172+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>2, <ref target='Pg174'>174+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>8, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 4, <ref target='Pg204'>204+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg216'>216</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 19, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 8, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref>, <ref target='Pg186'>186+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 2, <ref target='Pg199'>199+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 2, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 24, <ref target='Pg180'>180+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>x. 21, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xi. 17, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref>, <ref target='Pg161'>161+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, 28, <ref target='Pg163'>163+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>26, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>28, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>35, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>38, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xii. 2, <ref target='Pg146'>146+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiii. 9, <ref target='Pg199'>199+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>S. James i. 11, <ref target='Pg163'>163+</ref>, <ref target='Pg170'>170+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg317'>317*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, 18, <ref target='Pg217'>217+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 2, 3, <ref target='Pg190'>190+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg160'>160+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg511'>511*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>16, <ref target='Pg128'>128+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 3, <ref target='Pg140'>140+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>11, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 1, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 16, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>1 S. Peter i. 5, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +<pb n='537'/><anchor id='Pg537'/> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>23, <ref target='Pg216'>216*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 2, <ref target='Pg179'>179+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 20, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 9, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref>, <ref target='Pg141'>141+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>2 S. Peter i. 5-7, <ref target='Pg174'>174+</ref>, <ref target='Pg400'>400</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg179'>179+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 15, <ref target='Pg142'>142</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref>, <ref target='Pg335'>335</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 7, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>10, <ref target='Pg355'>355-6**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>13, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>1 S. John i. 2, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>3, <ref target='Pg167'>167+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ii. 14, <ref target='Pg160'>160*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>27, <ref target='Pg169'>169+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>29, <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 4, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>8, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref>, <ref target='Pg216'>216</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>9, <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>15, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg153'>153+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 3, 6, <ref target='Pg127'>127+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg140'>140+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 1, <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>2, <ref target='Pg127'>127+</ref>, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>4, <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>7, <ref target='Pg483'>483</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>12, <ref target='Pg164'>164+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg347'>347-50**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>20, <ref target='Pg469'>469</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>3 S. John 1, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg154'>154+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>S. Jude 1, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>5, <ref target='Pg140'>140+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>6, <ref target='Pg207'>207+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg178'>178+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>18, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rev. ii. 5, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iii. 2, <ref target='Pg140'>140+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>iv. 6, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>v. 12, <ref target='Pg143'>143+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>vi. 9, <ref target='Pg127'>127+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>viii. 13, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ix. 13, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiii. 18, <ref target='Pg135'>135-7**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xiv. 6, <ref target='Pg165'>165+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>14, <ref target='Pg165'>165+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg172'>172+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xv. 6, <ref target='Pg140'>140+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvi. 17, <ref target='Pg172'>172+</ref>, <ref target='Pg199'>199++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xvii. 1, <ref target='Pg200'>200++</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xviii. 21, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>22, <ref target='Pg148'>148+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xix. 6, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref>, <ref target='Pg162'>162+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>17, <ref target='Pg183'>183+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>21, <ref target='Pg129'>129+</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>xxii. 18, 19, <ref target='Pg001'>1</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>19, <ref target='Pg409'>409</ref></l> +</lg> + +</div> + +<pb n='538'/><anchor id='Pg538'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<anchor id='Index-II'/> +<head>Index II, of Fathers.</head> + +<p> +Fathers referred to, or else quoted(*), in this volume. For the +chief Editions employed, see the note at p. <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>. +</p> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Acta Apostt.</hi> (Syriac), <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'><hi rend='italic'>Philippi</hi>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'><hi rend='italic'>Pilati</hi>, <ref target='Pg045'>45</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Alcimus Avit., <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ambrosius, <ref target='Pg024'>24</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg073'>73</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref>, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg087'>87</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg132'>132</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg215'>215*</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ammonius, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref>, <ref target='Pg088'>88*</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Amphilochius, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Combefis]</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. ----, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Anaphora Pilati</hi>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Anastasius Ant., <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Migne]</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>Sin., <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Migne]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Andreas Cret., <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Combefis]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Anonymous, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Antiochus mon., <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Migne]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Aphraates, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Apostolical</hi>, see <ref target='index-constitutiones'><q><hi rend='italic'>Constitutiones</hi>.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Archelaus (with Manes), <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Arius, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Athenagoras, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Athanasius, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. ——, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref>, <ref target='Pg475'>475</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Augustinus, <ref target='Pg024'>24</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg116'>116*</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg132'>132</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Barnabas, <ref target='Pg103'>103*</ref>, <ref target='Pg463'>463*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Basilius M., <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102*</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg210'>210*</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref>, <ref target='Pg464'>464*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Cil., <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Sel., <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Breviarium</hi>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Capreolus, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cassianus, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg411'>411</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 1611]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cælestinus, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cæsarius, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg215'>215*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. ——, <ref target='Pg055'>55</ref>, <ref target='Pg074'>74</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Catena</hi> (Cramer's), <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Chromatius, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-chronicon'/> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Chronicon Paschale</hi>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg074'>74</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Du Fresne]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Chrysostomus, <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg026'>26</ref>, <ref target='Pg027'>27</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg053'>53</ref>, <ref target='Pg055'>55</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62*</ref>, <ref target='Pg071'>71*</ref>, <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg074'>74</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg099'>99</ref>, <ref target='Pg101'>101*</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg151'>151*</ref>, <ref target='Pg152'>152*</ref>, <ref target='Pg177'>177</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg457'>457</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. ——, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Clemens, Alex., <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg208'>208*</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg327'>327</ref>, <ref target='Pg336'>336*</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Rom, <ref target='Pg038'>38*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— —— (Syriac), <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Clementina</hi>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Concilia</hi> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Labbe et Cossart] <hi rend='italic'>passim.</hi></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-constitutiones'/> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Constitutiones Apostolicæ</hi>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg463'>463*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cosmas Indicopleustes, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg063'>63</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Montfaucon]</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— ep. Maiumæ, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Cramer</hi>, see <hi rend='italic'>Catena</hi>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cyprianus, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='539'/><anchor id='Pg539'/> + +<lg> +<l>Cyrillus Alex., <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg055'>55</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg086'>86</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg096'>96</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102*</ref>, <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg132'>132</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref>, <ref target='Pg428'>428*</ref>, <ref target='Pg464'>464-469**</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Hieros, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg151'>151*</ref>, <ref target='Pg177'>177</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg470'>470</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Damascenus, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-johannes'><q>Johannes.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Damasus, P. <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Dialogus</hi>, <ref target='Pg208'>208*</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Didymus, <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref>, <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Diodorus Tars., <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref>, <ref target='Pg458'>458</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dionysius Alex., <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. —— ——, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg101'>101</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg462'>462*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. —— —— Areop., <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Eastern Bishops at Ephesus collectively</hi> (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 431), <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Epiphanius, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg074'>74</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg096'>96</ref>, <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. ——, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— diac. Catan. [<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 787], <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>, <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref>, <ref target='Pg475'>475</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ephraemus Syrus, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg082'>82*</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg215'>215*</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. —— ——, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eulogius, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eusebius Cæs., <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref>, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62*</ref>, <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg086'>86</ref>, <ref target='Pg087'>87</ref>, <ref target='Pg088'>88*</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg096'>96</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg136'>136</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg323'>323-324**</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— His <hi rend='italic'>Canons</hi>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eustathius, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Euthalius, <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>, <ref target='Pg458'>458</ref>, <ref target='Pg459'>459-461**</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eutherius, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Euthymius Zig., <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg465'>465</ref>, <ref target='Pg476'>476*</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Matthæi]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Facundus, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Faustus, <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ferrandus, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Fulgentius, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gaudentius, <ref target='Pg024'>24</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gelasius Cyzic., <ref target='Pg100'>100</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg479'>479</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gennadius, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Germanus CP., <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Gospel of Nicodemus</hi>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gregentius, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gregorius Nazianz., <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg073'>73*</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg101'>101*</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg134'>134</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg457'>457</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps —— ——, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Nyssen., <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg087'>87</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref>, <ref target='Pg101'>101*</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg134'>134</ref>, <ref target='Pg208'>208*</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>, <ref target='Pg458'>458</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Thaum., <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg045'>45</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102*</ref>, <ref target='Pg463'>463*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hegesippus, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hesychius, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hieronymus, <ref target='Pg024'>24</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg041'>41</ref>, <ref target='Pg063'>63*</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64*</ref>, <ref target='Pg073'>73*</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79*</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg103'>103*</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123*</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360*</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hilarius, <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg281'>281</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hippolytus, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102*</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg136'>136</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg463'>463*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ignatius, <ref target='Pg103'>103*</ref>, <ref target='Pg463'>463*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. ——, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-johannes'/> +<l>Johannes Damascenus, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg177'>177</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg457'>457</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Thessal., <ref target='Pg096'>96</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Irenæus, <ref target='Pg042'>42</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64*</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg132'>132</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref>, <ref target='Pg409'>409</ref>, <ref target='Pg420'>420</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Isidorus, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg074'>74</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123*</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jovius mon., <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Julian hæret., <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Julius Africanus, <ref target='Pg062'>62*</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Justinus Mart., <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>ps. —— ——, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Juvencus, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lactantius, <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Leo ep., <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— <hi rend='italic'>ap.</hi> Sabatier, <ref target='Pg041'>41</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='540'/><anchor id='Pg540'/> + +<lg> +<l>Leontius Byz., <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg480'>480</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Liberatus of Carthage, <ref target='Pg471'>471-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lucifer Calarit, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Macarius Magnes, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62*</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 1876]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Macedonius, <ref target='Pg470'>470-475**</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>, <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Malchion, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marcion, <ref target='Pg034'>34</ref>, <ref target='Pg035'>35</ref>, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref>, <ref target='Pg096'>96</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marius Mercator, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg468'>468</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Victorinus, <ref target='Pg500'>500*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Martinus P., <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg473'>473</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Maximus, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref>, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Taurin, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Methodius, <ref target='Pg044'>44</ref>, <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Combefis]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Modestus Hier., <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nestorius, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nicetas, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nilus mon., <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nonnus, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Novatianus, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Œcumenius, <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg476'>476</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Origenes, <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg041'>41</ref>, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg058'>58</ref>, <ref target='Pg060'>60</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62*</ref>, <ref target='Pg063'>63**</ref>, <ref target='Pg064'>64</ref>, <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg087'>87</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122*</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg136'>136</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref>, <ref target='Pg208'>208*</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg359'>359</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Opus imperf.</hi>, <ref target='Pg085'>85</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pacianus, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Palladius, the Arian, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pamphilus Cæs., <ref target='Pg177'>177</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Papias, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Paschale</hi>, see <ref target='index-chronicon'><q><hi rend='italic'>Chronicon.</hi></q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Patricius, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paulinus, <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paulus Emes., <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Philastrius, <ref target='Pg024'>24</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Philo, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Photius CP., <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Porphyrius, <ref target='Pg132'>132</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Proclus CP., <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Prosper, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Salvianus, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sedulius, <ref target='Pg024'>24</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Severianus Gabal., <ref target='Pg132'>132</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Severus Ant., <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg089'>89</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102*</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg458'>458</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ps. Tatianus, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Moesinger, 1876]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tertullianus, <ref target='Pg062'>62*</ref>, <ref target='Pg090'>90*</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg120'>120</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg208'>208*</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213*</ref>, <ref target='Pg215'>215*</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Titus Bostr., <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodoretus, <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg055'>55</ref>, <ref target='Pg079'>79</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>, <ref target='Pg122'>122</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg152'>152*</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref>, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref>, <ref target='Pg219'>219</ref>, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref>, <ref target='Pg336'>336</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>, <ref target='Pg458'>458*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodorus Herac., <ref target='Pg084'>84</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— hæret., <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Mops., <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg062'>62</ref>, <ref target='Pg080'>80</ref>, <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref>, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg480'>480-482*</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Studita [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Sirmondi], <ref target='Pg475'>475</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodosius Alex., <ref target='Pg081'>81</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodotus Ancyr., <ref target='Pg043'>43</ref>, <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Gnosticus, <ref target='Pg102'>102*</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theophilus Alex., <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Ant., <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theophylactus, <ref target='Pg102'>102</ref>, <ref target='Pg147'>147</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg360'>360</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref>, <ref target='Pg476'>476</ref> [<hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> Venet. 1755]</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Victor Antioch., <ref target='Pg023'>23</ref>, <ref target='Pg040'>40</ref>, <ref target='Pg066'>66*</ref>, <ref target='Pg132'>132</ref>, <ref target='Pg409'>409</ref>, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Victorinus, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg213'>213</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Victricius, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vigilius, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vincentius, <ref target='Pg423'>423</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Zeno, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref></l> +</lg> + +</div> + +<pb n='541'/><anchor id='Pg541'/> + +<div rend='page-break-before: always'> +<index index='toc'/> +<index index='pdf'/> +<head>Index III, Persons, Places, and Subjects.</head> + +<p> +<hi rend='italic'>General Index of</hi> Persons, Places, <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> Subjects <hi rend='italic'>referred to in this +Volume. But</hi> Scriptural References <hi rend='italic'>are to be sought in</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Index I.</hi>; +<hi rend='italic'>and</hi> Patristic References, <hi rend='italic'>in</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Index II</hi>. 'New Codices' <hi rend='italic'>will be found +enumerated in the</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi>. +</p> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-alexandrinus'><q>Alexandrinus.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>א and <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>: <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-b'><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,</q></ref> <hi rend='italic'>and</hi> <ref target='index-antiquity'><q>Antiquity.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>א <hi rend='smallcaps'>a b c d</hi>, in conflict, <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg013'>13</ref>, <ref target='Pg014'>14</ref>, <ref target='Pg016'>16-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg030'>30-1</ref>, <ref target='Pg046'>46-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg075'>75-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg094'>94-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg117'>117</ref>, <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref>, <ref target='Pg262'>262</ref>, <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref>, <ref target='Pg289'>289</ref>, <ref target='Pg386'>386</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Abutor</q>, <ref target='Pg146'>146</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Acacius, Bp. of Melitene, <ref target='Pg178'>178</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Accident, <ref target='Pg050'>50-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Æthiopic, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-version'><q>Version.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀγάπη, <ref target='Pg201'>201-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀΐδιος, <ref target='Pg207'>207</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>αἰτεῖν, <ref target='Pg191'>191-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>αἰών, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref>, <ref target='Pg208'>208</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>αἰώνιος, <ref target='Pg207'>207</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀλάβαστρον, <ref target='Pg200'>200-1</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-alexander'/> +<l>Alexander (Dr.), Bp. of Derry, <ref target='Pg107'>107-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Alexandrian</q> readings, <ref target='Pg271'>271-2</ref>, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-alexandrinus'/> +<l>Alexandrinus (cod.) (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>), <ref target='Pg011'>11-17</ref>, <ref target='Pg345'>345-347</ref>, <ref target='Pg431'>431-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀληθινός, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Alford (Dean), <ref target='Pg381'>381</ref>, <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>, <ref target='Pg498'>498</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Allocution, <ref target='Pg413'>413-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Alterations, yet not improvements, <ref target='Pg139'>139-143</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ammonius, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Amos (in S. Matt, i.), <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀμφίβληστρον, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Amphilochius, <ref target='Pg210'>210</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἄμφοδον, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀναβάς, <ref target='Pg139'>139</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀναπεσών, <ref target='Pg145'>145</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Anastasius (Imp.), <ref target='Pg472'>472-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ancient Authority, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-ellicott'><q>Ellicott.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Ancoratus</q>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Andrewes, Bp., <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Antioch, <ref target='Pg385'>385</ref>, <ref target='Pg391'>391</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Antiochian,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-syrian'><q>Syrian.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-antiquity'/> +<l><q>Antiquity</q>, <ref target='Pg333'>333</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀντίστητε, <ref target='Pg129'>129</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-anziani'/> +<l>Anziani (Dr.), <ref target='Pg445'>445</ref>, <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-aorist'/> +<l>Aorist, <ref target='Pg158'>158-60</ref>, <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀπελπίζοντες, <ref target='Pg146'>146</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀφιέναι, <ref target='Pg193'>193-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Apolinaris, <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>, <ref target='Pg458'>458</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Apollonides, <ref target='Pg323'>323-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀπολύειν, <ref target='Pg195'>195</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀποστολοευαγγέλια, <ref target='Pg448'>448</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-apostolus'/> +<l><q>Apostolus</q>, <ref target='Pg446'>446-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg476'>476-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg482'>482</ref>, <ref target='Pg491'>491</ref>. <hi rend='italic'>See the</hi> <ref target='Appendix'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Aram (in S. Matt. i.), <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Argument <foreign lang='la' rend='italic'>e silentio</foreign>, <ref target='Pg469'>469</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Armenian, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-version'>Version</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-article'/> +<l>Article, the, <ref target='Pg164'>164-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Articles (Three) in the <q>Quarterly Review,</q> their history <hi rend='italic'>pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgix'>ix-xiv</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἄρτος, <ref target='Pg179'>179</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀρχαί, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Asaph (in S. Matt. i.), <ref target='Pg186'>186-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Asclepiades, <ref target='Pg323'>323-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Ask</q> (αἰτεῖν), <ref target='Pg171'>171-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Assassins</q>, <ref target='Pg147'>147</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Assimilation, <ref target='Pg032'>32</ref>, <ref target='Pg065'>65-69</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>——, proofs of, <ref target='Pg066'>66</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἀτενίσαντες, <ref target='Pg129'>129</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Attraction</q>, <ref target='Pg351'>351-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>αὐληταί, <ref target='Pg148'>148</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Authority, (ancient) <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-ellicott'><q>Ellicott.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>αὐτός, <ref target='Pg165'>165</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='542'/><anchor id='Pg542'/> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-b'/> +<l><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-vaticanus'><q>Vaticanus.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-b-and-a'/> +<l><hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א (codd.), sinister resemblance, <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, <ref target='Pg012'>12</ref>, <ref target='Pg255'>255-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg315'>315-20</ref>, <ref target='Pg333'>333</ref>, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref>, <ref target='Pg361'>361</ref>, <ref target='Pg365'>365</ref>, <ref target='Pg408'>408</ref>, <ref target='Pg410'>410</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bandinel (Dr.), <ref target='Pg445'>445</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Baptist</q> Revisers, <ref target='Pg504'>504-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Baptismal Renunciation, <ref target='Pg215'>215</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Basil to Amphilochius, <ref target='Pg210'>210</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Basilides, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Beckett, Sir Edmund, <ref target='Pg038'>38</ref>, <ref target='Pg222'>222</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-belsheim'/> +<l>Belsheim, Dr. J., <ref target='Pg444'>444</ref>, <ref target='Pg453'>453</ref>, <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bengel (J. A.), <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bentley, Dr. R., <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref>, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref>, <ref target='Pg499'>499</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Berlin (<hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-de-boor'><q>De Boor</q></ref>), <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref>, <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Berriman, Dr. J., <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref>, <ref target='Pg433'>433</ref>, <ref target='Pg446'>446</ref>, <ref target='Pg468'>468</ref>, <ref target='Pg474'>474</ref>, <ref target='Pg480'>480</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bethesda, <ref target='Pg005'>5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Beveridge (Bp.), <ref target='Pg351'>351</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Beyer (Dr.), <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-bezae'/> +<l>Bezæ, cod. (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>), <ref target='Pg011'>11-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg077'>77-9</ref>, <ref target='Pg117'>117</ref>, <ref target='Pg264'>264-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Birch (Andreas), <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref>, <ref target='Pg383'>383</ref>, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Blunders, <ref target='Pg149'>149</ref>, <ref target='Pg150'>150</ref>, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref>, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref>;—<ref target='Pg172'>172</ref>, <ref target='Pg176'>176</ref>, <ref target='Pg177'>177</ref>, &c.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bois (John), <ref target='Pg228'>228</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Bondmaid</q>, <ref target='Pg196'>196</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Boon</q>, <ref target='Pg217'>217</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Bowls</q>, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Branch</q>, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Broughton (Hugh), <ref target='Pg513'>513</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Bull (Bp.), <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-ephraemi'><q>Ephraemi.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Caius (<hi rend='smallcaps'>a.d.</hi> 175) on the Text, <ref target='Pg323'>323-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cambridge, Codex (<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>), <hi rend='italic'>see,</hi> Bezæ.</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'><q>—— Greek Text</q>, <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> +<ref target='Pgxxviii'>xxviii</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Capper (S. Herbert), Esq., <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-cappilli'/> +<l>Cappilli (Sig.), <ref target='Pg491'>491-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Carob tree, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Castan (M.), <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Castiglione, <ref target='Pg452'>452</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Catalogue of Crypta Ferrata, <ref target='Pg447'>447</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cedron, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-ceriani'/> +<l>Ceriani (Dr.), <ref target='Pg381'>381</ref>, <ref target='Pg452'>452</ref>, <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref>, <ref target='Pg491'>491-2</ref>-3. <hi rend='italic'>See the</hi> <ref target='Appendix'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-changes'/> +<l>Changes (licentious), <ref target='Pg127'>127</ref>, <ref target='Pg403'>403-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Charity</q>, <ref target='Pg201'>201-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>χωρίον, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Chronicle of Convocation, <ref target='Pg507'>507</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='italic'>Church Quarterly</hi></q> (1882), <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxvi'>xvi</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='italic'>Church Quarterly</hi>,</q> (1883), <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxvi'>xvi-xx.</ref>, <ref target='Pgxxiv'>xxiv-vii</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Citations, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-fathers'><q>Fathers.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Clemens, Alex., <ref target='Pg326'>326-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg327'>327-31</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>—א—<hi rend='smallcaps'>a</hi>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>—<hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, <ref target='Pg011'>11-17</ref>, <ref target='Pg030'>30</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref>, <ref target='Pg262'>262</ref>, <ref target='Pg269'>269-71</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— <hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi> and <hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi>, <ref target='Pg438'>438-43</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Paul 73, <ref target='Pg444'>444</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— —— 181, <ref target='Pg444'>444-5</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— new, <hi rend='italic'>see the</hi> <ref target='Appendix'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Collation of MSS., <ref target='Pg125'>125</ref>, <ref target='Pg246'>246-7</ref>;</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>with the Received Text, <ref target='Pg249'>249-50</ref>, <ref target='Pg262'>262</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Complutensian, <ref target='Pg391'>391</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Conflate readings</q>, <ref target='Pg258'>258-65</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Conflation</q> examined, <ref target='Pg258'>258-65</ref>, <ref target='Pg285'>285</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Congregationalist</q> Revisers, <ref target='Pg504'>504-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Conjectural emendation, <ref target='Pg351'>351-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Consent of copies (<hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-fathers'><q>Fathers</q></ref>), <ref target='Pg454'>454-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='italic'>Conversantibus</hi></q>, <ref target='Pg176'>176</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cook, (Canon), <ref target='Pg204'>204-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg214'>214</ref>, <ref target='Pg234'>234</ref>, <ref target='Pg372'>372</ref>, <ref target='Pg381'>381</ref>, <ref target='Pg470'>470</ref>, <ref target='Pg502'>502</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cornelius à Lapide, <ref target='Pg473'>473</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Corruptions in the N. T., <ref target='Pg334'>334-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cotelerius, <ref target='Pg473'>473</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Coxe (Rev. H. O.), <ref target='Pg306'>306</ref>, <ref target='Pg445'>445</ref>, <ref target='Pg491'>491</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-cozza'/> +<l>Cozza-Luzi (Abbate), <ref target='Pg447'>447</ref>, <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref>, <ref target='Pg491'>491-2</ref>-3, <hi rend='italic'>see the</hi> <ref target='Appendix'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cranbrook, Viscount, page <ref target='Pgv'>v-viii</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Creyk (John), <ref target='Pg433'>433</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Crib</q>, <ref target='Pg238'>238</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Cross, title on, <ref target='Pg085'>85-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Crux criticorum</hi>, the, <ref target='Pg098'>98</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Crypta Ferrata, <ref target='Pg447'>447</ref>, <ref target='Pg473'>473-4</ref>, <ref target='Pg478'>478</ref>, <ref target='Pg521'>521</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-bezae'><q>Bezæ.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>δαιμόνιον, <ref target='Pg179'>179</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Darkness, <ref target='Pg062'>62-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dartige (M.), <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dated codices, <ref target='Pg292'>292</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>δέ, <ref target='Pg167'>167-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Deane (Rev. H.), <ref target='Pg450'>450</ref>, <ref target='Pg481'>481</ref>, <ref target='Pg489'>489</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-de-boor'/> +<l>De Boor (Dr. C.), <ref target='Pg492'>492-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Definite, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-article'>Article</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Delicate distinction, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Demoniacal possession, <ref target='Pg206'>206</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Denis (M.), <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Derry (Bp. of), <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-alexander'>Alexander</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Design, <ref target='Pg056'>56-65</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>δευτερόπρωτον, <ref target='Pg073'>73</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='543'/><anchor id='Pg543'/> + +<lg> +<l><q>Devil</q>, <ref target='Pg214'>214-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>διά, <ref target='Pg170'>170</ref>, <ref target='Pg173'>173-4</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-upo'>ὑπό</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dialogue (supposed), <ref target='Pg320'>320-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg328'>328-42</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Diatessaron, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-tatian'><q>Tatian.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>διδασκαλία, <ref target='Pg199'>199</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>διδάσκαλος, <ref target='Pg179'>179</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>διδαχή, <ref target='Pg199'>199</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>διέρχωμαι, <ref target='Pg407'>407</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dionysius Alex., <ref target='Pg461'>461-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Διόσκουροι, <ref target='Pg147'>147</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16 <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxi'>xxi-iv</ref>, <ref target='Pg424'>424-501</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Divination. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target='index-verifying-faculty'><q>Verifying faculty.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Doctrine</q> extirpated, <ref target='Pg199'>199</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>δοῦλος, <ref target='Pg179'>179</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>δύναμις, <ref target='Pg204'>204</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Dublin (Abp. of), <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-trench'>Trench</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἤ interrogative, <ref target='Pg168'>168-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ebionite Gospel, <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ecclesiastical Tradition, <ref target='Pg495'>495</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eclipse, <ref target='Pg063'>63-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Editions of Fathers, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἔγνων, <ref target='Pg159'>159</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Egyptian, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-version'>Version</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ειδε for ιδε, <ref target='Pg140'>140</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>εἰκῆ, <ref target='Pg359'>359-61</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>εἰπεῖν, <ref target='Pg511'>511-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>εἶς, <ref target='Pg183'>183</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐκλείποντος, <ref target='Pg063'>63-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἔλαβον, <ref target='Pg139'>139</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἑλληνιστί, <ref target='Pg149'>149</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-ellicott'/> +<l>Ellicott (Bp. of Gloucester), on the <q>old uncials</q>, <ref target='Pg014'>14-5</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on the A. V., <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref>, <ref target='Pg368'>368</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on <q>Revision</q> xlii, <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref>, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref>, <ref target='Pg126'>126</ref>, <ref target='Pg226'>226-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg368'>368</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on <q>Marginal Readings</q>, <ref target='Pg136'>136-7</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on <q>Textus Receptus</q>, <ref target='Pg383'>383-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg389'>389-91</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on 1 Tim. iii. 16, <ref target='Pg428'>428-31</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on 2 Tim. iii. 16, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on Textual Criticism, <ref target='Pg234'>234</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on <q>innocent Ignorance</q>, <ref target='Pg349'>349-50</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on the Greek Text, <ref target='Pg369'>369</ref>, <ref target='Pg509'>509</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on <q>Euthalius</q>, <ref target='Pg460'>460-1</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— his jaunty proposal, <ref target='Pg216'>216</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— his Pamphlet <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxx'>xx-xxii</ref>, <ref target='Pg369'>369</ref> <hi rend='italic'>seq.</hi></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ellicott, his critical knowledge, <ref target='Pg370'>370</ref>, <ref target='Pg376'>376</ref>, <ref target='Pg385'>385</ref>, <ref target='Pg430'>430</ref>, <ref target='Pg457'>457</ref>, <ref target='Pg459'>459-61</ref>, <ref target='Pg471'>471-2</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>Dedication</hi> p. viii</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— his requirement anticipated, <ref target='Pg371'>371</ref>, <ref target='Pg397'>397</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— his method of procedure, <ref target='Pg372'>372-4</ref>, <ref target='Pg419'>419-24</ref>, <ref target='Pg459'>459-61</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— method of his Reviewer, <ref target='Pg375'>375-383</ref>, <ref target='Pg496'>496-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg517'>517</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxiv'>xxiv-vii</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— appeals to <hi rend='italic'>Modern Opinion</hi>, instead of to <hi rend='italic'>Ancient Authority</hi>, <ref target='Pg376'>376-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg415'>415-6</ref>, <ref target='Pg438'>438-9</ref>, <ref target='Pg483'>483-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg514'>514-5</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— follows Dr. Hort, <ref target='Pg391'>391-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg455'>455</ref>, <ref target='Pg517'>517-8</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— complains of Injustice, <ref target='Pg399'>399</ref>, <ref target='Pg400'>400-13</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— suggested Allocution, <ref target='Pg413'>413-5</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— his defence of the <q>New Greek Text,</q> examined <ref target='Pg415'>415-9</ref>, <ref target='Pg419'>419-24</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐμβατεύων, <ref target='Pg140'>140</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐν, its different renderings, <ref target='Pg171'>171-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐν ὀλίγῳ, <ref target='Pg151'>151-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-english'/> +<l>English idiom, <ref target='Pg154'>154-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg158'>158-75</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐφανερώθη, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref>, <ref target='Pg468'>468</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐφιστάναι, <ref target='Pg144'>144</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-ephraemi'/> +<l>Ephraemi cod. (<hi rend='smallcaps'>c</hi>), <ref target='Pg011'>11-17</ref>, <ref target='Pg325'>325</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Epileptic</q>, <ref target='Pg205'>205-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐπιπεσών, <ref target='Pg145'>145</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Epiphanius, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐπιστᾶσα, <ref target='Pg144'>144</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἠπόρει [<hi rend='italic'>see</hi> Scrivener, <hi rend='italic'>ed.</hi> 3, pp. 581-2], <ref target='Pg066'>66-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-errors'/> +<l>Errors (plain and clear), <ref target='Pg003'>3</ref>, <ref target='Pg004'>4</ref>, <ref target='Pg105'>105</ref>, <ref target='Pg148'>148</ref>, <ref target='Pg172'>172</ref>, <ref target='Pg216'>216</ref>, <ref target='Pg222'>222-3</ref>, <ref target='Pg228'>228</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg400'>400-1</ref>, <ref target='Pg430'>430</ref>, <ref target='Pg496'>496</ref>, <ref target='Pg512'>512</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-escher'/> +<l>Escher (Dr.), <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐσκοτίσθη, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἔστησαν, <ref target='Pg150'>150</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Eternal</q>, <ref target='Pg207'>207</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eternity, <ref target='Pg208'>208</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ethiopic, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-version'><q>Version.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Eudocia, <ref target='Pg465'>465</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Euraquilo</q>, <ref target='Pg176'>176</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>εὐρεθήσεται, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Euripides (papyrus of), <ref target='Pg321'>321-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Euroclydon</q>, <ref target='Pg176'>176</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Euthalius, <ref target='Pg429'>429</ref>, <ref target='Pg460'>460-1</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='544'/><anchor id='Pg544'/> + +<lg> +<l>Eutherius, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>εὐθέως, <ref target='Pg153'>153-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Euthymius Zigabenus. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target='Index-II'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Index II</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Everlasting</q>, <ref target='Pg207'>207</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Evil One</q>, <ref target='Pg214'>214-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἐξελθοῦσαν, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἔξοδος, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Exodus, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>External evidence, <ref target='Pg019'>19-20</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>f</hi></q> and <q><hi rend='smallcaps'>g</hi></q> (codd.), <ref target='Pg257'>257</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Factor of Genealogy</q>, <ref target='Pg256'>256</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Farrar, Canon (now Archd.), <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxv'>xv</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-fathers'/> +<l>Fathers, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref>, <ref target='Pg125'>125-6</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='Index-II'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Index II</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Fell (Bp.), <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-field'/> +<l>Field (Dr.), <ref target='Pg146'>146</ref>, <ref target='Pg148'>148</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref>, <ref target='Pg177'>177</ref>, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref>, <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Florence, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-anziani'><q>Anziani.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Flute-players, <ref target='Pg148'>148</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Forstemann (Dr.), <ref target='Pg441'>441</ref>, <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Future sense, <ref target='Pg163'>163-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gabelentz and Loebe, <ref target='Pg452'>452</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gandell (Professor), <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gardiani (Sig.), <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>γεγεννημένος, <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gelasius of Cyzicus, <ref target='Pg479'>479</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='Index-II'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Index II</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Genealogical Evidence</q>, <ref target='Pg253'>253</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>γένεσις and γέννησις, <ref target='Pg119'>119-22</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>γεννηθείς, <ref target='Pg347'>347</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>γένος, <ref target='Pg142'>142</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Geographical distribution of Patristic Testimony, <ref target='Pg045'>45</ref>, <ref target='Pg134'>134</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gifford (Dr.), <ref target='Pg214'>214</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>γινώσκεις, <ref target='Pg149'>149</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gloucester (Bp. of), <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-ellicott'><q>Ellicott.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>γλωσσόκομον, <ref target='Pg201'>201</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi> blessed for ever</q>!, <ref target='Pg211'>211</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gorresio (Sig.), <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gospel incident, <ref target='Pg194'>194-5</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (the Ebionite), <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— of the Hebrews, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gothic, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-version'>Version</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Græco-Syrian,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-syrian'><q>Syrian.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='italic'>Great</hi> priest</q>, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Green, Rev. T. S., <ref target='Pg499'>499</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gregory (Dr. C. R.), <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Gregory Naz., <ref target='Pg073'>73</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Griesbach (J. J.), <ref target='Pg380'>380</ref>, <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>, <ref target='Pg482'>482</ref>, <ref target='Pg483'>483</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hall, Bp., <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hammond (Dr.), <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Headings of the Chapters, <ref target='Pg223'>223</ref>, <ref target='Pg412'>412</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hellenistic Greek, <ref target='Pg182'>182-4</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target='index-septuagint'><q>Septuagint.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Henderson (Dr.), <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Heracleon, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hermophilus, <ref target='Pg323'>323-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Herodotus, <ref target='Pg065'>65</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hesychius, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hilary on μύλος ὀνικός, <ref target='Pg281'>281</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, <ref target='Pg472'>472</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hoerning (Dr.), <ref target='Pg453'>453</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>'<hi rend='smallcaps'>Holy Ghost</hi>', <ref target='Pg204'>204</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-hort'/> +<l>Hort, Dr., <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref>, <ref target='Pg135'>135</ref>, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref>, <ref target='Pg211'>211</ref>, <ref target='Pg248'>248</ref>, <ref target='Pg394'>394</ref>, (<hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-westcott-and-hort'>Westcott and Hort</ref>).</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— hypothesis and system, <hi rend='italic'>see reverse of Title-page</hi>.</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— his <q>Introduction</q> analyzed, <ref target='Pg246'>246-69</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— <q>strong preference</q> for codd. <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, <ref target='Pg252'>252</ref>, <ref target='Pg269'>269-271</ref>, <ref target='Pg298'>298-305</ref>, <ref target='Pg307'>307-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg312'>312-14</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— mistaken estimate of <hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א, <ref target='Pg315'>315-20</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— divining and verifying faculty, <ref target='Pg253'>253</ref>, <ref target='Pg290'>290</ref>, <ref target='Pg291'>291</ref>, <ref target='Pg307'>307-8</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— imaginary history of the Traditional Greek Text, <ref target='Pg271'>271-88</ref>, <ref target='Pg296'>296-8</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— antagonism with Patristic Antiquity, <ref target='Pg283'>283-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg298'>298-300</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— fatal dilemma, <ref target='Pg292'>292-3</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Reiteration, <ref target='Pg306'>306</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— ultimate appeal to his own individual mind, <ref target='Pg307'>307-8</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— <q>Art of Conjectural Emendation</q>, <ref target='Pg351'>351-7</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— absurd Textual hypothesis, <ref target='Pg293'>293-4</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— intellectual peculiarity, <ref target='Pg362'>362</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— method of editing the Greek Text, <ref target='Pg363'>363</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Text of the N. T., <ref target='Pg364'>364-5</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— often forsaken by Dr. Westcott, <ref target='Pg352'>352</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Hug (J. L.), <ref target='Pg381'>381</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='545'/><anchor id='Pg545'/> + +<lg> +<l>Huish (Alex.), <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Idiom, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-english'><q>English.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ἱερεὺς (ὁ μέγας), <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-imperfect'/> +<l>Imperfect tense, <ref target='Pg161'>161</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Incident (unsuspected), <ref target='Pg194'>194-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Independent</q> Reviewers, <ref target='Pg504'>504-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Innocent ignorance</q> of the Reviewer, <ref target='Pg347'>347-9</ref>, <ref target='Pg411'>411</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Inspiration, <ref target='Pg208'>208</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Instructions,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-revisers'><q>Revisers.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Instrumentality (ideas of), <ref target='Pg173'>173</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Internal Evidence, <ref target='Pg253'>253</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Interpreters, (modern), <ref target='Pg211'>211</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Intrinsic probability</q>, <ref target='Pg251'>251-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jacobson (Dr. W.) Bp. of Chester, <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jechonias (in Matt. i.), <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jerome, <ref target='Pg073'>73</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref>, <ref target='Pg449'>449</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>Jesus</hi></q>, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Joanes</q>, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>John (S.) and S. Mark, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Jona (son of), <ref target='Pg181'>181-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Josephus, <ref target='Pg052'>52</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>καί, <ref target='Pg169'>169-70</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— its force, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>καὶ πῶς, <ref target='Pg170'>170</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kaye (Bp.) on Clemens Al., <ref target='Pg336'>336</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κέδρων, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κενεμβατεύων, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κεράτια, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kidron, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kippax (Rev. John), <ref target='Pg433'>433</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Kishon, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κισσῶν, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Knowledge of <hi rend='smallcaps'>Christ</hi> not limited, <ref target='Pg210'>210</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>κράξας, <ref target='Pg071'>71-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lachmann's Text, <ref target='Pg021'>21</ref>, <ref target='Pg242'>242-3</ref>, <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref>, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref>, <ref target='Pg380'>380-1</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lagarde (P. A. de), <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— <hi rend='italic'>Analecta Syr.</hi>, <ref target='Pg481'>481</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Latin Version, <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Laubmann (Dr.), <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lawrence (Abp.), <ref target='Pg380'>380</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Layers of leaves</q>, <ref target='Pg058'>58-61</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Lecythus</q>, <ref target='Pg201'>201</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lee (Archd.) <hi rend='italic'>on Inspiration</hi>, <ref target='Pg208'>208</ref>, <ref target='Pg230'>230</ref>, <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Leontius Byzantinus, <ref target='Pg480'>480</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='Index-II'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Index II</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Liberatus of Carthage, <ref target='Pg471'>471-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Licentious, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-changes'><q>Changes.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lightfoot (Dr.) Bp. of Durham, <ref target='Pg145'>145</ref>, <ref target='Pg498'>498</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxxi'>xxxi</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Limitation of our <hi rend='smallcaps'>Saviour</hi>'s knowledge, <ref target='Pg210'>210</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lincoln (Bp. of), <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-wordsworth'>Wordsworth</ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>λίθος μυλικός, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lloyd (Bp.) ed. of N. T., <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxvii'>xvii-ix</ref>, <ref target='Pg016'>16</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='smallcaps'>Lord</hi>'s Prayer, <ref target='Pg034'>34-6</ref>, <ref target='Pg214'>214-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Love</q>, <ref target='Pg201'>201-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Lucian, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Luke (Gospel according to S.), <ref target='Pg016'>16</ref>, <ref target='Pg034'>34-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg075'>75-91</ref>, <ref target='Pg249'>249</ref>, <ref target='Pg403'>403-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Lunaticus</q>, <ref target='Pg205'>205-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Macedonius, <ref target='Pg103'>103</ref>, <ref target='Pg470'>470-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg489'>489</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mai (Card.), <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Malan (Dr. S. C.), <ref target='Pg067'>67</ref>, <ref target='Pg120'>120</ref>, <ref target='Pg123'>123</ref>, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref>, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg356'>356</ref>, <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref>, <ref target='Pg451'>451</ref>, <ref target='Pg453'>453-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Manichæan depravation, <ref target='Pg220'>220</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Maranatha</q>, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marcion, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref>, <ref target='Pg034'>34-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg061'>61</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Margin, <ref target='Pg003'>3-6</ref>, <ref target='Pg033'>33</ref>, <ref target='Pg115'>115</ref>, <ref target='Pg130'>130</ref>, <ref target='Pg131'>131</ref>, <ref target='Pg137'>137</ref>, <ref target='Pg175'>175</ref>, <ref target='Pg236'>236-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marginal References, <ref target='Pg223'>223</ref>, <ref target='Pg412'>412</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Marius Mercator, <ref target='Pg468'>468</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mark (Gospel according to S.), <ref target='Pg030'>30</ref>, <ref target='Pg262'>262</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— collation of 15 verses, <ref target='Pg327'>327-31</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— last Twelve Verses, <ref target='Pg036'>36-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg039'>39-40</ref>, <ref target='Pg048'>48</ref>, <ref target='Pg049'>49</ref>, <ref target='Pg051'>51</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>Ded.</hi> vii, <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxiii'>xxiii</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— and S. John, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-martin'/> +<l>Martin (Abbé), <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref>, <ref target='Pg446'>446</ref>, <ref target='Pg474'>474</ref>, <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref>, <ref target='Pg478'>478</ref>, <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref>, <ref target='Pg528'>528</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Martin I. (Pope), <ref target='Pg421'>421</ref>, <ref target='Pg473'>473</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Massmann (H. F.), <ref target='Pg453'>453</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-matranga'/> +<l>Matranga (Papas Filippo), <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref>, <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see the</hi> <hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi>, p. <ref target='Pg522'>522-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Matthæi (C. F.), <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— —— Scholia, <ref target='Pg348'>348</ref>, <ref target='Pg380'>380</ref>, <ref target='Pg427'>427</ref>, <ref target='Pg434'>434</ref>, <ref target='Pg465'>465</ref>, <ref target='Pg468'>468</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Matthew (S.) chap. i. (Greek), <ref target='Pg119'>119-24</ref>, <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— —— (English), <ref target='Pg156'>156-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Medial agency, <ref target='Pg173'>173</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Melita and Melitene, <ref target='Pg177'>177-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Menander, <ref target='Pg361'>361</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Merivale (Dean), <ref target='Pg230'>230</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Messina, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-matranga'><q>Matranga</q></ref>: and p. <ref target='Pg523'>523</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>μία, <ref target='Pg183'>183</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='546'/><anchor id='Pg546'/> + +<lg> +<l>Middleton (Bp.), <ref target='Pg165'>165</ref>, <ref target='Pg209'>209</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Milan (<hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-ceriani'><q>Ceriani</q></ref>), <ref target='Pg452'>452</ref>, <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref>, <ref target='Pg491'>491-2</ref>-3</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mill (Dr. John), <ref target='Pg245'>245</ref>, <ref target='Pg383'>383</ref>, <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref>, <ref target='Pg437'>437</ref>, <ref target='Pg472'>472</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— on cod. <hi rend='smallcaps'>d</hi>, <ref target='Pg013'>13</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Dr. W. H.), <ref target='Pg354'>354</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Milligan (Dr.), <ref target='Pg039'>39</ref>, <ref target='Pg048'>48</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Miracle</q>, <ref target='Pg202'>202-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>μνημεῖον, <ref target='Pg197'>197-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-moberly'/> +<l>Moberly (Dr.) Bp. of Salisbury, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref>, <ref target='Pg228'>228-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Modena, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-cappilli'><q>Cappilli</q></ref>: and p. <ref target='Pg523'>523</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Modern Interpreters, <ref target='Pg411'>411</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— Opinion, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-ellicott'><q>Ellicott.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>μονογενὴς Θεύς, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Montfaucon, <ref target='Pg121'>121</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Moreh</q>, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Morier (Sir Robert), <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>μωρέ, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>μύλος ὀνικός, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mutilation, <ref target='Pg069'>69-93</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Mystical interpretation, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>νάρδου πιστικῆς, <ref target='Pg184'>184-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nazareth, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Necessity</q> of Revision, <ref target='Pg127'>127</ref>, <ref target='Pg150'>150</ref>, <ref target='Pg223'>223</ref>, <ref target='Pg228'>228</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Needless changes, <ref target='Pg087'>87-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg224'>224-5</ref>; <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg224'>224-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg399'>399</ref>, <ref target='Pg403'>403-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nemesis of superstition, <ref target='Pg350'>350</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Netser</q>, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Neutral</q> readings, <ref target='Pg271'>271-2</ref>, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>New English Version</q>, <ref target='Pg225'>225-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>New Greek Text</q>, <ref target='Pg130'>130</ref>, <ref target='Pg224'>224-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Newth (Dr.), <ref target='Pg037'>37-9</ref>, <ref target='Pg109'>109</ref>, <ref target='Pg126'>126</ref>, <ref target='Pg369'>369</ref>, <ref target='Pg502'>502</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Newton (Sir Isaac), <ref target='Pg426'>426</ref>, <ref target='Pg480'>480</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nilus Rossanensis, <ref target='Pg447'>447</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nineteen changes in 34 words, <ref target='Pg401'>401</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nominative repeated, <ref target='Pg165'>165</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Non-Alexandrian</q> readings, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian</q>, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Nonsensical rendering, <ref target='Pg218'>218</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Non-Western</q>, <ref target='Pg357'>357-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Notes in the margin, <ref target='Pg175'>175</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Numerals in MSS., <ref target='Pg052'>52-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Number of the Beast</q>, <ref target='Pg135'>135</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, <ref target='Pg133'>133</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Occupation (Right of), <ref target='Pg199'>199-206</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ωδε, <ref target='Pg139'>139</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Olivet</q>, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ollivant (Bp.), <ref target='Pg146'>146</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Omission, intentional, <ref target='Pg069'>69-93</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὄνος, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Or</q> not meant by ἤ, <ref target='Pg168'>168-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Opinion, (modern) <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-ellicott'><q>Ellicott.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Origen, as a textual critic, <ref target='Pg292'>292</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὅς, <ref target='Pg165'>165</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὅς and θεός, in MSS., <ref target='Pg099'>99-105</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὅτι for ὅτε, <ref target='Pg140'>140</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='italic'>Otium Norvicense</hi>,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-field'><q>Field.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>οὕτως, <ref target='Pg145'>145</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>παιδίσκη, <ref target='Pg195'>195-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πάλιν, <ref target='Pg057'>57</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Palmer (Archd.), <ref target='Pg049'>49</ref>, <ref target='Pg126'>126</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Papyrus, <ref target='Pg321'>321-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>παραδῷ, <ref target='Pg178'>178</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>παράκλησις, <ref target='Pg190'>190</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paralytic borne of four, <ref target='Pg030'>30-3</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paris cod., <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-ephraemi'><q>Ephraemi.</q></ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>——, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-wescher'><q>Wescher,</q></ref> <ref target='index-martin'><q>Martin.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Parquoi (M.), <ref target='Pg437'>437</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Particles (Greek), <ref target='Pg166'>166</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πᾶσα γραφή, <ref target='Pg208'>208-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, <ref target='Pg152'>152</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πάσχα, τὸ, <ref target='Pg353'>353</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Paul <q>17,</q> <q>73,</q> <q>181</q>, <ref target='Pg443'>443-8</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (S.), Codd., <ref target='Pg493'>493-4</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— New Codd., <hi rend='italic'>see the</hi> <ref target='Appendix'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pearson (Bp.), <ref target='Pg212'>212</ref>, <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref>, <ref target='Pg471'>471</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Peckover (Alex.), Esq., <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Penerino (Sig.), <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-perfect'/> +<l>Perfect (English), <ref target='Pg158'>158-60</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Greek), <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>περίχωρος, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Perowne, (Dean), <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxx'>xxx</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Perverted sense, <ref target='Pg218'>218-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='italic'>Phaseolus vulgaris</hi></q>, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Phavorinus, <ref target='Pg140'>140</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Photius, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>φιάλη, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Pistic nard</q>, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Plain and clear,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-errors'><q>Errors.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πλεῖστος ὄχλος, <ref target='Pg145'>145</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-pluperfect'/> +<l>Pluperfect sense of Aorist, <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Ponderari debent testes</hi>, <ref target='Pg455'>455</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πονηροῦ, (ἀπὸ τοῦ), <ref target='Pg214'>214-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Possession (Demoniacal), <ref target='Pg206'>206</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='547'/><anchor id='Pg547'/> + +<lg> +<l>Possession (right of), <ref target='Pg199'>199-206</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Powles (Rev. R. Cowley), <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxviii'>xxviii</ref>, <ref target='Pg322'>322</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Praxapostolus,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-apostolus'><q>Apostolus.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Pre-Syrian</q>, <ref target='Pg357'>357-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Pre-Syrian Non-Western</q>, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Preface of 1611, <ref target='Pg187'>187-91</ref>, <ref target='Pg198'>198-9</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— 1881, <ref target='Pg189'>189</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Preponderating evidence, <ref target='Pg411'>411</ref>, <ref target='Pg496'>496</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Prepositions, <ref target='Pg170'>170-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-present'/> +<l><q>Present</q> (Greek), sometimes a Future, <ref target='Pg163'>163-4</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— sense of <q>perfect</q>, <ref target='Pg163'>163</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Principle of translation, mistaken, <ref target='Pg187'>187-96</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Principles of Textual Criticism</q>, <ref target='Pg125'>125-6</ref>, <ref target='Pg227'>227</ref>, <ref target='Pg349'>349-50</ref>, <ref target='Pg374'>374-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg411'>411</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Probability, <ref target='Pg497'>497</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Proper names in S. Matt. i. <ref target='Pg186'>186</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts</q>, <ref target='Pg172'>172</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Provision (<hi rend='smallcaps'>God</hi>'s) for the safety of His Word, <ref target='Pg008'>8</ref>, <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg338'>338</ref>, <ref target='Pg494'>494</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>προέφθασεν, <ref target='Pg146'>146</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pronouns, <ref target='Pg165'>165</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>πρώτη, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pulcheria, <ref target='Pg465'>465</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pusey (P. E.), <ref target='Pg345'>345</ref>, <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref>, <ref target='Pg449'>449</ref>, <ref target='Pg468'>468</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pyramus and Thisbe, <ref target='Pg171'>171</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Pyramid poised on its apex, <ref target='Pg342'>342-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='italic'>Quarterly Review</hi></q>, <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgix'>ix-xiv</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Quia</hi>, <ref target='Pg448'>448</ref>, <ref target='Pg473'>473</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><hi rend='italic'>Quod</hi> (in 1 Tim. iii. 16), <ref target='Pg448'>448</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Quotations, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-fathers'><q>Fathers.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Randell (Rev. T.), <ref target='Pg481'>481</ref>, <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Ravine</q>, <ref target='Pg181'>181</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Readings,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-various'><q>Various.</q></ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— before <q>Renderings</q>, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref>, <ref target='Pg225'>225</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Received Text, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-textus'><q>Textus.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Recension (imaginary), <ref target='Pg271'>271-88</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Reiche (J. G.), <ref target='Pg380'>380-1</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Reiteration not Proof, <ref target='Pg306'>306-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rendering of the same word, <ref target='Pg138'>138</ref>, <ref target='Pg152'>152-4</ref>, <ref target='Pg187'>187-202</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Result of acquaintance with documents, <ref target='Pg337'>337</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rettig (H. C. M.), <ref target='Pg442'>442</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Revised Version,</q> <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-revision'><q>Revision.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-revisers'/> +<l>Revisers exceeded their Instructions:—</l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>(1) In respect of the English, <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref>, <ref target='Pg127'>127-30</ref>, <ref target='Pg155'>155-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg225'>225-6</ref>, <ref target='Pg368'>368</ref>, <ref target='Pg400'>400-3</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>(2) In respect of the Greek, <ref target='Pg057'>57-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg118'>118-26</ref>, <ref target='Pg224'>224</ref>, <ref target='Pg399'>399</ref>, <ref target='Pg403'>403-6</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Revising body (composition of), <ref target='Pg504'>504-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-revision'/> +<l>Revision, original Resolution and Rules concerning, <ref target='Pg003'>3</ref>, <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg114'>114</ref>, <ref target='Pg127'>127</ref>, <ref target='Pg130'>130</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— of 1611, <ref target='Pg167'>167</ref>, <ref target='Pg508'>508-14</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— of 1881, how it was conducted, <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref>, <ref target='Pg117'>117-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg369'>369</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— unfair in its method, <ref target='Pg116'>116</ref>, <ref target='Pg131'>131-8</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— essentially different from that of 1611, <ref target='Pg508'>508-14</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— rests on a foundation of sand, <ref target='Pg110'>110</ref>, <ref target='Pg516'>516</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— incapable of being further revised, <ref target='Pg107'>107</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— its case hopeless, <ref target='Pg226'>226-7</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— characterized, <ref target='Pg238'>238</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— its probable fate, <ref target='Pg508'>508-14</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— unfavourable to Orthodoxy, <ref target='Pg513'>513</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— interesting specimens, <ref target='Pg171'>171</ref>, <ref target='Pg401'>401</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rhythm in translation, <ref target='Pg188'>188</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rieu (Dr.), <ref target='Pg453'>453</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Right of possession, <ref target='Pg199'>199</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Ring of genuineness</q>, <ref target='Pg307'>307</ref>, <ref target='Pg309'>309-12</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Roberts (Dr.), <ref target='Pg036'>36</ref>, <ref target='Pg039'>39-40</ref>, <ref target='Pg048'>48</ref>, <ref target='Pg098'>98</ref>, <ref target='Pg230'>230</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rocchi (Hieromonachus), <ref target='Pg447'>447-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg474'>474</ref>, <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see the</hi> <ref target='Appendix'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Appendix</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rogers, the poet, <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Romans ix. 5, <ref target='Pg210'>210-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rome, (<hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target='index-cozza'><q>Cozza Luzi,</q></ref> <ref target='index-escher'><q>Escher</q></ref>), <ref target='Pg521'>521</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rose, (Rev. W. F.), of Worle, Somersetshire, <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxviii'>xxviii</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Rouser (Professor), <ref target='Pg306'>306</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Routh (President), <ref target='Pg152'>152</ref>, <ref target='Pg211'>211</ref>, <ref target='Pg444'>444</ref>, <ref target='Pg452'>452</ref>, <ref target='Pg501'>501</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sachau, <ref target='Pg481'>481</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>S. Andrews (Bp. of), <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-wordsworth'><q>Wordsworth.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Salisbury (Bp. of), <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-moberly'><q>Moberly.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='548'/><anchor id='Pg548'/> + +<lg> +<l>Samaria, (woman of), <ref target='Pg407'>407-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sanday, (Dr.), <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxvi'>xvi</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Saville (Prof.), <ref target='Pg306'>306</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scholium misunderstood, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref>, <ref target='Pg468'>468</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scholz (Dr.), <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref>, <ref target='Pg380'>380</ref>, <ref target='Pg445'>445</ref>, <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scott (Sir Gilbert), <ref target='Pg306'>306</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scripture, God's provision for its safety <ref target='Pg008'>8</ref>, <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg338'>338</ref>, <ref target='Pg494'>494</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— depraved by heretics, <ref target='Pg336'>336</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Scrivener (Prebendary), <ref target='Pg013'>13</ref>, <ref target='Pg030'>30</ref>, <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref>, <ref target='Pg049'>49</ref>, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref>, <ref target='Pg108'>108</ref>, <ref target='Pg126'>126</ref>, <ref target='Pg231'>231</ref>, <ref target='Pg237'>237-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg243'>243</ref>, <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref>, <ref target='Pg317'>317</ref>, <ref target='Pg381'>381</ref>, <ref target='Pg405'>405</ref>, <ref target='Pg431'>431</ref>, <ref target='Pg474'>474</ref>, <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref>, <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref>, <ref target='Pg502'>502-3</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see back of Title.</hi></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-septuagint'/> +<l>Septuagint, <ref target='Pg182'>182</ref>, <ref target='Pg183'>183</ref>, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref>, <ref target='Pg228'>228</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Sepulchre,</q> the Holy, <ref target='Pg198'>198</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σημεῖον, <ref target='Pg203'>203-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σικάριοι, <ref target='Pg147'>147</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sieber (M.), <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σίκερα, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sinaiticus, cod. (א), <ref target='Pg011'>11-17</ref>, <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref>, <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref>,,<ref target='Pg289'>289</ref>, <ref target='Pg291'>291</ref>, <ref target='Pg314'>314-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg325'>325-6</ref>, <ref target='Pg343'>343-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Sixteen places, <ref target='Pg415'>415-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Smith (Dr. Vance), <ref target='Pg174'>174</ref>, <ref target='Pg204'>204-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg503'>503-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg513'>513</ref>, <ref target='Pg515'>515</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Socinian gloss, <ref target='Pg210'>210-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q><hi rend='italic'>Solvere ambulando</hi></q>, <ref target='Pg126'>126</ref>, <ref target='Pg228'>228</ref>, <ref target='Pgxxxi'>xxxi</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σπεκουλάτωρ, <ref target='Pg147'>147</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Spelling of proper names, <ref target='Pg186'>186-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σπλάγχνα, <ref target='Pg153'>153</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>σπυρίς, <ref target='Pg171'>171</ref>, <ref target='Pg180'>180</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Stanley (Dean), <ref target='Pg135'>135</ref>, <ref target='Pg507'>507</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Stillingfleet (Bp.), <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>στιβάς and στοιβάδες, <ref target='Pg058'>58-60</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>συντρίψασα, <ref target='Pg185'>185</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>συστρεφομένων, <ref target='Pg176'>176-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Syndics of Cambridge Press, <ref target='Pgxxx'>xxx-i</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Syracuse, <ref target='Pg494'>494</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Syriac Version, <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-syrian'/> +<l><q>Syrian,</q> <q>Antiochian,</q> <q>Græco-Syrian,</q>—Dr. Hort's designations of the Traditional Greek Text <ref target='Pg257'>257-65</ref>, <ref target='Pg269'>269</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— its assumed origin, <ref target='Pg272'>272-88</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— and history, <ref target='Pg290'>290-1</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— characterized, <ref target='Pg087'>87</ref>, <ref target='Pg288'>288-290</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>τάφος, <ref target='Pg298'>298</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-tatian'/> +<l>Tatian (<hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='Index-II'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Index II</hi></ref>.) <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref>, <ref target='Pg336'>336</ref>, <ref target='Pg350'>350</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Teaching</q>, <ref target='Pg199'>199</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>τέκνον, <ref target='Pg153'>153</ref>, <ref target='Pg179'>179</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>τέλος, <ref target='Pg051'>51</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tenses, <ref target='Pg157'>157-64</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-aorist'><q>Aorist,</q></ref> <ref target='index-imperfect'><q>Imperfect,</q></ref> <ref target='index-perfect'><q>Perfect,</q></ref> <ref target='index-pluperfect'><q>Pluperfect,</q></ref> <ref target='index-present'><q>Present.</q></ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— unidiomatically rendered, <ref target='Pg402'>402</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Test-places (three), <ref target='Pg047'>47</ref>, <ref target='Pg519'>519</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Text to be determined by external evidence, <ref target='Pg019'>19-20</ref>, <ref target='Pg045'>45</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— provision for its security, <ref target='Pg010'>10</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Received), <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-textus'><q>Textus Receptus</q></ref> and <ref target='index-syrian'><q>Syrian.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Texts, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='Index-I'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Index</hi> I.</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-textus'/> +<l>'Textus Receptus', <ref target='Pg012'>12-3</ref>, <ref target='Pg017'>17-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg107'>107</ref>, <ref target='Pg118'>118</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Bp. Ellicott on), <ref target='Pg388'>388</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— needs correction <ref target='Pg021'>21</ref>, <ref target='Pg107'>107</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-syrian'><q>Syrian,</q></ref> <ref target='index-traditional'><q>Traditional.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodore of Mopsuestia, <ref target='Pg480'>480</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='Index-II'><hi rend='smallcaps'>Index II</hi></ref>.</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theodotus, the Gnostic, <ref target='Pg323'>323-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>θεόπνευστος, <ref target='Pg208'>208-9</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-theos'/> +<l>Θεός and ὅς in MSS., <ref target='Pg099'>99-105</ref>, <ref target='Pg425'>425-6</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— , not ὅς, to be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16, <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxi'>xxi-iv</ref>, <ref target='Pg424'>424-501</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Thierry (M.), <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Thirty changes in 38 words, <ref target='Pg171'>171</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>1 Timothy iii. 16. <hi rend='italic'>See</hi> <ref target='index-theos'>Θεός</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tischendorf (Dr.) <ref target='Pg022'>22-4</ref>, <ref target='Pg045'>45</ref>, <ref target='Pg243'>243-4</ref>, <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref>, <ref target='Pg270'>270-1</ref>, <ref target='Pg370'>370</ref>, <ref target='Pg383'>383</ref>, <ref target='Pg437'>437-8</ref>, <ref target='Pg451'>451</ref>, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Title on the Cross, <ref target='Pg085'>85-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Titus Justus</q>, <ref target='Pg053'>53-4</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Tomb</q>, <ref target='Pg198'>198</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tradition (Ecclesiastical), <ref target='Pg495'>495</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-traditional'/> +<l>Traditional Text departed from 6000 times, <ref target='Pg107'>107</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-syrian'><q>Syrian.</q></ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— meaning of S. Mark xiii. 32, <ref target='Pg209'>209-10</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Transcriptional probability</q>, <ref target='Pg251'>251-2</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Translators of 1611, <ref target='Pg187'>187-91</ref>, <ref target='Pg207'>207</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— of 1881, mistaken principle of <ref target='Pg138'>138</ref>, <ref target='Pg187'>187-96</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Transposition, <ref target='Pg093'>93-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<pb n='549'/><anchor id='Pg549'/> + +<lg> +<l>Tregelles (Dr.), <ref target='Pg022'>22</ref>, <ref target='Pg045'>45</ref>, <ref target='Pg243'>243</ref>, <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref>, <ref target='Pg270'>270</ref>, <ref target='Pg370'>370</ref>, <ref target='Pg380'>380</ref>, <ref target='Pg383'>383</ref>, <ref target='Pg431'>431</ref>, <ref target='Pg451'>451</ref>, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref>, <ref target='Pg498'>498</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-trench'/> +<l>Trench (Abp.), xlii, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Trinitarian doctrine, <ref target='Pg174'>174-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>True Text, (only safe way of ascertaining), <ref target='Pg339'>339-42</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tusculum, <ref target='Pg446'>446</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Tyndale (William), <ref target='Pg167'>167</ref>, <ref target='Pg191'>191</ref>, <ref target='Pg192'>192</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Uncials (depravity of the old), <ref target='Pg012'>12-17</ref>, <ref target='Pg030'>30-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg046'>46-7</ref>, <ref target='Pg075'>75-6</ref>, <ref target='Pg094'>94-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Uniformity of rendering, <ref target='Pg166'>166</ref>, <ref target='Pg187'>187</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Unitarian</q> Reviser, intolerable, <ref target='Pg503'>503-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-upo'/> +<l>ὑπό and διά, <ref target='Pg156'>156</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ὑποτύπωσις, <ref target='Pg351'>351</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Uppström (Andr.), <ref target='Pg452'>452</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Upsala, <ref target='Pg444'>444</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-belsheim'><q>Belsheim.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Ussher (Abp.), <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref>, <ref target='Pg469'>469</ref>, <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Valckenaer, <ref target='Pg228'>228</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Valentinus, <ref target='Pg029'>29</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-various'/> +<l>Various Readings, <ref target='Pg049'>49-50</ref>, <ref target='Pg056'>56</ref>, <ref target='Pg065'>65</ref>, <ref target='Pg130'>130-1</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-vaticanus'/> +<l>Vaticanus, codex (<hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi>), <ref target='Pg011'>11-17</ref>, <ref target='Pg265'>265</ref>, <ref target='Pg273'>273</ref>, <ref target='Pg286'>286</ref>, <ref target='Pg289'>289</ref>, <ref target='Pg291'>291</ref>, <ref target='Pg314'>314-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg325'>325</ref>, <ref target='Pg342'>342-5</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-b-and-a'><q><hi rend='smallcaps'>b</hi> and א.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Veludo (Sig.), <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vercellone (C.), <ref target='Pg381'>381</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-verifying-faculty'/> +<l>Verifying faculty, <ref target='Pg095'>95-6</ref>, <ref target='Pg109'>109</ref>, <ref target='Pg253'>253</ref>, <ref target='Pg290'>290-1</ref>, <ref target='Pg307'>307-8</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-version'/> +<l>Version (Authorized), <ref target='Pg112'>112-4</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (old Latin), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg448'>448</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Vulgate), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg419'>419</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Peschito), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg449'>449-50</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Harkleian), <ref target='Pg450'>450</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Coptic), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg451'>451-2</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Sahidic), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg451'>451-2</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Gothic), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg452'>452-3</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Armenian), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg453'>453</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Æthiopic), <ref target='Pg009'>9</ref>, <ref target='Pg453'>453</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Georgian), <ref target='Pg454'>454</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Arabic), <ref target='Pg453'>453-4</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Slavonian), <ref target='Pg454'>454</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Vials</q>, <ref target='Pg200'>200</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Von Heinemann (Dr.), <ref target='Pg493'>493</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Vulgate, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-version'><q>Version.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>W. (M.), <hi rend='italic'>Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxxviii'>xxviii</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Walton (Bp. Brian), <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Waterland (Dr.), <ref target='Pg500'>500</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Way (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test, <ref target='Pg339'>339-42</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Weber (M.), <ref target='Pg437'>437</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-wescher'/> +<l>Wescher (M.), <ref target='Pg492'>492</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Wesleyan Methodist</q> Revisers, <ref target='Pg504'>504-5</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>West the painter, <ref target='Pg162'>162</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Westcott (Dr.), xlii, <ref target='Pg124'>124</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>see</hi> <ref target='index-hort'><q>Hort.</q></ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-westcott-and-hort'/> +<l>Westcott and Hort (Drs.), <ref target='Pg024'>24-9</ref>, <ref target='Pg033'>33</ref>, <ref target='Pg049'>49</ref>, <ref target='Pg051'>51</ref>, <ref target='Pg072'>72</ref>, <ref target='Pg083'>83</ref>, <ref target='Pg091'>91</ref>, <ref target='Pg092'>92</ref>, <ref target='Pg094'>94</ref>, <ref target='Pg095'>95</ref>, <ref target='Pg097'>97</ref>, <ref target='Pg110'>110</ref>, <ref target='Pg114'>114</ref>, <ref target='Pg125'>125</ref>, <ref target='Pg134'>134-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg177'>177</ref>, <ref target='Pg239'>239-41</ref>, <ref target='Pg245'>245</ref>, <ref target='Pg247'>247</ref>, <ref target='Pg370'>370</ref>, <ref target='Pg380'>380</ref>, <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref>, <ref target='Pg499'>499</ref>, <ref target='Pg502'>502</ref>, <ref target='Pg518'>518-9</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>See reverse of Title-page, and Pref.</hi> <ref target='Pgxi'>xi-iv</ref>, <ref target='Pgxxvi'>xxvi-viii</ref>, <ref target='Pgxxxi'>xxxi</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Western,</q>, <ref target='Pg357'>357</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— readings, <ref target='Pg271'>271-2</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— and <q>Syrian</q>, <ref target='Pg361'>361</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l><q>Westminster Abbey scandal</q>, <ref target='Pg507'>507</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wetstein (J. J.), <ref target='Pg246'>246</ref>, <ref target='Pg383'>383</ref>, <ref target='Pg426'>426</ref>, <ref target='Pg456'>456</ref>, <ref target='Pg467'>467</ref>, <ref target='Pg469'>469</ref>, <ref target='Pg480'>480</ref>, <ref target='Pg497'>497</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wilberforce (Bp.), <ref target='Pg229'>229</ref>, <ref target='Pg415'>415</ref>, <ref target='Pg505'>505</ref>, <ref target='Pg507'>507</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Woide (C. G.), <ref target='Pg434'>434-7</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wolfii <hi rend='italic'>Anecd. Græca</hi>, <ref target='Pg458'>458</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wood (C. F. B.), <ref target='Pg183'>183</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Word, incarnate and written, <ref target='Pg334'>334-5</ref>, <ref target='Pg390'>390-1</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<anchor id='index-wordsworth'/> +<l>Wordsworth (Dr. Charles), Bp. of S. Andrews, <ref target='Pg106'>106</ref>, <ref target='Pg165'>165</ref>, <ref target='Pg229'>229-30</ref>, <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln, <ref target='Pg037'>37</ref>, <ref target='Pg112'>112</ref>, <ref target='Pg147'>147</ref>, <ref target='Pg184'>184</ref>, <ref target='Pg226'>226</ref>, <ref target='Pg368'>368</ref>, <ref target='Pg382'>382</ref>, <ref target='Pg400'>400</ref>, <ref target='Pg502'>502</ref>, <ref target='Pg505'>505</ref>, <ref target='Pg513'>513</ref>, <hi rend='italic'>Ded.</hi> vi</l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Wotton (Henry), <ref target='Pg433'>433</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Xenophon, <ref target='Pg149'>149</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>Young (Patrick), <ref target='Pg432'>432</ref></l> +<l rend='margin-left: 2'>—— (Dr.), of Glasgow, <ref target='Pg477'>477</ref></l> +</lg> + +<lg> +<l>ζώνη, <ref target='Pg201'>201</ref></l> +</lg> +</div> + </body> +<back rend="page-break-before: right"> + <div id="footnotes"> + <index index="toc" /> + <index index="pdf" /> + <head>Footnotes</head> + <divGen type="footnotes"/> + </div> + <div rend="page-break-before: right"> + <divGen type="pgfooter" /> + </div> +</back> +</text> +</TEI.2> |