The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels [ThML]
<generalInfo> <description>The late 19th century marked a turning point in biblical criticism. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort compiled some of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament. Their compilation has served as the template for almost every modern translation of the Bible. Because of this, people often forget that Westcott and Hort’s critical text faced considerable controversy. John Burgon was perhaps the fiercest enemy of the movement Westcott and Hort had begun. Instead of the new compilation, Burgon favored the Textus Receptus, or the collection of Greek texts that provided the material for the King James Version and the German Luther Bible. His treatise The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels compares the Textus Receptus with the Westcott and Hort texts, finding points of disagreement and potential error. Today, many associate Burgon and his arguments with biblical inerrancy. <br></br><br></br>Kathleen O’Bannon<br></br>CCEL Staff </description> <pubHistory>Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. 1896</pubHistory> <comments></comments> </generalInfo> <printSourceInfo> <published></published> </printSourceInfo> <electronicEdInfo> <publisherID>ccel</publisherID> <authorID>burgon</authorID> <bookID>corruption</bookID> <version></version> <series></series> <DC> <DC.Title>The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels</DC.Title> <DC.Creator sub="Author" scheme="short-form">John William Burgon</DC.Creator> <DC.Creator sub="Author" scheme="file-as">Burgon, John William (1813-1888)</DC.Creator> <DC.Creator sub="Editor" scheme="short-form">Edward Miller</DC.Creator> <DC.Creator sub="Editor" scheme="file-as">Miller, Edward (1825-1901)</DC.Creator> <DC.Creator sub="Editor" scheme="ccel">miller_e</DC.Creator> <DC.Publisher>Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library</DC.Publisher> <DC.Subject scheme="LCCN">BS459.B9</DC.Subject> <DC.Subject scheme="lcsh1">The Bible</DC.Subject> <DC.Subject scheme="lcsh2">Works about the Bible</DC.Subject> <DC.Subject scheme="ccel">All; Bible</DC.Subject> <DC.Contributor sub="Digitizer"></DC.Contributor> <DC.Date sub="Created">2006-05-13</DC.Date> <DC.Type>Text.Monograph</DC.Type> <DC.Format scheme="IMT">text/html</DC.Format> <DC.Identifier scheme="URL">/ccel/burgon/corruption.html</DC.Identifier> <DC.Identifier scheme="ISBN"></DC.Identifier> <DC.Source></DC.Source> <DC.Source scheme="URL"></DC.Source> <DC.Language>en</DC.Language> <DC.Rights>Public Domain</DC.Rights> </DC> </electronicEdInfo>
Title Page
iPrefatory Material
Prologue
‘Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et immotam Tertulliani regulam “Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio.” Quo propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus, eo purior decurrit Catholicae doctrinae rivus.’
Cave’s Prolog. p. xliv.
‘Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate in ea.’—
‘In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum.’—Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. iv. c. 5.
vPreface
THE reception given by the learned world to the First Volume of this work, as expressed hitherto in smaller reviews and notices, has on the whole been decidedly far from discouraging. All have had some word of encomium on our efforts. Many have accorded praise and signified their agreement, sometimes with unquestionable ability. Some have pronounced adverse opinions with considerable candour and courtesy. Others in opposing have employed arguments so weak and even irrelevant to the real question at issue, as to suggest that there is not after all so much as I anticipated to advance against our case. Longer examinations of this important matter are doubtless impending, with all the interest attaching to them and the judgements involved: but I beg now to offer my acknowledgements for all the words of encouragement that have been uttered.
Something however must be said in reply to an attack made in
the Guardian newspaper on
May 20, because it represents in the main the position occupied by some members
of an existing School. I do not linger over an offhand stricture upon my ‘adhesion
to the extravagant claim of a second-century origin for the Peshitto,’ because I
am vicontent with the companionship of some of the very first Syriac
scholars, and with the teaching given in an unanswered article in the Church
Quarterly Review for April, 1895. Nor except in passing do I remark upon a fanciful
censure of my account of the use of papyrus in MSS. before the tenth century—as
to which the reviewer is evidently not versed in information recently collected,
and described for example in Sir E. Maunde Thompson’s Greek and Latin Palaeography,
or in Mr. F. G. Kenyon’s Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, and in an article
in the just mentioned Review which appeared in October, 1894. These observations
and a large number of inaccuracies shew that he was at the least not posted up to
date. But what will be thought, when attention is drawn to the fact that in a question
whether a singular set of quotations from the early Fathers refer to a passage in
St. Matthew or the parallel one in St. Luke, the peculiar characteristic of St.
Matthew—‘them that persecute you’—is put out of sight, and both passages (taking
the lengthened reading of St. Matthew) are represented as having equally only four
clauses? And again, when quotations going on to the succeeding verse in St. Matthew
(
A curious instance of a fate like this has been supplied by a critic in the Athenaeum, who, when contrasting Dean Burgon’s style of writing with mine to my discredit, quotes a passage of some length as the Dean’s which was really written by me. Surely the principle upheld by our opponents, that much more importance than we allow should be attributed to the ‘Internal evidence of Readings and Documents,’ might have saved him from error upon a piece of composition which characteristically proclaimed its own origin. At all events, after this undesigned support, I am the less inclined to retire from our vantage ground.
But it is gratifying on all accounts to say now, that such interpolations as in the companion volume I was obliged frequently to supply in order to fill up gaps in the several MSS. and in integral portions of the treatise, which through their very frequency would have there made square brackets unpleasant to our readers, are not required so often in this part of the work. Accordingly, except in instances of pure editing or in simple bringing up viiito date, my own additions or insertions have been so marked off. It will doubtless afford great satisfaction to others as well as the admirers of the Dean to know what was really his own writing: and though some of the MSS., especially towards the end of the volume, were not left as he would have prepared them for the press if his life had been prolonged, yet much of the book will afford, on what he regarded as the chief study of his life, excellent examples of his style, so vigorously fresh and so happy in idiomatic and lucid expression.
But the Introduction, and Appendix II on ‘Conflation’ and the ‘Neutral Text,’ have been necessarily contributed by me. I am anxious to invite attention particularly to the latter essay, because it has been composed upon request, and also because—unless it contains some extraordinary mistake—it exhibits to a degree which has amazed me the baselessness of Dr. Hort’s theory.
The manner in which the Dean prepared piecemeal for his book, and the large number of fragments in which he left his materials, as has been detailed in the Preface to the former volume, have necessarily produced an amount of repetition which I deplore. To have avoided it entirely, some of the MSS. must have been rewritten. But in one instance I discovered when it was too late that after searching for, and finding with difficulty and treating, an example which had not been supplied, I had forestalled a subsequent examination of the same passage from his abler hand. However I hope that in nearly all, if not all cases, each treatment involves some new contribution to the question ixdiscussed; and that our readers will kindly make allowance for the perplexity which such an assemblage of separate papers could not but entail.
My thanks are again due to the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, for much advice and suggestion, which he is so capable of giving, and for his valuable care in looking through all the first proofs of this volume; to ‘M. W.,’ Dean Burgon’s indefatigable secretary, who in a pure labour of love copied out the text of the MSS. before and after his death; also to the zealous printers at the Clarendon Press, for help in unravelling intricacies still remaining in them.
This treatise is now commended to the fair and candid consideration of readers and reviewers. The latter body of men should remember that there was perhaps never a time when reviewers were themselves reviewed by many intelligent readers more than they are at present. I cannot hope that all that we have advanced will be finally adopted, though my opinion is unfaltering as resting in my belief upon the Rock; still less do I imagine that errors may not be discovered in our work. But I trust that under Divine Blessing some not unimportant contribution has been made towards the establishment upon sound principles of the reverent criticism of the Text of the New Testament. And I am sure that, as to the Dean’s part in it, this trust will be ultimately justified.
EDWARD MILLER.
9 BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD:
Sept. 2, 1896.
x xiContents
PAGE | |
INTRODUCTION. | |
---|---|
The Traditional Text—established by evidence—especially before St. Chrysostom —corruption—early rise of it—Galilee of the Gentiles — Syrio-Low-Latin source—various causes and forms of corruption | pp. 1-9 |
CHAPTER I. | |
GENERAL CORRUPTION. | |
§ 1. Modern re-editing—difference between the New Testament and other books—immense number of copies—ordinary causes of error—Doctrinal causes. § 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings—nature of inquiry. § 3. Smaller blemishes in MSS. unimportant except when constant. § 4. Most mistakes arose from inadvertency: many from unfortunate design | pp. 10-23 |
CHAPTER II. | |
ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. I. PURE ACCIDENT. |
|
§ 1. St. |
pp. 24-35 |
CHAPTER III. | |
ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. II. HOMOEOTELEUTON. |
|
St. |
pp. 36-41 |
xiiCHAPTER IV. | |
ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. III. FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. |
|
§ 1. St. |
pp. 42-55 |
CHAPTER V. | |
ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. IV. ITACISM. |
|
§ 1. Various passages-St. |
pp. 56-66 |
CHAPTER VI. | |
ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. V. LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. |
|
§ 1. Lectionaries of the Church—Liturgical influence—Antiquity
of the Lectionary System. § 2. St. |
pp. 67-88 |
CHAPTER VII. | |
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. I. HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. |
|
§ 1. St. |
pp. 89-99 |
CHAPTER VIII. | |
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. II. ASSIMILATION. |
|
§ 1. Transfer from one Gospel to another. § 2. Not entirely intentional—Various
passages. § 3. St. |
pp. 100-122 |
xiiiCHAPTER IX. | |
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. III. ATTRACTION. |
|
§ 1. St. |
pp. 123-127 |
CHAPTER X. | |
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. IV. OMISSION. |
|
§ 1. Omissions a class of their own—Exemplified from the Last Twelve
Verses of St. Mark—Omission the besetting fault of transcribers. § 2. The onus pvbandi rests upon omitters.
§ 3. St. |
pp. 128-156 |
CHAPTER XI. | |
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. | |
V. TRANSPOSITION. | |
§ 1. St. |
pp. 557-163 |
VI. SUBSTITUTION. | |
§ 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class—Various instances | pp. 164-165 |
VII. ADDITION. | |
§ 5. The smallest of the four—St. |
pp. 166-171 |
CHAPTER XII. | |
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. | |
VIII. GLOSSES. | |
§ 1. Not so numerous as has been supposed—St. |
pp. 170-190 |
xivCHAPTER XIII. | |
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. IX. CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. |
|
§ 1. This class very evident—Began in the earliest times—Appeal
to what is earlier still—Condemned in all ages and countries. § 2. The earliest
depravers of the Tcxt—Tatian’s Diatessaron. § 3. Gnostics—St. |
pp. 191-210 |
CHAPTER XIV. | |
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. X. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. |
|
§ 1. St. |
pp. 211-231 |
APPENDIX | |
PERICOPE DE ADULTERA | pp. 232-265 |
APPENDIX II. | |
DR. HORT’S THEORY OF CONFLATION AND THE NEUTRAL TEXT |
pp. 266-286 |
INDEX OF SUBJECTS | pp. 287-288 |
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED | pp. 289-290 |
The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
Introduction
IN the companion volume to this, the Traditional Text, that is, the Text of the Gospels which is the resultant of all the evidence faithfully and exhaustively presented and estimated according to the best procedure of the courts of law, has been traced back to the earliest ages in the existence of those sacred writings. We have shewn, that on the one hand, amidst the unprecedented advantages afforded by modern conditions of life for collecting all the evidence bearing upon the subject, the Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text; and that on the other hand it must, as far as we can judge, differ but slightly from the Text now generally in vogue, which has been generally received during the last two and a half centuries.
The strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies in its being logically deducible and to be deduced from all the varied evidence which the case supplies, when it has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed, compared, compounded, and contrasted with dissentient testimony. The contrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon 2which controversy has gathered. On one side the vast mass of authorities is assembled: on the other stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the advantage possessed by that group, as regards numerous students who do not look beneath the surface, in the general witness in their favour borne by the two oldest MSS. of the Gospels in existence. That advantage however shrinks into nothing under the light of rigid examination. The claim for the Text in them made at the Semiarian period was rejected when Semiarianism in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And the argument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional Text was a new Text formed by successive recensions has been refuted upon examination of the verdict of the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the early Syriac and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manuscripts have been traced to a local source in the library of Caesarea. And on the other hand a Catholic origin of the Traditional Text found on later vellum manuscripts has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus which existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia, and were to some degree in use even as late as the ninth century before and during the employment of vellum in the Caesarean school, and in localities where it was used in imitation of the mode of writing books which was brought well-nigh to perfection in that city.
It is evident that the turning-point of the controversy between ourselves and the Neologian school must lie in the centuries before St. Chrysostom. If, as Dr. Hort maintains, the Traditional Text not only gained supremacy at that era but did not exist in the early ages, then our contention is vain. That Text can be Traditional only if it goes back without break or intermission to the original autographs, because if through break or intermission it ceased or failed to exist, it loses the essential feature of 3genuine tradition. On the other hand, if it is proved to reach back in unbroken line to the time of the Evangelists, or to a period as near to them as surviving testimony can prove, then Dr. Hort’s theory of a ‘Syrian’ text formed by recension or otherwise just as evidently falls to the ground. Following mainly upon the lines drawn by Dean Burgon, though in a divergence of my own devising, I claim to have proved Dr. Hort to have been conspicuously wrong, and our maintenance of the Traditional Text in unbroken succession to be eminently right. The school opposed to us must disprove our arguments, not by discrediting the testimony of the Fathers to whom all Textual Critics have appealed including Dr. Hort, but by demonstrating if they can that the Traditional Text is not recognized by them, or they must yield eventually to us[1].
In this volume, the other half of the subject will be discussed. Instead of exploring the genuine Text, we shall treat of the corruptions of it, and shall track error in its ten thousand forms to a few sources or heads. The origination of the pure Text in the inspired writings of the Evangelists will thus be vindicated anew by the evident paternity of deflections from it discoverable in the natural defects or iniquities of men. Corruption will the more slim itself in true colours:—
Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra[1]:
and it will not so readily be mistaken for genuineness, when the real history is unfolded, and the mistakes are accounted for. It seems clear that corruption arose in the 4very earliest age. As soon as the Gospel was preached, the incapacity of human nature for preserving accuracy until long years of intimate acquaintance have bred familiarity must have asserted itself in constant distortion more or less of the sacred stories, as they were told and retold amongst Christians one to another whether in writing or in oral transmission. Mistakes would inevitably arise from the universal tendency to mix error with truth which Virgil has so powerfully depicted in his description of ‘Fame’:—
Tam ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri[1].
And as soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work, a spirit of infidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the details of the new religion must have impelled such as were either imperfect Christians, or no Christians at all, to corrupt the sacred stories.
Thus it appears that errors crept in at the very first commencement of the life of the Church. This is a matter so interesting and so important in the history of corruption, that I must venture to place it again before our readers.
Why was Galilee chosen before Judea and Jerusalem as the chief scene of our Lord’s Life and Ministry, at least as regards the time spent there? Partly, no doubt, because the Galileans were more likely than the other inhabitants of Palestine to receive Him. But there was as I venture to think also another very special reason.
‘Galilee of the nations’ or ‘the Gentiles,’ not only had a mixed population[1] and a provincial dialect[1], but lay contiguous to the rest of Palestine on the one side, and 5on others to two districts in which Greek was largely spoken, namely, Decapolis and the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and also to the large country of Syria. Our Lord laid foundations for a natural growth in these parts of the Christian religion after His death almost independent as it seems of the centre of the Church at Jerusalem. Hence His crossings of the lake, His miracles on the other side, His retirement in that little understood episode in His life when He shrank from persecution[1], and remained secretly in the parts of Tyre and Sidon, about the coasts of Decapolis, on the shores of the lake, and in the towns of Caesarea Philippi, where the traces of His footsteps are even now indicated by tradition.[1] His success amongst these outlying populations is proved by the unique assemblage of the crowds of 5000 and 4000 men besides women and children. What wonder then if the Church sprang up at Damascus, and suddenly as if without notice displayed such strength as to draw persecution upon it! In the same way the Words of life appear to have passed throughout Syria over congenial soil, and Antioch became the haven whence the first great missionaries went out for the conversion of the world. Such were not only St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Barnabas, but also as is not unreasonable to infer many of that assemblage of Christians at Rome whom St. Paul enumerates to our surprise in the last chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Many no doubt were friends whom the Apostle of the Gentiles had met in Greece and elsewhere: but there are reasons to shew that some at least of them, such as Andronicus and Junias or Junia[1] and Herodion, may probably have passed along 6the stream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and Rome*1*, and that this interconnexion between the queen city of the empire and the emporium of the East may in great measure account for the number of names well known to the apostle, and for the then flourishing condition of the Church which they adorned.
It has been shewn in our first volume that, as is well known to all students of Textual Criticism, the chief amount of corruption is to be found in what is termed the Western Text; and that the corruption of the West is so closely akin to the corruption which is found in Syriac remains, that practically they are included under one head of classification. What is the reason of this phenomenon? It is evidently derived from the close commercial alliance which subsisted between Syria and Italy. That is to say, the corruption produced in Syria made its way over into Italy, and there in many instances gathered fresh contributions. For there is reason to suppose, that it first arose in Syria.
We have seen how the Church grew of itself there without regular teaching from Jerusalem in the first beginnings, or any regular supervision exercised by the Apostles. In fact, as far as the Syrian believers in Christ at first consisted of Gentiles, they must perforce have been regarded as being outside of the covenant of promise. Yet there must have been many who revered the stories told about our Lord, and felt extreme interest and delight in them. The story of King Abgar illustrates the history: but amongst those who actually heard our Lord preach there must have been very many, probably a majority, who were uneducated. They would easily learn from the 7Jews, because the Aramaic dialects spoken by Hebrews and Syrians did not greatly differ the one from the other. What difference there was, would not so much hinder the spread of the stories, as tend to introduce alien forms of speech and synonymous words, and so to hinder absolute accuracy from being maintained. Much time must necessarily have elapsed, before such familiarity with the genuine accounts of our Lord’s sayings and doings grew up, as would prevent mistakes being made and disseminated in telling or in writing.
The Gospels were certainly not written till some thirty years after the Ascension. More careful examination seems to place them later rather than earlier. For myself, I should suggest that the three first were not published long before the year 70 A.D. at the earliest; and that St. Matthew’s Gospel was written at Pella during the siege of Jerusalem amidst Greek surroundings, and in face of the necessity caused by new conditions of life that Greek should become the ecclesiastical language. The Gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their entirety of the stories constituting the Life of our Lord; and corruption must have come into existence, before the antidote was found in complete documents accepted and commissioned by the authorities in the Church.
I must again remark with much emphasis that the foregoing suggestions are offered to account for what may now be regarded as a fact, viz., the connexion between the Western Text, as it is called, and Syriac remains in regard to corruption in the text of the Gospels and of the Acts of the Apostles. If that corruption arose at the very first spread of Christianity, before the record of our Lord’s Life had assumed permanent shape in the Four Gospels, all is easy. Such corruption, inasmuch as it beset the oral and written stories which were afterwards incorporated in the Gospels, would creep into the authorized 8narrations, and would vitiate them till it was ultimately cast out towards the end of the fourth and in the succeeding centuries. Starting from the very beginning, and gaining additions in the several ways described in this volume by Dean Burgon, it would possess such vigour as to impress itself on Low-Latin manuscripts and even on parts of the better Latin ones, perhaps on Tatian’s Diatessaron, on the Curetonian and Lewis manuscripts of the fifth century, on the Codex Bezae of the sixth; also on the Vatican and the Sinaitic of the fourth, on the Dublin Palimpsest of St. Matthew of the sixth, on the Codex Regius or L of the eighth, on the St. Gall MS. of the ninth in St. Mark, on the Codex Zacynthius of the eighth in St. Luke, and a few others. We on our side admit that the corruption is old even though the manuscripts enshrining it do not date very far back, and cannot always prove their ancestry. And it is in this admission that I venture to think there is an opening for a meeting of opinions which have been hitherto opposed.
In the following treatise, the causes of corruption are divided into (I) such as proceeded from Accident, and (II) those which were Intentional. Under the former class we find (1) those which were involved in pure Accident, or (2) in what is termed Homoeoteleuton where lines or sentences ended with the same word or the same syllable, or (3) such as arose in writing from Uncial letters, or (4) in the confusion of vowels and diphthongs which is called Itacism, or (5) in Liturgical Influence. The remaining instances may be conveniently classed as Intentional, not because in all cases there was a settled determination to alter the text, for such if any was often of the faintest character, but because some sort of design was to a greater or less degree embedded in most of them. Such causes were (1) Harmonistic Influence, (2) Assimilation, (3) Attraction; such instances too in their main character 9were (4) Omissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions, (7) Additions, (8) Glosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics, (10) Corruption by Orthodox.
This dissection of the mass of corruption, or as perhaps it may be better termed, this classification made by Dean Burgon of the numerous causes which are found to have been at work from time to time, appears to me to be most interesting to the inquirer into the hidden history of the Text of the Gospels, because by revealing the influences which have been at work it sheds light upon the entire controversy, and often enables the student to see clearly how and why certain passages around which dispute has gathered are really corrupt. Indeed, the vast and mysterious ogre called corruption assumes shape and form under the acute penetration and the deft handling of the Dean, whose great knowledge of the subject and orderly treatment of puzzling details is still more commended by his interesting style of writing. As far as has been possible, I have let him in the sequel, except for such clerical corrections as were required from time to time and have been much fewer than his facile pen would have made, speak entirely for himself.
10Chapter I. General Corruption.
§ 1.
WE hear sometimes scholars complain, and with a certain show of reason, that it is discreditable to us as a Church not to have long since put forth by authority a revised Greek Text of the New Testament. The chief writers of antiquity, say they, have been of late years re-edited by the aid of the best Manuscripts. Why should not the Scriptures enjoy the same advantage? Men who so speak evidently misunderstand the question. They assume that the case of the Scriptures and that of other ancient writings are similar.
Such remonstrances are commonly followed up by statements like the following:—That the received Text is that of Erasmus:—that it was constructed in haste, and without skill:—that it is based on a very few, and those bad Manuscripts:—that it belongs to an age when scarcely any of our present critical helps were available, and when the Science of Textual Criticism was unknown. To listen to these advocates for Revision, you would almost suppose that it fared with the Gospel at this instant as it had fared with the original Copy of the Law for many years until the days of King Josiah[1].
Yielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the 11New Testament judiciously revised, I freely avow that recent events have convinced me, and I suppose they have convinced the public also, that we have not among us the men to conduct such an undertaking. Better a thousand times in my judgement to leave things as they are, than to risk having the stamp of authority set upon such an unfortunate production as that which appeared on the 17th May, 1881, and which claims at this instant to represent the combined learning of the Church, the chief Sects, and the Socinian[1] body.
Now if the meaning of those who desire to see the commonly received text of the New Testament made absolutely faultless, were something of this kind:—That they are impatient for the collation of the copies which have become known to us within the last two centuries, and which amount already in all to upwards of three thousand: that they are bent on procuring that the ancient Versions shall be re-edited;—and would hail with delight the announcement that a band of scholars had combined to index every place of Scripture quoted by any of the Fathers:—if this were meant, we should all be entirely at one; especially if we could further gather from the programme that a fixed intention was cherished of abiding by the result of such an appeal to ancient evidence. But unfortunately something entirely different is in contemplation.
Now I am bent on calling attention to certain features of the problem which have very generally escaped attention. It does not seem to be understood that the Scriptures of the New Testament stand on an entirely different footing from every other ancient writing which can be named. A few plain remarks ought to bring this fact, for a fact it 12is, home to every thoughtful person. And the result will be that men will approach the subject with more caution,—with doubts and misgivings,—with a fixed determination to be on their guard against any form of plausible influence. Their prejudices they will scatter to the winds. At every step they will insist on proof.
In the first place, then, let it be observed that the New Testament Scriptures are wholly without a parallel in respect of their having been so frequently multiplied from the very first. They are by consequence contained at this day in an extravagantly large number of copies [probably, if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evangelistaries, and Apostolos, exceeding the number of four thousand]. There is nothing like this, or at all approaching to it, in the case of any profane writing that can be named[1].
And the very necessity for multiplying copies,—a necessity which has made itself felt in every age and in every clime,—has perforce resulted in an immense number of variants. Words have been inevitably dropped,—vowels have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or less competent:—and the meaning of Scripture in countless places has suffered to a surprising degree in consequence. This first.
But then further, the Scriptures for the very reason because they were known to be the Word of God became a mark for the shafts of Satan from the beginning. They were by consequence as eagerly solicited by heretical teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by the orthodox on the other. Alike from friends and from foes therefore, they are known to have experienced injury, and that in the earliest age of all. Nothing of the kind can be predicated of any other ancient writings. This 13consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of judicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence of whatever sort.
For I request it may be observed that I have not said—and I certainly do not mean—that the Scriptures themselves have been permanently corrupted either by friend or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, and was contradicted by other error: besides that it sank eventually before a manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain manuscripts belonging to a few small groups—particular copies of a Version—individual Fathers or Doctors of the Church,—these do, to the present hour, bear traces incontestably of ancient mischief.
But what goes before is not nearly all. The fourfold structure of the Gospel has lent itself to a certain kind of licentious handling—of which in other ancient writings we have no experience. One critical owner of a Codex considered himself at liberty to assimilate the narratives: another to correct them in order to bring them into (what seemed to himself) greater harmony. Brevity is found to have been a paramount object with some, and Transposition to have amounted to a passion with others. Conjectural Criticism was evidently practised largely: and almost with as little felicity as when Bentley held the pen. Lastly, there can be no question that there was a certain school of Critics who considered themselves competent to improve the style of the Holy Ghost throughout. [And before the members of the Church had gained a familiar acquaintance with the words of the New Testament, blunders continually crept into the text of more or less heinous importance.] All this, which was chiefly done during the second and third centuries, introduces an element of difficulty in the handling of ancient evidence which can never be safely neglected: and will make a thoughtful man suspicious of every various reading which comes in his way, especially if it is attended 14with but slender attestation. [It has been already shewn in the companion volume] that the names of the Codexes chiefly vitiated in this sort prove to be BאCDL; of the Versions,—the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain specimens of the Old Latin; of the Fathers,—Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and to some extent Eusebius.
Add to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter of the New Testament Scriptures, and it will become abundantly plain why they should have been liable to a series of assaults which make it reasonable that they should now at last be approached by ourselves as no other ancient writings are, or can be. The nature of God,—His Being and Attributes:—the history of Man’s Redemption:—the soul’s eternal destiny:—the mysteries of the unseen world:—concerning these and every other similar high doctrinal subject, the sacred writings alone speak with a voice of absolute authority. And surely by this time enough has been said to explain why these Scriptures should have been made a battle-field during some centuries, and especially in the fourth; and having thus been made the subject of strenuous contention, that copies of them should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverse influences. I say it for the last time,—of all such causes of depravation the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers, Historians, neither knew nor could know anything. And it thus plainly appears that the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is to be handled by ourselves in an entirely different spirit from that of any other book.
§ 2.
I wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of the
Text of the New Testament. I do not entitle the present a discussion of ‘Various
Readings,’ because I consider that expression to be incorrect and misleading[1]. 15Freely allowing that the term ‘variae lectiones,’ for lack of
a better, may be allowed to stand on the Critic’s page, I yet think it necessary
even a second time to call attention to the impropriety which attends its use. Thus
Codex B differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture in the Gospels alone
in 7578 places; of which no less than 2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissions
constitute by far the larger number of what are commonly called ‘Various Readings.’
How then can those be called ‘various readings’ which are really not readings at
all? How, for example, can that be said to be a ‘various reading’ of St.
Waiving this however, the term is objectionable on other grounds. It is to beg the whole question to assume that every irregularity in the text of Scripture is a ‘various reading.’ The very expression carries with it an assertion of importance; at least it implies a claim to consideration. Even might it be thought that, because it is termed a ‘various reading,’ therefore a critic is entitled to call in question the commonly received text. Whereas, nine divergences out of ten are of no manner of significance and are entitled to no manner of consideration, as every one must see at a glance who will attend to the matter ever so little. ‘Various readings’ in fact is a term which belongs of right to the criticism of the text of profane authors: and, like many other notions which have been imported from the same region into this department of inquiry, it only tends to confuse and perplex the judgement.
16No variety in the Text of Scripture can properly be called a ‘various reading,’ of which it may be safely declared that it never has been, and never will be, read. In the case of profane authors, where the MSS. are for the most part exceedingly few, almost every plausible substitution of one word for another, if really entitled to alteration, is looked upon as a various reading of the text. But in the Gospels, of which the copies are so numerous as has been said, the case is far otherwise. We are there able to convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed ‘various reading’ is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness or inattention on the part of a previous scribe or scribes, and we can afford to neglect it accordingly[1]. It follows therefore,—and this is the point to which I desire to bring the reader and to urge upon his consideration,—that the number of ‘various readings’ in the New Testament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated. They are, in reality, exceedingly few in number; and it is to be expected that, as sound (sacred) Criticism advances, and principles are established, and conclusions recognized, instead of becoming multiplied they will become fewer and fewer, and at last will entirely disappear. We cannot afford to go on disputing for ever; and what is declared by common consent to be untenable ought to be no longer reckoned. That only in short, as I venture to think, deserves the name of a Various Reading which comes to us so respectably recommended as to be entitled to our sincere consideration and respect; or, better still, which is of such a kind as to inspire some degree of reasonable suspicion that after all it may prove to be the true way of exhibiting the text.
17The inquiry therefore on which we are about to engage, grows naturally out of the considerations which have been already offered. We propose to ascertain, as far as is practicable at the end of so many hundred years, in what way these many strange corruptions of the text have arisen. Very often we shall only have to inquire how it has come to pass that the text exhibits signs of perturbation at a certain place. Such disquisitions as those which follow, let it never be forgotten, have no place in reviewing any other text than that of the New Testament, because a few plain principles would suffice to solve every difficulty. The less usual word mistaken for the word of mare frequent occurrence;—clerical carelessness;—a gloss finding its way from the margin into the text;—such explanations as these would probably in other cases suffice to account for every ascertained corruption of the text. But it is far otherwise here, as I propose to make fully apparent by and by. Various disturbing influences have been at work for a great many years, of which secular productions know absolutely nothing, nor indeed can know.
The importance of such an inquiry will become apparent as we proceed; but it may be convenient that I should call attention to the matter briefly at the outset. It frequently happens that the one remaining plea of many critics for adopting readings of a certain kind, is the inexplicable nature of the phenomena which these readings exhibit. ‘How will you possibly account for such a reading as the present,’ (say they,) ‘if it be not authentic?’ Or they say nothing, but leave it to be inferred that the reading they adopt,—in spite of its intrinsic improbability, in spite also of the slender amount of evidence on which it rests,—must needs be accepted as true. They lose sight of the correlative difficulty:—How comes it to pass that the rest of the copies read the place otherwise? On all such occasions it is impossible to overestimate the importance of detecting 18the particular cause which has brought about, or which at least will fully account for, this depravation. When this has been done, it is hardly too much to say that a case presents itself like as when a pasteboard mask has been torn away, and the ghost is discovered with a broad grin on his face behind it.
The discussion on which I now enter is then on the Causes of the various Corruptions of the Text. [The reader shall be shewn with illustrations to what particular source they are to be severally ascribed. When representative passages have been thus labelled, and the causes are seen in operation, he will be able to pierce the mystery, and all the better to winnow the evil from among the good.]
§ 3.
When I take into my hands an ancient copy of the Gospels, I expect that it will exhibit sundry inaccuracies and imperfections: and I am never disappointed in my expectation. The discovery however creates no uneasiness, so long as the phenomena evolved are of a certain kind and range within easily definable limits. Thus:—
1. Whatever belongs to peculiarities of spelling or fashions of writing, I can afford to disregard. For example, it is clearly consistent with perfect good faith, that a scribe should spell κράβαττον[1] in several different ways: that he should write οὕτω for οὕτως, or the contrary: that he should add or omit what grammarians call the ν ἐφελκυστικόν. The questions really touched by irregularities such as these concern the date and country where the MS. was produced; not by any means the honesty or animus of the copyist. The man fell into the method which was natural to him, or which he found prevailing around him; and that was all. 19‘Itacisms’ therefore, as they are called, of whatever kind,—by which is meant the interchange of such vowels and diphthongs as ι–ει, αι–ε, η–ι, η–οι–υ, ο–ω, η–ει,—need excite no uneasiness. It is true that these variations may occasionally result in very considerable inconvenience: for it will sometimes happen that a different reading is the consequence. But the copyist may have done his work in perfect good faith for all that. It is not he who is responsible for the perplexity he occasions me, but the language and the imperfect customs amidst which he wrote.
2. In like manner the reduplication of syllables, words, clauses, sentences, is consistent with entire sincerity of purpose on the part of the copyist. This inaccuracy is often to be deplored; inasmuch as a reduplicated syllable often really affects the sense. But for the most part nothing worse ensues than that the page is disfigured with errata.
3. So, on the other hand,—the occasional omission of words, whether few or many,—especially that passing from one line to the corresponding place in a subsequent line, which generally results from the proximity of a similar ending,—is a purely venial offence. It is an evidence of carelessness, but it proves nothing worse.
4. Then further,—slight inversions, especially of ordinary words; or the adoption of some more obvious and familiar collocation of particles in a sentence; or again, the occasional substitution of one common word for another, as εἶπε for ἔλεγε, φώνησαν for κράξαν, and the like;—need not provoke resentment. It is an indication, we are willing to hope, of nothing worse than slovenliness on the part of the writer or the group or succession of writers.
5. I will add that besides the substitution of one word for another, cases frequently occur, where even the introduction into the text of one or more words which cannot be thought to have stood in the original autograph of the 20Evangelist, need create no offence. It is often possible to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way.
But it is high time to point out, that irregularities which fall under these last heads are only tolerable within narrow limits, and always require careful watching; for they may easily become excessive or even betray an animus; and in either case they pass at once into quite a different category. From cases of excusable oscitancy they degenerate, either into instances of inexcusable licentiousness, or else into cases of downright fraud.
6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex (a) that entire sentences or significant clauses are habitually omitted:—(b) that again and again in the course of the same page the phraseology of the Evangelist has upon clear evidence been seriously tampered with: and (c) that interpolations here and there occur which will not admit of loyal interpretation:—we cannot but learn to regard with habitual distrust the Codex in which all these notes are found combined. It is as when a witness, whom we suspected of nothing worse than a bad memory or a random tongue or a lively imagination, has been at last convicted of deliberate suppression of parts of his evidence, misrepresentation of facts,—in fact, deliberate falsehood.
7. But now suppose the case of a MS. in which words or clauses are clearly omitted with design; where expressions are withheld which are confessedly harsh or critically difficult,—whole sentences or parts of them which have a known controversial bearing;—Suppose further that the same MS. abounds in worthless paraphrase, and contains apocryphal additions throughout:—What are we to think of our guide then? There can be but one opinion on the subject. From habitually trusting, we shall entertain inveterate distrust. We have ascertained his character. We thought he was a faithful witness, but we now find from experience of his transgressions that 21we have fallen into bad company. His witness may be false no less than true: confidence is at an end.
§ 4.
It may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations discoverable in Codexes of the Sacred Text have arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency of the scribes. That such was the case in a vast number of cases is in fact demonstrable. [Inaccuracy in the apprehension of the Divine Word, which in the earliest ages was imperfectly understood, and ignorance of Greek in primitive Latin translators, were prolific sources of error. The influence of Lectionaries, in which Holy Scripture was cut up into separate Lections either with or without an introduction, remained with habitual hearers, and led them off in copying to paths which had become familiar. Acquaintance with ‘Harmonies’ or Diatessarons caused copyists insensibly to assimilate one Gospel to another. And doctrinal predilections, as in the case of those who belonged to the Origenistic school, were the source of lapsing into expressions which were not the verba ipsissima of Holy Writ. In such cases, when the inadvertency was genuine and was unmingled with any overt design, it is much to be noted that the error seldom propagated itself extensively.]
But next, well-meant endeavours must have been made at a very
early period to ‘rectify’ (διορθοῦν)
the text thus unintentionally corrupted; and so, what
began in inadvertence is sometimes found in the end to exhibit traces of design,
and often becomes in a high degree perplexing. Thus, to cite a favourite example,
it is clear to
me that in the earliest age of all (A.D. 100?) some copyist of St.
I once hoped that it might be possible to refer all the Corruptions of the Text of Scripture to ordinary causes: as, careless transcription,—divers accidents,—misplaced critical assiduity,—doctrinal animus,—small acts of unpardonable licence.
But increased attention and enlarged acquaintance with the subject, have convinced me that by far the larger number of the omissions of such. Codexes as אBLD must needs be due to quite a different cause. These MSS. omit so many words, phrases, sentences, verses of Scripture,—that it is altogether incredible that the proximity of like endings can have much to do with the matter. Inadvertency may be made to bear the blame of some omissions: it cannot bear the blame of shrewd and significant omissions of clauses, which invariably leave the sense complete. A systematic and perpetual mutilation of the inspired Text must needs be the result of design, not of accident[1].
[It will be seen therefore that the causes of the Corruptions of the Text class themselves under two main heads, viz. (I.) Those which arose from Inadvertency, and (II.) Those which took their origin in Design.]
24Chapter II. Accidental Causes of Corruption. I. Pure Accident.
[IT often happens that more causes than one are combined in the origin of the corruption in any one passage. In the following history of a blunder and of the fatal consequences that ensued upon it, only the first step was accidental. But much instruction may be derived from the initial blunder, and though the later stages in the history come under another head, they nevertheless illustrate the effects of early accident, besides throwing light upon parts of the discussion which are yet to come.]
§ 1.
We are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress of accidental
depravations of the text: and the study is as instructive as it is interesting.
Let me invite attention to what is found in St.
St. John certainly wrote the familiar words,—ὁ πατήρ μου
25ὃς δέδωκέ μοι, μείζων ἐστί. But, with the licentiousness
[or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, some remote copyist is
found to have substituted for ὃς δέδωκε, its grammatical equivalent
ὁς δεδωκώς. And this proved fatal; for it was only necessary that another scribe
should substitute μεῖζον for μείζων (after the example of such places as St.
This last exhibition of the text, which in fact scarcely yields an intelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum of manuscript evidence, would long since have been forgotten, but that, calamitously for the Western Church, its Version of the New Testament Scriptures was executed from MSS. of the same vicious type as Cod. B[1]. Accordingly, all the Latin copies, and therefore all the Latin Fathers[1], translate,—‘Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus omnibus est[1].’ The Westerns resolutely extracted a meaning from whatever they presumed to be genuine Scripture: 26and one can but admire the piety which insists on finding sound Divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else but a sorry blunder. What, asks Augustine, ‘was the thing, greater than all,’ which the Father gave to the Son? To be the Word of the Father (he answers), His only-begotten Son and the brightness of His glory[1]. The Greeks knew better. Basil[1], Chrysostom[1], Cyril on nine occasions[1], Theodoret[1]—as many as quote the place—invariably exhibit the textus receptus ὃς . . . μείζων, which is obviously the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation.
‘But,’—I shall perhaps be asked,—‘although Patristic and manuscript
evidence are wanting for the reading ὃ δεδωκέ μοι. . . μείζων,—is
it not a significant circumstance that three translations of such high antiquity
as the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should concur in supporting it? and
does it not inspire extraordinary confidence in B to find that B alone of MSS. agrees
with them?’ To which I answer,—It makes me, on the contrary, more and more distrustful
of the Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic versions to find them exclusively siding
with Cod. B on such an occasion as the present. It is obviously not more ‘significant’ that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should here conspire with—than that
the Syriac, the Sahidic, and the Ethiopic, should here combine against B. On the
other hand, how utterly insignificant is the testimony of B when opposed to all
the uncials, all the cursives, and all the Greek fathers who quote the place. So
far from inspiring me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatal
sympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which confessedly many of the
Old Latin were executed, confirms 27me in my habitual distrust of it. About the true reading
of St.
§ 2.
I do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to grave disturbances of the Text which have resulted from a slight clerical error. While we are enumerating the various causes of Textual depravity, we may not fail to specify this. Once trace a serious Textual disturbance back to (what for convenience may be called) a ‘clerical error,’ and you are supplied with an effectual answer to a form of inquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing: viz. If the true meaning of this passage be what you suppose, for what conceivable reason should the scribe have misrepresented it in this strange way,—made nonsense, in short, of the place? . . . I will further remark, that it is always interesting, sometimes instructive, after detecting the remote origin of an ancient blunder, to note what has been its subsequent history and progress.
Some specimens of the thing referred to I have already given
in another place. The reader is invited to acquaint himself with the strange process
by which the 276 souls’ who suffered shipwreck with St. Paul (
Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in
For οὐδενὸς λοΓΟΝ, (the accusative after ποιοῦμαι), some one having substituted οὐδενὸς λοΓΟΥ,—a reading which survives to this hour in B and C[1],—it became necessary to find something else for the verb to govern. Τὴν ψυχήν was at hand, but οὐδὲ ἔχω stood in the way. Οὐδὲ ἔχω must therefore go[1]; and go it did,—as B, C, and א remain to 29attest. Τιμίαν should have gone also, if the sentence was to be made translatable but τιμίαν was left behind[1]. The authors of ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers. In the meantime, Cod. א inadvertently retained St. Luke’s word, ΛΟΓΟΝ; and because א here follows B in every other respect, it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible[1].
Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words οὐδὲ ἔχω τὴν ψυχήν μου τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ, may on no account be surrendered. It is indeed beyond the reach of suspicion, being found in Codd. A, D, E, H, L, 13, 31,—in fact in every known copy of the Acts, except the discordant אBC. The clause in question is further witnessed to by the Vulgate[1],—by the Harkleian[1],—by Basil[1],—by Chrysostom[1],—by Cyril[1],—by Euthalius[1],—and by the interpolator 30of Ignatius[1]. What are we to think of our guides (Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who have nevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and presented us instead with what Dr. Field,—who is indeed a Master in Israel,—describes as the impossible ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς λόγου ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ[1]?
The words of the last-named eminent scholar on the reading just cited are so valuable in themselves, and are observed to be so often in point, that they shall find place here:—‘Modern Critics,’ he says, in deference to the authority of the older MSS., and to certain critical canons which prescribe that preference should be given to the shorter and more difficult reading over the longer and easier one, have decided that the T. R. in this passage is to be replaced by that which is contained in those older MSS.
‘In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term seems hardly applicable to the present case. A difficult reading is one which presents something apparently incongruous in the sense, or anomalous in the construction, which an ignorant or half-learned copyist would endeavour, by the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, to remove; but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation, and a comparison of similar cases, to defend against all such fancied improvements. In the reading before us, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς λόγου ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ, it is the construction, and not the sense, which is in question; and this is not simply difficult, but impossible. There is really no way of getting over it; it baffles novices and experts alike[1]: When will men believe that a reading vouched for by only 31BאC is safe to be a fabrication[1]? But at least when Copies and Fathers combine, as here they do, against those three copies, what can justify critics in upholding a text which carries on its face its own condemnation?
§ 3.
We now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten Ist
or IInd century scribes who, beguiled by the similarity of the letters ΕΝ and ΑΝ
(in the expression ΕΝ ΑΝ-θρωποις ευδοκια,
St.
That this is the true history of a blunder which the latest Editors of the New Testament have mistaken for genuine Gospel, is I submit certain[1]. Most Latin copies (except 14[1]) exhibit ‘pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,’ as well as many Latin Fathers[1]. On the other hand, the preposition ΕΝ is 32retained in every known Greek copy of St. Luke without exception, while the reading εὐδοκίας is absolutely limited to the four uncials ABאD. The witness of antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive.
§ 4.
In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,—is discoverable.
Thus whereas St. Mark (in
Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly
be mistaken for the first syllable of the next, or vice versa, it is safe
sooner or later to have misled somebody. Thus, we are not at all surprised to
find St. Mark’s ἃ παρέλαβον
(
[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied
by the substitution in St.
Strange to say it results in the following monstrous figment:—that the fruit of Herod’s incestuous connexion with Herodias had been a daughter, who was also named 33Herodias; and that she,—the King’s own daughter,—was the immodest one[1] who came in and danced before him, ‘his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee,’ as they sat at the birthday banquet. Probability, natural feeling, the obvious requirements of the narrative, History itself—, for Josephus expressly informs us that ‘Salome,’ not Herodias,’ was the name of ‘Herodias’ daughter[1],—all reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the truth. But what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settles the question, is the testimony of the MSS.,—of which only seven (אBDLΔ with two cursive copies) can be found to exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading ΑΥΤΟΥ is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Alford. It has nevertheless found favour with Dr. Hort; and it has even been thrust into the margin of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, as a reading having some probability.
This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidental errors—another proof that אBDL cannot be trusted.
Sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present erroneous
reading was brought to perfection. The immediate proximity in MSS. of the selfsame
combination of letters is observed invariably to result in a various reading. ΑΥΤΗCΤΗC was safe to
part with its second ΤΗC on the first opportunity, and the definitive article
(τῆς) once lost, the substitution of ΑΥΤΟΥ for
ΑΥΤΗC is just such a mistake
as a copyist with ill-directed intelligence would be sure to fall into if he were
bestowing sufficient attention on the subject to be aware that the person spoken
of in
[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was a frequent source of error. Copying has 34always a tendency to become mechanical: and when the mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his monotonous toil, as well as if it became too active, the sacred Text suffered more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the seed of serious depravation.]
§ 5.
Another interesting and instructive instance of error originating
in sheer accident, is supplied
by the reading in certain MSS. of St.
This blunder must date from the second century, for ‘iterum’ is met with in the Old Latin as well as in the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic, and some other versions. On the other hand, it is against ‘every true principle of Textual Criticism’ (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that the more difficult expression should be abandoned for the easier, when forty-nine out of every fifty MSS. are observed to uphold it; when the oldest version of all, the Syriac, is on the same side; when the source of the mistake is patent; and when the rarer word is observed to be in St. Mark’s peculiar manner. There could be in fact no hesitation on this subject, if the opposition had not been headed by those notorious false witnesses אBDL, which it is just now the fashion to uphold at all hazards. They happen to be supported on this occasion by GMNΔ and 35fifteen cursives: while two other cursives look both ways and exhibit πάλιν παμπόλλου.
In St.
So again in St.
Chapter III. Accidental Causes of Corruption. II. Homoeoteleuton.
NO one who finds the syllable ΟΙ recurring six times over in
about as many words,—e. g. καὶ ἐγένετο, ὡς ἀπῆλθον . . . ΟΙ ἄγγελΟΙ, καὶ ΟΙ
ἄνθρωπΟΙ ΟΙ πΟΙμένες εἶπον,—is
surprised to learn that MSS. of a certain type exhibit serious
perturbation in that place. Accordingly, BLΞ: leave out the words
καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι; and
in that mutilated form the modern critical editors are contented to exhibit St.
ΟΙ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙ [ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΑΝΟΙ ΟΙ] ΠΟΙΜΕΝΕC |
}or else{ | ΟΙ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙ [ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΑΝΟΙ] ΟΙ ΠΟΙΜΕΝΕC |
Another such place is found in St.
διέδωκεν
τοις [μαθηταις,
οι δε μαθηται
τοις] ανακειμενοις.
The one sufficient proof that St. John did so write, being the
testimony of the MSS. Moreover, we are expressly assured by St. Matthew (
Indeed, there does not exist a source of error which has proved more fatal to the transcribers of MSS. than the proximity of identical, or nearly identical, combinations of letters. And because these are generally met with in the final syllables of words, the error referred to is familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes ‘likeness of ending’ (Homoeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe on reverting from his copy to the original before him is of necessity apt sometimes to alight on the same word, or what looks like the same word, a little lower down. 38The consequence is obvious. All that should have come in between gets omitted, or sometimes duplicated.
It is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to find
oneself in this way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, perhaps thirty words, no very
serious consequence for the most part ensues. Nevertheless, the result is often
sheer nonsense. When this is the case, it is loyally admitted by all. A single example
may stand for a hundred. [In St.
But it requires very little familiarity with the subject to be
aware that occasions must inevitably be even of frequent occurrence when the result
is calamitous, and even perplexing, in the extreme. The writings of Apostles and
Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine Lord Himself, abound in short formulae; and the intervening matter on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence,
which occasionally may be discovered from its context without evident injury to
the general meaning of the place. Thus [
Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote period; (for there have been careless scribes in every age:) and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist (suppose) in several of the known copies; and if,—as very often is the case,—it is discoverable in two or more of the ‘old uncials,’ all hope of its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead of being loyally recognized as a blunder,—which it clearly is,—it is forthwith charged upon the Apostle or Evangelist as the case may be. In other words, it is taken for granted that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an unauthorized accretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a hundred which contain the missing words. I proceed to give an instance of my meaning.
Our Saviour,
having declared (St.
And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are genuine. Those thirty-one letters probably formed three lines in the oldest copies of all. Hence they are observed to exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleian and Jerusalem), the Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including ΒΦΣ), and the vast majority of the cursives. So that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.
A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from precisely
the same cause meets us a little further
on in the same Gospel. The threefold recurrence of των in the expression
ΤῶΝ ψιχίων
ΤῶΝ πιπτόν ΤωΝ
(St.
[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age of the Text of the Gospels. Before the sense of the exact expressions of the Written Word was impressed upon the mind of the Church,—when the Canon was not definitely acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet gathered round writings which had been recently composed,—severe accuracy was not to be expected. Errors would be sure to arise, especially from accident, and early ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny; besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations would give rise in the course of natural development to serious and perplexing corruptions.
In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come under consideration.]
42Chapter IV. Accidental Causes of Corruption. III. From Writing in Unicals.
§ 1.
CORRUPT readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character, without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the text. Especially are they found in places where there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence.
St.
The only point of importance however is the position of ἤδη:
which is claimed for
§ 2.
Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in the parable of the prodigal ‘And I perish here with hunger!’ But why ‘here?’ Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood thus,—ΕΓωΔΕΛΙΜωΑΠΟΛΛΥΜΑΙ, some careless scribe after writing ΕΓωΔΕ, reduplicated the three last letters (ωΔΕ): he mistook them for an independent word. 44Accordingly in the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter εγω δε ωδε. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained to superadd ‘transposition,’ as was done by אBL. From εγω δε ωδε λιμω the sentence has now developed into εγω δε λιμω ωδε: which approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alford and Westcott and Hort, and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, ἐγὼ δὲ ὧδε is: for it is found in the Latin[1] and the Syriac translations. It must therefore date from the second century. But it is a blunder notwithstanding: a blunder against which 16 uncials and the whole body of the cursives bear emphatic witness[1]. Having detected its origin, we have next to trace its progress.
The inventors of ὧδε or other scribes quickly saw that this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the sentence. Accordingly, the same primitive authorities which advocate ‘here,’ are observed also to advocate, above, ‘in my Father’s house.’ No extant Greek copy is known to contain the bracketed words in the sentence [ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ πατρός μου: but such copies must have existed in the second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis recognize the three words in question; as well as copies of the Latin with which Jerome[1], Augustine[1] and Cassian[1] were acquainted. The phrase ‘in domo patris mei’ has accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely we of the Church of England who have been hitherto spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step. Our Lord intended no contrast whatever between two 45localities—but between two parties. The comfortable estate of the hired servants He set against the abject misery of the Son: not the house wherein the servants dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing when he came to a better mind.—These are many words; but I know not how to be briefer. And,—what is worthy of discussion, if not the utterances of ‘the Word made flesh?’
If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any
quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in אBL. What else but
the instinct of a trained understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place
like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in
Which certainly he did not say[1]. Moreover, אBLX and the Old Latin are for thrusting in ταχυ (D ταχεως) after ἐξενέγκατε. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to improve upon the inspired original?
From the fact that three words in St.
§ 3.
St. Luke explains (
‘Euornotus is so called as intervening immediately between Eurus and Notus, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The same holds true of Libonotus, as being interposed between Libs and Notus. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and 47no other wind intervenes. But Eurus and Aquilo are at 90° distance from one another; or according to some writers, at 105°; the former lying in the south-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one of which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and Subsolanus[1].’
Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossible
Latin name? The ship was ‘a ship of Alexandria’ (
In St.
St. |
become | κατευλογει (אBC) |
” |
” | εξεθαυμασαν (אB) |
” |
” | καταβεβαρημενοι (AאB) |
It is impossible to doubt that και (in modern critical
editions of St.
It is proposed that we should henceforth read St.
οἵτινες λέγουσιν ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι (St.
Mark xii. 18 ) and
οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι (St.Luke xx. 27 )
may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists. Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial copy:
CΑΔΔΟΥΚΑΙΟΙΟΙΛΕΓΟΝΤΕS
and really nothing more requires to be said. The second ΟΙ was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like 50that. It might also have been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent ΚΑΙ. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian render the place ‘et dicentes;’ shewing that they mistook ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΕS for a separate phrase.
§ 4.
The termination ΤΟ (in certain tenses of the verb), when followed by the neuter article,
naturally leads to confusion; sometimes to uncertainty. In St.
The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in St.
Akin to the foregoing are all those instances,—and they are literally without number—, where the proximity of a like ending has been the fruitful cause of error. Let me explain: for this is a matter which cannot be too thoroughly apprehended.
Such a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit will shew my meaning.
In the expression ἐσθῆτα λαμπρὰν ἀνέπεμψεν
(St.
The letters ΝΑΙΚωΝΑΙΚΑΙ in the expression
(St.
Thus also the reading εν ολη τη Γαλιλαια
(B) in St.
B reads καὶ περιῆγεν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.
א ” καὶ περιῆγεν ὁ ῑς̄ ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.
C ” καὶ περιῆγεν ὁ ῑς̄ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.
But—(I shall be asked)—what about the position of the Sacred Name? How comes it to pass that ὁ Ἰησοῦς, which comes after Γαλιλαίαν in almost every other known copy, should come after ριῆγεν ὁ in three of these venerable authorities (in D as well as in א and C), and in the Latin, Peshitto, Lewis, and Harkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers at all events (who simply follow B in leaving out ὁ Ἰησοῦς altogether) will not ask me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is sure to ask it.
52The phrase (I
reply) is derived by אCD from the twin place in St. Matthew
(
§ 5.
The introduction of
ἀπό in the place of ἅγιοι
made by the ‘Revisers’ into the Greek Text of
Another excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished
by
§ 6.
I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second to none
in suggestiveness. ‘Whom will ye that I release unto you?’ asked Pilate on a memorable
occasion[1]: and we all remember how his enquiry proceeds. But the discovery is
made that, in an early age there existed copies of the Gospel which proceeded thus,—‘Jesus [who is called[1]] Barabbas, or
Jesus who is called Christ?’ 54Origen so quotes the place, but ‘In many copies,’ he proceeds,
‘mention is not made that Barabbas was also called Jesus: and those copies may perhaps be
right,—else would the name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked,—of which no instance
occurs in any part of the Bible: nor is it fitting that the name of Jesus should
like Judas have been borne by saint and sinner alike. ‘I think,’ Origen adds, ‘something
of this sort must have been an interpolation of the heretics[1].’ From this we are clearly
intended to infer that
‘Jesus Barabbas’ was the prevailing reading of St.
The sum of the matter is probably this:—Some inattentive
second century copyist [probably a Western Translator into Syriac who was an
indifferent Greek scholar] mistook the final syllable of ‘unto you’ (ΥΜΙΝ) for the word
‘Jesus’ (ῙΝ̄): in other words, carelessly
reduplicated the last two letters of ΥΜΙΝ,—from which, strange to say, results
the form of inquiry noticed at the outset. Origen caught sight of the extravagance,
and condemned it though he fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500 55years. Then about just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, Tischendorf
and Tregelles began to construct that ‘fabric of Textual Criticism’ which has been
the cause of the present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt the
suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is supported by no surviving uncial,
and in fact advocates the very origin of the mischief which has been just described].
But, as every one must see, such things as these are not ‘readings’ at
all, nor even the work of ‘the heretics;’ but simply transcriptional mistakes.
How Dr. Hort, admitting the blunder, yet pleads that ‘this remarkable reading is
attractive by the new and interesting fact which it seems to attest, and by the
antithetic force which it seems to add to the question in
Chapter V. Accidental Causes of Corruption. IV. Itacism.
[IT has been already shewn in the First Volume that the Art of Transcription on vellum did not reach perfection till after the lapse of many centuries in the life of the Church. Even in the minute elements of writing much uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successive ages. It by no means followed that, if a scribe possessed a correct auricular knowledge of the Text, he would therefore exhibit it correctly on parchment. Copies were largely disfigured with misspelt words. And vowels especially were interchanged; accordingly, such change became in many instances the cause of corruption, and is known in Textual Criticism under the name ‘Itacism.’]
§ I.
It may seem to a casual reader that in what follows undue attention is being paid to minute particulars. But it constantly happens,—and this is a sufficient answer to the supposed objection,—that, from exceedingly minute and seemingly trivial mistakes, there result sometimes considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of the Spirit’s meaning. New incidents:—unheard-of statements:—facts as yet unknown to readers of Scripture:—57perversions of our Lord’s Divine sayings:—such phenomena are observed to follow upon the omission of the article,—the insertion of an expletive,—the change of a single letter. Thus παλιν, thrust in where it has no business, makes it appear that our Saviour promised to return the ass on which He- rode in triumph into Jerusalem[1]. By writing ω for ο, many critics have transferred some words from the lips of Christ to those of His Evangelist, and made Him say what He never could have dreamed of saying[1]. By subjoining ς to a word in a place which it has no right to fill, the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marred effectually, and a sentence produced which defies translation[1]. By omitting τῷ and Κύριε, the repenting malefactor is made to say, ‘Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom[1].’
Speaking of our Saviour’s triumphal
entry into Jerusalem, which took place ‘the day after’ ‘they made Him a supper,’
and Lazarus ‘which had been dead, whom He raised from the dead,’ sat at the table
with Him’ (St.
The same mistake—of ὅτι for ὅτε—is met with at
§ 2.
[A suggestive example[1] of the corruption introduced
by a petty Itacism may be found in
An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the
Textus Receptus may be seen in St.
Again, in St.
Another case of confusion between ω and ο may be seen in St.
§ 3.
Another minute but interesting indication of the accuracy and
fidelity with which the cursive copies were made, is supplied by the constancy with
which they witness to the preposition ἐν (not the numeral
ἓν) in St.
Codd. אCA (two ever licentious and Δ similarly so throughout
St. Mark) substitute for the preposition ἐν the preposition εἰς,—(a sufficient proof to me that they understand
ΕΝ to represent ἐν, not ἓν): and are followed
by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As for the chartered 64libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the first
ἐν (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the preposition
ΕΙC: while,
in
§ 4.
St. Paul[1] in his Epistle to Titus [
Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott
and Hort, because they find οἰκουργούς in
א*ACD*F-G, are for thrusting that ‘barbarous
and scarcely intelligible’ word, if it be not even a non-existent[1], into
So again, in the cry of the demoniacs,
τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί,
Ἰησοῦ, υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ
(St.
The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is inspected:—ΚΑΙCΟΙΙΥΥΙΕΤΟΥΘΥ:—the recurrence of the same letters caused too great a strain to scribes, and the omission of two of them was the result of ordinary human infirmity.
Indeed, to this same source are to be attributed an extraordinary number of so-called ‘various readings’; but which in reality, as has already been shewn, are nothing else but a collection of mistakes,—the surviving tokens that anciently, as now, copying clerks left out words; whether misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending, or by the speedy recurrence of the like letters, or by some other phenomenon with which most men’s acquaintance with books have long since made them familiar.
67Chapter VI. Accidental Causes of Corruption. V. Liturgical Influence.
THERE is one distinct class of evidence provided by Almighty God for the conservation of the deposit in its integrity[1] which calls for special notice in this place. The Lectionaries of the ancient Church have not yet nearly enjoyed the attention they deserve, or the laborious study which in order to render them practically available they absolutely require. Scarcely any persons, in fact, except professed critics, are at all acquainted with the contents of the very curious documents alluded to: while collations of any of them which have been hitherto effected are few indeed. I speak chiefly of the Books called Evangelistaria (or Evangeliaria), in other words, the proper lessons collected out of the Gospels, and transcribed into a separate volume. Let me freely admit that I subjoin a few observations on this subject with unfeigned diffidence; having had to teach myself throughout the little I know;—and discovering in the end how very insufficient for my purpose that little is. Properly handled, an adequate study of the Lectionaries of the ancient Church would become the labour 68of a life. We require exact collations of at least too of them. From such a practical acquaintance with about a tenth of the extant copies some very interesting results would infallibly be obtained[1].
As for the external appearance of these documents, it may be enough to say that they range, like the mass of uncial and cursive copies, over a space of about 700 years,—the oldest extant being of about the eighth century, and the latest dating in the fifteenth. Rarely are any so old as the former date,—or so recent as the last named. When they began to be executed is not known; but much older copies than any which at present exist must have perished through constant use: [for they are in perfect order when we first become acquainted with them, and as a whole they are remarkably consistent with one another]. They are almost invariably written in double columns, and not unfrequently are splendidly executed. The use of Uncial letters is observed to have been retained in documents of this class to a later period than in the case of the Evangelia, viz. down to the eleventh century. For the most part they are furnished with a kind of musical notation executed in vermilion; evidently intended to guide the reader in that peculiar recitative which is still customary in the oriental Church.
In these books the Gospels always stand in the following order: St. John: St. Matthew: St. Luke: St. Mark. The lessons are brief,—resembling the Epistles and Gospels in our Book of Common Prayer.
They seem to me to fall into two classes: (a) Those which contain a lesson for every day in the year: (b) Those which only contain [lessons for fixed Festivals and] the Saturday-Sunday lessons (σαββατοκυριακαί). We are reminded 69by this peculiarity that it was not till a very late period in her history that the Eastern Church was able to shake herself clear of the shadow of the old Jewish Sabbath[1]. [To these Lectionaries Tables of the Lessons were often added, of a similar character to those which we have in our Prayer-books. The Table of daily Lessons went under the title of Synaxarion (or Eclogadion); and the Table of the Lessons of immovable Festivals and Saints’ days was styled Menologion[1].]
Liturgical use has proved a fruitful source of textual perturbation. Nothing less was to have been expected,—as every one must admit who has examined ancient Evangelia with any degree of attention. For a period before the custom arose of writing out the Ecclesiastical Lections in the ‘Evangelistaries,’ and ‘Apostolos,’ it may be regarded as certain that the practice generally prevailed of accommodating an ordinary copy, whether of the Gospels or of the Epistles, to the requirements of the Church. This continued to the last to be a favourite method with the ancients[1]. Not only was it the invariable liturgical practice to introduce an ecclesiastical lection with an ever-varying formula,—by which means the holy Name is often found in MSS. where it has no proper place,—but notes of time, &c., [‘like the unique and indubitably genuine word δευτεροπρώτῳ[1],’ are omitted as carrying no moral lesson, as well as longer passages like the case of the two verses recounting the ministering Angel with the Agony and the Bloody Sweat[1].
70That Lessons from the New Testament were probably read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an established system, at least as early as the fourth century, has been shewn to follow from plain historical fact in the tenth chapter of the Twelve Last Verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, to which the reader is referred for more detailed information. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—and by implication, his namesake at Alexandria,—Chrysostom, at Antioch and at Constantinople,—Augustine, in Africa,—all four expressly witness to the circumstance. In other words, there is found to have been at least at that time fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the West and in the East. That it must have been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferred from several considerations[1]. For example, Marcion, in A. D. 140, would hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and Apostolicon of his own, as we learn from Epiphanius[1], if he had not been induced by the Lectionary System prevailing around him to form a counterplan of teaching upon the same model.]
Indeed, the high antiquity of the Church’s Lectionary System is inferred with certainty from many a textual phenomenon with which students of Textual Science are familiar.
It may be helpful to a beginner if I introduce to his notice
the class of readings to be discussed
in the present chapter, by inviting his attention to the first words of the Gospel
for St. Philip and St. James’ Day in our own English Book of Common Prayer,—‘And
Jesus said unto His 71disciples.’ Those words he sees at a glance are undeniably nothing
else but an Ecclesiastical accretion to the Gospel,—words which breed offence
in no quarter, and occasion error to
none. They have nevertheless stood prefixed to St.
I proceed to cite another instance; and here the success of
an ordinary case of Lectionary licence will be perceived to have been complete:
for besides recommending itself to Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott
and Hort, the blunder in question has established itself in the pages of the Revised
Version. Reference is made to an alteration of the Text occurring in certain copies
of
But by far the most considerable injury which has resulted to the Gospel from this cause is the suspicion which has alighted in certain quarters on the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark. [Those verses made up by themselves a complete Lection. The preceding Lection, which was used on the Second Sunday after Easter, was closed with the Liturgical note ‘The End,’ or ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟC, occurring after the eighth verse. What more probable, nay, more certain result could there be, than that some scribe should mistake the end of the Lection for the end of St. Mark’s Gospel, if the last leaf should chance to have been torn off, and should then transcribe no more[1]? How natural that St. Mark should express himself in a more condensed and abrupt style than usual. This of course is only put forward as an explanation, which leaves the notion of another writer and a later date unnecessary. If it can be improved upon, so much the better. Candid critics ought to study Dean Burgon’s elaborate chapter already referred to before rejecting it.]
And there probably does not exist, in the whole compass of the
Gospel, a more interesting instance of this than is furnished by the words
εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος, in
St.
Indeed, when the expressions are considered, it is perceived
that this account of them must needs be the true one. Thus, we learn from the
Another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating in the
same way is found a little farther on. In St.
Indeed, it is surprising what a fertile source of corruption
Liturgical usage has proved. Every careful student of the Gospels remembers that
St. Matthew describes our Lord’s first and second missionary journey in very nearly the same words.
The former place (
But sometimes corruptions of this class are really perplexing. Thus א testifies
to the existence of a short additional clause (καὶ πολλοὶ ἡκολούθησαν αὐτῷ) at
the end,
75as some critics say, of the same
This is the reason why, in certain of the oldest documents accessible,
such a strange amount of discrepancy is discoverable in the text of the first words of St.
Take another instance. St.
Let us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach’s latest editor) that
‘the quotation is not in Mark’s manner; that the formula which introduces it is
John’s: and that it seems to be a gloss taken from
Now it happens that all the Uncials but six and an immense majority
of the Cursive copies contain the words before us:—that besides these, the Old
Latin, the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur
in exhibiting them:—that the same words are expressly recognized by the Sectional
System of Eusebius;—having a section (σις/η i.e. 216/8) to themselves—which
is the weightiest sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words of
Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac sectional system (260/8), which is diverse from that
of Eusebius and independent of it. What then is to be set against such a
weight of ancient evidence? The fact that the following six Codexes are without
this
Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers before antiquity. Codex D is of the sixth century; Cod. X not older than the ninth: and not one of the four Codexes which remain is so old, within perhaps two centuries, as 77either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We have Eusebius and Jerome’s Vulgate as witnesses on the same side, besides the Gothic version, which represents a Codex probably as old as either. To these witnesses must be added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St. Mark’s Gospel before either A or C were written[1].
It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have learned to regard whatever is found in B or א as oracular,— ‘But is it credible that on a point like this such authorities as אABCD should all be in error?’
It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it ceases to be even a matter of surprise. On the other hand, what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic) should have conspired to mislead mankind? And further, on what intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, and the whole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this verse of Scripture be indeed spurious?
I know that the rejoinder will be as follows:—‘Yes, but if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired verity, how is their absence from the earliest Codexes to be accounted for?’ Now it happens that for once I am able to assign the reason. But I do so under protest, for I insist that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest Codexes is no part of a critic’s business. It would not only prove an endless, but also a hopeless task. This time, however, I am able to explain.
If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the Bibliotheque
at Paris for a Greek Codex numbered ‘71,’ an Evangelium will be put into his hands
which differs from any that I ever met with in giving
singularly minute and full rubrical directions. At the
end of St.
One word about the evidence of the cursive copies on this occasion. Tischendorf says that ‘about forty-five’ of them are without this precious verse of Scripture. I venture to say that the learned critic would be puzzled to produce forty-five copies of the Gospels in which this verse has no place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. that about half of these are Lectionaries),—satisfactorily explains the matter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world, for the reason already assigned, these words are away; as well as in every MS. which, like B and א, has been depraved by the influence of the Lectionary practice.
And now I venture to ask,—What is to be thought of that Revision
of our Authorized Version which omits
A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this cause, which
nevertheless has imposed on several critics, 79as has been already said, is furnished by the first words
of
The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however in representing the words which immediately precede in the following unintelligible fashion:—ὁ δὲ Κύριος προσετίθει τοὺς σωζομένους καθ᾽ ἡμέραν πὶ τὸ αὐτό. Πέτρος δὲ κ.τ.λ. How is it to be thought that this strange and vapid presentment of the passage had its beginning? It results, I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice of beginning a fresh lection at the name of ‘Peter,’ prefaced by the usual formula ‘In those days.’ It is accordingly usual to find the liturgical word ἀρχή—indicative of the beginning of a lection,—thrust in between ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ δέ and Πέτρος. At a yet earlier period I suppose some more effectual severance of the text was made in that place, which unhappily misled some early scribe[1]. And so it came to pass that in the first instance the place stood thus: ὁ δὲ Κύριος προσετίθει τοὺς σωζομένους καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό,—which was plainly intolerable.
What I am saying will commend itself to any unprejudiced reader when it has been stated that Cod. D in this place actually reads as follows:—καθημέραν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις Πέτρος κ.τ.λ.: the scribe with simplicity both giving us the liturgical formula with which it was usual to introduce the Gospel for the Friday after Easter, and permitting us to witness the perplexity with which the evident surplusage of τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and thrusts in a preposition. How obvious it now was to solve the difficulty by getting rid of τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ.
80It does not help the adverse case to shew that the Vulgate as well as the copy of Cyril of Alexandria are disfigured with the same corrupt reading as אABC. It does but prove how early and how widespread is this depravation of the Text. But the indirect proof thus afforded that the actual Lectionary System must needs date from a period long anterior to our oldest Codexes is a far more important as well as a more interesting inference. In the meantime I suspect that it was in Western Christendom that this corruption of the text had its beginning: for proof is not wanting that the expression ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό seemed hard to the Latins[1].
Hence too the omission of παλιν from אBD (St.
ακουετω. τελος
παλιν. αρχη. ειπεν ο Κυριος την παρβολην ταυτην.
Ομοια εστιν κ.τ.λ.
The word παλιν, because it stands between the end (τελος) of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning (αρχη) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out [though every one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows that ἀρχή and τέλος were often inserted in the text]. The second of these two lessons begins with ὁμοία [because πάλιν, at the beginning of a lesson is not wanted]. Here then is a singular token of the antiquity of the Lectionary System in the Churches of the East: as well as a proof of the untrustworthy character of Codd. אBD. The discovery that they are supported this time by copies of the Old Latin (a c e ff1.2 g1.2 k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does but further shew that such an amount of 81evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine the text of Scripture.
When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately preceding
verse (
It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, that
the clause ἐλυπήθησαν σφόδρα
(St.
Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently exercised
a corrupting influence on the text of Scripture. Having elsewhere considered St.
Luke’s version of the Lord’s
Prayer[1], I will in this place discuss
the genuineness of the doxology with which the Lord’s Prayer concludes
in St.
The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events these
fifteen words enjoy in perfection, being met with in all copies of the Peshitto:—and this is a far weightier consideration than the fact that they are absent from
most of the Latin copies. Even of these however four (k f gl q) 82recognize the doxology, which is also found in Cureton’s Syriac
and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian,
Erpenius’ Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos; as well as in the Διδαχή (with variations);
Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 18–vii. 25 with variations); in St. Ambrose (De
Sacr. vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i. 29). Chrysostom comments on the words without
suspicion, and often quotes them (In Orat. Dom., also see Horn. in
Four uncial MSS. (אBDZ), supported by five cursives of bad character (I, 17 which gives ἀμήν, 118, 130, 209), and, as we have seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these words; which, it is accordingly assumed, must have found their way surreptitiously into the text of all the other copies in existence. But let me ask,—Is it at all likely, or rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this, all the MSS. in the world but nine should have become corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for one more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a mutilated text in every page. But how will men pretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present; which may be traced as far back as the second century; which has established itself without appreciable variety of reading in all the MSS.; which has therefore found its way from the earliest time into every part of Christendom; is met with 83in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek Liturgies; and has so effectually won the Church’s confidence that to this hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of the faithful all over the world?
One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry ever since the days of Erasmus. A note in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514) expresses it with sufficient accuracy. ‘In the Greek copies, after And deliver us from evil, follows For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after the choir has said And deliver us from evil, it is the Priest who responds as above: and those words, according to the Greeks, the priest alone may pronounce. This makes it probable that the words in question are no integral part of the Lord’s Prayer: but that certain copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.’ In other words, they represent that men’s ears had grown so fatally familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel of the Lord’s Prayer. The same statement has been repeated ad nauseam by ten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which our Saviour closed His pattern prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting from the liturgical practice of the primitive Church. And this slipshod account of the matter is universally acquiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the present day.
From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies,
it is found then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that
not one of them exhibits the evangelical formula as it stands in St.
‘For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and always and for ever and ever. Amen.’
But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the foregoing,—with
its ever-varying terminology of praise,—its constant reference to the blessed Trinity,—its
habitual νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ,—and its invariable
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων,
(which must needs be of
very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by Irenaeus,[1] and
may be as old as
On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so
many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxology of
some sort at the end of the Lord’s
Prayer; the general prefix ‘for thine’; the prevailing mention
therein of ‘the kingdom and the power and the glory’; the invariable reference to
Eternity:—all this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the
form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of faith in the Trinity, and otherwise
amplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula
of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in St.
What need to point out in conclusion that the Church’s peculiar method of reciting the Lord’s Prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and sufficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case? It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the Choir to break off at the words ‘But deliver us from evil.’ They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology must for that reason have been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version originally derived their text. This is the sum of the matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize no more of the Lord’s Prayer than they found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would have been if they did.
Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the Lord’s Prayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa[1], Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me most ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of St. Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any one seriously imagine that in A. D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state from what they are at present?
86The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated:—The
textual perturbation observable at St.
There yet remains something to be said on the same subject for the edification of studious readers; to whom the succeeding words are specially commended. They are requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have read what immediately follows.
The history of the rejection of these words is in a high degree instructive. It dates from 1514, when the Complutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom? ‘We presume,’ they say, ‘that this corruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period.’ The same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; but in his edition of the N.T. he suffered the doxology to stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZא have successively come to light, critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 87Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as spurious.
But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the
case against the doxology? Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted with the
Peshitto version; which by its emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence
borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The Litbaxi of the first or second
century, the Sahidic version of the third century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2),
follow on the same side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius,
the Gothic version. After that Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton’s Syriac. The Harkleian,
Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom (2), the Opus Imperfectum,
Theophylact, and Euthymius (2), bring up the rear[1]. Does any one really suppose that
two Codexes of the fourth century (Bא), which are even notorious for their many
omissions and general accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount
of ancient evidence? L and 33, generally the firm allies of BD and the Vulgate,
forsake them at St.
The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:—Liturgical
use has indeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St.
Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than
is attainable by existing liturgical evidence; and to suggest that then the doxology
used by the priest may have been the same with that which is found in the ordinary
text of St. Matthew’s Gospel. This may have been the case or it may not. Meanwhile,
the hypothesis, which fell to the ground when the statement on which it rested
was disproved, is not now to be built up again on a mere conjecture. But if the fact
could be ascertained,—and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is
possible,—I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of the doxology.
For why should the liturgical employment of the last fifteen words of the
Lord’s Prayer be thought
to cast discredit on their genuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that
for an indefinitely remote period the Lord’s Prayer was
not publicly recited by the people further than ‘But deliver us from evil,’— a doxology
of some sort being invariably added, but pronounced by the priest alone,—this clearly
ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary [found
indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say nothing of occurrences in the
other Gospels] as really not to require particular explanation, viz. the omission
of the last half of St.
Chapter VII. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. I. Harmonistic Influence.
[IT must not be imagined that all the causes of the depravation of the text of Holy Scripture were instinctive, and that mistakes arose solely because scribes were overcome by personal infirmity, or were unconsciously the victims of surrounding circumstances. There was often more design and method in their error. They, or those who directed them, wished sometimes to correct and improve the copy or copies before them. And indeed occasionally they desired to make the Holy Scriptures witness to their own peculiar belief. Or they had their ideas of taste, and did not scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied was their enlightened judgement.
Thus we can trace a tendency to bring the Four Records into one harmonious narrative, or at least to excise or vary statements in one Gospel which appeared to conflict with parallel statements in another. Or else, some Evangelical Diatessaron, or Harmony, or combined narrative now forgotten, exercised an influence over them, and whether consciously or not,—since it is difficult always to keep designed and unintentional mistakes apart, and we must not be supposed to aim at scientific exactness in the arrangement adopted in this analysis,—induced them to adopt alterations of the pure Text.
90We now advance to some instances which will severally and conjointly explain themselves.]
Nothing can be more exquisitely precise than St. John’s way of
describing an incident to which St. Mark (
All this, singular to relate, was completely misunderstood by the
critics of the two first centuries. Not only did they identify the incident recorded
in St.
There is no reason for distrusting the received reading of the present place in any particular. True, that most of the uncials and many of the cursives read πρὸς τῷ μνημείῳ: but so did neither Chrysostom[1] nor Cyril[1] read the place. And if the Evangelist himself had so written, is it credible 92that a majority of the copies would have forsaken the easier and more obvious, in order to exhibit the less usual and even slightly difficult expression? Many, by writing πρὸς τῷ μνημείῳ, betray themselves; for they retain a sure token that the accusative ought to end the sentence. I am not concerned however just now to discuss these matters of detail. I am only bent on illustrating how fatal to the purity of the Text of the Gospels has been the desire of critics, who did not understand those divine compositions, to bring them into enforced agreement with one another. The sectional system of Eusebius, I suspect, is not so much the cause as the consequence of the ancient and inveterate misapprehensions which prevailed in respect of the history of the Resurrection. It is time however to proceed.
Those writers who overlook the corruptions which the text has
actually experienced through a mistaken solicitude on the part of ancient critics
to reconcile what seemed to them the conflicting statements of different Evangelists,
are frequently observed to attribute to this kind of officiousness expressions which
are unquestionably portions of the genuine text. Thus, there is a general consensus
amongst critics of the destructive school to omit the words καὶ τινες σὺν αὐταῖς
from St.
But how, I shall be asked, would you explain the omission of
these words which to yourself seem necessary? And after insisting that one is never
bound to explain how the text of any particular passage came to be corrupted, I
answer, that these words were originally ejected from the text in order to bring
St. Luke’s statement into harmony with that of the first Evangelist, who mentions
none but Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses. The proof is that
four of the same Latin copies which are for the omission of καὶ τινες σὺν
αὐταῖς
are observed to begin St.
[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic Influence may be found in the substitution of ‘wine’ (οἶνον) for vinegar (ὄξος), respecting which the details are given in the second Appendix to the Traditional Text.]
[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propensities in the Ancient Church.]
In St.
The scribe of the Vercelli Codex (a) was about to do the same thing; but he checked himself when he had got as far as ‘the pinnacle of the temple,’—which he seems to have thought as good a scene for the third temptation as ‘a high mountain,’ and so left it.
A favourite, and certainly a plausible, method of accounting for the presence of unauthorized matter in MSS. is to suggest that, in the first instance, it probably existed only in the shape of a marginal gloss, which through the inadvertence of the scribes, in process of time, found its way into the sacred text. That in this way some depravations of Scripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I presume be doubted. But I suspect that the hypothesis is generally a wholly mistaken one; having been imported into this subject-matter (like many other notions which are 95quite out of place here), from the region of the Classics,—where (as we know) the phenomenon is even common. Especially is this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order to explain those instances of assimilation which are so frequently to be met with in Codd. B and א.
Another favourite way of accounting for instances of assimilation, is by taking for granted that the scribe was thinking of the parallel or the cognate place. And certainly (as before) there is no denying that just as the familiar language of a parallel place in another Gospel presents itself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have struck a copyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade him to write, not the words which he saw before him, but the words which he remembered. All this is certainly possible.
But I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by any means .the right way to explain the phenomena under discussion. I am of opinion that such depravations of the text were in the first instance intentional. I do not mean that they were introduced with any sinister motive. My meaning is that [there was a desire to remove obscurities, or to reconcile incongruous passages, or generally to improve the style of the authors, and thus to add to the merits of the sacred writings, instead of detracting from them. Such a mode of dealing with the holy deposit evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted it to understand the nature of the trust committed to the Church, just as similar action at the present day does in the case of such as load the New Testament with ‘various readings,’ and illustrate it as they imagine with what are really insinuations of doubt, in the way that they prepare an edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and sharpening the minds of youthful students. There was intention, and the intention was good: but it was none the less productive of corruption.]
96I suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of those
connected Gospel narratives called Diatessarons, which are known to have existed
anciently in the Church, we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem which at
present is shrouded in obscurity,—and concerning the solution of which, with such
instruments of criticism as we at present possess, we can do little else but conjecture.
I allude to those many occasions on which the oldest documents extant, in narrating
some incident which really presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge
into hopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing referred to will best
explain my meaning. Take then the incident of our Lord’s paying tribute,—set
down in St.
The received text exhibits,—‘And when he [Peter] had entered ( ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν) into the house, Jesus was beforehand with him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do earthly kings take toll or tribute? of their sons or of strangers?’ Here, for ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν, Codex B (but no other uncial) substitutes ἐλθόντα: Codex א (but no other) εἰσελθόντα Codex D (but no other) εἰσελθόντι: Codex C (but no other) ὄτε ἦλθον: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained εἰσελθόντων; and a sixth, ἐλθόντων αὐτῶν. A very fair specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the concordia discors which prevails in the most ancient uncial copies[1]. How is all this discrepancy to be accounted for?
The Evangelist proceeds,—‘Peter saith unto Him (Λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος), Of strangers.’ These four words C retains, but continues—‘Now when he had said, Of strangers’ (Εἰπόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων);—which unauthorized clause, all but the word αὐτοῦ, is found also in א, but in no other uncial. On the other hand, for Λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος, א (alone of uncials) substitutes Ὁ δὲ ἔφη: and B (also alone 97of uncials) substitutes Εἰπόντος δέ,—and then proceeds exactly like the received text: while D merely omits ὁ Πέτρος. Again I ask,—How is all this discrepancy to be explained[1]?
As already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in the first instance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel narratives. In no more loyal way can I account for the perplexing phenomenon already described, which is of perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes BאD, Cureton’s Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version. It is well known that at a very remote period some eminent persons occupied themselves in constructing such exhibitions of the Evangelical history: and further, that these productions enjoyed great favour, and were in general use. As for their contents,—the notion we form to ourselves of a Diatessaron, is that it aspired to be a weaving of the fourfold Gospel into one continuous narrative: and we suspect that in accomplishing this object, the writer was by no means scrupulous about retaining the precise words of the inspired original. He held himself at liberty, on the contrary, (a) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous clauses: (b) to introduce new incidents: (c) to supply picturesque details: (d) to give a new turn to the expression: (e) to vary the construction at pleasure: (f) even slightly to paraphrase. Compiled after some such fashion as I have been describing, at a time too when the preciousness of the inspired documents seems to have been but imperfectly apprehended,—the works I speak of, recommended by their graphic interest, and sanctioned by a mighty name, must have imposed upon ordinary readers. Incautious 98owners of Codexes must have transferred without scruple certain unauthorized readings to the margins of their own copies. A calamitous partiality for the fabricated document may have prevailed with some for whom copies were executed. Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious and rash Editors of Scripture,—among whom Origen may be regarded as a prime offender,—must have deliberately introduced into their recensions many an unauthorized gloss, and so given it an extended circulation.
Not that we would imply that permanent mischief has resulted to the Deposit from the vagaries of individuals in the earliest age. The Divine Author of Scripture hath abundantly provided for the safety of His Word written. In the multitude of copies,—in Lectionaries,—in Versions,—in citations by the Fathers, a sufficient safeguard against error hath been erected. But then, of these multitudinous sources of protection we must not be slow to avail ourselves impartially. The prejudice which would erect Codexes B and א into an authority for the text of the New Testament from which there shall be no appeal:—the superstitious reverence which has grown up for one little cluster of authorities, to the disparagement of all other evidence wheresoever found; this, which is for ever landing critics in results which are simply irrational and untenable, must be unconditionally abandoned, if any real progress is to be made in this department of inquiry. But when this has been done, men will begin to open their eyes to the fact that the little handful of documents recently so much in favour, are, on the contrary, the only surviving witnesses to corruptions of the Text which the Church in her corporate capacity has long since deliberately rejected. But to proceed.
[From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to harmonize
the Gospels, corruption of a serious nature has ensued in some well-known places,
such as the transference 99of the piercing of the
Lord’s
side from St.
Hence also, in Cureton’s Syriac[1], the patch-work supplement to St.
Chapter VIII. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. II. Assimilation.
THERE results inevitably from the fourfold structure of the Gospel,.—from the very fact that the story of Redemption is set forth in four narratives, three of which often ran parallel,—this practical inconvenience: namely, that sometimes the expressions of one Evangelist get improperly transferred to another. This is a large and important subject which calls for great attention, and requires to be separately handled. The phenomena alluded to, which are similar to some of those which have been treated in the last chapter, may be comprised under the special head of Assimilation.
It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion if we determine to consider separately those instances of Assimilation which may rather be regarded as deliberate attempts to reconcile one Gospel with another: indications of a fixed determination to establish harmony between place and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of Assimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary instances where per fas et nefas an enforced Harmony has been established,—which abound indeed, but are by no means common,—I am disposed to draw a line.
This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the 101matter is in itself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, in the absence of any evidence direct or indirect on the subject,—at all events I am not aware—that at any time has there been one definite authoritative attempt made by the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to remodel or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of the phenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that the several corruptions of the text were effected at different times, and took their beginning in widely different ways. I suspect that Accident was the parent of many; and well meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for the Truth is accountable for not a few depravations: and the Church’s Liturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have produced others. Systematic villainy I am persuaded has had no part or lot in the matter. The decrees of such an one as Origen, if there ever was another like him, will account for a strange number of aberrations from the Truth: and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered[1], I suspect that we should behold there the germs at least of as many more. But, I repeat my conviction that, however they may have originated, the causes [are not to be found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or influences which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of understanding as to what is the Church’s duty in the transmission from generation to generation of the sacred deposit committed to her enlightened care.]
1. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that a writer while engaged in transcribing one Gospel was so completely beguiled and overmastered by his recollections of the parallel place in another Gospel,—that, forsaking the expressions proper to the passage before him, he unconsciously 102adopted the language which properly belongs to a different Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this may have occasionally taken place, I am not concerned to deny: but it would argue incredible inattention to what he was professing to copy, on the one hand,—astonishing familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the other,—that a scribe should have been capable of offending largely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance with the subject is enough to convince any thoughtful person that the corruptions in MSS. which have resulted from accidental Assimilation must needs be inconsiderable in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the phenomenon referred to, when we speak of ‘Assimilation,’ is not to be so accounted for: it must needs be explained in some entirely different way. Let me make my meaning plain:
(a) We shall probably be agreed that when the
scribe of Cod. א, in place of βασανίσαι ἡμᾶς
(in St.
(b) Again, when in Codd. אB we find τασσόμενος thrust
without warrant into St.
(c) In the same way I make no doubt that ποταμῷ (St.
(d) To be brief:—the insertion by א of ἀδελφέ
(in St.
(e) But I should have been willing
to go further. I might have been disposed to admit that when אDL introduce into
St.
(f) Again. When א and Evan. 61 thrust
into St.
Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seen in the next example.
The little handful of well-known authorities (אBDL, with a few
copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[1]), conspire in omitting
from St.
Let it be observed—and then I will dismiss the matter—that the
selfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one (
Were I invited to point to a beautifully described incident in
the Gospel, I should find it difficult to lay my finger on anything more apt for
my purpose than the transaction described in St.
The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply ‘reclining (ἀνακείμενος) in the
bosom’ of his Divine Master: that is, his place at the Supper is the next
adjoining 107His,—for the phrase really means little more. But
the proximity is of course excessive, as the sequel shews. Understanding
from St. Peter’s gesture what is required of him, St. John merely sinks back, and
having thus let his head fall (ἐπιπεσών)
on (or close to) His Master’s chest (ἐπὶ τὸ
στῆθος), he says softly,—‘Lord, who is
it?’ . . . The moment is perhaps the most memorable in the Evangelist’s life:
the position, one of unutterable privilege. Time, place, posture, action,—all settle
so deep into his soul, that when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he
describes himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved; who
also at the Supper’ (that memorable Supper !) ‘lay
(ἀνέπεσεν[1]) on Jesus’ breast,’ (literally,
‘upon His chest,’—ἐπὶ τὸ
στῆθος αὐτοῦ;),
and said, ‘Lord, who is it that is to betray Thee?’ (
Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime picture
is faithfully retained throughout by the cursive copies in the proportion of about
eighty to one. The great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and cursive alike, establish
the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is here the Received Text. Thus, a vast
majority of the MSS., with אAD at their head, read ἐπιπεσών
in St.
That this is the true history of the substitution of ἀναπεσών in St.
Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which this
word has experienced at the hands of some Critics. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford, Westcott and Hort, have all in turn bowed to the authority of Cod. B and
Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates[1]
and contends on the same side. Alford
informs us that ἐπιπεσών has surreptitiously crept in
‘from St.
It would be time to pass on. But because in this department of study men are observed never to abandon a position until they are fairly shelled out and left without a pretext for remaining, I proceed to shew that ἀναπεσών (for ἐπιπεσών) is only one corrupt reading out of many others hereabouts. The proof of this statement follows. Might it not have been expected that the ‘old uncials’ (אABCD) would exhibit the entire context of such a passage as the present with tolerable accuracy? The reader is invited to attend to the results of collation:—
xiii. 21. | —ο אB: υμιν λεγω tr. B. |
22. | —ουν BC: + οι Ιουδαιοι א: απορουντει D. |
23. | —δε B: + εκ אABCD: — ο B: + και D. |
24. | (for πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη + ουτος D) και λεγει αυτω, ειπε τις εστιν BC: (for λεγει) ελεγεν א: + και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν περι ου λεγει א. |
25. | (for επιπεσων) αναπεσων BC: —δε BC: (for δε) ουν אD: —ουτος אAD. |
26. | + ουν BC: + αυτω D: —ο B: + και λεγει אBD: + αν D: (for βαψας) εμβαψας AD: βαψω . . . και δωσω αυτω BC: + ψωμου (after ψωμιον) C: (for εμβαψας) βαψας D: (for και εμβαψας) βαψας ουν אBC: —το B: + λαμβανει και BC: Ισκαριωτου אBC: απο Καρυωτου D. |
27. | —τοτε א: —μετα το ψωμιον τοτε D: (for λεγει ουν και λενει D: —ο B. |
In these seven verses therefore, (which present no special difficulty to a transcriber,) the Codexes in question are found to exhibit at least thirty-five varieties,—for twenty-eight of which (jointly or singly) B is responsible: א for twenty-two: C for twenty-one: D for nineteen: A for three. It is found that twenty-three words have been added to the text: fifteen substituted: fourteen taken 111away; and the construction has been four times changed. One case there has been of senseless transposition. Simon, the father of Judas, (not Judas the traitor), is declared by אBCD to have been called ‘Iscariot.’ Even this is not all. What St. John relates concerning himself is hopelessly obscured; and a speech is put into St. Peter’s mouth which he certainly never uttered. It is not too much to say that every delicate lineament has vanished from the picture. What are we to think of guides like אBCD, which are proved to be utterly untrustworthy?
The first two verses of St. Mark’s Gospel have fared badly.
Easy of transcription and presenting
no special difficulty, they ought to have come down to us undisfigured by any serious
variety of reading. On the contrary. Owing to entirely different causes, either
verse has experienced calamitous treatment. I have elsewhere[1] proved that the clause υἱοῦ τοῦ
Θεοῦ; in
1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention is paid to their contents,
is discovered to be of inferior moment in minuter matters of this nature. Thus,
copies of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah’s name into St.
2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes אBDLΔ:—If any one will be at the pains to tabulate the 900[1] new ‘readings’ adopted by Tischendorf in editing St. Mark’s Gospel, he will discover that for 450, or just half of them,—all the 450, as I believe, being corruptions of the text,—אBL are responsible: and further, that their 113responsibility is shared on about 200 occasions by D: on about 265 by C: on about 350 by Δ[1]. some very remote period therefore there must have grown up a vicious general reading of this Gospel which remains in the few bad copies: but of which the largest traces (and very discreditable traces they are) at present survive in אBCDLA. After this discovery the avowal will not be thought extraordinary that I regard with unmingled suspicion readings which are exclusively vouched for by five of the same Codexes: e. g. by אBDLΔ.
3. The cursive copies which exhibit ‘Isaiah’ in place of ‘the prophet,’ reckoned by Tischendorf at ‘nearly twenty-five,’ are probably less than fifteen[1], and those, almost all of suspicious character. High time it is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were better understood.
4. From Tischendorf’s list of thirteen Fathers, serious deductions
have to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch are clearly with the Textus
Receptus. Serapion, Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, with his argument,
reproduce his corrupt text of St.
And do any inquire,—How then did this perversion of the truth arise? In the easiest way possible, I answer. 115Refer to the Eusebian tables, and note that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:—
St. Matt. | St. Mark. | St. Luke. | St. John. |
η´ (i. e. 3). | β´ (i. e. 3). | ζ´ (i. e. iii. 3-6). | ι´ (i. e. 23)[1]. |
Now, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the third
and the fourth of these places in connexion with the quotation from
Regarded as an instrument of criticism, Assimilation requires to be very delicately as well as very skilfully handled. If it is to be applied to determining the text of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave to say, in a very different spirit from what is met with in Dr. Tischendorf’s notes, or it will only mislead. Is a word—a clause—a sentence—omitted by his favourite authorities אBDL? It is enough if that learned critic finds nearly the same word,—a very similar clause,— a sentence of the same general import,—in an account of the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him straightway to insist that the sentence, the clause, the word, has been imported into the commonly received Text from such parallel place; and to reject it accordingly.
116But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable,
except under peculiar circumstances. For first, whatever a priori improbability
might be supposed to attach to the existence of identical expressions in two Evangelical
records of the same transaction, is effectually disposed of by the discovery that
very often identity of expression actually does occur. And (2), the only condition
which could warrant the belief that there has been assimilation, is observed to
be invariably away from Dr. Tischendorf’s instances,—viz. a sufficient number of
respectable attesting witnesses: it being a fundamental principle in the law of
Evidence, that the very few are rather to be suspected than the many. But further
(3), if there be some marked diversity of expression discoverable in the two parallel
places; and if that diversity has been carefully maintained all down the ages in
either place;—then it may be regarded as certain, on the contrary, that there has
not been assimilation; but that this is only one more instance of two Evangelists
saying similar things or the same thing in slightly different language. Take for
example the following case:—Whereas St. Matt. (
Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of Assimilation.
St. Matthew (
It is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of Scripture
has exerted this kind of assimilating influence over a little handful of copies.
Thus, some critics are happily agreed in rejecting the proposal of אBDLR, (backed
scantily by their usual retinue of evidence) to substitute for
γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὑτοῦ
ἀπό, in St.
The reader has now been presented with several examples of Assimilation. Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to be sufficiently conspicuous, 118is observed constantly to discover cases of Assimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual way of accounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. א. And because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, it becomes the more necessary to set the reader on his guard against receiving such statements without a thorough examination of the evidence on which they rest.
The value—may I not say, the use?—of these delicate differences
of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness of the text is called in question.
Take an example. The following fifteen words are deliberately excluded from St.
Mark’s Gospel (
It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of
these fifteen words from the text of St. Mark, has merely resulted from the
influence of the parallel place in St. Luke’s Gospel (
Because a certain clause (e.g. καὶ ἡ λαλιά σου
ὁμοιάζει in St.
1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader, although to some there might seem to exist a prima facie probability that the clause is spurious, yet even so,—it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For let the 120parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by side:—
St. |
St. |
||
(1) Ἀληθῶς καὶ σὺ | (1) Ἀληθῶς | ||
(2) ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ· | (2) ἐξ αὐτω̂ν εἶ· | ||
(3) καὶ γὰρ | (3) καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαι̂ος εἶ, |
||
(4) ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ. |
(4) καὶ ἡ λαλιά σου ὁμοιάζει |
What more clear than that the later Evangelist is explaining what his predecessor meant by ‘thy speech bewrayeth thee’ [or else is giving an independent account of the same transaction derived from the common source]? To St. Matthew,—a Jew addressing Jews,—it seemed superfluous to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee which betrayed Simon Peter. To St. Mark,—or rather to the readers whom St. Mark specially addressed,—the point was by, no means so obvious. Accordingly, he paraphrases,—‘for thou art a Galilean and thy speech correspondeth.’ Let me be shewn that all down the ages, in ninety-nine copies out of every hundred, this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfully retained, and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St. Mark’s (fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb ὁμοιάζει, I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent inquiry,—What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, in fact, the context? This at least is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of the Old Latin (a b c ff2 h q, &c.), only removes clause (4) from its proper place in St. Mark’s Gospel, in order to thrust it into the parallel place in St. Matthew,—where it supplants the ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has no business to be.
121Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew’s Gospel to St. Mark,—for D also omits καὶ συ in clause (1).
2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimilating St. Mark to St. Matthew, for it transfers the same clause (4) as it stands in St. Matthew’s Gospel (καὶ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ) to St. Mark.
3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of a type like B, has been styled [with grim irony] ‘the Queen of the Cursives’) is more brilliant here than usual; exhibiting St. Mark’s clause (4) thus,—καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ὁμοιάζει.
4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation is as conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark’s third clause (3) is imported bodily into St. Matthew’s Gospel. C further omits from St. Mark clause (4).
5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse process is conspicuous. St. Mark’s Gospel has been assimilated to St. Matthew’s by the unauthorized insertion into clause (1) of καὶ συ, (which by the way is also found in M), and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann. 73, 131, 142*) by the entire suppression of clause (3).
6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of omission], it further obliterates as well from St. Matthew’s Gospel as from St. Mark’s all trace of clause (4).
7. א and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with the Vulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate the final clause (4) of St. Mark’s Gospel. But note, lastly, that—
8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, and the whole body of the cursives, recognizes none of these irregularities: but exhibits the commonly received text with entire fidelity.
On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person 122seriously contend that
καὶ ἡ λαλιά σου ὁμοιάζει
is no part of the genuine text of St.
[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of the text of the New Testament.]
123Chapter IX. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. III. Attraction.
THERE exist not a few corrupt Readings,—and
they have imposed largely on many critics,—which, strange to relate, have arisen
from nothing else but the proneness of words standing side by side in a sentence to be
attracted into a likeness of ending,—whether in respect of grammatical form or of
sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to suffer grievously,—sometimes entirely
to disappear. Let this be called the error of Attraction. The phenomena
of ‘Assimilation’ are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross instance, which however
has imposed on learned critics, is furnished by the Revised Text and Version of
St.
‘Judas Iscariot’ is a combination of appellatives with which every
Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης
is found in St.
But in the two places of St. John’s Gospel which remain to be
noticed, viz.
Another and a far graver case of ‘Attraction’ is found in
St. Paul in a certain place (
In the second century, Irenaeus[1],—the Old Latin,—the Peshitto.
In the third century, Orison seven times[1],—the Coptic version.
In the fourth century, the Dialogus[1],—Didymus[1],—Basil[1],—Gregory Nyss.[1],—Marcus the Monk[1],—Chrysostom 126in two places[1],—Nilus[1],—the Vulgate,—and the Gothic versions.
In the fifth century, Cyril[1],—Isidorus[1],—Theodoret[1], —the Armenian—and the Ethiopic versions.
In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing Theodorus P.[1]
In the eighth century, J. Damascene[1] . . . Besides, of the Latins, Hilary[1],—Ambrose[1],—Optatus[1],—Jerome[1],—Tichonius[1],—Augustine thirteen times[1],—Fulgentius[1], and others[1] . . . If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told what is[1]?
But then it so happens that—attracted by the two datives between which καρδίας stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, a surprising number of copies are found to exhibit the ‘perfectly absurd’ and ‘wholly unnatural reading[1],’ πλαξὶν καρδίΑΙC σαρκίνΑΙC. And because (as might have been expected from their character) A[1] BאCD[1]127are all five of the number,—Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt and advocate the awkward blunder[1]. Καρδίαις is also adopted by the Revisers of 1881 without so much as a hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelmingly against themselves and in favour of the traditional Text of the Authorized Version[1].
128Chapter X. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IV. Omission.
[WE have now to consider the largest of all classes of corrupt variations from the genuine Text[1],—the omission of words and clauses and sentences,—a truly fertile province of inquiry. Omissions are much in favour with a particular school of critics; though a habit of admitting them whether in ancient or modern times cannot but be symptomatic of a tendency to scepticism.]
Omissions are often treated as ‘Various Readings.’ Yet only by an Hibernian licence can words omitted be so reckoned: for in truth the very essence of the matter is that on such occasions nothing is read. It is to the case of words omitted however that this chapter is to be exclusively devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now of those words alone where the words are observed to exist in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred, so to speak;—being away only from that hundredth copy.
Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been called to the circumstance, that such a phenomenon requires separate treatment. Words so omitted labour prima facie under a disadvantage which is all their own. 129My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to adduce and briefly discuss a few examples. And I will begin with a crucial case;—the most conspicuous doubtless within the whole compass of the New Testament. I mean the last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel; which verses are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the rest of the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and others.
The warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously with a portion of the sacred deposit is the fact that whereas Eusebius, for the statement rests solely with him, declares that anciently many copies were without the verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire in omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does not conduct to the inference that those verses are spurious. It only proves that the statement of Eusebius was correct. The Father cited did not, as is evident from his words[1], himself doubt the genuineness of the verses in question; but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two opinions; —the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness, and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of the two, since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former as being an off-hand expedient; besides that he quotes several words out of the twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second hypothesis.
On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the two MSS.
witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving a vacant space
where the omitted verses should have come in; whilst the other was apparently copied
from an exemplar containing the verses[1]. And all the other copies insert them, except
L and a few cursives 130which propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the verses,—together
with all the versions, except one Old Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two Armenian
MSS. and an Arabic Lectionary,—besides more than ninety testimonies in their favour
from more than ‘forty-four’ ancient witnesses[1];
—such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting
testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, the cause of the error
is patent. Some scribe mistook the Τέλος occurring
at the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of
That is the simple truth: and the question will now be asked by an intelligent reader, ‘If such is the balance of evidence, how is it that learned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses?’
To this question there can be but one answer, viz. ‘Because those critics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafe guides, and on behalf of Omission.’
We have already seen enough of the character of those guides, and are now anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them so acceptable to minds of the present day. And we can imagine nothing except the halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious passages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed detection of passages which in fact are not spurious. Some people appear to feel delight if they can prove any charge against people who claim to be orthodox; others without any such feeling delight in superior criticism; and the flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste of many. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of 131passages which they style ‘interpolations,’ offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields.
Yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that Omission is the besetting fault of transcribers. It is so easy under the influence of the desire of accomplishing a task, or at least of anxiety for making progress, to pass over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As has been explained before, the eye readily moves from one ending to a similar ending with a surprising tendency to pursue the course which would lighten labour instead of increasing it. The cumulative result of such abridgement by omission on the part of successive scribes may be easily imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B[1]. Besides these considerations, the passages which are omitted, and which we claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the character belonging to the rest of the Gospels, indeed—in Dr. Hort’s expressive phrase—‘have the true ring of genuineness.’ They are not like some which some critics of the same school would fain force upon us[1]. But beyond all,—and this is the real source and ground of attestation, —they enjoy superior evidence from copies, generally beyond comparison with the opposing testimony, from Versions, and from Fathers.]
The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much larger amount of proof than usual is required at the hands of those who would persuade us to cancel words which have 132been hitherto by all persons,—in all ages,—in all countries,—regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (1) to account for the fact of those words’ existence: and next (2), to demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the sacred page. The discovery that from a few copies they are away, clearly has very little to do with the question. We may be able to account for the omission from those few copies: and the instant we have done this, the negative evidence—the argument e silentio—has been effectually disposed of. A very different task—a far graver responsibility—is imposed upon the adverse party, as may be easily shewn. [They must establish many modes of accounting for many classes and groups of evidence. Broad and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden of proof lies with them.]
The force of what I am saying will be
best understood if a few actual specimens of omission may he adduced, and individually
considered. And first, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St.
Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult and peculiar a word as this,—for indeed the expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,—should have found its way into every known Evangelium except אBL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough. (a) One has but to glance at the Cod. א,
ΤΟ εΝ CΑΒΒΑΤω |
ΔεΥΤΡΟΠΡωΤω |
in order to see that the like ending (Τω) in the superior line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (b) A proper lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the phenomenon. (c) Words which the 133copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the Gospels than δευτερόπρωτος. But I repeat,—will you tell us how it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a crux to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies except a small handful?]
In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yield to what is after all the weight of external evidence: that Codd. אBL are not ordinary MSS. but first-class authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS.
My rejoinder is plain:—Not only am I of course willing to yield
to external evidence, but it is precisely ‘external evidence’ which makes me insist
on retaining δευτεροπρώτῳ—ἀπὸ μελισσίου
κηρίου—ἄρας τὸν στ9αυρόν—καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς
τὸν οὐρανόν—ὅταν
\ἐκλίπητε—the
And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.
The
For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,—in the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,—besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[1],—ps.-Tatian[1]—Aphraates[1],—Chrysostom[1],—Cyril Alex.[1],—the Opus Imperfectum[1],—Jerome[1],—Augustine[1]:—in Codexes BאCΦΣΧΖΔΠEFGHKLMSUV,—in short, it is attested by every known Codex except two of bad character, viz.—D, 33; together with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.—a b e ff1 ff2. There have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century:—at least eight of the fourth:—at least seven if not eight of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of 135this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]
But, says Tischendorf,—the verse is omitted by Origen and by
Eusebius,—by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,—as well as by Cyril of Alexandria.
I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text is
plainly inadmissible on the present occasion. The critic refers to the fact that
Irenaeus[1], Origen[1], Eusebius[1] and Cyril[1] having quoted
‘the parable of the wicked husband-men’ in extenso (viz.
from
I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St.
In the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St.
I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of St.
ST. MATT. | ST. MARK |
‘Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, “This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips (ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καὶ τοῖς χείλεσί με τιμᾷ·), but their |
‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honoureth Me with their lips (οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσί με τιμᾷ, but their heart is far from Me.”’ heart is far from Me.”’ |
The place of Isaiah referred to, viz.
Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no question is
raised. Neither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nine MSS.
out of a hundred in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when reference is made
to the two oldest copies in existence, B and א, we are presented with what, but
for the parallel place in St. Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated
reading. Both MSS. conspire in exhibiting St.
The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from the days of Griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancy between ‘the few copies’ on 139the one hand, and the whole torrent of manuscript evidence on the other.
Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual Criticism, I must be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding, though enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly respected name. I venture to think that the exact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz. that undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in MSS., and to some extent may be observed even to have propagated themselves, are yet discovered to die out speedily; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number of descendants. There has always in fact been a process of elimination going on, as well as of self-propagation: a corrective force at work, as well as one of deterioration. How else are we to account for the utter disappearance of the many monstra potius quam variae lectiones which the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times? It is enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, in illustration of what I have been saying[1]. To return however from this digression.
We are invited then to believe,—for it is well to know at the
outset exactly what is required of us,—that from the fifth century downwards
every extant copy of the Gospels
except five (DLTc, 33, 124) exhibits
a text arbitrarily interpolated in order to bring it into conformity with the Greek
version of
1. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true account of the matter, how it has come to pass that in no single MS. in the world, so far as I am aware, has this conformity been successfully achieved: for whereas the 140Septuagintal reading is ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ΕΝ τῷ στόματι ΑΥΤΟΥ, καὶ ΕΝ τοῖς χείλεσιν ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΙΜΩΣΙ με,—the Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than six particulars.
2. Further,—If there really did exist this strange determination on the part of the ancients in general to assimilate the text of St. Matthew to the text of Isaiah, how does it happen that not one of them ever conceived the like design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark?
3. It naturally follows to inquire,—Why are we to suspect the mass of MSS. of having experienced such wholesale depravation in respect of the text of St. Matthew in this place, while yet we recognize in them such a marked constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as already explained, is not the text of Isaiah?
4. Further,—I discover in this place a minute illustration of
the general fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas in St. Matthew it is
invariably
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, I observe that in the copies of St. Mark,—except to be sure in
(a) Codd.
B and D, (b) copies of the Old Latin, (c) the Vulgate, and (d) the Peshitto
(all of which are confessedly corrupt in this particular,)—it is invariably
οὗτος ὁ λαός. But now,—Is it reasonable that the very copies which have
been in this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St.
And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and א and the great bulk of the copies in this place did not originate in the way insisted on by the critics, how is it to be accounted for? Now, on ordinary occasions, we do not feel ourselves called upon to institute any such inquiry,—as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do. Unbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness, arbitrary interpolations, omissions without number, disfigure 141those two ancient MSS. in every page. We seldom trouble ourselves to inquire into the history of their obliquities. But the case is of course materially changed when so many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldest Versions seem to be at one with Codexes B and א. Let then the student favour me with his undivided attention for a few moments, and I will explain to him how the misapprehension of Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. and the Versions these critics are sufficiently accurate: but they have fatally misapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence; as I proceed to explain.
The established Septuagintal rendering of
But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was felt to be intolerable. In fact, without a colon point between οὗτος and τοῖς, the result is without meaning. When once the complementary words have been withdrawn, ἐγγίζει μοι at the beginning of the sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatally encumbers the sense. To drop those two words, after the example of the parallel place in St. Mark’s Gospel, became thus 142an obvious proceeding. Accordingly the author of the (so-called) second Epistle of Clemens Romanus (§ 3), professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah, exhibits it thus,—Ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν με τιμᾷ. Clemens Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two occasions[1]. So does Chrysostom[1]. So does Theodoret[1].
Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect
of the problem: the first, (a) That the words ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐν, were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering
of
And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as to deny
that on the contrary it must needs be Codexes B and א,
and not the great bulk of the MSS., which exhibit a text corrupted by the influence
of the Septuagint rendering of
But that the text of St.
The reader is now in a position to judge how much 143attention is due to Dr. Tregelles’ dictum
‘that this one passage
may be relied upon’ in support of the peculiar views he advocates: as
well as to his confident claim that the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine
MSS. out of a hundred ‘must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the prophet.’
It has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in the ancient Greek text
of the prophet the ‘amplification’ he speaks of did not exist: it was the abbreviated
text which was found there. So that the very converse of the phenomenon he supposes
has taken place. Freely accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process of
assimilation, occasioned by the Septuagintal text of Isaiah, we differ from him
only as to the direction in which that process has manifested itself. He assumes
that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the generally received reading
of
To state this matter somewhat differently.—In all the extant
uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive copy of the Gospels, the words
τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καί are found to
belong to St.
I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient Versions, and all the following early writers,—Ptolemaeus[1], Clemens Alexandrinus[1], Origen[1], Didymus[1], Cyril[1], Chrysostom[1], and possibly three others of like antiquity[1],—should all quote St. Matthew in this place from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probably dates from the first century. Especially does it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, such as are not commonly encountered.
What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our
Lord’s Sermon
on the Mount: viz. St.
(1) ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
(2) εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς
(3) καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν[1] ὑμᾶς
(4) καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς
(5) καὶ διωκόντων ὑμᾶς[1].
On the other hand, it is not to be denied that there exists an appreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the passage in a shorter form. The fact that Origen six times[1] reads the place thus:
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς
(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and fourth clauses;)—and that he is supported therein by Bא, (besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old Latin MSS., and the Bohairic[1], seems to critics of a certain school a circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware that Cyprian[1], and they are welcome to the information that Tertullian[1] once and Theodoret once[1] [besides Irenaeus[1], Eusebius[1], and Gregory of Nyssa[1]] exhibit the place in the same way. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas[1],—whom however I take to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was for obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. I am persuaded that they are grievously mistaken in so doing, and that the received text represents what St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the uncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven; and this alone ought to be decisive. But it is besides the 146reading of the Peshitto, the Harkleian, and the Gothic; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.
Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence of Versions and Fathers on this subject; remembering that the point in dispute is nothing else but the genuineness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at starting, we make the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth clauses,—himself twice[1] quotes the first clause in connexion with the fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions[1], connects with clause 1 what he evidently means for clause 2; and Tertullian once if not twice connects closely clauses 1, 2; and once, clauses 1, 2, 5[1]. From which it is plain that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all Tertullian, can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They recognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal circumstance, and effectively disposes of their supposed hostile evidence.
But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering testimony. Besides the three copies of the Old Latin which exhibit all the five clauses, the Vulgate retains the first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine[1] quotes consecutively clauses I, 3, 5: Ambrose[1] clauses 1, 3, 4, 5—1, 4, 5: Hilary[1], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5: Lucifer[1], clauses I, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[1] a connects clauses 1, 3,—1, 3, 5: and Pacian[1], clauses 5, 2. Next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers.
And first we turn to Chrysostom [1] who (besides quoting 147the fourth clause from St. Matthew’s Gospel by itself five times) quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3—iii. 167; 1, 4—iv. 619; 2, 4—v. 436; 4, 3—ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5—ii. 258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4—iv. 267; 1, 3, 4, 5—xii. 425; thus recognizing them all.
Gregory Nyss.[1] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.
Eusebius[1], clauses 4, 5—2, 4, 5—1, 3, 4, 5.
The Apostolic Constitutions[1] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5 (having immediately before quoted clause 2,)—also clauses 2, 4, 1.
Clemens Alex.[1] (A.D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4.
Athenagoras[1] (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5.
Theophilus[1] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4.
While Justin M.[1] (A. D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects therewith clauses 2 and 4.
And Polycarp[1] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5.
Didache[1] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6).
In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the generally
received reading in St.
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς.—
by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St.
This result of ‘comparative criticism’ is therefore respectfully recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing deserving of the name of ‘proof’ will ever be attainable in this department of investigation.
But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St.
Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour
with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that these three clauses have been
imported hither from St.
[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the Guardian
newspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from before
A.D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional
Text to two on our side against seven, or rather six[1], on the other. Let me first say that on
this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged to re-judge or withdraw
some authorities. I admit that in the middle of a long catena of passages, I did
not lay 151sufficient stress, as I now find, upon the parallel passage
in St.
1. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question both negative and positive:—negative on the side of our opponents, with all the difficulties involved in establishing a negative conclusion as to the non-existence in St. Matthew’s Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5,—and positive for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of the genuine text in the passage which we are considering. If we can so establish the clauses, or indeed any one of them, the case against us fails: but unless we can establish all, we have not proved everything that we seek to demonstrate. Our first object is to make the adverse position untenable: when we have done that, we fortify our own. Therefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention to the fact that our authorities are summoned as witnesses to the early existence in each case of ‘some of the clauses,’ if they do not depose to all of them. We are quite aware of the reply: but we have with us the advantage of positive as against negative evidence. This advantage especially rules in such an instance as the present, because alien circumstances govern the quotation, and regulate particularly the length of it. Such quotation is always liable to shortening, whether by leaving out intermediate clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the passage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses, 152being undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable than omission arising from what cause soever.
2. The reviewer says that ‘all four clauses are read by both texts,’ i. e. in
St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears to have been unaware as regards the present
purpose of the existence of the fifth clause, or half-clause, in St. Matthew.
Yet the words—ὑπὲρ . . . τῶ διωκόντων ὑμᾶς are a very label, telling incontestibly
the origin of many of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St. Matthew’s
label cannot have come from St. Luke’s Gospel. The reviewer has often gone wrong
here. The ὑπὲρ—instead
of the περί after אBLΞ in St. Luke—should be to
our opponents a sign betraying the origin, though when it stands by itself—as
in Eusebius, In
3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the effects of the context
in shewing to which source a quotation is to be referred. It is a common custom
for Fathers to quote
The references as corrected are given in the note[1]. It
153will be seen by any one who compares the verifications with the
reviewer’s list, how his failure to observe the points just explained has led him
astray. The effect upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be that before
the era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional
Text of St.
Especially have we need to be on our guard against conniving
at the ejection of short clauses consisting of from twelve to fourteen letters,—which
proves to have been the exact length of a line in the earliest copies. When such
omissions leave the sense manifestly imperfect, no evil consequence can result.
Critics then either take no notice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing
that the omission has been the result of accident. In this way, [οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν, though it is omitted
by Cod. B in St.
ΗΓΑΡ
CΑΡΞΜΟΥΑΛΗΘωC
[εCΤΙΒΡωCΙCΚΑΙ
ΤΟΑΙΜΑΜΟΥΑΛΗΘωC]
εCΤΙΠΟCΙC
But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three words,
the sense of the context remains unimpaired,—the clause being of independent signification,—then
great danger arises lest an attempt should be made through the officiousness of
modern Criticism to defraud the Church of a part of her inheritance. Thus
[καὶ οἱ σὺν αὑτῷ (St.
When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly remote period; took place, I mean, in the third, or more likely still in the second century;
then the fate of such omitted words may be predicted with certainty. Their doom
is sealed. Every copy made from that defective original of necessity reproduced
the defects of its prototype: and if (as often happens) some of those copies have
descended to our times, they become quoted henceforward as if they were independent
witnesses[1]. Nor is this all. Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies
of the Old Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with formidable because very
venerable foes. And according to the recently approved method of editing the New
Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is declared 155without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to the Text.
Take, as an instance of this, the following
passage in St.
ΟΚΛεΠΤΗC
εΡΧεΤΑΙ [εΓΡΗΓΟΡ
ΗCεΝΚΑΙ] ΟΥΚΑΝΑ
ΦΗΚεΝ
his house to be broken through.’ Here, the clause within brackets, which has fallen out for an obvious reason, does not appear in Codd. א and D. But the omission did not begin with א. Two copies of the Old Latin are also without the words ἐγρηγόρησεν καὶ,—which are wanting besides in Cureton’s Syriac. Tischendorf accordingly omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount of evidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the ejection of the clause as spurious? What is the ‘Science’ worth which cannot preserve to the body a healthy limb like this?
[The instances of omission which have now been examined at some length must by no means be regarded as the only specimens of this class of corrupt passages[1]. Many more will occur to the minds of the readers of the present volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact, omissions are much more common than Additions, or Transpositions, or Substitutions: and this fact, that omissions, or what seem to be omissions, are apparently so common,—to say nothing of the very strong evidence wherewith they are attested—when taken in conjunction with the natural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages, cannot but confirm the general soundness of the position. 156How indeed can it possibly be more true to the infirmities of copyists, to the verdict of evidence on the several passages, and to the origin of the New Testament in the infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were not literary, to suppose that a terse production was first produced and afterwards was amplified in a later age with a view to ‘lucidity and completeness[1],’ rather than that words and clauses and sentences were omitted upon definitely understood principles in a small class of documents by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The reply to this question must now be left for candid and thoughtful students to determine].
157Chapter XI. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. V. Transposition.
ONE of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, is Transposition, or the arbitrary inversion of the order of the sacred words,—generally in the subordinate clauses of a sentence. The extent to which ‘this prevails in Codexes of the type of BאCD passes belief. It is not merely the occasional writing of ταῦτα πάντα for πάντα ταῦτα,—or ὁ λαὸς οὗτος for οὗτος ὁ λαός, to which allusion is now made: for if that were all, the phenomenon would admit of loyal explanation and excuse. But what I speak of is a systematic putting to wrong of the inspired words throughout the entire Codex; an operation which was evidently regarded in certain quarters as a lawful exercise of critical ingenuity,—perhaps was looked upon as an elegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style of the original without materially interfering with the sense.
Let me before going further lay before the reader a few specimens of Transposition.
Take for example St.
And sometimes I find short clauses added which I prefer to ascribe to the misplaced critical assiduity of ancient Critics. Confessedly spurious, these accretions to the genuine text often bear traces of pious intelligence, and occasionally of considerable ability. I do not suppose that they ‘crept in’ from the margin: but that they were inserted by men who entirely failed to realize the wrongness of what they did,—the mischievous consequences which might possibly ensue from their well-meant endeavours to improve the work of the Holy Ghost.
[Take again St.
It will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition are of a kind which is without excuse and inadmissible. Such transposition consists in drawing back a word which occurs further on, but is thus introduced into a new context, and gives a new sense. It seems to be assumed that since the words are all there, so long as they be preserved, their exact collocation is of no moment. Transpositions of that kind, to speak plainly, are important only as affording conclusive proof that such copies as BאD preserve a text which has undergone a sort of critical treatment which is so obviously indefensible that the Codexes themselves, however interesting as monuments of a primitive age,—however valuable commercially and to be prized by learned and unlearned alike for their unique importance,—are yet to be prized chiefly as beacon-lights preserved by a watchful Providence to warn every voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore already strewn with wrecks[1].
Transposition may sometimes be as conveniently illustrated in
English as in Greek. St. Luke relates (
It is difficult to divine for what possible reason most of these
transpositions were made. On countless occasions they do not in the least affect
the sense. Often, they are incapable of being idiomatically represented, in English.
Generally speaking, they are of no manner of importance, except as tokens of the
licence which was claimed by disciples, as I suspect, of the Alexandrian school
[or exercised unintentionally by careless or ignorant Western copyists]. But there
arise occasions when we cannot afford to be so trifled with. An important change
in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected by transposing its clauses;
and on one occasion, as I venture to think, the prophetic intention of the Speaker
is obscured in consequence. I allude to St.
To reason about such transpositions of words, a wearisome proceeding at best, soon degenerates into the veriest trifling. Sometimes, the order of the words is really 161immaterial to the sense. Even when a different shade of meaning is the result of a different collocation, that will seem the better order to one man which seems not to be so to another. The best order of course is that which most accurately exhibits the Author’s precise shade of meaning: but of this the Author is probably the only competent judge. On our side, an appeal to actual evidence is obviously the only resource: since in no other way can we reasonably expect to ascertain what was the order of the words in the original document. And surely such an appeal can be attended with only one result: viz. the unconditional rejection of the peculiar and often varying order advocated by the very few Codexes,—a cordial acceptance of the order exhibited by every document in the world besides.
I will content myself with inviting attention to one or two samples
of my meaning. It has been made a question whether St. Luke (
On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult—perhaps impossible—to determine, apart from external evidence, which collocation of two or more words is the true one, whether e. g. ἔχει ζωήν for instance or ζωὴν ἔχει[1],—ἠγέρθη εὐθὲως or εὐθέως ἠγέρθη[1],—χωλούς, τυφλούς—or τυφλούς, χωλούς[1],—shall be preferred. The burden of proof rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use.
Obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man sits down before the Gospel with the deliberate intention of improving the style of the Evangelists by transposing their words on an average of seven (B), eight (א), or twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe to convict himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he has reached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of א, in place of ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ καὶ κρίσιν ποιεῖν[1], presents us with καὶ κρίσιν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ποιεῖν, we hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense[1]. And when BD instead of εἰσί τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων exhibit εἰσί τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων, we cannot but conclude that 163the credit of those two MSS. must be so far lowered in the eyes of every one who with true appreciation of the niceties of Greek scholarship observes what has been done.
[This characteristic of the old uncials is now commended to the attention of students, who will find in the folios of those documents plenty of instances for examination. Most of the cases of Transposition are petty enough, whilst some, as the specimens already presented to the reader indicate, constitute blots not favourable to the general reputation of the copies on which they are found. Indeed, they are so frequent that they have grown to be a very habit, and must have propagated themselves. For it is in this secondary character rather than in any first intention, so to speak, that Transpositions, together with Omissions and Substitutions and Additions, have become to some extent independent causes of corruption. Originally produced by other forces, they have acquired a power of extension in themselves.
It is hoped that the passages already quoted may be found sufficient to exhibit the character of the large class of instances in which the pure Text of the original Autographs has been corrupted by Transposition. That it has been so corrupted, is proved by the evidence which is generally overpowering in each case. There has clearly been much intentional perversion: carelessness also and ignorance of Greek combined with inveterate inaccuracy, characteristics especially of Western corruption as may be seen in Codex D and the Old Latin versions, must have had their due share in the evil work. The result has been found in constant slurs upon the sacred pages, lessening the beauty and often perverting the sense,—a source of sorrow to the keen scholar and reverent Christian, and reiterated indignity done in wantonness or heedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the Holy Books.]
164Chapter XI. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. VI. Substitution.
[ALL the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed under four heads, viz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution, and Addition. We are entirely aware that, in the arrangement adopted in this Volume for purposes of convenience, Scientific Method has been neglected. The inevitable result must be that passages are capable of being classed under more heads than one. But Logical exactness is of less practical value than a complete and suitable treatment of the corrupted passages that actually occur in the four Gospels.
It seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulousness that
might bore our readers a disquisition upon Substitution which has not forced itself
into a place amongst Dean Burgon’s papers, although it is found in a fragmentary
plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted forms or words or phrases, such as
ΟC (ὅς) for
θ̄c̄ (Θεός)[1]
ἡπόρει for ἐποίει
(St.
Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifications,
as they well may be, are added
to it[1]. It will be readily concluded that some substitutions are serious, some
of less importance, and many trivial. Of the more important class, the reading of
ἁμαρτήματος for κρίσεως (St.
Chapter XI. (continued). Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. VII. Addition.
[THE smallest of the four Classes, which upon a pure survey of the outward form divide among themselves the surface of the entire field of Corruption, is that of Additions[1]. And the reason of their smallness of number is discoverable at once. Whilst it is but too easy for scribes or those who have a love of criticism to omit words and passages under all circumstances, or even to vary the order, or to use another word or form instead of the right one, to insert anything into the sacred Text which does not proclaim too glaringly its own unfitness—in a word, to invent happily—is plainly a matter of much greater difficulty. Therefore to increase the Class of Insertions or Additions or Interpolations, so that it should exceed the Class of Omissions, is to go counter to the natural action of human forces. There is no difficulty in leaving out large numbers of the Sacred Words: but there is much difficulty in placing in the midst of them human words, possessed of such a character and clothed in such an uniform, as not to betray to keen observation their earthly origin.
167A few examples will set this truth in clearer light. It is remarkable
that efforts at interpolation occur most copiously amongst the books of those who
are least fitted to make them. We naturally look amongst the representatives of
the Western school where Greek was less understood than in the East where Greek
acumen was imperfectly represented by Latin activity, and where translation into
Latin and retranslation into Greek was a prolific cause of corruption. Take then
the following passage from the Codex D (St.
‘On the same day He beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said to him, “Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law.”’
And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St.
‘But seek ye from little to become greater, and not from greater to become less. When ye are invited to supper in a house, sit not down in the best place, lest some one come who is more honourable than thou, and the lord of the supper say to thee, “Go down below,” and thou be ashamed in the presence of them that have sat down. But if thou sit down in the lower place, and one who is inferior to thee come in, the lord also of the supper will say to thee, “Come near, and come up, and sit down,” and thou shalt have greater honour in the presence of them that have sat down.’
Who does not see that there is in these two passages no real ‘ring of genuineness’?
Take next some instances of lesser insertions.]
Conspicuous beyond all things in the Centurion of Capernaum (St.
[Another and that a most remarkable Addition may be found
in St.
They are (a) of Uncials א (in the first reading and as re-corrected in the seventh century) BD; (b) five Cursives (for a present of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf); (c) ten Old Latin copies also the Aureus (Words.), some of the Vulgate (four according to Wordsworth), the Palestinian, Ethiopic, Armenian; (d) Origen (Lat. iii. 874), Hilary (733a), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca, 481), Ambrose (i. I478f). But Irenaeus (Lat. i. 386), Cyril (Zach. 800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from St. Mark. So too, as Tischendorf admits, Amphilochius.
On the other hand we have, (a) the chief corrector of א (ca) ΦΣ with thirteen other Uncials and the Greek MSS. 170of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome[1]; (b) all the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed); (c) the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkleian, Lewis, Bohairic, and the Sahidic; (d) Jerome (in the place just now quoted), St. Basil who contrasts the text of St. Matthew with that of St. Mark, Didymus, who is also express in declaring that the three words in dispute are not found in St. Matthew (Trip., 195), St. John Damascene (ii. 346), Apollonius Philosophus (Galland. ix. 247), Euthymius Zigabenus (in loc.), Paulinus (iii. 12), St. Ambrose (ii. 656a), and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne, lxxxix. 941).
Theophylact (i. 133), Hesychius Presb. (Migne, lxiii. 142) Eusebius (Galland. ix. 580), Facundus Herm. (Galland. xi. 782), Athanasius (ii. 660), quote the words as from the Gospel without reference, and may therefore refer to St. Mark. Phoebadius (Galland. v. 251), though quoted against the Addition by Tischendorf, is doubtful.
On which side the balance of evidence inclines, our readers will judge. But at least they cannot surely justify the assertion made by the majority of the Revisers, that the Addition is opposed only by ‘many authorities, some ancient,’ or at any rate that this is a fair and adequate description of the evidence opposed to their decision.
An instance occurs in St.
Explanation has been already given, how the introductions to
Lections, and other Liturgical formulae, have been added by insertion to. the Text
in various places. Thus ὁ Ἰησοῦς
has often been inserted, and in some places remains wrongly
(in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in the pages of the Received Text. The three most
important additions to the Received Text occur, as Dean Burgon thought, in St.
Chapter XII. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. VIII. Glosses.
‘GLOSSES,’ properly so called, though they
enjoy a conspicuous place in every enumeration like the present, are probably by
no means so numerous as is commonly supposed. For certainly every unauthorized accretion
to the text of Scripture is not a ‘gloss’: but only those explanatory words or clauses
which have surreptitiously insinuated themselves into the text, and of which no
more reasonable account can be rendered than that they were probably in the first
instance proposed by some ancient Critic in the way of useful comment, or necessary
explanation, or lawful expansion, or reasonable limitation of the actual utterance
of the Spirit. Thus I do not call the clause νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε
in St.
[Glosses, or scholia, or comments, or interpretations, are of various kinds, but are generally confined to Additions or Substitutions, since of course we do not omit in order to explain, and transposition of words already placed in lucid order, such as the sacred Text may be reasonably supposed to have observed, would confuse rather than illustrate the meaning. A clause, added in Hebrew fashion[1], which may perhaps appear to modern taste to 173be hardly wanted, must not therefore be taken to be a gloss.]
Sometimes a ‘various reading’ is nothing else but a gratuitous gloss;—the unauthorized substitution of a common for an uncommon word. This phenomenon is of frequent occurrence, but only in Codexes of a remarkable type like BאCD. A few instances follow:—
1. The disciples on a certain occasion (St.
2. Take another instance. Πυγμῇ,—the obscure
expression (Δ leaves it out) which St. Mark employs in
A gloss little suspected, which—not without a pang of regret—I
proceed to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the expression ‘daily’ (καθ᾽
ἡμέραν) in St.
But the case assumes an entirely different aspect the instant
it is discovered that out of the cursive copies only eight are found to contain
καθ᾽
ἡμέραν in St.
Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain place,
after quoting our Lord’s saying about taking up the cross and following Him, remarks that
the words ‘do not mean that we are actually to bear the wood upon our shoulders,
but to keep the prospect of death steadily before us, and like St. Paul to “die
daily”[1].’ The
same Father, in the two other places already quoted from his writings, is observed
similarly to connect the Saviour’s
mention of ‘bearing the Cross’ with the Apostle’s announcement—‘I die daily.’ Add, that Ephraem Syrus[1], and Jerome quoted already,—persistently connect the
same two places together; the last named Father even citing them in immediate succession;—and the inference is unavoidable.
The phrase in St.
Sincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an expression with which one has been so long familiar, we cannot suffer the sentimental plea to weigh with us when the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. Certain it is that but for Erasmus, we should never have known the regret: for it was he that introduced καθ᾽ ἡμέραν into the Received 178Text. The MS. from which he printed is without the expression: which is also not found in the Complutensian. It is certainly a spurious accretion to the inspired Text.
[The attention of the reader is particularly invited to this last paragraph. The learned Dean has been sneered at for a supposed sentimental and effeminate attachment to the Textus Receptus. He was always ready to reject words and phrases, which have not adequate support; but he denied the validity of the evidence brought against many texts by the school of Westcott and Hort, and therefore he refused to follow them in their surrender of the passages.]
Indeed, a great many ‘various readings,’ so called, are nothing
else but very ancient interpretations,—fabricated readings therefore,—of which the
value may be estimated by the fact that almost every trace of them has long since
disappeared. Such is the substitution of φεύγει
for ἀνεχώρησεν in St.
Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse might Tischendorf (with א) have substituted ἀναδεικνύναι for ἵνα ποιήσωσιν αὐτὸν, on the plea that Cyril[1] says, ζητεῖν αὐτὸν ἀναδεῖξαι καὶ βασιλέα. We may on no account suffer ourselves to be imposed upon by such shallow pretences for tampering with the text of Scripture: or the deposit 179will never be safe. A patent gloss,—rather an interpretation,—acquires no claim to be regarded as the genuine utterance of the Holy Spirit by being merely found in two or three ancient documents. It is the little handful of documents which loses in reputation,—not the reading which gains in authority on such occasions.
In this way we are sometimes presented with what in effect are
new incidents. These are not unfrequently discovered to be introduced in defiance
of the reason of the case; as where (St.
Take another example. The Hebraism μετὰ σάλπιγγος
φωνῆς μεγάλης
(St.
Recent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read in St.
Many of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such is the
substitution (St.
The word ἀπέχει in St.
But the Revisers’ of the second century did not perceive that ἀπέχει is here used impersonally[1]. They understood 183the word to mean ‘is fully come’; and supplied the supposed nominative, viz. τὸ τέλος[1]. Other critics who rightly understood ἀπέχει to signify ‘sufficit,’ still subjoined ‘finis.’ The Old Latin and the Syriac versions must have been executed from Greek copies which exhibited,— ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος. This is abundantly proved by the renderings adest finis (f),—consummatus est finis (a); from which the change to ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος ΚΑΙ ἡ ὥρα (the reading of D) was obvious: sufficit finis et hora (d q); adest enim consummatio; et (ff2 venit) hora (c); or, (as the Peshitto more fully gives it), appropinquavit finis, et venit hora[1]. Jerome put this matter straight by simply writing sufficit. But it is a suggestive circumstance, and an interesting proof how largely the reading ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος must once have prevailed, that it is frequently met with in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour[1]. Happily it is an ‘old reading’ which finds no favour at the present day. It need not therefore occupy us any longer.
As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help out
the sense, the reading of St.
There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents immediately
preceding our Saviour’s Passion, one more affecting or more exquisite than the anointing
of His feet at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, which received its unexpected
interpretation from the lips of Christ Himself. ‘Let her alone. Against the day of
My embalming hath she kept it.’ (St.
In accordance with what has been said above, for Ἄφες αὐτήν·
εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου
τετηρήκεν αὐτό (St.
Our Lord,
in His great Eucharistic address to the eternal Father, thus speaks:—I
have glorified Thee on the earth. I have perfected the work which Thou 187gavest
Me to do’ (St.
But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth Gospel) proving uncongenial to certain of old time, D inserted καὶ. A more popular device was to substitute the participle (τελειώσας) for ἐτελείωσα: whereby our Lord is made to say that He had glorified His Father’s Name ‘by perfecting’ or ‘completing’—‘in that He had finished’188—the work which the Father had given Him to do; which damages the sense by limiting it, and indeed introduces a new idea. A more patent gloss it would be hard to find. Yet has it been adopted as the genuine text by all the Editors and all the Critics. So general is the delusion in favour of any reading supported by the combined evidence of אABCL, that the Revisers here translate—‘I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished (τελειώσας) the work which Thou hast given Me to do:’ without so much as vouchsafing a hint to the English reader that they have altered the text.
When some came with the message ‘Thy daughter is dead: why troublest
thou the Master further?’ the Evangelist relates that Jesus
‘as soon as He heard (εὐθέως ἀκούσας)
what was being spoken, said to the
ruler of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe.’ (St.
In this way it happened that in the earliest age the construction
of St.
It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with the first
miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke’s statement (
I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of ‘Pyrrhus
into
Chapter XIII. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IX. Corruption by Heretics.
THE Corruptions of the Sacred Text which we have been hitherto considering, however diverse the causes from which they may have resulted, have yet all agreed in this: viz. that they have all been of a lawful nature. My meaning is, that apparently, at no stage of the business has there been mala fides in any quarter. We are prepared to make the utmost allowance for careless, even for licentious transcription; and we can invent excuses for the mistaken zeal, the officiousness if men prefer to call it so, which has occasionally not scrupled to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. To be brief, so long as an honest reason is discoverable for a corrupt reading, we gladly adopt the plea. It has been shewn with sufficient clearness, I trust, in the course of the foregoing chapters, that the number of distinct causes to which various readings may reasonably be attributed is even extraordinary.
But there remains after all an alarmingly large assortment of textual perturbations which absolutely refuse to fall under any of the heads of classification already enumerated. They are not to be accounted for on any ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is, 192which occasions our present embarrassment. They are in truth so exceedingly numerous; they are often so very considerable; they are, as a rule, so very licentious; they transgress to such an extent all regulations; they usurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness, that we really know not what to think about them. Sometimes we are presented with gross interpolations,—apocryphal stories: more often with systematic lacerations of the text, or transformations as from an angel of light.
We are constrained to inquire, How all this can possibly have come about? Have there even been persons who made it their business of set purpose to corrupt the [sacred deposit of Holy Scripture entrusted to the Church for the perpetual illumination of all ages till the Lord should come?]
At this stage of the inquiry, we are reminded that it is even notorious that in the earliest age of all, the New Testament Scriptures were subjected to such influences. In the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic there were heretical teachers not a few, who finding their tenets refuted by the plain Word of God bent themselves against the written Word with all their power. From seeking to evacuate its teaching, it was but a single step to seeking to falsify its testimony. Profane literature has never been exposed to such hostility. I make the remark in order also to remind the reader of one more point of [dissimilarity between the two classes of writings. The inestimable value of the New Testament entailed greater dangers, as well as secured superior safeguards. Strange, that a later age should try to discard the latter].
It is found therefore that Satan could not even wait for the grave to close over St. John. ‘Many’ there were already who taught that Christ had not come in the flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Paul 193denounces it by name[1] and significantly condemns the wild fancies of its professors, their dangerous speculations as well as their absurd figments. Thus he predicts and condemns[1] their pestilential teaching in respect of meats and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle to Timothy[1] he relates that Hymeneus and Philetus taught that the Resurrection was past already. What wonder if a flood of impious teaching[1] broke loose on the Church when the last of the Apostles had been gathered in, and another generation of men had arisen, and the age of Miracles was found to be departing if it had not already departed[1], and the loftiest boast which any could make was that they had known those who had [seen and heard the Apostles of the Lord].
The ‘grievous wolves’ whose assaults St. Paul predicted as imminent, and against which he warned the heads of the Ephesian Church[1], did not long ‘spare the flock.’ Already, while St. John was yet alive, had the Nicolaitans developed their teaching at Ephesus[1] and in the neighbouring Church of Pergamos[1]. Our risen Lord in glory announced to His servant John that in the latter city Satan had established his dwelling-place[1]. Nay, while those awful words were being spoken to the Seer of Patmos, the men were already born who first dared to lay their impious hands on the Gospel of Christ.
No sooner do we find ourselves out of Apostolic lines and among monuments of the primitive age than we are made aware that the sacred text must have been exposed at that very early period to disturbing influences which, on no ordinary principles, can be explained. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,—among the 194Fathers: some Old Latin MSS.[1], the Bohairic and Sahidic, and coming later on, the Curetonian and Lewis,—among the Versions: of the copies Codd. B and א: and above all, coming later down still, Cod. D:—these venerable monuments of a primitive age occasionally present us with deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate,—quite impossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes, —tasteless and stupid amplifications,—plain perversions of the meaning of the Evangelists,—wholly gratuitous assimilations of one Gospel to another,—the unprovoked omission of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of high doctrinal import:—How are such phenomena as these to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we light upon a systematic mutilation of the text so extraordinary that it is as if some one had amused himself by running his pen through every clause which was not absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what remained. In another quarter we encounter the thrusting in of fabulous stories and apocryphal sayings which disfigure as well as encumber the text.—How will any one explain all this?
Let me however at the risk of repeating what has been already said dispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which is pretty sure to suggest itself to a person of intelligence after reading what goes before. If the most primitive witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear false witness to the text of Scripture,—whither are we to betake ourselves for the Truth? And what security can we hope ever to enjoy that any given exhibition of the text of Scripture is the true one? Are we then to be told that in this subject-matter the maxim ‘id verius quod prius’ does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer as we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows more and more corrupt?
195Nothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the case. Our appeal is always made to antiquity; and it is nothing else but a truism to assert that the oldest reading is also the best. A very few words will make this matter clear; because a very few words will suffice to explain a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to keep always before the eyes of the reader.
The characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature, of all the monstrous and palpable perversions of the text of Scripture just now under consideration is this:—that they are never vouched for by the oldest documents generally, but only by a few of them,—two, three, or more of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield conflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in fact contradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly always refute one another, and indeed dispose of one another’s evidence almost as often as that evidence is untrustworthy. And now I may resume and proceed.
I say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly satisfactory explanation of the greater part of those gross depravations of Scripture which admit of no legitimate excuse, to attribute them, however remotely, to those licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared by their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, interpolated, and in whatever other way to have corrupted the Gospel; whose blasphemous productions of necessity must once have obtained a very wide circulation: and indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold them. What with those who like Basilides and his followers invented a Gospel of their own:—what with those who with the Ebionites and the Valentinians interpolated and otherwise perverted one of the four Gospels until it suited their own purposes:—what with those who like Marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the inspired text:—there must have been a large mass of corruption 196festering in the Church throughout the immediate post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There were those who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or attempts to weave the fourfold narrative into one,—‘Lives of Christ,’ so to speak;—and productions of this class were multiplied to an extraordinary extent, and as we certainly know, not only found their way into the remotest corners of the Church, but established themselves there. And will any one affect surprise if occasionally a curious scholar of those days was imposed upon by the confident assurance that by no means were those many sources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but that there must be some truth in what they advanced? In a singularly uncritical age, the seductive simplicity of one reading,—the interesting fullness of another,—the plausibility of a third,—was quite sure to recommend its acceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which were constructed by long since forgotten Critics, from which the most depraved and worthless of our existing texts and versions have been derived. Emphatically condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly outvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried under fifteen centuries, the corruptions I speak of survive at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies which, calamitous to relate, the school of Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular: and in conformity with which many scholars are for refashioning the Evangelical text under the mistaken title of ‘Old Readings.’ And now to proceed with my argument.
Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three centuries of the Christian era, they almost all agreed in this;—that they involved a denial of the eternal Godhead 197of the Son of Man: denied that He is essentially very and eternal God. This fundamental heresy found itself hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, which nevertheless it assailed with restless ingenuity: and many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice which have survived to our own times. It is a memorable circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which relate either to the eternal generation of the Son,—to His Incarnation,—or to the circumstances of His Nativity, —which have suffered most severely, and retain to this hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with. I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here. I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much to blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with the Deposit. They did but imitate the example set them by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitous consequence of extravagances in one direction that they are observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. Accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think it wrong to fortify the Truth by the insertion, suppression, or substitution of a few words in any place from which danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, many an unwarrantable ‘reading’ is to be explained. I do not mean that ‘marginal glosses have frequently found their way into the text’:—that points to a wholly improbable account of the matter. I mean, that expressions which seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least which had been made a bad use of by evil men, were deliberately falsified. But I must not further anticipate the substance of the next chapter.
The men who first systematically depraved the text of Scripture, were as we now must know the heresiarchs Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl. 140), and Marcion (fl. 150): three names which Origen is observed almost 198 invariably to enumerate together. Basilides[1] and Valentinus[1] are even said to have written Gospels of their own. Such a statement is not to be severely pressed: but the general fact is established by the notices, and those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against Heresies have cited and left on record. All that is intended by such statements is that these old heretics retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased of the fourfold Gospel: and further, that they imported whatever additional matter they saw fit:—not that they rejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted something of their own invention in its place[1]. And though, in the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently with reason, that he probably did not individually go to the same length as Basilides,—who, as well in respect of St. Paul’s Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently a grievous offender[1],—yet, since it is clear that his principal followers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth a composition which they were pleased to style the ‘Gospel of Truth[1],’ it is idle to dispute as to the limit of the 199rashness and impiety of the individual author of the heresy. Let it be further stated, as no slight confirmation of the view already hazarded as to the probable contents of the (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that one particular Gospel is related to have been preferred before the rest and specially adopted by certain schools of ancient Heretics. Thus, a strangely mutilated and depraved text of St. Matthew’s Gospel is related to have found especial favour with the Ebionites[1], with whom the Corinthians are associated by Epiphanius: though Irenaeus seems to say that it was St. Mark’s Gospel which was adopted by the heretical followers of Cerinthus. Marcion’s deliberate choice of St. Luke’s Gospel is sufficiently well known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselves St. John[1]. Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of this school, is deliberately censured by Origen for having corrupted the text of the fourth Evangelist in many places[1]. A considerable portion of his Commentary on St. John has been preserved to us: and a very strange production it is found to have been.
200Concerning Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous personage, it will be necessary to speak more particularly. He has left a mark on the text of Scripture of which traces are distinctly recognizable at the present day[1]. A great deal more is known about him than about any other individual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote against him: besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian in the West[1], and Epiphanius in the East, elaborately refuted his teaching, and give us large information as to his method of handling Scripture.
Another writer of this remote time who, as I am prone to think, must have exercised sensible influence on the text of Scripture was Ammonius of Alexandria.
But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity [appears to me to have caused alterations in the Sacred Text.]
It is obviously no answer to anything that has gone before to insist that the Evangelium of Marcion (for instance), so far as it is recognizable by the notices of it given by Epiphanius, can very rarely indeed be shewn to have resembled any extant MS. of the Gospels. Let it be even freely granted that many of the charges brought against it by Epiphanius with so much warmth, collapse when closely examined and severely sifted. It is to be remembered that Marcion’s Gospel was known to be an heretical production: one of the many creations of the Gnostic age,—it must have been universally execrated and abhorred by faithful men. Besides this lacerated text of St. Luke’s Gospel, there was an Ebionite recension of 201St. Matthew: a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark: a Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but insisting that the effect of so many corruptions of the Truth, industriously propagated within far less than 100 years of the date of the inspired verities themselves, must needs have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notorious fact, that in the second and third centuries after the Christian era the text of the Gospels is found to have been grossly corrupted even in orthodox quarters,—and that traces of these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles to the present hour,—and it seems impossible not to connect the two phenomena together. The wonder rather is that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able distinctly to recognize any evidence whatever.
The proneness of these early Heretics severally to adopt one
of the four Gospels for their own, explains why there is no consistency observable
in the corruptions they introduced into the text. It also explains the bringing
into one Gospel of things which of right clearly belong to another—as in St.
I do not propose (as will presently appear) in this way to explain any considerable number of the actual corruptions of the text: but in no other way is it possible to account for such systematic mutilations as are found in Cod. B,—such monstrous additions as are found in Cod. D,—such gross perturbations as are continually met with in one or more, but never in all, of the earliest Codexes extant, as well as in the oldest Versions and Fathers.
The plan of Tatian’s Diatessaron will account for a great deal. He indulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee he reads that the servants knew ‘because they had drawn the water’; or in tasteless and stupid amplifications, as in the going back of the Centurion to his house. I suspect that the τί με ἐρωτᾷς 202περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, ‘Why do you ask me about that which is good?’ is to be referred to some of these tamperers with the Divine Word.
These professors of ‘Gnosticism’ held no consistent theory. The two leading problems on which they exercised their perverse ingenuity are found to have been (1) the origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil.
(1) They taught that the world’s artificer (‘the Word’) was Himself a creature of the ‘Father[1].’ Encountered on the threshold of the Gospel by the plain declaration that, ‘In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God’: and presently, ‘All things were made by Him’;—they were much exercised. The expedients to which they had recourse were certainly extraordinary. That ‘Beginning’ (said Valentinus) was the first thing which ‘the Father’ created: which He called ‘Only begotten Son,’ and also ‘God’ and in whom he implanted the germ of all things. Seminally, that is, whatsoever subsequently came into being was in Him. ‘The Word’ (he said) was a product of this first-created thing. And ‘All things were made by Him,’ because in ‘the Word’ was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons), to which he assigned forms[1]. From which it is plain that, according to Valentinus, ‘the 203Word’ was distinct from ‘the Son’; who was not the world’s Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged to be ‘God[1]’: but only, as we have seen already, using the term in an inferior sense.
Heracleon, commenting on St.
Of the change of οὐδὲ ἕν into οὐδέν[1]
traces survive in many of the Fathers[1]: but א and D are the
only Uncial MSS. which are known to retain that corrupt reading.—The uncouth sentence
which follows (ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῳ̂ ζωὴ ἦν), singular 204to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in many
quarters, and meets us still at every step. It was evidently put forward so perseveringly
by the Gnostics, with whom it was a kind of article of the faith, that the orthodox
at last became too familiar with it. Epiphanius, though he condemns it, once employs
it[1]. Occurring first in a fragment of Valentinus[1]: next, in the Commentary of Heracleon[1]: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the
Gnostic (A.D. 192)[1]: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of the Naäseni[1],
(a subsection of the same school);—the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable.
But inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal interpretation, the heretical
construction of St.
But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was followed by Theodotus and by at least two of the Gnostic sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further, The better to conceal St. John’s purpose, the heresiarch falsified the inspired text. In the place of, ‘What was made in Him, was life,’ he substituted ‘What was made in Him, is life.’ Origen had seen copies so depraved, and judged the reading not altogether improbable. Clement, on a single occasion, even adopted it. It was the approved reading of the Old Latin versions,—a memorable indication, by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived their texts,—which explains why it is found in Cyprian, Hilary, and Augustine; and why Ambrose has so elaborately vindicated its sufficiency. It also appears in the Sahidic and in Cureton’s Syriac; but not in the Peshitto, nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic.] In the meantime, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular trace of the Gnostic period at the present day, are Codexes א and D.
[We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the operations of Heretics.]
206The good Shepherd in a certain place (St.
But in fact it is discovered that these words of our Lord experienced depravation at the hands of the Manichaean 207heretics. Besides inverting the clauses, (and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on the side of Man,) Manes (A.D. 261) obliterated the peculiarity above indicated. Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us with the form in which these words were exhibited in that mischievous production: viz. γινώσκει με τὰ ἐμά, καὶ γινώσκω τὰ ἐμά. This we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil[1]. Cyril, in a paper where he makes clear reference to the same heretical Gospel, insists that the order of knowledge must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended[1].—But then, it is found that certain of the orthodox contented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed —regardless of the exquisite refinement of expression to which attention was called at the outset. Copies must once have abounded which represented our Lord as saying, ‘I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father’; for it is the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius[1], Nonnus, and even Basil[1] so read the place. But no token of this clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of the 208Gospels,—except אBDL. Will it be believed that nevertheless all the recent Editors of Scripture since Lachman insist on obliterating this refinement of language, and going back to the reading which the Church has long since deliberately rejected,—to the manifest injury of the deposit? ‘Many words about a trifle,’—some will be found to say. Yes, to deny God’s truth is a very facile proceeding. Its rehabilitation always requires many words. I request only that the affinity between אBDL and the Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement[1], may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives no notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers[1].]
§ 5.
DOCTRINAL.
The question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics freely dogmatized. Saturninus[1] (A.D. 120) and his followers taught that marriage was a production of Hell.
We are not surprised after this to find that those places in the Gospel which bear on the relation between man and wife exhibit traces of perturbation. I am not asserting that the heretics themselves depraved the text. I do but state two plain facts: viz. (1) That whereas in the second century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage prevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for their proofs: (2) It is accordingly found that not only does the phenomenon of ‘various readings’ prevail in those 209places of the Gospel which bear most nearly on the disputed points, but the ‘readings’ are exactly of that suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tampering with the text by men who had to maintain, or else to combat, opinions of a certain class. I proceed to establish what I have been saying by some actual examples[1].
St. |
St. |
St. |
η γυναικα, | η γυναικα, | η γυναικα, |
—BD abc Orig. | —אBDΔ, abc, &c. | all allow it. |
ὅταν δὲ λέγῃ· ὅτι “πᾶς ὅστις ἀφῆκε γυναῖκα,” οὐ τοῦτό φησιν, ὥστε ἁπλῶς διασπᾶσθαι τοὺς γάμους, κ.τ.λ. Chrys. vii. 636 E.
Παραδειγματίσαι (in St.
It sounds so like trifling with a reader’s patience to invite
his attention to an elaborate discussion of most of the changes introduced into
the text by Tischendorf and his colleagues, that I knowingly pass over many hundreds
of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly well aware 210of my own strength,—my opponent’s weakness. Such discussions
in fact become unbearable when the points in dispute are confessedly trivial. No
one however will deny that when three consecutive words of our LORD are challenged
they are worth contending for. We are invited then to believe (St.
Chapter XIV. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. X. Corruption by the Orthodox.
§ 1.
ANOTHER cause why, in very early times, the Text of the Gospels underwent serious depravation, was mistaken solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the purity of the Catholic faith. These persons, like certain of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did not think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page. About the uncritical nature of what they did, they entertained no suspicion: about the immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not trouble themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount of licence. The copies which had undergone this process of castigation were even styled ‘corrected,’—and doubtless were popularly looked upon as ‘the correct copies’ [like our ‘critical texts’]. An illustration of this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned by Epiphanius.
212He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the
Lord’s.
Divinity, eliminated from St.
So then, the process of ‘correction’ was a critical process conducted on utterly erroneous principles by men who knew nothing whatever about Textual Criticism. Such recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to the Deposit. To ‘correct’ was in this and such like cases simply to ‘corrupt.’
Codexes BאD may be regarded as specimens of Codexes which have once and again passed through the hands of such a corrector or διορθωτής.
St. Luke (
But because it is אBDL, Origen[1], and the Latin, the Egyptian
and Lewis which are without the word πνεύματι,
Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,
and the Revisers jump to the conclusion that πνεύματι is a spurious accretion to the
Text. They ought to reverse their proceeding; and recognize in the evidence one
more indication of the untrustworthiness of the witnesses. For,—how then is it supposed
that the word (πνεύματι) ever obtained its footing in the Gospel? For all reply
we are assured that it has been imported hither from St.
When then, and where did the work of depravation take place? It must have been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus[1] quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:—before the fifth, because, besides 214Cod. A, Cyril[1], Theodoret[1] and ps.-Caesarius[1] recognize the word:—before the fourth, because Epiphanius[1], Theodore of Mopsuestia[1], and the Gothic version have it:—before the third, before nearly all of the second century, because it is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we have before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of the orthodox? one more sample of the infelicity of modern criticism?
§ 2.
Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St.
We now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be remembered
that St. John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his sublime
argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said (
I have gone into all these strange details,—derived, let it be
remembered, from documents which carry us back to the former half of the second
century,—because in no other way is the singular phenomenon which attends the text
of St.
[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in the form in which the Dean left it. It evidently has not the perfection that attends some of his papers, and would have been amplified and improved if his life had been spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited to the ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the companion volume[1]. The portentous number of mentions by Gregory of Nyssa escaped me, though I knew that there were several. Such repetitions of a phrase could only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and representative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on our side less than the real number of such reiterations occurring in one passage, because in course of repetition they came to assume for such a purpose a parrot-like value.
But the most important part of the Dean’s paper is found in his account of the origin of the expression. This inference is strongly confirmed by the employment of it 218in the Arian controversy. Arius reads Θεός (ap. Epiph. 73—Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read Υἱός. So Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus[1]. Also Athanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four times each, and Ambrose eight (add Epp. I. xxii. 5). It is curious that with this history admirers of B and א should extol their reading over the Traditional reading on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retains associations which cannot be ignored: in this instance some of the orthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics[1]. None may read Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes them.]
All are familiar with the received text of
(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that Christ was ‘Man’ before He came into the World. This heresy came to a head in the persons of Apolinarius[1] and Photinus; in contending with whom, Greg. Naz.[1] and Epiphanius[1] are observed to argue with disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian[1], and Cyprian[1] after him, knew no other reading but ‘secundus 220homo de Caelo,’—which is in fact the way this place stands in the Old Latin. And thus, from the second century downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text was speedily forgotten) became current in the Church:—(1) The inspired language of the Apostle, cited at the outset,—which is retained by all the known copies, except nine; and is vouched for by Basil[1], Chrysostom[1], Theodotus[1], Eutherius[1]; Theodorus Mops.[1], Damascene[1] , Petrus Siculus[1], and Theophylact[1]: and (2) The corrected (i.e. the maimed) text of the orthodox;—ὁ δεύτερος· ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ: with which, besides the two Gregories[1], Photinus[1] and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted; but which at this day is only known to survive in א*BCD*EFG and two cursive copies. Origen[1], and (long after him) Cyril, employed both readings[1].
(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition of
the text was intolerable. The balance of the sentence had been destroyed. Against
ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος, St. Paul had set
ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος:
against ἐκ γῆς—ἐξ οὐρανοῦ: against
χοϊκός—ὁ
Κύριος:. Remove ὁ
Κύριος, and some substitute for it must
be invented as a counterpoise to
χοϊκός. Taking a hint from
what is found in
But now, let me ask,—Will any one be disposed, after a careful
survey of the premisses, to accept the verdict of Tischendorf, Tregelles and the
rest, who are for bringing the Church back to the maimed text of which I began by
giving the history and explaining the origin? Let it be noted that the one question
is,—shall ὁ Κύριος be retained in the 222second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty years
of the death of St. John: and there it stands, at the end of eighteen centuries
in every extant copy (including AK LP) except nine. It has been excellently witnessed
to all down the ages,—viz. By Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom,
Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodore Mops., Damascene and others. On what principle
would you now reject it? . . . With critics who assume that a reading found in
אBCDEFG must needs be genuine,—it is vain to argue.
And yet the most robust faith ought to be effectually shaken by the discovery that
four, if not five (אACFG) of these same MSS., by reading
‘we shall all sleep; but we
shall not all be changed,’ contradict St. Paul’s solemn announcement in
I have been the fuller on this place, because it affords an instructive example of what has occasionally befallen the words of Scripture. Very seldom indeed are we able to handle a text in this way. Only when the heretics assailed, did the orthodox defend: whereby it came to pass that a record was preserved of how the text was read by the ancient Father. The attentive reader will note (a) That all the changes which we have been considering belong to the earliest age of all:—(א) That the corrupt reading is retained by אBC and their following: the genuine text, in the great bulk of the copies:—(c) That the first mention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:—(d) That [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, as they fancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension 223of the nature and authority of the Word of God:—and (e) that under the Divine Providence that change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive witness is found on the other side].
Closely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred to in
connexion with it by those Fathers who undertook to refute the heresy of Apolinarius,
is our Lord’s declaration to Nicodemus,—‘No man hath ascended up to heaven, but
He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven’ (St.
No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the foregoing without inferring from the facts which have emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of depravations of the inspired verity. For let me not be supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was the work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably older by at least 150 years. Apolinarius, in whose person the heresy which bears his name came to a head, did but inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; and these had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of the deposit.
The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by inviting
the reader’s attention to another famous place. There is a singular consent among
the Critics for eliminating from St.
The first of these clauses (ὡς καὶ Ἡλίας ἐποίησε), which claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, Mill rejected as an obvious interpolation. ‘Res ipsa clamat. 225Quis enim sanus tam insignia deleverit[1]?’ Griesbach retained it as probably genuine.—The second clause (καὶ εἶπεν, Οὐκ οἴδατε οἵου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεῖς) he obelized as probably not genuine:—the third (ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθε ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι, ἀλλὰ σῶσαι) he rejected entirely. Lachmann also retains the first clause, but rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving, does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any misgiving about the third clause, are ‘morally certain’ that the first and second clauses are a Western interpolation. Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They agree, and the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.—Κύριε, θέλεις εἴπωμεν πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἀναλῶσαι αὐτούς; στραφεὶς δὲ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς. καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην.[1]
Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. אBLΞ 1 gl Cyrluc 2, two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text [in all its bare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including ACD; every known lectionary; all the Latin, the Syriac (Cur. om. Clause 1), and indeed every other known version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning 226with Clemens Alex. (A.D. 190), and five Latin Fathers beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190): Cyprian’s testimony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of Carthage, A.D. 253. If on a survey of this body of evidence any one will gravely tell me that the preponderance of authority still seems to him to be in favour of the shorter reason, I can but suggest that the sooner he communicates to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better.
(1) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider the disputed clauses separately, because ancient authorities, rivalling modern critics, are unable to agree as to which they will reject, which they will retain. I begin with the second. What persuades so many critics to omit the precious words καὶ εἶπεν, Οὐκ οἴδατε οἵου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεῖς, is the discovery that these words are absent from many uncial MSS.,—אABC and nine others; besides, as might have been confidently anticipated from that fact, also from a fair proportion of the cursive copies. It is impossible to deny that prima facie such an amount of evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedingly weighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the passage in the same curt way. Cyril, on the other hand, seems to have read it differently.
And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it is perceived that this disputed clause is recognized by Clemens[1] (A.D. 190); as well as by the Old Latin, by the Peshitto, and by the Curetonian Syriac: for the fact is thus established that as well in Eastern as in Western Christendom the words under discussion were actually recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before the oldest of the extant uncials came into existence. When it is further found that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old Egyptian, the Harkleian 227Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the words in question; and especially that Chrysostom in four places, Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides Antiochus, familiarly quote them, it is evident that the testimony of antiquity in their favour is even overwhelming. Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginning with D) the words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and that they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive copies,—(only six out of the twenty which Scrivener has collated being without them,)—and it is plain that at least five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied.
(2) The third clause (ὁ γὰρ
ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ
ἦλθε ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων
ἀπολέσαι, ἀλλὰ σῶσαι) rests on precisely the same solid evidence as the second; except
that the testimony of Clemens is no longer available,—but only because his quotation
does not extend so far. Cod. D also omits this third clause; which on
the other hand is upheld by Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf
suggests that it has surreptitiously found its way into the text from
St.
(3) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt an illustration is here afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists between documents of the oldest class. This divergence becomes most conspicuous when we direct our attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost clause of the three, ὡς καὶ Ἠλίας ἐποίησεν: for here we make the notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty, but also different. Codexes B and א are now forsaken by all their former allies except LΞ and a single cursive copy. True, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the Vulgate and two copies of the Old Latin. But this time 228they find themselves confronted by Codexes ACD with thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the cursives; the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions; by Clemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In respect of antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers,. they are therefore hopelessly outvoted.
Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and depravation of Codexes אABC(D) come about? I answer as follows:—
It was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that the Law
and the Gospel are at variance. In order to establish this, Marcion (in a work called
Antitheses) set passages of the New Testament against passages of the Old; from
the seeming disagreement between which his followers were taught to infer that the
Law and the Gospel cannot have proceeded from one and the same author[1]. Now here
was a place exactly suited to his purpose. The God of the Old Testament had twice
sent down fire from heaven to consume fifty men. But ‘the Son of Man,’ said our Saviour,
when invited to do the like, ‘came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them.’
Accordingly, Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion, refuting this teaching,
acquaints us that one of Marcion’s ‘Contrasts’ was Elijah’s severity in calling down
fire from Heaven,—and the gentleness of Christ. ‘I acknowledge
the severity of the judge,’ Tertullian replies; but I recognize the same severity
on the part of Christ towards His Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar
calamity on a Samaritan village[1].’ From all of which it
229is plain that within seventy years of the time when the
Gospel was published, the text of St.
But then it is further discovered that at the same remote period (about A.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel. The Manichaean heretics pressed believers with it[1]. The disciples’ appeal to the example of Elijah, and the reproof they incurred, became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be foreseen. With commendable solicitude for God’s honour, but through mistaken piety, certain of the orthodox (without suspicion of the evil they were committing) were so ill-advised as to erase from their copies the twenty-four words which had been turned to mischievous account as well as to cause copies to be made of the books so mutilated: and behold, at the end of 1,700 years, the calamitous result !
Of these three clauses then, which are closely interdependent, and as Tischendorf admits[1] must all three stand or all three fall together, the first is found with ACD, the Old Latin, Peshitto, Clement, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,—not with KB the Vulgate or Curetonian. The second and third clauses are found with Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, six Greek and five Latin Fathers,—not with אABCD. 230While א and B are alone in refusing to recognize either first, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of that ‘singular agreement’ which is sometimes said to subsist between ‘the lesser group of witnesses.’ Is it not plain on the contrary that at a very remote period there existed a fierce conflict, and consequent hopeless divergence of testimony about the present passage; of which 1,700 years[1] have failed to obliterate the traces? Had אB been our only ancient guides, it might of course have been contended that there has been no act of spoliation committed: but seeing that one half of the missing treasure is found with their allies, ACD, Clement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,—the other half with their allies, Old Latin, Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine[1],—it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set up.
231The endeavour to establish agreement among the witnesses by a skilful distribution
or rather dislocation of their evidence, a favourite device with the Critics, involves
a fallacy which in any other subject would be denied a place. I trust that henceforth
St.
A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be explained further how it has come to pass that the evidence for omitting the first clause and the two last is so unequally divided? I answer, the disparity is due to the influence of the Lectionaries.
Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical Lection
which used to begin either at St.
Appendix I. Pericope de Adultera.
I HAVE purposely reserved for the last
the most difficult problem of all: viz. those twelve famous verses of St. John’s
Gospel (
It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen centuries
two instances, and but two, should exist of a considerable portion of Scripture
left to the mercy, so to speak, of ‘Textual Criticism.’ Twelve consecutive Verses
in the second Gospel—as many consecutive Verses in the fourth—are in this predicament.
It is singular, I say, that the Providence which has watched so marvellously over
the fortunes of the, Deposit,— the Divine Wisdom 233which has made such ample provision for its security all down
the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that these two co-extensive
problems have survived to our times
to be tests of human sagacity,—trials of human
faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features of correspondence,
but far more of contrast,—as will presently appear. And yet the most important circumstance
of all cannot be too soon mentioned: viz. that both alike have experienced the
same calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics. By common consent the most
recent editors deny that either set of Verses can have formed part of the Gospel
as it proceeded from the hands of its inspired author. How mistaken is this opinion
of theirs in respect of the ‘Last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St.
Mark,’ has been already demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content in
this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict of
many critics concerning St.
And first, the case of the pericope de adultera requires to be placed before the reader in its true bearings. For those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminary considerations which, once clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of the point vat issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from the context in which it stands, which they seem to have overlooked. I proceed to explain.
234Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question before us is not by any means,—Shall these Twelve Verses be admitted—or, Must they be refused admission—into the Sacred Text? That point has been settled long, long ago. St. John’s Twelve verses are in possession. Let those eject them who can. They are known to have occupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years. There never was a time—as far as is known—when they were not where,—and to all intents and purposes what—they now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary method of proof,—no merely common argument,—will avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?
‘Twelve such Verses,’ I say. For it is the extent of the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable. We have here to do with no dubious clause, concerning which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss, which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, and to have crept in as from the margin; no importation from another Gospel; no verse of Scripture which has lost its way; no weak amplification of the Evangelical meaning; no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the narrative and almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancient evidence, the proceeding would be intelligible. But I take leave to point out that a highly complex and very important incident—as related in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel—cannot be so dealt with. Squatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with a notice of ejectment: but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy, 235may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process. This—to speak without a figure—is a connected and very striking portion of the sacred narrative:—the description of a considerable incident, complete in itself, full of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would have ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it successfully must come forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usually employed in textual warfare.
It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses hold their
actual place by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelve verses
which can be named in the Gospel: but it would be premature to enter upon
the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the reader’s attention, next
to the actual texture of the pericope de adultera, by which name (as already explained) the last verse of
St.
The first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrative concerning ‘the woman taken in adultery’ is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses: being preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different character and complexion. Let these be first produced and studied:
‘and every man went to his own house: but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.’ ‘And again, very early in the morning, He presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto Him: and He sat down and taught them.’
Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end 236of a narrative. It purports to be the conclusion of something which went before, not to introduce something which conies after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John’s account of what occurred at the close of the debate between certain members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The verse in question marks the conclusion of the Feast,—implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it, and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and all proceeds methodically; while an affecting contrast is established, which is recognized to be strictly in the manner of Scripture[1]. Each one had gone to his home: but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of Olives. In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent narrative: proves to be a fragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine Scripture. By consequence, itself must needs be genuine also[1].
It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in the same predicament as those which follow: are as ill supported by MS. evidence as the other ten: and must therefore share the same fate as the rest. The statement is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be shewn. But, what is even better deserving of attention, since confessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to fall together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicion that certain of them, at all events, must 237needs be genuine, throws real doubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has been passed in a lump upon all the rest.
I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which some Critics in their eagerness have overlooked.
The reader will bear in mind that—contending, as I do, that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its lawful context,—I began by examining the upper extremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces of being a fractured edge. The result is just what might have been anticipated. The first two of the verses which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine Scripture. How then about the other extremity?
Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and א immediate transition
is made from the words out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,’ in
But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained
between
But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary copy
of the New Testament, and his meaning is perfectly clear. The last great day of
the Feast of Tabernacles is ended. It is the morrow and ‘very early in the morning.’
The Holy One has ‘again presented Himself in the Temple’ where on the previous night
He so narrowly escaped violence at the hands of His enemies, and He teaches the
people. While thus engaged,—the time, the place, His own occupation suggesting thoughts
of peace and holiness and love,—a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and Pharisees,
enter on the foulest of errands; and we all remember with how little success. Such
an interruption need not have occupied much time. The Woman’s accusers having departed,
our Saviour resumes His discourse which
had been broken off. ‘Again therefore’ it is said in
But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, the mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its ‘edifying and eminently Christian’ character, vindicates for the Pericope de adultera a right to its place in the Gospel. Let me endeavour to explain what seems to be its spiritual significancy: in other words, to interpret the transaction.
The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our Saviour on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion. On the present occasion our Lord is observed to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion. The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction[1], was a species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife.
Let the provisions of the law, contained in
And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence of incarnate Jehovah verily they had been brought: and perhaps when He stooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some connexion between the curse which He thus traced in the dust of the floor of the tabernacle’ and the words which He uttered with His lips, and He may with truth be declared to have ‘taken of the dust and put in on the water,’ and ‘caused them to drink of the bitter water which causeth the curse.’ For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh addressed these adulterers,—what did He but present them with living water[1] ‘in an earthen vessel[1]’? Did He not further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, ‘If ye have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this bitter water: but if ye be defiled ‘—On being presented with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they shewed themselves so impatient? ‘Surely it was the water of conviction’ (τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ) as it is six times called, which they had been compelled to drink; whereupon, convicted (ἐλεγχόμενοι) by their own conscience,’ as St. John relates, they had pronounced the other’s acquittal. Finally, note that by Himself declining to ‘condemn’ the accused woman, our Lord also did in effect blot out those curses which He had already written against her in the dust,—when He made the floor of the sanctuary His ‘book.’
Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition—and I am not concerned to defend it in every detail,—on 241turning to the opposite contention, we are struck with the slender amount of actual proof with which the assailants of this passage seem to be furnished. Their evidence is mostly negative—a proceeding which is constantly observed to attend a bad cause: and they are prone to make up for the feebleness of their facts by the strength of their assertions. But my experience, as one who has given a considerable amount of attention to such subjects, tells me that the narrative before us carries on its front the impress of Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for itself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it cannot be the work of a fabricator. The more I study it, the more I am impressed with its Divinity. And in what goes before I have been trying to make the reader a partaker of my own conviction.
To come now to particulars, we may readily see from its very
texture that it must needs have been woven in a heavenly loom. Only too obvious
is the remark that the very subject-matter of the chief transaction recorded in
these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself to preclude the suspicion
that these twelve verses are a spurious addition to the genuine Gospel. And then
we note how entirely in St. John’s manner is the little explanatory clause in
But it is time to turn from such considerations as the foregoing, and to inquire for the direct testimony, which is assumed by recent Editors and Critics to be fatal to these twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it ‘absolutely certain that this narrative was not written by St. John[1].’ One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener) declares that ‘on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the passage must needs be abandoned[1].’ Tregelles is ‘fully satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John’s Gospel[1].’ Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles puts it into his footnotes. Westcott and Hort, harsher than any of their predecessors, will not, as we have seen, allow it to appear even at the foot of the page. To reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of this precious portion of God’s written Word would be a joyless and an unprofitable task. According to Green, ‘the 243genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained[1].’ Hammond is of opinion that it would be more satisfactory to separate it from its present context, and place it by itself as an appendix to the Gospel[1].’ A yet more recent critic ‘sums up,’ that ‘the external evidence must be held fatal to the genuineness of the passage[1].’ The opinions of Bishops Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully commented upon by-and-by. In the meantime, I venture to join issue with every one of these learned persons. I contend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism the passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scripture; and that without a particle of doubt. I cannot even admit that it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other passage of Scripture whatever[1].’ I contend that it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the rest of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same Gospel which can be named: but—like countless other places—it is found for whatever reason to have given offence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experienced very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also:—but especially of the latter. In other words, these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of genuineness less conspicuously than any other twelve consecutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The one only question to be decided is the following:—On a review of the whole of the evidence,—is it more reasonable to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accretion to the Gospel? Or to admit that they must needs be accounted to be genuine? . . . I shall shew that they are at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which is 244absolutely overwhelming. I read with satisfaction that my own convictions were shared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the learned Ceriani on my side. I should have been just as confident had I stood alone:—such is the imperative strength of the evidence.
To begin then. Tischendorf—(who may be taken as a fair sample of the assailants of this passage)—commences by stating roundly that the Pericope is omitted by אABCLTXΔ, and about seventy cursives. I will say at once, that no sincere inquirer after truth could so state the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A and C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore is it to know with certainty what they either did, or did not, contain. But this is not merely all. I proceed to offer a few words concerning Cod. A.
Woide, the learned and accurate[1] editor of the Codex Alexandrinus, remarked (in 1785)—‘Historia adulterae videtur in hoc codice defuisse.’ But this modest inference of his, subsequent Critics have represented as an ascertained fact, Tischendorf announces it as ‘certissimum.’ Let me be allowed to investigate the problem for myself. Woide’s calculation,—(which has passed unchallenged for nearly a hundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a-days assumed that Cod. A must have exactly resembled Codd. אB in omitting the pericope de adultera,)—was far too roughly made to be of any critical use[1].
Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the word
καταβαίνων in
As for L and Δ, they exhibit a vacant space after St.
But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of later date are without the pericope de adultera: that the first Greek Father who quotes the pericope is Euthymius in the twelfth century: that Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew nothing of it: and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic, or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which statements I remark over again that no sincere lover of Truth, supposing him to understand the matter about which he is disputing, could so exhibit the evidence for this particular problem. First, because so to state it is to misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the articles of indictment are only half true:—in fact are untrue. But chiefly, because in the foregoing enumeration certain considerations are actually suppressed which, had they been fairly stated, would have been found to reverse the issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry in my own way.
The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly to understand what the problem before him actually is. Twelve verses then, which, as a matter of fact, are found dovetailed into a certain context of St. John’s Gospel, the Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the Critics in question prove that they must? For unless they do, there is no help for it but the pericope de adultera must be 247left where it is. I proceed to shew first, that it is im possible, on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve verses from their actual context.—Next, I shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove the point they are intended to prove; but admit of a sufficient and satisfactory explanation.—Thirdly, it shall be shewn that the said explanation carries with it, and implies, a weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in dispute, which is absolutely overwhelming.—Lastly, the positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal. To some people I may seem to express myself with too much confidence. Let it then be said once for all, that my confidence is inspired by the strength of the arguments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author of Holy Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, I cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in them.
Now I begin by establishing as my firtt proposition that,
(1) These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the Gospels reaches.
And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John’s Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to stand in situ in Codd. b c e ff2 g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself[1] in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes 248it at least nine times[1]; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often[1]. It is quoted besides by Pacian[1], in the north of Spain (370),—by Faustus[1] the African (400),—by Rufinus[1] at Aquileia (400),—by Chrysologus[1] at Ravenna (433),—by Sedulius[1] a Scot (434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises[1] written at the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),—by Vigilius of Tapsus[1] (484) in North Africa,—by Gelasius[1], bp. of Rome (492),—by Cassiodorus[1] in Southern Italy,—by Gregory the Great[1], and by other Fathers of the Western Church.
To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek,—from which language no one doubts that they derived 249their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we are not left to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight copies of the Bohairic version the pericope de adultera is read in fifteen, but in three forms which will be printed in the Oxford edition. In the remaining twenty-three, it is left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage is thus found in nearly half the copies—except on the hypothesis that they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version? They might have been easily omitted: but how could they have been inserted?
Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century),—the Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century),—the Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century),—to say nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which are of later date,—all contain the portion of narrative in dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth–fifth century) originally contained it; though it survives at present in only a few copies. Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times.
But even this is not all. Jerome, who
was familiar with Greek MSS. (and who handled none
of later date than B and א), expressly relates (380) that the
pericope de adultera
‘is found in many copies both Greek and Latin[1].’ He calls
attention to the fact that what is rendered ‘sine peccato’ is ἀναμάρτητος in the Greek: and lets
fall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies which exhibited
(in ver. 8) εγραφεν ενος εκαστου αυτων τας
αμαρτιας,—a reading which survives
to this day in one uncial
(U) and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel[1]. Whence is it—let me
ask in passing—that go 250many Critics fail to see that positive
testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse
negative testimony of אBT,—aye,
and of AC to boot if they were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that
the two Codexes, א and B, have obtained such a mastery—rather exercise such a tyranny—over
the imagination of many Critics as quite to overpower their practical judgement? We have at all events established our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest
period to which testimony reaches, the incident of ‘the woman taken in adultery’ occupied its present place in St. John’s Gospel. The Critics eagerly remind us that
in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the verses in question are found tacked
on to the end of St.
It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony reaches the passage under discussion stood where it now stands in St. John’s Gospel. And this is my first position. But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one has seriously called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except Dr. Hort[1]) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest antiquity. Adverse Critics do but insist that however ancient, it must needs be of spurious origin: or else that 251it is an afterthought of the Evangelist:—concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by-and-by.
It clearly follows,—indeed it may be said with truth that it only remains,—to inquire what may have led to its so frequent exclusion from the sacred Text? For really the difficulty has already resolved itself into that.
And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In the earliest
age of all,—the age which was familiar with the universal decay of heathen virtue,
but which had not yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to fashion society afresh,
and to build up domestic life on a new and more enduring basis;—at a time when
the greatest laxity of morals prevailed, and the enemies of the Gospel were known
to be on the look out for grounds of cavil against Christianity and its Author;—what
wonder if some were found to remove the pericope de adultera
from their copies, lest it should be pleaded in extenuation
of breaches of the seventh commandment? The very subject-matter, I say, of St.
The Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had made choice
of St.
We may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition, which is
(2) That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the Church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognized the narrative in question as an integral part of St. John’s Gospel, and as standing in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time.
Take into your hands at random the first MS. copy of St. John’s Gospel which presents itself, and turn to the place in question. Nay, I will instance all the four Evangelia which I call mine,—all the seventeen which belong to Lord Zouch,—all the thirty-nine which Baroness Burdett-Coutts imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all these copies—(and nearly each of them represents a different line of ancestry)—are found to contain the verses in question. How did the verses ever get there?
But the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is behind.
Some out of the Evangelia referred to are observed to have been prepared for ecclesiastical
use: in other words, are so rubricated throughout as to shew where. every separate
lection had its ‘beginning’ (ἀρχή), and where its ‘end’
(τέλος). And some of these lections
are made up of disjointed portions of the Gospel. Thus, the lection for Whitsunday
is found to have extended from
But first,—How is it that those who would reject the narrative are not struck by the essential foolishness of supposing that twelve fabricated verses, purporting to be an integral part of the fourth Gospel, can have so firmly established themselves in every part of Christendom from the second century downwards, that they have long since become simply ineradicable? Did the Church then, pro hac vice, abdicate her function of ‘being a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ’? Was she all of a sudden forsaken by the inspiring Spirit, who, as she was promised, should ‘guide her into all Truth’? And has she been all down the ages guided into the grievous error of imputing to the disciple whom Jesus loved a narrative of which he knew nothing? For, as I remarked at the outset, this is not merely an assimilated expression, or an unauthorized nominative, or a weakly-supported clause, or any such trifling thing. Although be it remarked in passing, I am not aware of a single such trifling excrescence which we are not able at once to detect and to remove. In other words, this is not at all a question, like the rest, about the genuine text of a passage. Our inquiry is of an essentially different kind, viz. Are these twelve consecutive verses Scripture at all, or not? Divine or human? Which? 255They claim by their very structure and contents to be an integral part of the Gospel. And such a serious accession to the Deposit, I insist, can neither have ‘crept into’ the Text, nor have ‘crept out’ of it. The thing is unexampled, —is unapproached,—is impossible.
Above all,—(the reader is entreated to give the subject his sustained
attention),—Is it not perceived that the admission involved in the hypothesis before
us is fatal to any rational pretence that the passage is of spurious origin? We
have got back in thought at least to the third or fourth century of our era. We
are among the Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern Church in conference assembled: and they are determining what shall be the Gospel for the great Festival of Pentecost.
‘It shall begin’ (say they) ‘at the thirty-seventh verse of St.
And no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance that the
present Pentecostal lection has been thus maimed and mutilated in respect of twelve
of its verses. There is nothing at all extraordinary in the treatment which St.
Permit me to suppose that, between the Treasury and Whitehall, the remote descendant of some Saxon thane occupied a small tenement and garden which stood in the very middle of the ample highway. Suppose further, the property thereabouts being Government property, that the road on either side of this estate had been measured a hundred times, and jealously watched, ever since Westminster became Westminster. Well, an act of Parliament might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor of this singular estate to surrender his patrimony; but I submit that no government lawyer would ever think of setting up the plea that the owner of that peculiar strip of land was an impostor. The man might have no title-deeds to 257produce, to be sure; but counsel for the defendant would plead that neither did he require any. ‘This man’s title’ (counsel would say) ‘is—occupation for a thousand years. His evidences are—the allowance of the State throughout that long interval. Every procession to St. Stephen’s—every procession to the Abbey—has swept by defendant’s property—on this side of it and on that,—since the days of Edward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to quit the soil, I defy you—except by violence—to get rid of him.’
In this way then it is that the testimony borne to these verses by the Lectionary of the East proves to be of the most opportune and convincing character. The careful provision made for passing by the twelve verses in dispute:—the minute directions which fence those twelve verses off on this side and on that, directions issued we may be sure by the highest Ecclesiastical authority, because recognized in every part of the ancient Church,—not only establish them effectually in their rightful place, but (what is at least of equal importance) fully explain the adverse phenomena which are ostentatiously paraded by adverse critics; and which, until the clue has been supplied, are calculated to mislead the judgement.
For now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain why
Chrysostom and Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John’s Gospel, pass straight
from
The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers is therefore invalid. The argument e silentio—always an insecure argument,—proves inapplicable in this particular case. When the antecedent facts have been once explained, all the subsequent phenomena become intelligible. But a more effectual and satisfactory reply to the difficulty occasioned by the general silence of the Fathers, remains to be offered.
There underlies the appeal to Patristic authority an opinion,—not expressed indeed, yet consciously entertained by us all,—which in fact gives the appeal all its weight and cogency, and which must now by all means be brought to the front. The fact that the Fathers of the Church were not only her Doctors and Teachers, but also the living voices by which alone her mind could be proclaimed to the world, and by which her decrees used to be authoritatively promulgated;—this fact, I say, it is which makes their words, whenever they deliver themselves, so very important: their approval, if they approve, so weighty; their condemnation, if they condemn, so fatal. But then, in the present instance, they do not condemn. They neither approve nor condemn. They simply say nothing. They are silent: and in what precedes, I have explained the reason why. We wish it had been otherwise. We would give a great deal to persuade those ancient oracles to speak on the subject of these twelve verses: but they 259are all but inexorably silent. Nay, I am overstating the case against myself. Two of the greatest Fathers (Augustine and Ambrose) actually do utter a few words; and they are to the effect that the verses are undoubtedly genuine:—‘Be it known to all men’ (they say) ‘that this passage is genuine: but the nature of its subject-matter has at once procured its ejection from MSS., and resulted in the silence of Commentators.’ The most learned of the Fathers in addition practically endorses the passage; for Jerome not only leaves it standing in the Vulgate where he found it in the Old Latin version, but relates that it was supported by Greek as well as Latin authorities.
To proceed however with what I was about to say.
It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on this difficult subject that we desiderate. We resorted to the Fathers for that: intending to regard any quotations of theirs, however brief, as their practical endorsement of all the twelve verses: to infer from their general recognition of the passage, that the Church in her collective capacity accepted it likewise. As I have shewn, the Fathers decline, almost to a man, to return any answer. But,—Are we then without the Church’s authoritative guidance on this subject? For this, I repeat, is the only thing of which we are in search. It was only in order to get at this that we adopted the laborious expedient of watching for the casual utterances of any of the giants of old time. Are we, I say, left without the Church’s opinion?
Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach,—and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence we felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for 260October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce in evidence. Any pretence to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portion of Scripture so singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else but monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue: viz. to inquire what amount of respect is due to the Church’s authority in determining the authenticity of Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to a fact: and that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church for a very sufficient reason are very nearly silent on the subject of these twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with a voice of authority so loud that none can affect not to hear it: so plain, that it cannot possibly be misunderstood.
And let me not be told that I am hereby setting up the Lectionary
as the true standard of appeal for the Text of the New Testament: still less let
me be suspected of charging on the collective body of the faithful whatever irregularities
are discoverable in the Codexes which were employed for the public reading of Scripture.
Such a suspicion could only be entertained by one who has hitherto failed to apprehend
the precise point just now under consideration. We are not examining the text of
St.
Now when to this has been added what is implied in the rubrical direction that a ceremonious respect should be shewn to the Festival of Pentecost by dropping the twelve verses, I submit that I have fully established my second position, viz. That by the very construction of her Lectionary the Church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognized the narrative in question, as an integral part of St. John’s Gospel, and as standing in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time.
For,—(I entreat the candid reader’s sustained attention),—the circumstances of the present problem altogether refuse to accommodate themselves to any hypothesis of a spurious original for these verses; as I proceed to shew.
Repair in thought to any collection of MSS. you please; suppose
to the British Museum. Request to be shewn their seventy-three copies of St. John’s
Gospel, and turn to the close of his seventh chapter. At that particular place you
will find, in sixty-one of these copies, these twelve verses: and in thirty-five
of them you will discover, after the words Προφήτης ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας οὐκ ἐγ.
a rubrical note to the effect that ‘on Whitsunday, these twelve verses are
to be dropped; and the reader is to go on at
(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why one of St. John’s after-thoughts should have fared so badly at the Church’s hands;—another, so well? I find it suggested that perhaps the subject-matter may sufficiently account for all that has happened to the pericope de adultera: And so it may, no doubt. But then, once admit this, and the hypothesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory: fails even to touch the difficulty which it professes to remove. For if men were capable of thinking scorn of these twelve verses when they found them in the ‘second and improved edition of St. John’s Gospel,’ why may they not have been just as irreverent in respect of the same verses, when they appeared in the first edition? How is it one whit more probable that every Greek Father for a thousand years should have systematically overlooked the twelve verses in dispute when they appeared in the second edition of St. John’s Gospel, than that the same Fathers should have done the same thing when they appeared in the first[1]?
(4) But the hypothesis is gratuitous and nugatory: for it has been invented in order to account for the phenomenon that whereas twelve verses of St. John’s Gospel are found in the large majority of the later Copies,—the 263same verses are observed to be absent from all but one of the five oldest Codexes. But how, (I wish to be informed,) is that hypothesis supposed to square with these phenomena? It cannot be meant that the ‘second edition’ of St. John did not come abroad until after Codd. אABCT were written? For we know that the old Italic version (a document of the second century) contains all the three portions of narrative which are claimed for the second edition. But if this is not meant, it is plain that some further hypothesis must be invented in order to explain why certain Greek MSS. of the fourth and fifth centuries are without the verses in dispute. And this fresh hypothesis will render that under consideration (as I said) nugatory and shew that it was gratuitous.
What chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary suggestion is its irreverence. It assumes that the Gospel according to St. John was composed like any ordinary modern book: capable therefore of being improved in the second edition, by recension, addition, omission, retractation, or what not. For we may not presume to limit the changes effected in a second edition. And yet the true Author of the Gospel is confessedly God the Holy Ghost: and I know of no reason for supposing that His works are imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands.
The cogency of what precedes has in fact weighed so powerfully
with thoughtful and learned Divines that they have felt themselves constrained,
as their last resource, to cast about for some hypothesis which shall at once account
for the absence of these verses from so many copies of St. John’s Gospel, and yet
retain them for their rightful owner and author,—St. John. Singular to relate, the
assumption which has best approved itself to their judgement has been, that there
must have existed two editions of St. John’s Gospel,—the earlier edition without,
the later edition with, the incident under discussion. It is 264I presume, in order to conciliate favour to this singular hypothesis,
that it has been further proposed to regard St.
1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but the absence of St.
2. So, concerning St.
(5) Assuming, however, just for a moment the hypothesis correct for argument’s sake, viz. that in the second edition of St. John’s Gospel the history of the woman taken in adultery appeared for the first time. Invite the authors of that hypothesis to consider what follows. The discovery that five out of six of the oldest uncials extant (to reckon here the fragment T) are without the verses in question; which 265yet are contained in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the despised cursives:—what other inference can be drawn from such premisses, but that the cursives fortified by other evidence are by far the more trustworthy witnesses of what St. John in his old age actually entrusted to the Church’s keeping?
[The MS. here leaves off, except that a few pencilled words are added in an incomplete form. I have been afraid to finish so clever and characteristic an essay.]
266Appendix II. Conflation and the So-called Neutral Text.
SOME of the most courteous of our critics, in reviewing the companion volume to this, have expressed regret that we have not grappled more closely than we have done with Dr. Hort’s theory. I have already expressed our reasons. Our object has been to describe and establish what we conceive to be the true principles of Sacred Textual Science. We are concerned only in a secondary degree with opposing principles. Where they have come in our way, we have endeavoured to remove them. But it has not entered within our design to pursue them into their fastnesses and domiciles. Nevertheless, in compliance with a request which is both proper and candid, I will do what I can to examine with all the equity that I can command an essential part of Dr. Hort’s system, which appears to exercise great influence with his followers.
§ 1.
CONFLATION.
Dr. Hort’s theory of ‘Conflation’ may be discovered on pp. 93-107.
The want of an index to his Introduction, notwithstanding his ample ‘Contents,’
makes it difficult to collect illustrations of his meaning from the rest of his
treatise. Nevertheless, the effect of Conflation appears to 267be
well described in his words on p. 133:—‘Now however the three
great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to a text different from
all.’ In other words, by means of a combination of the Western, Alexandrian, and
‘Neutral’ Texts—‘the great lines of transmission . . . to all appearance exclusively
divergent,’—the ‘Syrian’ text was constructed in a form different from any one and
all of the other three. Not that all these three were made to contribute on every
occasion. We find (p. 93) Conflation, or Conflate Readings, introduced as proving
the posteriority of Syrian to Western . . . and other . . . readings.’ And in the
analysis of eight passages, which is added, only in one case (St.
Perhaps I may present Dr. Hort’s theory under the form of a diagram:—
Our theory is the converse in main features to this. We utterly repudiate the term Syrian’ as being a most inadequate and untrue title for the Text adopted and maintained by the Catholic Church with all her intelligence and learning, during nearly fifteen centuries according to Dr. Hort’s admission: and we claim from the evidence that the Traditional Text of the Gospels, under the true name, is that which came fresh from the pens of the Evangelists; and that all variations from it, however they have been entitled, are nothing else than corrupt forms of 268the original readings. Our diagram in rough presentation will therefore assume this character:—
It should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c., denote forms of corruption. We do not recognize the ‘Neutral’ at all, believing it to be a Caesarean combination or recension, made from previous texts or readings of a corrupt character.
The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort’s or ours?
The general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Flores theory are:—
(1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. Given three things, of which X includes what is in Y and Z, upon the face of the theory either X may have arisen by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Z may owe their origin by analysis to X.
(2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort’s arguments for the posteriority of D are mainly of an internal character, and are loose and imaginative, depending largely upon personal or literary predilections.
(3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, which in a most able period had been occupied with discussions on verbal accuracy, should have made the gross mistake of adopting (what was then) a modern concoction from the original 269text of the Gospels, which had been written less than three or four centuries before; and that their error should have been acknowledged as truth, and perpetuated by the ages that succeeded them down to the present time.
But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort’s argument.
He founds it upon a detailed examination of eight passages, viz.
St.
1. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. Did the
author decide upon it with a view of presenting two specimens from each Gospel?
To be sure, he gives four from the first two, and four from the two last, only that
he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St. Luke. Did the strong style
of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning in every word, yield no suitable example for
treatment? Could no passage be found in St. John’s Gospel, where not without parallel,
but to a remarkable degree, extreme simplicity of language, even expressed in alternative
clauses, clothes soaring thought and philosophical acuteness? True, that he quotes
St.
2. But we must advance a step further.
Dean Burgon as we have seen has calculated the differences between 270B and the Received Text at 7,578, and those which divide א and the Received Text as reaching 8,972. He divided these totals
respectively under 2,877 and 3,455 omissions, 536 and 839 additions,
2,098 and 2,299 transpositions, and 2,067 and 2,379 substitutions and modifications
combined. Of these classes, it is evident that Conflation has nothing to do with
Additions or Transpositions. Nor indeed with Substitutions, although one of Dr.
Hort’s instances appears to prove that it has. Conflation is the combination of
two (or more) different expressions into one. If therefore both expressions occur
in one of the elements, the Conflation has been made beforehand, and a substitution
then occurs instead of a conflation. So in St.
3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. And first to examine Dr. Hort’s eight instances. Unfortunately, the early patristic evidence on these verses is scanty. We have little evidence of a direct character to light up the dark sea of conjecture.
(1) St. Mark (
Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause (καὶ προῆλθον αὐτούς) is attested by Bא and their followers; another (καὶ συνῆλθον αὐτοῦ, or ἦλθον αὐτοῦ, which is very different from the ‘Syrian’ συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν) by some Western documents; and he argues that the entire form 272in the Received Text, καὶ προῆλθον αὐτούς, καὶ συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν, was formed by Conflation from the other two. I cannot help observing that it is a suspicious mark, that even in the case of the most favoured of his chosen examples he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of his elements of Conflation as virtually to doctor it in order to bring it strictly to the prescribed pattern. When we come to his arguments he candidly admits, that ‘it is evident that either δ (the Received Text) is conflate from α (Bא) and β (Western), or α and β are independent simplifications of δ’; and that ‘there is nothing in the sense of δ that would tempt to alteration,’ and that ‘accidental’ omission of one or other clause would ‘be easy.’ But he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause that the difference between αὐτοῦ and πρὸς αὐτόν is really in his favour, chiefly because αὐτοῦ would very likely if it had previously existed been changed into πρὸς αὐτόν—which no one can doubt; and that ‘συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν is certainly otiose after συνέδραμον ἐκεῖ,’ which shews that he did not understand the whole meaning of the passage. His argument upon what he terms ‘Intrinsic Probability’ leads to a similar inference. For simply ἐξελθών cannot mean that He “came out” of His retirement in some sequestered nook to meet them,’ such a nook being not mentioned by St. Mark, whereas πλοῖον is; nor can ἐκεῖ denote the desert region.’ Indeed the position of that region or nook was known before it was reached solely to our Lord and His Apostles: the multitude was guided only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise.
Accordingly, Dr. Hort’s conclusion must be reversed. ‘The balance of Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly’ not ‘in favour of δ from α and β,’ but ‘of α and β from δ.’ The reading of the Traditional Text is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to the probability of its 273pre-existence. The derivation of the two others from that is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is termed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is proved by a largely over-balancing weight of evidence.
(2) ‘To examine other passages equally in detail would occupy too much space.’ So says Dr. Hort: but we must examine points that require attention.
St.
But what says Dr. Hort? ‘Here a
is simple and vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar Μηδὲ has the terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but
the softening into Μή by א* shews
that it might trouble scribes.’ It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It
may be said however that a is bald as well as simple, and that the very difficulty
in β makes it probable that that clause was
not invented. To take τινὶ ἐν τῇ κώμῃ Hebraistically
for τινὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ
like the 274τις ἐν ὑμῖν
ig.av of St.
(3) St.
Here the authority for α is אBCLΔ, four Cursives, f, Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis MS. For β there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but f and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage, ΑΦΣΝ + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but six, the Harkleian (yet obelizes α) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact (i. 219): and Augustine quotes separately both omissions (α ix. 533, and β III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so far as I can find, quote the passage.
Dr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on his side, relying apparently upon the obvious repetition. In the first part of the verse, St. John describes the case of the man: in the second he reports for our Lord’s judgement the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles gave him. Is it so certain that the original text of the passage contained only the description, and omitted the reason of the prohibition as it was given to the non-follower of our Lord? To me it seems that the simplicity of St. Mark’s style is best preserved by the inclusion of both. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man: they treated him with reasonableness, and in the same spirit St. John reported to his Master all that occurred. Besides this, the evidence on the Traditional side is too strong to admit of it not being the genuine reading.
275(4) St.
α. אBLΔ, fifteen Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and the Lewis.
β. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).
Trad. Text. ΑCΦΣΝ and twelve more Uncials, all Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. of Ethiopic and Armenian, Gothic, Victor of Antioch (Cramer’s Cat. i. 368), Theophylact (i. 221).
This evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the Traditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort.
‘A reminiscence of
(5) St.
α. Into a city called Bethsaida (εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Β.).
β. Into a desert place (εἰς τόπον ἔρημον), or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida.’
Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called Bethsaida.’
The evidence for these readings respectively is—
α. BLXΞ, with one correction of א (Ca), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads κώμην.
β. The first and later readings (Cb) of four Cursives?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin (β2), Peshitto also variant (β3).
276Trad. Text. A (with ἔρημον τόπον) C + twelve Uncials, all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits ἔρημον), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact (i. 332).
Remark the curious character of α and β. In Dr. Hort’s Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the original text of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having withdrawn in private (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, which the Revisers shirking the difficulty translate inaccurately ‘apart’) into the city called Bethsaida. How could there have been privacy of life in a city in those days? In fact, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν necessitates the adoption of τόπον ἔρημον, as to which the Peshitto (β3) is in substantial agreement with the Traditional Text. Bethsaida is represented as the capital of a district, which included, at sufficient distance from the city, a desert or retired spot. The group arranged under β is so weakly supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, that it can come into no sort of competition with the Traditional reading. Dr. Hort confines himself to shewing how the process he advocates might have arisen, not that it did actually arise. Indeed, this position can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established that it did so arise.
(6) St.
α. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His mouth.
β. Seeking to get some opportunity (ἀφορμήν τινα) for finding out how to accuse Him (ἵνα εὕρωσιν κατηγορῆσαι); or, for accusing Him (ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ).
Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, and seeking to catch something (ζητοῦντες θηρεῦσαί τι) out of His mouth, that they might accuse Him.’
277The evidence is—
α. אBL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not accurately).
β. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.
Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except five which omit ζητοῦντες), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission), Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).
As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading α is Alexandrian, adopted by B-א, and is bad Greek into the bargain, ἐνεδρεύοντες θηρεῦσαι being very rough, and being probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the Greek language. If α was the original, it is hard to see how β could have come from it. That the figurative language of α was replaced in β by a simply descriptive paraphrase, as Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. On the other hand, the derivation of either α or β from the Traditional Text is much easier. A scribe would without difficulty pass over one of the participles lying contiguously with no connecting conjunction, and having a kind of Homoeoteleuton. And as to β, the distinguishing ἀφορμήν τινα would be a very natural gloss, requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying λαβεῖν. This is surely a more probable solution of the question of the mutual relationship of the readings than the laboured account of Dr. Hort, which is too long to be produced here.
(7) St.
α. My corn and my goods.
β. My crops (τὰ γενήματά μου). My fruits (τοὺς καρπούς μου).
Trad. Text. My crops (τὰ γενήματά μου) and my goods.’
This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, as Dr. Hort admitted, in α of the more comprehensive word γενήματά for σῖτον, and a simple omission of καὶ τὰ ἀγαθὰ μου in β. And the admission of it into the selected 278eight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced in choosing his examples. The evidence is—
α. BTLX and a correction of א(ac), eight Cursives, Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic.
β. א*D, three Cursives, b ff i q, Curetonian and Lewis, St. Ambrose (i. 573).
Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except twelve, f, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. 294-5) bis, Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus (Migne 52, 490-1) bis.
No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are too common to require justification.
(8) St.
α. Blessing God (εὐλογοῦντες).
β. Praising God (αἰνοῦντες).
Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.’
The evidence is—
α. אBC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian, Lewis.
β. D, seven Old Latin.
Trad. Text. AC2 + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Theophylact (i. 497).
Dr. Hort adds no remarks. He seems to have thought, that because he had got an instance which outwardly met all the requirements laid down, therefore it would prove the conclusion it was intended to prove. Now it is evidently an instance of the omission of either of two words from the complete account by different witnesses. The Evangelist employed both words in order to emphasize the gratitude of the Apostles. The words are not tautological. Αἶνος is the set praise of God, drawn out in more or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him[1]. Εὐλογία includes all speaking well of ,Him, especially when uttered before 279other men. Thus the two expressions describe in combination the life of gratitude exhibited unceasingly by the expectant and the infant Church. Continually in the temple they praised Him in devotion, and told the people of His glorious works.
4. Such are the eight weak pillars upon which Dr. Hort built his theory which was to account for the existence of his Neutral Text, and the relation of it towards other Texts or classes of readings. If his eight picked examples can be thus demolished, then surely the theory of Conflation must be utterly unsound. Or if in the opinion of some of my readers my contention goes too far, then at any rate they must admit that it is far from being firm; if it does not actually reel and totter. The opposite theory of omission appears to be much more easy and natural.
But the curious phenomenon that Dr. Hort has rested his case upon so small an induction as is supplied by only eight examples—if they are not in fact only seven—has not yet received due explanation. Why, he ought to have referred to twenty-five or thirty at least. If Conflation is so common, he might have produced a large number of references without working out more than was enough for illustration as patterns. This question must be investigated further. And I do not know how to carry out such an investigation better, than to examine some instances which come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each Gospel.
It must be borne in mind, that for Conflation two differently-attested phrases or words must be produced which are found in combination in some passage of the Traditional Text. If there is only one which is omitted, it is clear that there can be no Conflation because there must be at least two elements to conflate: accordingly our instances must be cases, not of single omission, but of double or alternative omission. If again there is no Western reading, 280it is not a Conflation in Dr. Hort’s sense. And finally, if the remaining reading is not a ‘Neutral’ one, it is not to Dr. Hort’s liking. I do not say that my instances will conform with these conditions. Indeed, after making a list of all the omissions in the Gospels, except those which are of too petty a character such as leaving out a pronoun, and having searched the list with all the care that I can command, I do not think that such instances can be found. Nevertheless, I shall take eight, starting from the beginning of St. Matthew, and choosing the most salient examples, being such also that, if Dr. Hort’s theory be sound, they ought to conform to his requirements. Similarly, there will come then four from either of St. Mark and St. Luke, and eight from St. John. This course of proceeding will extend operations from the eight which form Dr. Hort’s total to thirty-two.
A. In St. Matthew we have (1)
B. From St. Mark we get, (1)
C. St. Luke yields us, (1)
D. We now come to St. John. See (1)
How surprising a result:—almost too surprising. Does it not immensely strengthen my contention that Dr. Hort took wrongly Conflation for the reverse process? That in the earliest ages, when the Church did not include in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, 282made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved a temporary chipping of the Sacred Text all through the Holy Gospels? And, in fact, that Conflation at least as an extensive process, if not altogether, did not really exist.
THE NEUTRAL TEXT.
Here we are brought face to face with the question respecting the Neutral Text. What in fact is it, and does it deserve the name which Dr. Hort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it? What is the relation that it bears to other so-called Texts?
So much has been already advanced upon this subject in the companion volume and in the present, that great conciseness is here both possible and expedient. But it may be useful to bring the sum or substance of those discussions into one focus.
1. The so-called Neutral Text, as any reader of Dr. Hort’s Introduction will see, is the text of B and א and their small following. That following is made up of Z in St. Matthew, Δ in St. Mark, the fragmentary Ξ in St. Luke, with frequent agreement with them of D, and of the eighth century L; with occasional support from some of the group of Cursives, consisting of 1, 33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209, and from the Ferrar group, or now and then from some others, as well as from the Latin k, and the Egyptian or other versions. This perhaps appears to be a larger number than our readers may have supposed, but rarely are more than ten MSS. found together, and generally speaking less, and often much less than that. To all general intents and purposes, the Neutral Text is the text of B–א.
2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral Text appears hardly in history except at the Semiarian 283period. It was almost disowned ever after: and there is no certainty—nothing more than inference which we hold, and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive,—that, except as represented in the corruption which it gathered out of the chaos of the earliest times, it made any appearance.
3. Thus, as a matter of history acknowledged by Dr. Hort, it was mainly superseded before the end of the century of its emergence by the Traditional Text, which, except in the tenets of a school of critics in the nineteenth century, has reigned supreme ever since.
4. That it was not the original text of the Gospels, as maintained by Dr. Hort, I claim to have established from an examination of the quotations from the Gospels made by the Fathers. It has been proved that not only in number, but still more conclusively in quality, the Traditional Text enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all the kinds of corruption advocated by some critics which I have just now mentioned[1]. This conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of the early versions.
5. The inferiority of the ‘Neutral Text’ is demonstrated by the overwhelming weight of evidence which is marshalled against it on passages under dispute. This glaring contrast is increased by the disagreement among themselves of the supporters of that Text, or class of readings. As to antiquity, number, variety, weight, and continuity, that Text falls hopelessly behind: and by internal evidence also the texts of B and א, and still more the eccentric text of the Western D, are proved to be manifestly inferior.
6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as 284inferential, that B and א issued nearly together from the library or school of Caesarea. The fact of their being the oldest MSS. of the New Testament in existence, which has naturally misled people and caused them to be credited with extraordinary value, has been referred, as being mainly due, to their having been written on vellum according to the fashion introduced in that school, instead of the ordinary papyrus. The fact of such preservation is really to their discredit, instead of resounding to their honour, because if they had enjoyed general approval, they would probably have perished creditably many centuries ago in the constant use for which they were intended.
Such are the main points in the indictment and in the history of the Neutral Text, or rather—to speak with more appropriate accuracy, avoiding the danger of drawing with too definite a form and too deep a shade—of the class of readings represented by B and א. It is interesting to trace further, though very summarily, the connexion between this class of readings and the corruptions of the Original Text which existed previously to the early middle of the fourth century. Such brief tracing will lead us to a view of some causes of the development of Dr. Hort’s theory.
The analysis of Corruption supplied as to the various kinds of it by Dean Burgon has taught us how they severally arose. This is fresh in the mind of readers, and I will not spoil it by repetition. But the studies of textual critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruption chiefly under the two heads of the Western or Syrio-Low-Latin class, and in a less prominent province of the Alexandrian. Dr. Hort’s Neutral is really a combination of those two, with all the accuracy that these phenomena admit. But of course, if the Neutral were indeed the original Text, it would not do for it to be too closely connected with one of such bad reputation as the Western, 285which must be kept in the distance at all hazards. Therefore he represented it—all unconsciously no doubt and with the best intention—as one of the sources of the Traditional, or as he called it the ‘Syrian’ Text. Hence this imputed connexion between the Western and the Traditional Text became the essential part of his framework of Conflation, which could not exist without it. For any permanent purpose, all this handiwork was in vain. To say no more, D, which is the chief representative of the Western Text, is too constant a supporter of the peculiar readings of B and א not to prove its near relationship to them. The ‘Neutral’ Text derives the chief part of its support from Western sources. It is useless for Dr. Hort to disown his leading constituents. And on the other hand, the Syrio-Low-Latin Text is too alien to the Traditional to be the chief element in any process, Conflate or other, out of which it could have been constructed. The occasional support of some of the Old Latin MSS. is nothing to the point in such a. proof. They are so fitful and uncertain, that some of them may witness to almost anything. If Dr. Hort’s theory of Conflation had been sounder, there would have been no lack of examples.
‘Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret.’
He was tempted to the impossible task of driving water uphill. Therefore I claim, not only to have refuted Dr. Hort, whose theory is proved to be even more baseless than I ever imagined, but by excavating more deeply than he did, to have discovered the cause of his error.
No: the true theory is, that the Traditional Text—not in superhuman perfection, though under some superhuman Guidance—is the embodiment of the original Text of the New Testament. In the earliest times, just as false doctrines were widely spread, so corrupt readings prevailed in many places. Later on, when Christianity was better 286understood, and the Church reckoned amongst the learned and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects of the world, and many clever men of inferior character endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, evil rose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day. So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced by true and well-grounded belief. With great ability and with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word was verified and established. General Councils decided in those days upon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good and bequeathed to future ages. So it was both as to the Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that all was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was heard. But none the less, corruption after short-lived prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity, whilst the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true Text upon a firm and lasting basis.
And so I venture to hold, now that the question has been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will come gradually to see, that no other course respecting the Words of the New Testament is so strongly justified by the evidence, none so sound and large-minded, none so reasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and hope, as to maintain against all the assaults of corruption
THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
287General Index
A
א or Sinaitio MS., 2, 196.
Accident, 8; pure A., 24-35.
Addition, 266-7, 270.
Ages, earliest, 2.
Alexandrian error, readings, App. II. 268, 284.
Alford, passim.
Ammonius, 200.
Antiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5.
Apolinarius, or -is (or Apoll.), 224, 257.
Arians, 204, 218.
Assimilation, 100-127; what it was, 101-2; must be delicately handled, 115.
Attraction, 123-7.
B
B or Vatican MS., 2, 8, 196; kakigraphy of, 64 note: virtually with א the ‘Neutral’ text, 282.
Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2.
Blunder, history of a, 24-7.
Bohairic Version, 249, and passim.
C
Caesarea, library of, 284.
Cerinthus, 201.
Clement of Alexandria, 193.
Conflation, 266-82.
Correctors of MSS., 21.
Corruption, first origin of, 3-8; classes of 8-9, 23; general, 10-23; prevailed from the first, 12; the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14; in early Fathers, 193-4.
Curetonian Version, passim. See Traditional Text.
Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 282; Ferrer group, 282.
D
D or Codex Besse, 8.
Δ, or Sangallensis, 8.
Damascus, 5.
Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. See Tatian.
Doxology, in the Lord’s Prayer, 81-8.
E
Eclogadion, 69.
Epiphanius, 205, 211-2.
Erasmus, 10.
Error, slight clerical, 27-32.
Euroclydon, 46.
Evangelistaria (the right name), 67.
F
Falconer’s St. Paul’s voyage, 46-7.
Fathers, passim; earliest, 193.
Faustinus, 218.
Farrar group of Cursives, 282.
Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2.
G
Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5.
Genealogy, 22. See Traditional Text.
Glosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90; described, 172.
Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7.
Guardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 283 note.
Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., 115 note.
H
Harmonistic influence, 89-99.
Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 225 note 2.
Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210; not always dishonest, 292; very numerous, 199 &c.
Homoeoteleuton, 36-42; explained, 8.
288I
Inadvertency, 21, 23.
Internal evidence, Pref.
Interpolations, 166-7.
Irenaeus, St., 193.
Itacism, 8, 56-86.
J
Justin Martyr, St., 193.
L
L or Codex Regius, 8.
Lachmann, passim.
Last Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30.
Latin MSS., Old, passim; Low-Latin, 8. See Traditional Text.
Lectionaries, 67-81; ecclesiastical prefaces to, 71.
Lewis MS., passim, 194.
Liturgical influence, 67-88.
M
Macedonians, 204.
Manes, 207.
Manichaeans, 206.
Manuscripts, six classes of, 12; existing number of, 12; frequent inaccuracies in, 12; more serious faults, 20-1; and passim.
Marcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219.
Matrimony, 208.
Menologion, 69.
N
Naaseni, 204.
‘Neutral Text,’ 267, 282-6.
O
Omissions, 128-156; the largest of all classes, 128; not ‘various readings,’ 128; prejudice in favour of, 130-1; proof of, 131-2; natural cause of corruption, 270.
Origen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 190, 193, 209.
Orthodox, corruption by, 211-31, misguided, 211.
P
Papyrus MSS., 2. See Traditional Text.
Parallel passages, 95.
Pella, 7.
Pericope de Adultera, 232-65.
Peshitto Version, passim. See Traditional Text.
Porphyry, 114.
R
Revision, 10-13.
Rose, Rev. W. K, 61 note 3.
S
Σαββατοκυριακαί, 68.
Sahidic Version, 194.
Saturninus, or Saturnilus, 208 and note 3.
Scrivener’s Introduction (4th Ed.), Miller’s, passim.
Semiarianism, 2.
Substitution, 164-5, 270, 277.
Synaxarion, ‘69.
T
Tatian’s Diatessaron, 8, 98, 101, 196, 200.
Textualism of the Gospels, different from T. of profane writings, 14.
Theodotus, 205, 214.
Tischendorf, 112-3, 176, 282, and passim; misuse of Assimilation, 118.
Traditional Text, 1-4; not = Received Text, 1. See Volume on it.
Transcriptional Mistakes, 55.
Transposition, 157-63; character of, 363, 270.
Tregelles, 34, 136, 238.
U
Uncials, 42-55.
V
Valentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 215, 218 note 2.
Various readings, 24-26.
Vellum, 2.
Vercellone, 47 note.
Versions, passim.
Victorinus Afer, 218.
W
Western Readings or Text, 6, 266-85.
Z
Z or Dublin palimpsest, 8.
289Index II. Passages of the New Testament Discussed.
INDEX II.
PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED.
ST. MATTHEW: | Page | ST. MARK: | Page | ST. LUKE (cont.): | Page |
i. 19. iii. 6. 16. iv. 23 v. 44 vi. 13 18 vii. 4 viii. 9 13 26 29 ix. 24 35 x.12 xi. 23 xii. 10 xiii. 36 44 xv. 8 xvi. 8 xix. 9 16 xx. 24 28 xxi. 9 44 xxii. 23 xxiii. 14 xxiv. 15 31 36 xxv. 13 xxvii. 15 17 25-6 35 |
209 102 170-1 51-2 144-53 81-8 171 102 102 167-8 103 102 104 74 103 27 117 173 80-1 136-44 103 39 103 103 175 99 134-6 49-50 38 116 179-80 169-70 171 103 53-5 91 171 |
i. 2 5 ii. 3 iv. 6 v. 36 vi. 11 32 33 vii. 14 19 31 viii. 1 26 ix. 38 49 x. 16 xii. 17 xiv. 40 41 70 xv. 6 x8 xvi. 9-20 ST. LUKE: i. 66 ii. 14 15 iii. 14 29 iv. 1-13 v. 7 14 vi. 1 4 26 |
111-5 157-8 158-9 63-4 188 118-9. 181-2 32-3 271-3 35 61-3 72-3 34 273-4 271 275 48 48 48 182-3 119-22 32 75-8 72, 129-30 188-9 21-2, 31-2 36 201 165 94 108 104 132-3 167 133 |
vii. 3 21 ix. 1 10 54-6 x. 15 25 xi. 54 xii. 18 29 xiii. 9 xiv. 3 xv. 16 17 24 32 xvi. 21 x5 xvii. 37 xix. 21 41 xxii. 67-8 xxiii. 11 27 42 xxiv. 1 7 53 ST. JOHN: i. 3-4 18 ii. 40 iii. 13 iv. 15 v. 4 27 |
174 50 74 275-6 224-31 28 75 276-7 277-8 155 160-1 117 117 43-5 61 61 40 60 48-9 103 212 210 50-1 51 57 92-4 161 278 203 215-8, 165 212-4 223-4 48 50 162 |
ST. JOHN (cont.) v. 44 vi. 11 15 55 71 viii. 40 ix. 22 x. 14-15 29 xii. 1, 2 7 13 xiii. 21-5 24 25 26 37 |
45 37-8 38, 178 153-4 124 214-5 183 206-8 24-7 57-9 184-6 99 106-11 179 60 124 35 |
ST. JOHN (cont.) xi. 16 xvii. 4 xviii. 14 xx. 11 ACTS: ii. 45-6 iii. 1 xviii. 6 xx. 4 24 xxvii. 14 37 xxviii. 1 1 COR.: xv. 47 |
105 186-8 180-1 90-2 159 78-80 27 190 28, 124-5 46-7 27 28 219-23 |
2 COR.: iii. 3 TITUS: ii. 5 HEB: vii. 1 2 PET.: i. 21 REV. i. 5 |
125-7 65-6 53 52-3 59-60 |
Indexes
Index of Scripture References
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
1 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
2 Chronicles
Esther
Psalms
1:272 1:844 3 3 38:2 38:2 38:10 78:2 118:9 118:10 118:12 118:16 137 138:27 146 235 245 440 489 501 699
Proverbs
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
29 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 40:3 42:2 46:13 66
Jeremiah
Matthew
1:19 1:19 1:20 1:22 1:25 2:23 2:23 3:6 3:7 4:13 4:23 4:23 4:23 5:6 5:22 5:44 5:44 5:44 5:44 5:44 5:44 5:45 5:45 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:18 6:28 7:1 7:4 7:6 8:9 8:10 8:13 8:13 8:13 8:26 8:29 8:29 9:13 9:24 9:30 9:35 9:35 9:35 9:36 9:36 9:36-10:8 10:1 10:3 10:4 10:5 10:8 10:12 10:13 10:15 10:25 10:25 10:32-33 10:37-38 10:38 10:38 10:38 11:23 11:27 12:6 12:10 12:10 12:22 12:24 12:27 12:34 12:41 12:42 13:35 13:36 13:36 13:36 13:36 13:36 13:36 13:43 13:43 13:44 14:7 14:13 14:13 14:19 14:23 15:4-5 15:5 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:8 15:15 15:15 15:15 15:23 16:8 16:24 16:24 16:24 16:24 16:24 17:1 17:19 17:23 17:25-26 17:25-26 18:11 18:11 18:31 18:31 18:35 19:9 19:16 19:19 19:21 19:27-30 19:28 19:29 20:24 20:28 20:28 20:28 21:4 21:9 21:9 21:11 21:18-43 21:18-43 21:33-43 21:42 21:43 21:43 21:43 21:43 21:44 21:44 21:44 21:44 21:44 21:44 21:44 21:44 21:44 21:44 21:44 22:17 22:23 22:23 23:14 23:14 23:33 24:1-9 24:3 24:11-12 24:13 24:15 24:28 24:31 24:31 24:34-37 24:36 24:38-41 24:42-44 25:13 25:24 26:3 26:14 26:29 26:39-40 26:73 27:9 27:9 27:15 27:16-17 27:17 27:17 27:17 27:17 27:17 27:34 27:35 27:49 27:57 27:59 27:61 27:61 28:1 28:1-4 28:2-3 28:2-3 28:2-3
Mark
1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:24 1:45-2:1 2:3 2:12 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:16 3:19 3:22 3:28 3:29 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:20 4:28 4:32 4:34 4:34 4:37 4:39 5:36 5:41 6:6 6:7-13 6:11 6:11 6:11 6:11 6:11 6:20 6:20-21 6:22 6:30 6:31 6:31 6:32 6:32 6:33 6:33 6:33 6:34 6:39 6:41 7:3 7:3 7:3 7:4 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:10 7:14 7:18 7:19 7:19 7:19 7:20 7:20 7:29 7:31 7:33 8:1 8:1 8:10 8:17 8:26 8:26 8:26 8:34 8:34 9:38 9:38 9:38 9:49 9:49 10:7 10:16 10:29 10:29-30 10:41 11:4 11:8 11:9-10 12:14 12:17 12:18 13:7 13:14 13:14 13:32 13:33 14:8 14:10 14:25 14:40 14:41 14:41 14:70 14:70 14:70 14:70 14:70 15:5 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:7 15:27 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:29 15:42 15:45 15:47 16:1 16:1 16:2-5 16:5 16:5 16:5 16:8 16:9 16:9 16:9 16:9-20 16:14 20:40
Luke
1:13 1:26 1:27 1:60 1:63 1:66 1:66 1:80 1:80 1:80 2 2:5 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:15 2:15 2:19 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:44 2:51 3:4-6 3:7 4:1-13 4:4 4:4-5 4:9-12 4:16 4:34 5:7 5:7 5:14 6:1 6:1 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:16 6:16 6:26 6:27-28 6:27-28 6:27-28 6:37 6:42 7:4 7:8 7:10 7:21 7:24 7:24-35 7:28-29 7:29 7:29-30 7:30 7:31 7:31 7:31 7:35 7:43 8:2 8:24 8:26-35 8:38-39 8:45 8:53 8:54 9:1 9:1-6 9:5 9:5 9:10 9:10 9:16 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:23 9:44 9:49 9:51 9:51-56 9:54-55 9:54-55 9:54-56 9:54-56 9:54-56 9:54-56 9:56 9:57 10:5 10:15 10:25 10:25-28 11:4 11:15 11:15 11:18 11:19 11:32 11:54 11:54 12:18 12:18 12:18 12:39 12:56 12:57 13:9 13:9 13:17 14:3 14:3 14:13 14:27 14:27 15:8 15:16 15:16 15:17 15:20 15:22 15:24 15:32 16:19 16:20 16:20 16:21 16:25 17:37 17:37 18:2-3 18:18 18:29 19:10 19:21 19:27 19:37 19:37-38 19:38 19:41 19:41 19:42 20:18 20:18 20:22 20:27 21 21:8-9 21:8-36 21:10-24 21:25-27 21:28-32 21:33-36 22:18 22:31 22:37 22:37 22:39-23:1 22:43-44 22:43-44 22:43-44 22:43-44 22:56 22:67-68 23:1-31 23:11 23:11 23:27 23:33 23:42 23:44-56 23:45 23:50 23:55 23:55 24:1 24:1 24:1 24:1-4 24:3 24:3-4 24:7 24:10 24:24 24:27 24:32 24:36 24:52 24:53 24:53
John
1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:14 1:14 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:22 1:34 1:46-47 2:6 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:19 3:13 3:13 3:15 4:6 4:6 4:14 4:15 4:15 4:18 4:34 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35-36 4:35-36 4:36 4:36 4:36 4:36 4:36 4:42 4:51 5:3-4 5:3-4 5:4 5:4 5:16 5:26 5:27 5:27 5:36 5:37 5:44 5:44 6:6 6:11 6:11 6:15 6:15 6:50 6:51 6:55 6:55 6:64 6:71 6:71 6:71 6:71 6:71 7:17 7:25 7:37-38 7:37-52 7:37-8:12 7:37-8:12 7:37-8:12 7:37-8:12 7:39 7:40-42 7:44 7:45-52 7:52 7:52 7:52 7:52 7:52 7:52 7:52-8:12 7:53 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 8 8:1 8:1-11 8:2 8:3 8:3-11 8:6 8:6 8:7 8:8 8:11 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 8:40 8:40 8:40 8:52 9:1 9:16 9:22 9:22 9:25 10:14-15 10:14-15 10:29 10:29 10:29 11:2 11:13 11:37 11:40 11:46 11:50 11:51 12:1-2 12:1-2 12:3 12:4 12:6 12:7 12:7 12:7 12:13 12:13 12:17 12:33 12:41 12:41 12:48 13:1-38 13:2 13:11 13:21-25 13:21-25 13:24 13:24 13:25 13:25 13:25 13:25 13:26 13:26 13:26 13:28 13:31-32 13:37 13:37 14:1 14:1 14:22 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:18 16:19 17:4 17:4 18:14 18:14 18:14 18:16 19:19-21 19:22 19:30 19:31 19:34 19:38 20:1 20:11 20:11 20:11 20:12 20:12 20:12 20:16 20:18 20:18 20:30-31 21:1-25 21:1-25 21:1-25 21:19 21:20 21:20 21:20 21:24 21:24-25 21:25
Acts
1:13 2:45-46 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:4 4:6 4:12 4:13 4:19 11:20 12:25 13:1 13:5 13:25 15:37 17:3 18:7 20:4 20:4 20:11 20:24 20:24 20:24 20:24 20:29 27:6 27:14 27:14 27:14 27:17 27:37 36 96 105
Romans
1 Corinthians
15:31 15:45 15:47 15:47 15:47 15:47 15:48 15:51
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Hebrews
James
2 Peter
1 John
1:4 2:1 2:3-4 2:3-4 2:7 2:8 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:21 2:26 4:1-3 5:13
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
1:1 1:4 1:5 1:5 1:11 1:19 2:1 2:6 2:13 2:15 10:4 14:13 17:8 19:9 20:12-13 21:5 21:27 22:8 22:18-19 22:19
Greek Words and Phrases
Latin Words and Phrases
Index of Pages of the Print Edition
i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 180 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 246 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
[1] It must be always borne in mind, that it is not enough for the purpose of the other side to shew that the Traditional Text was in a minority as regards attestation. They must prove that it was nowhere in the earliest ages, if they are to establish their position that it was made in the third and fourth centuries. Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 95.
[2] <l class="t1">‘A hydra in her direful shape,</l> <l class="t1">With fifty darkling throats agape.’—</l> Altered from Conington’s version, Aen. vi. 576.
[3] <l class="t1">‘How oft soe’er the truth she tell,</l> <l class="t1">What’s false and wrong she loves too well.’—</l> Altered from Conington, Aen. iv. 188.
[4]Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians, and Phoenicians.
[5]Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ.
[6] Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352.
[7] My devoted Syrian friend, Miss Helanie Baroody, told me during her stay in England that a village is pointed out as having been traversed by our Lord on Ills way from Caesarea Philippi to Mount Hermon.
[8]
It is hardly improbable that these two eminent
Christians were some of those whom St. Paul found at Antioch when St.
Barnabas brought him there, and thus came to know intimately as
fellow-workers
(ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἷ
καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γεγόνασιν ἐν
Χριστῷ). Most of the names in
Et linguam et mores . . . vexit.’—Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3.
[9]
[10] [This name is used fur want of a better. Churchmen are Unitarians as well as Trinitarians. The two names in combination express our Faith. We dare not alienate either of them.]
[11] See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller), p. 21, note 1.
[12] See Traditional Text, chapter ii, § 6, p. 32.
[13] [Perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into two classes, viz. (1) such as really have strong evidence for their support, and require examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt; and (2) those which afford no doubt as to their being destitute of foundation, and are only interesting as specimens of the modes in which error was sometimes introduced. Evidently, the latter class are not ‘various’ at all.]
[14] [I.e. generally κράβαττον, or else κράβατον, or even κράβακτον; seldom found as κράββαττον, or spelt in the corrupt form κράββατον.]
[15] I am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, some person or persons of great influence and authority executed a Revision of the N. T. and gave the world the result of such labours in a ‘corrected Text.’ The guiding principle seems to have been to seek to abridge the Text, to lop off whatever seemed redundant, or which might in any way be spared, and to eliminate from one Gospel whatever expressions occurred elsewhere in another Gospel. Clauses which slightly obscured the speaker’s meaning; or which seemed to hang loose at the end of a sentence; or which introduced a consideration of difficulty:—words which interfered with the easy flow of a sentence:—every thing of this kind such a personage seems to have held himself free to discard. But what is more serious, passages which occasioned some difficulty, as the pericope de adultera; physical perplexity, as the troubling of the water; spiritual revulsion, as the agony in the garden:—all these the reviser or revisers seem to have judged it safest simply to eliminate. It is difficult to understand how any persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred deposit; but it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period there were found some who did act in some such way. Let it be observed, however, that unlike some critics I do not base my real argument upon what appears to me to be a not unlikely supposition.
[16] [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption, as described in The Traditional Text.]
[17] See the passages quoted in Scrivener’s Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th ed.
[18] Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 bis): Hilary (930 bis, 1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii2. 615): Maximinus, an Arian bishop (ap. Aug. viii. 651).
[19] Pater (or Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (or mihi dedit), majus omnibus est (or majus est omnibus: or omnibus majus est).
[20] iii2. 615. He begins, ‘Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut ipsi ille esset unigenitus Filius.’
[21] i. 236.
[22] viii. 363 bis.
[23] i. 188: ii. 567: iii. 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): v1. 326, 577, 578: ap. Mai ii. 13: iii. 336.
[24] v. 1065 (= Dial Maced ap. Athanas. 555).
[25] Viz. + μου ABD: — μου א | ος A: ο BאD | δεδωκεν BאA: δεδωκως | μειζων אD: μειζον AB | μειζ. παντων εστιν Α: παντων μειζ. εστιν BאD.
[26] The Revision Revised, p. 51-3.
[27] The Revision Revised, p. 53-4.
[28] Ibid. p. 51-6.
[29] Ibid. p. 177-8.
[30]
Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A.D. 458—see Cramer’s Cat. p. 334-5,
last line. Λόγου is read besides in the cursives
[31] I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in 1875—‘The real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T. R. is, that if the words οὐδὲ ἔχω had once formed apart of the original text, there is no possibility of accounting for the subsequent omission of them.’ The same remark, but considerably toned down, is found in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. iii, p. 84.
[32] B and C read—ἀλλʼ οὐδενὸς λόγον ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῳ̂: which is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,—‘sed pro nihilo aestimo animam meam carom esse mihi’ (Galland. vi. 241).
[33] א reads—ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς λόγον ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ ὡς τελειῶσαι τὸν δρόμον μου.
[34] ‘Sed nihil horum [τούτων, is found in many Greek Codd.] vereor, nec facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me.’ So, the Cod. Amiat. It is evident then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes ‘nec facio animam meam cariorem mihi,’ he is quoting the latter of these two clauses. Augustine (iii1. 516), when he cites the place thus, ‘Non enim facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me’; and elsewhere (iv. 268) ‘pretiosam mihi’; also Origen (interp. iv. 628 c), ‘sed ego non facio cariorem animam meam mihi’; and even the Coptic, ‘sed anima mea, dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo’:—these evidently summarize the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the second clause. The Latin of D exhibits ‘Sed nihil horum cura est mihi: neque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi.’
[35] Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized—ἀλλ᾽ οὐδένα λόγον ποιοῦμαι, οὐδὲ λελόγισταί μοι ψυχή μού τι τίμιον.
[36] ii. 296 e,—exactly as the T. R.
[37] Exactly as the T. R., except that he writes τὴν ψυχήν, without μου (ix. 332). So again, further on (334 b), οὐκ ἔχω τιμίαν τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ ψυχήν. This latter place is quoted in Cramer’s Cat. 334.
[38] Ap. Mai ii. 336 ἔδει καὶ τῆς ζωῆς καταφρονεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ τελειῶσαι τὸν δρόμον, οὐδὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ἔφη ποιεῖσθαι τιμίαν ἑαυτῷ.
[39] λόγον ἔχω, οὐδὲ ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ, ὥστε κ.τ.λ. (ap. Galland. x. 222).
[40] ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς λόγου ποιοῦμαι τῶν δεινῶν, οὐδὲ ἔχω τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ. Epist. ad Tars. c. 1 (Dressel, p. 255).
[41] The whole of Dr. Field’s learned annotation deserves to be carefully read and pondered. I speak of it especially in the shape in which it originally appeared, viz. in 1875.
[42] Ibid. p. 2 and 3.
[43] Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at the hands of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words ποιοῦμαι and ἔχω have been made to change places. The latter Codex introduces μοι after ἔχω,—for ἐμαυτῷ, writes ἐμαυτοῦ,—and exhibits τοῦ τελειῶσαι without ὡς. C writes ὡς τὸ τελειῶσαι. אB alone of Codexes present us with τελειώσω for τελειῶσαι, and are followed by Westcott and Hort alone of Editors. The Peshitto (‘sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea’), the Sahidic (‘sed non facio animam meam in ullâ re’), and the Aethiopic (‘sed non reputo animam means nihil quidquam’), get rid of τιμίαν as well as of οὐδὲ ἔχω. So much diversity of text, and in such primitive witnesses, while it points to a remote period as the date of the blunder to which attention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utter perplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first.
[44]
Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of ΕΝ by the first
syllable of ΑΝθρωποις) is to be seen in
[45] For those which insert in (14), and those which reject it (25), see Wordsworth’s edition of the Vulgate on this passage.
[46] Of Fathers:—Ambrose i. 1298—Hieronymus i. 4482, 693, 876: ii. 213: iv. 34, 92: v. 147: vi. 638: vii. 241, 281, 283,—Augustine 34 times,—Optatus (Galland. v. 472, 487),—Gaudentius Brix. (ap. Sabat.),—Chromatius Ag. (Gall. viii. 337),—Orosius (ib. ix. 134), Marius M. (ib. viii. 672), Maximus Taus. (ib. ix. 355),—Sedulius (ib. 575),—Leo M. (ap. Sabat.),—Mamertus Claudianus (Gall. x. 430,—Vigilius Taps. (ap. Sabat.),—Zacchaeus (Gall. ix. 241,—Caesarius Arel. (ib. xi. 11),—ps.-Ambros. ii. 394, 396,—Hormisdas P. (Conc. iv. 1494, 1496),—52 Bps. at 8th Council of Toledo (Conc. 395), &c., &c.
[47] See Wetstein on this place.
[48] Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4.
[49] P. 232.
[50] Ap. Orig. i. 827.
[51] Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:—places which shew how insecure would be an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.
[52] Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969.
[53] Ap. Mai ii. 516, 520.
[54] i. 370.
[55] P. 12.
[56] ii. 169.
[57] ii. 142.
[58] i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (bis), 764; vii. 779.
[59] v2. 149 (luc. text, 524).
[60]
It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference
from the mere omission of ἤδη in
[61] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 bis, 251 bis, 252, 253, 255 bis, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = catox iv. 21.
[62] dem. 440. But not in cs. 426: theoph. 262, 275.
[63] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32.
[64] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, ἔτοιμος ἤδη πρὸς τὸ πιστεύειν.
[65] Ambrose, ii. 279, has ‘Et qui metit.’ Iren.int substitutes ‘nam’ for ‘et,’ and omits jam.’ Jerome 9 times introduces ‘jam’ before ‘albae sunt.’ So Aug. (iii2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v. 531) he omits the word altogether.
[66] ‘Hic’ is not recognized in Ambrose. Append. ii. 367.
[67] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34: x. 838) has ἐγὼ δὲ ὧδε: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is without the ὧδε.
[68] i. 76: vi. 16 (not vi. 484).
[69] iii.2 259 (not v. 511).
[70] p. 405.
[71] [The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father’s kindness stopped him:—a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore.]
[72] iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes θεοῦ.
[73] Ap. Mai vii. 135.
[74] Praep. xiii. 6,—μόνου τοῦ ἑνός (vol. ii. 294).
[75]
Same word occurs in St.
[76] iii. 101.
[77] Falconer’s Dissertation on St. Paul’s Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.
[78]
Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: ‘Antequam manum de tabulâ amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano inspecto,
duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrimâ suâ editione scribit
(Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad
[79] Ap. Galland. x. 225.
[80] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the copyist knowing more of Latin than of Greek. True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. That it the reason why the Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered it Euroaquilo: instead of writing Euraquilo. I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. Like the man who wrote ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τῷ φόρῳ for ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ. Readings of Euroclydon
ΕΥΡΑΚΥΔωΝ B (sic)
ΕΥΡΑΚΥΛωΝ א A
ΕΥΡΑΚΗΛωΝ
ΕΥΤΡΑΚΗΛωΝ
ΕΥΡΑΚΛΗΔωΝ Peshitto.
ΕΥΡΑΚΥΚΛ;ωΝ
Euroaquilo Vulg.
ΕΥΡΟΚΛΥΔωΝ HLP
ΕΥΡΑΚΛΥΔωΝ Syr. Harkl.
ΕΥΡΥΚΛΥΔωΝ B2 man.
[81] Οπου (ου א) γαρ (—γαρ אBDL) εαν (αν D) το πτωμα (σωμα א).
[82] Sancti Dei homines.
[83] Ap. Galland. x. 236 a.
[84] Trin. 234.
[85] iii. 389.
[86] ‘Locuti sunt homines D .’
[87] Their only supporters seem to be K [i. e. Paul 117 (Matthaei’s §)], 17, 59 [published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Why does Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but a copy of D of Paul?
[88] Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a.
[89] Theodoret, iii. 584.
[90] J. Damascene, ii. 240 c.
[91]
St.
[92]
Cf. ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς. St.
[93] Int. iii. 918 c d.
[94]
On the two other occasions when Origen quotes St.
[95]
St.
[96]
St.
[97]
St.
[98]
St.
[99]
St.
[100] ‘Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si ὅτε legendum esset.’
[101] iv. 577: ‘quando.’
[102] Dem. Ev. 310, 312, 454 bis.
[103] i. 301.
[104] ii. 488, and ap. Gall. vi. 580.
[105] Trin. 59, 99, 242.
[106] viii. 406, 407. Also ps.-Chrysost. v. 613. Note, that ‘Apolinarius’ in Cramer’s Cat. 332 is Chrys. viii. 407.
[107] Ap. Chrys. vi. 453.
[108] iv. 505, 709, and ap. Mai iii. 85.
[109] ii. 102: iv. 709, and ap. Mai iii. 118.
[110] v1. 642.
[111]
Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists
of instances of Itacism, he worked out none, except the substitution of ἓν for
ἐν in St.
[112] λούσαντι.
[113] λύσαντι.
[114] οὕτως. BCEFGHLMXΔ. Most cursives. Goth. οὗτος. KSUΓΛ. Ten cursives. Omit אADΠ Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop. Armen. Georg. Slavon. Bohair. Pers.
[115]
E. g. Thuc. vii. 15, St.
[116]
See St.
[117] 24. ἀπολωλώς. אaABD &c. ἀπολωλός. א*GKMRSXΓΠ*. Most curs. 32. ἀπολωλώς. א*ABD &c. ἀπολωλός. אcKMRSXΓΠ*. Most curs.
[118]
Pp. 179, 1So. Since the Dean has not adopted καθαρίζων into his corrected text, and on account of other indications which caused me
to doubt whether he retained the opinion of his earlier years, I applied to the
Rev. W. F. Rose, who answered as follows:—‘I am thankful to say that I can resolve
all doubt as to my uncle’s later views of St.
[119] ‘The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have “in secessum uadit (or exiit) purgans omnes escas”; i (Vindobonensis) and r (Usserianus) have “et purgat” for “purgans”: and a has a conflation “in secessum exit purgans omnes escas et exit in rivum”—so they all point the same way.’—(Kindly communicated by Mr. H. J. White.)
[120] Dem. xv. (Graffin)—‘Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in secessum emittitur.’ (Lat.)
[121] iii. 764. ‘Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.’
[122] Galland. 319. ‘Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali lege purgari.’
[123] iii. 494. ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτήρ, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.
[124] i. 206. ἐκκαθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.
[125] Galland. 400. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Σωτήρ, πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα.
[126] Evan. 2. Sce Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4.
[127]
[The following specimens taken from the first hand of B may illustrate
the kakigraphy, if I may use the expression, which is characteristic of that MS.
and also of א. The list might be easily increased.
I. Proper Names.
Ιωανης, generally: Ιωαννης,
[128]
This paper on
[129] All Matthaei’s 16,—all Rinek’s 7,—all Reiche’s 6,—all Scrivener’s 13, &c., &c.
[130] 622.
[131] Ed. Swete, ii. 247 (domos suas bene regentes); 248 (domus proprias optime regant).
[132] ii. (Eth.) 291 a, 309 b.
[133] xi. 750 a, 751 b c d—ἡ οἰκουρὸς καὶ οἰκονομική.
[134] iii. 704.
[135] ii. 271.
[136] Cod. Clarom.
[137] Cod. Amiat., and August. iii1. 804.
[138] vii. 716 c, 718 b (Bene domum regere, 718 c).
[139]
κατ᾽ οἶκον οἰκουροῦσιν ὥστε παρθένοι (Soph. Oed.
[140] P. 293, lin. 4 (see lin. 2).
[141] P. 288, lin. 20.
[142]
[143] οἰκουργεῖν—which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c. 1)—is probably due to the scribe.
[144] [I have retained this passage notwithstanding the objections made in some quarters against similar passages in the companion volume, because I think them neither valid, nor creditable to high intelligence, or to due reverence.]
[145] [Textual student will remember that besides the Lectionaries of the Gospels mentioned here, of which about 1000 are known, there are some 300 more of the Acts and Epistles, called by the name Apostolos.]
[146] [‘It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week takes its name—not from the Sunday with which it commences, but—from the Saturday-and-Sunday with which it concludes.’ Twelve Verses, p. 194, where more particulars are given.]
[147] [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.]
[148] See Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 56-65.
[149] Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence.
[150]
St.
[151] In the absence of materials supplied by the Dean upon what was his own special subject, I have thought best to extract the above sentences from the Twelve Last Verses, p. 207. The next illustration is his own, though in my words.
[152] i. 311.
[153] εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς· μὴ ταρασσέσθω.
[154]
και ειπεν τοις μαθηταις αυτου. The same Codex (D) also
prefixes to St.
[155] ‘Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur.’
[156]
E.g. the words καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· εἰρήνη ὑμῖν
have been omitted by Tisch. and rejected by W. Hort from St.
[157] Pp. 78-80.
[158] See Traditional Text, Appendix VII.
[159] Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Wcstcott and Mort, doubt it.
[160] Thus Codex V. actually interpolates at this place the words—οὐκέτι ἐκείνοις ἐλέγετο, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μαθηταῖς. Tisch. ad loc.
[161]
Cyril Alex. (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and
a few other copies, even append the same familiar words to
καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν
in St.
[162] Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348.
[163] It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in the last year of his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See his Comment. Crit. Part ii. p. 190. ‘Nec ulla . . . debuerint.’
[164] τοὺς σωζομένους καθημέραν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ [ΤΗ ς ΤΗC διακινΗCιμου] Πέτρος καὶ Ἰωάννης, κ.τ.λ. Addit. 16,184, fol. 152 b.
[165] Bede, Retr. 111. D (add. of ἐν τ. ἐκκλ.). Brit. Mus. Addit. 16, 184. fol. 152 b. Vulgate.
[166] So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed in a smaller type, for distinction.
[167] The Revision Revised, 34-6.
[168] See The Traditional Text, p. 104.
[169] ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τῆς Εὐχαριστίας λέγοντας, `εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων,´ κ.τ.λ. Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3.
[170] But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener, Introduction, ii. p. 325, note 1.
[171] See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I have increased the Dean’s list with a few additional authorities.
[172]
Μαρία δὲ
εἱστήκει πρὸς τὸ μνημεῖον
κλαίουσα ἔξω,
(St.
[173] Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius according to the Greek, the following places are brought together:—
[174]
Consider ὁ δὲ Πέτρος εἱστήκει
πρὸς τῇ θύρᾳ ἔξω
(St.
[175] Hesychius, qu. 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43), explains St. Mark’s phrase ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς as follows:—δηλονότι τοῦ ἐξωτέρου σπηλαίου.
[176] viii. 513.
[177] iv. 1079.
[178] Traditional Text, pp. 81-8.
[179] I am tempted to inquire,—By virtue of what verifying faculty do Lachmann and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of א; Tischendorf, Alford, W. and I fort, the reading of B? On the second occasion, I venture to ask,—What enabled the Revisers, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, to recognize in a reading, which is the peculiar property of B, the genuine language of the Holy Ghost? Is not a superstitious reverence for B and א betraying for ever people into error?
[180] Revision Revised, p. 33.
[181] Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252.
[182] The Lewis MS. is defective here.
[183] This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep the words with this caution to the reader.
[184] Above, p. 32.
[185]
The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is nil; the sum of it being that he takes no notice whatever
of the forty words between ὄψεσθέ με
(in
[186] Nonnus,—ἵξομαι εἰς γεννητῆρα.
[187] viii. 465 a and c.
[188] iv. 932 and 933 c.
[189] =ἀνα-κείμενος + ἐπι-πεσών. [Used not to suggest over-familiarity (?).
[190] Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A.D. 270 (ap. Galland. iii. 548). Cf. Routh, Rell. i. 42.
[191] Οὐκ ἀνάκειται μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ στήθει ἐπιπίπτει (Opp. viii. 423 a).—Τὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπιπίπτει τῷ στήθει (ibid. d). Note that the passage ascribed to ‘Apolinarius’ in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which includes the second of these two references) is in reality part of Chrysostom’s Commentary on St. John (ubi supra, c d).
[192] Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the κείμενον (or text) that the verb is found,—Opp. iv. 735.
[193] ὁ δὲ θρασὺς ὀξέϊ παλμῷ | στήθεσιν ἀχράντοισι πεσὼν πεφιλημένος ἀνήρ.
[194] iv. 437 c: 440 d.
[195] Ibid. p. 342.
[196] Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is observed twice to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. viii. 423, line 13 from the bottom, and p. 424, line 18 from the top.
[197] ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσών (iii. 2, § 1).
[198] ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Κυρὶου ἀναπεσών (ap. Euseb. 31).
[199] Τί δεῖ περὶ τοῦ ἀναπεσόντος ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος λέγειν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95).
[200] ὁ ἐπὶ τῷ στήθει τοῦ φλογὸς ἀναπεσών (Opp. ii. 49 a. Cf. 133 c).
[201] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8.
[202] τοῦ εἰς τὸ τῆς σοφίας στῆθος πιστῶς ἐπαναπεσόντος (ap. Chrys. xiii. 55).
[203] ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀναπαύεται (Opp. i. 591).
[204] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488.
[205] Wright’s Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the Syriac, p. 3.
[206] (Fourth or fifth century) ap. Galland. vi. 132.
[207] Ap. Chrys. viii. 296.
[208]
On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.—‘Ἀναπίπτειν, (which occurs eleven times
in the N. T.’, when said of guests (ἀνακείμενοι) at a repast, denotes
nothing whatever but the preliminary act of each in taking his place at
the table; being the Greek equivalent for our “sitting down” to dinner.
So far only does it signify “change of posture.” The notion of “falling
backward” quite disappears in the notion of “reclining” or “lying down.”’—In St.
[209] Traditional Text, Appendix IV.
[210] Pesh. and Harkl.: Cur. and Lew. are defective.
[211] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, McClellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers.
[212] In pseudo-Jerome’s Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.
[213] Mont. i. 462.
[214] Ubi supra.
[215] Omitting trifling variants.
[216] אBL are exclusively responsible on 45 occasions: +C (i.e. אBCL), on 27: + D, on 35: + Δ on 73: + CD, on 19: + CΔ, on 118: + DΔ (i.e. אBDLΔ), on 42: + CDΔ, on 66.
[217] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is not found: 205, 206 are duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain 1, 22, 33, 62, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391:—of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined.
[218] v. 20.
[219] Ap. Hieron. vii. 17.
[220] Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.’ Hieron. 311.
[221] γραφέως τοίνυν ἐστὶ σφάλμα. Quoted (from the lost work of Eusebius ad Marinum) in Victor of Ant.’s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267. (See Simon, iii. 89; Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei’s N. T. ii. 20, &c.)
[222] ‘Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus additum Scriptorum vitio, quod et in aliis locis probare possumus.’ vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from Eusebius).
[223]
See Studia Biblica, p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian
sections and Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St.
[224]
Compare St.
[225] Schulz,—‘et λαλια et ομοιαζει aliena a Marco.’ Tischendorf—‘omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum ομοιαζει glossatoris est.’ This is foolishness,—not criticism.
[226] Scrivener’s Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p. xlvii.
[227]
St.
[228] Above, pp. 28-31.
[229] 753 int.
[230] ii. 843 e. Also int. ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.
[231] Ap. Orig. i. 866 a,—interesting and emphatic testimony.
[232]
Cord. Cat. in
[233]
i. 161 e. Cord. Cat.
in
[234] i. 683 (οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶ λιθίναις . . . ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ τῆς καρδίας πυξίῳ).
[235] Galland. viii. 40 b.
[236] vii. 2: x. 475.
[237] i. 29.
[238] i. 8: 504: v2. 65. (Aubert prints καρδίας σαρκίνης. The published Concilia (iii. 240) exhibits καρδίας σαρκίναις. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις λιθίναις (sic), prints καρδίαις σαρκίναις.) Ap. Mai, iii. 89, 90.
[239] 299.
[240] iii. 302.
[241] Concil. 154.
[242] ii. 129.
[243] 344.
[244] i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.
[245] Galland. v. 505.
[246] vi. 609.
[247] Galland. viii. 742 dis.
[248] i. 672: ii. 49: iii1. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311: x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.
[249] Galland. xi. 248.
[250] Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.
[251] Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and Theodoret for καρδίαις, on the ground that in the course of their expository remarks they contrast καρδίαι σαρκίναι (or λογικαί) with πλάκες λίθιναι: as if it were not the word πλαξί which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten that E is ‘nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D (Claromontanus), made by some ignorant person’? that ‘the Greek is manifestly worthless, and that it should long since have been removed from the list of authorities’? (Scrivener’s Introd., 4th edit., i. 177. See also Traditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is frequently inaccurate in his references to the Fathers.]
[252] Scrivener’s Introd. 254.
[253] A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.
[254] Besides GLP and the following cursivcs,—29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47. 48, 55, 74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 262, 277.
[255] That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the other side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence (besides the testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian version:—the doubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads καρδίας, the MSS. largely preponderate which read καρδίαιςin H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. § 6. See Burton’s ed. p. 637):—Cyril in one place, as explained above:—and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom on the Maccabees, given in Cramer’s Catena, vii. 595 (ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις), which reappears at the end of eight lines without the word πλαξί.
[256]
[The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the
Dean in the same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had lived
to complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials
under that head were scanty.—For
[257] It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical, classes. Omissions are found in many of the rest.
[258] Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, chapter v, and Appendix B.
[259] See Dr. Gwynn’s remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text, pp. 298-301.
[260] The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p. 109, where thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A.D.
[261]
The expression of Jerome,
that almost all the Greek MSS. omit this passage, is only a translation of Eusebius.
It cannot express his own opinion, for he admitted
the twelve verses into the Vulgate, and quoted parts of them
twice, i.e.
[262]
Dr. Dobbin has calculated 330 omissions in St. Matthew, 365 in
St. Mark, 439 in St. Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the Epistles—2,556
in all as far as
[263]
Such as in Cod. D after St.
[264] καὶ ὁ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον τοῦτον συνθλασθήσεται· ἐφ᾽ ὃν δ᾽ ἂν πέσῃ, λικμήσει αὐτόν.
[265]
iv. 25 d, 343 d.—What proves these two quotations to be from
St.
[266] P. 193.
[267] P. 11.
[268] vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas, p. 669] xii. 27 d.
[269] Ap. Mai, ii. 401 dis.
[270] Ap. Chrys. vi. 171 c.
[271] vii. 171 d.
[272] iii2. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d.
[273] 682-3 (Massuet 277).
[274] iii. 786.
[275] Theoph. 235-6 ( =Mai, iv. 122).
[276] ii. 660 a, b, c.
[277] ‘Praeterit et Lucifer.’
[278] Ap. Galland. vi. 191 d.
[279] Ibid. vii. 20 c.
[280] Ibid. ix. 768 a.
[281]
[I am unable to find any place in the Dean’s writings where he has made this
explanation. The following note, however, is appended here]:—
With
[282] ‘Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.’
[283] The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265,—in St. Luke, 274: both being referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke are exclusively compared.
[284] Vol. i. 13.
[285] Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28.
[286] Dial. § 78, ad fin. (p. 272).
[287] Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c.
[288] See Holmes and Parsons’ ed. of the LXX,—vol. iv. in loc.
[289] Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only.
[290] Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b.
[291] Opp. ii. 1345: iii. 763-4.
[292] § xv:—on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently remarks,—‘Hunc locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo laudatum, S. Marc. vii. 6, si pro ἄπεστιν dedissct ἀπέχει.’
[293] Opp. i. 1502: iii. 1114.
[294] Ap. Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d.
[295] Opp. p. 461.
[296] Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121.
[297] De Trinitate, p. 242.
[298] Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to Alexandria.]
[299] Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain.
[300] It is uncertain whether Eusebius and Basil quote St. Matthew or Isaiah: but a contemporary of Chrysostom certainly quotes the Gospel,—Chrys. Opp. vi. 425 d (cf. p. 417, line 10).
[301]
But Eus.
[302] I have numbered the clauses for convenience.—It will perhaps facilitate the study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I subjoin a representation of the same words in Latin:—
(1) Diligite inimicos vestros,
(2) benedicite maledicentes vos,
(3) benefacite odientibus vos,
(4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos,
(5) et persequentibus vos.
[303] Opp. iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 355. Gall. xiv. App. 106.
[304] ‘A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the margin.’ Traditional Text, p. 549.
[305] Opp. p. 79, cf. 146.
[306] Scap. c. 1.
[307] Opp. iv. 946.
[308] Haer. III. xviii. 5.
[309] Dem. Evan. xiii. 7.
[310] In Bapt. Christ.
[311] Orig. Opp. i. 812.
[312] Opp. i. 768: iv. 353.
[313] Opp. i. 827: 399.
[314] Spect. c. 16: (Anim. c. 35): Pat. c. 6.
[315]
[In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract. ix.
3 (1, 3 (ver. 45 &c.)); In
[316]
In
[317] Opp. pp. 303, 297.
[318] Pro S. Athanas. ii.
[319]
[320] Ep. ii.
[321] Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:—ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:—ii. 258: iii. 41:—iv. 267: xii. 425.
[322] Opp. iii. 379.
[323]
Praep.
654:
[324] Pp. 3. 198.
[325] Opp. p. 605 and 307.
[326] Leg. pro Christian. 11.
[327] Ad Autolycum, iii. 14.
[328] Opp. i. 40.
[329]
Ad
[330] § 1.
[331]
‘Theodoret once (iv. 946) gives
the verse as Tischendorf gives it: but on two other occasions (i. 827: ii. 399) the
same Theodoret exhibits the second member of the sentence thus,—εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας ὑμᾶς (so pseud.-Athan. ii. 95), which shews how little stress is to be laid on
such evidence as the first-named place furnishes.
Origen also (iv.
324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place as Tischendorf gives it—but on
one occasion, which it will be observed is fatal to his evidence (i. 768), he
gives the second member thus,—iv. 353:
καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων
ὑμᾶς.
... 1. 4.
Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:—
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε
τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς,
καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμῖν,
καὶ τὰ ὅμοια
... 1, 2, 4.—3, 5.
Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with
exceeding licence), yet is observed to recognize in part both the clauses
which labour under suspicion:
... 1, 2, 4.—3, 5.
εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν καὶ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς
ὑμᾶς, which roughly represents καὶ εὐλογεῖτε
τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν,
καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς.
The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards
τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i. 521), who
(loosely enough) quotes the place thus,—
Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt.
... (made up of 3, 4).—2, 5.
And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who writes:—ad
[332] Dialogus Adamantii is not adducible within my limits, because it is in all probability the production of a later age.’ My number was eight.
[333]
Observe that 5 = ὑπὲρ . . . τῶν διωκόντων.
For—
Didache (§ 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5.
Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5.
Justin Martyr, Apol. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5? ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν (= διωκόντων?)
but the passage more like St. Luke, the context more like St. Matt., ver. 45.
Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11), 1, 2 (3), 5, ver. 45.
Tertullian (De Patient. vi), 1, 2 (3), 5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol.
c. 31. 1, 5.
Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 14), 1, 4 (4),
ὑπέρand ver. 46.
Clemens Alex.
(Strom. iv. 14), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom. vii. 14), favours St. Matt.
Origen (De Orat.
i), 1, 4 (4),
ὑπέρ and in the middle of two quotations from St. Matthew; (Cels.
viii. 45), 1, 4 (4),
ὑπέρ and all
ver. 45.
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xiii. 7), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, all ver.
45; (Comment. in
[334] See Traditional Text, p. 55.
[335] For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament, viz. the Pericope de Adultera, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II.
[336] Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134.
[337]
προσέγγισαι is transitive here, like ἐγγίζω in
[338] The following are the numbers of Transpositions supplied by B, א, and D in the Gospels:—2,098: א, 2,299: D, 3,471. See Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13.
[339] Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i. 348): Cyril (Mai, ii. 438): John Thess. (Gall. xiii. 188).
[340]
St.
[341]
St.
[342]
St.
[343]
St.
[344] ‘Nec aliter’ (says Tischendorf) ‘Tertull.’ (Prax. 21),—‘et judicium dedit illi facere in potestate.’ But this (begging the learned critic’s pardon) is quite a different thing.
[345] See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in The Revision Revised, pp. 424-501.
[346] The numbers are:—
[347] B has 536 words added in the Gospels: א, 839: D, 2,213. Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. The interpolations of D are notorious.
[348]
St.
[349] Theoph. p. 212.
[350]
3 An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause
in the same narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead
of οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην
πίστιν εὗρον (St.
[351] This disquisition is made up in part from the Dean’s materials.
[352] ‘In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, neque Filius: quum in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum. Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur.’ Hier. vii. 199 a. ‘Gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri gloria discipulorum sit, et dicunt:—“Non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui ignorat.”’ Ibid. 6. In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark.
[353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.
[354]
St.
[355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the ῥῆσις in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. i). A large portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to ‘I. Geometra in Proverbia’ in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217.
[356] ii. 345.
[357] ii. 242.
[358] The Latin is edissere or dissere, cnarra or narra, both here and in xv. 15.
[359] iv. 254 a.
[360]
In St.
of ἐπιλύειν, St.
of διερμηνεύειν, St.
of διανοίγειν, St.
N.B. The Cureton and Lewis have, in St.
in ”
in ”
[361]
In St.
[362] Harkl. Marg. in loc., and Adler, p. 115.
[363] Viz. a b c e ff2 l q.
[364]
Ὀφείκει ψυχή, ἐν
τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Κυρίου κατακολουθοῦσα,
τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν αἴρειν, ὡς
γέγραπται· τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν,
ἑτοίμως ἔχουσα ὑπομένειν διὰ
Χριστὸν πᾶσαν θλῖψιν καὶ
πειρασμόν, κ.τ.λ. (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further
on, he exhorts to constancy and patience,—τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ
Κυρίου θάνατον
ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ πάντοτε πρὸ
ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχοντες, καὶ (καθὼς εἴρηται ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου)
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τὸν σταυρὸν
αἴροντες, ὅ ἐστι θάνατος (ii. 332 e). It is fair to assume that
Ephraem’s reference is to St.
[365] Ἄκουε Λουκᾶ λέγοντος,—i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.
[366] Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.
[367]
ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)—the proof that
these quotations are from St. Luke; that Cyril exhibits ἀρνησάσθω instead of
ἀπαρν. (see Tischendorf’s note on St.
[368] Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.
[369]
After quoting St.
[370] This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69, 346 (Ferrar’s four); and survives in certain other Evangelia which enjoy a similar repute,—as 1, 33, 72 (with a marginal note of distrust), 131.
[371]
They are St.
[372] i. 597 c (Adorat.)—elsewhere (viz. i. 21 d: 528 c: 580 b: iv. 1058 a; v2. 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that the quotation found in Mai, iii. 226, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Ep. ad Hebr., is nothing else but an excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. 528 c.
[373]
In his Commentary on St.
[374]
i.
949 b,—‘Quotidie (inquit Apostolus) morior propter
vestram salutem. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, Nisi quis tulerit crucem
suam quotidie, et sequutus fuerit me, non potest meus esse discipulus.’ —Commenting on St.
[375] Viz. Evan. 473 (2po).
[376] ii. 66 c, d.
[377] See above, p. 175, note 2.
[378] Proleg. p. cxlvi.
[379] N. T. (1803), i. 368.
[380] Lewis here agrees with Peshitto.
[381] iv. 745.
[382]
In
[383] 229 and 236.
[384] vii. 736: xi. 478.
[385] ii. 1209.
[386] 269.
[387] 577.
[388] i. 881.
[389] Ap. vi. 460.
[390] Ap. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258.
[391] Galland. vi. 53.
[392] ii. 346.
[393] ii. 261, 324.
[394] Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 429.
[395] i. 132.
[396]
The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with
interest how gracefully the third Evangelist St. Luke (
[397] Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark’s narrative shews that after the words of ‘Sleep on now and take your rest,’ our Lord must have been silent for a brief space in order to allow His disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to say,—‘It is enough’—(that is, ‘Ye have now slept and rested enough’); and adds, ‘The hour is come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.’ ‘Sed quia commemorata non est ipsa interpositio silentii Domini, propterea coartat intellectum, ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur.’—iii2. 106 a, b. The passage in question runs thus;—Καθείδετε τὸ λοιπὸν καὶ ἀναπαύεσθε. ἀπέχει· ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα· ἰδοὺ. κ.τ.λ..
[398] Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion (Anon. Vat.) in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι, πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ., Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.
[399] I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former work (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who seldom indeed misleads,—the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (in loco).
[400] So Peshitto. Lewis, venit hora, appropinquat finis. Harkleian, adest consummatio, venit hora.
[401] απεχει. Vg. sufficit. + το τελος, 13, 69, 124, 2Pe, cser, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q, sufficit finis et hora. f, adest finis, venit hora. c, ff2, adest enim consummatio, et (ff2 venit) hora. a, consummatus est finis, advenit hora. It is certain that one formidable source of danger to the sacred text has been its occasional obscurity. This has resulted,—(1) sometimes in the omission of words: Δευτερόπρωτον. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as πυγμῇ. (3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, τὸ τέλος, as above.
[402] iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614.
[403] vi. 283.
[404] i. 307.
[405] viii. 392.
[406] iv. 696.
[407] Cramer’s Cat. in loc.
[408] 1063.
[409] E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert (ὁ Ἰησοῦς, in order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, ἀπὸ Καρυώτου for Ἰσκαρίωτης; ver. 13, spells thus,—ὡσσανά; besides constant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. א omits nineteen words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter, besides adding eight and making other alterations. B is far from being accurate.
[410] ‘Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burying’ (Alford). But how could she keep it after she had poured it all out?—’Suffer her to have kept it against the day of My preparation unto burial’ (McClellan). But ἵνα τηρήσῃ could hardly mean that: and the day of His ἐνταφιασμός had not yet arrived.
[411]
Consider
[412]
Consider
[413]
Consider St.
[414] Lewis, ‘and the work I have perfected’: Harkleian, “because the work, &c., “because’ being obelized.
[415] The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile.
[416] i. 245 (= Constt. App. viii. i; ap. Galland. iii. 199).
[417] P. 419.
[418] Mcell p. 157.
[419] i. 534.
[420] ii. 196, 238: iii. 39.
[421] v. 256: viii. 475 bis.
[422] iii. 542: iv. 954: v1. 599, 601, 614: v2. 152.—In the following places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the other reading,—iv. 879: v1. 167, 366: vi. 124.
[423] Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson).
[424] Ps.-Ignat. 328.
[425] Ap. Gall. iii. 215.
[426] P. 285.
[427] ii. 545.
[428] Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But opere consummato, pp. 812, 815.—Jerome also once (iv. 563) has opere completo.
[429] Ap. Gall. v. 135.
[430] P. 367.
[431] Ap. Gall. iii. 308.
[432] Ap. Aug. viii. 622.
[433] iii2. 761: viii. 640.
[434] v. 1166.
[435] Ibid. 1165 g, 1165 a.
[436] Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are disfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads ‘is.’
[437] Theoph. 216 note: ὡς κινδυνεύειν αὐτὰ βυθισθῆναι.
[438] Cod. Amiat.
[439] g,—at Stockholm.
[440] Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. Βέροια.
[441]
ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως
[442]
[443]
[444]
γενεαλογίαι
[445] See the fragment of Irenaeus in Euseb. H. E. i .
[446]
[447]
[448]
[449]
[450] Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. chap. vii. p. 137.
[451] ’Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare.’— Orig. Opp. iii. 933 c: Iren. 23: Clem. Al. 409, 426, 506, 509, 540, 545: Tertull. c. 46: Epiph. 24: Theodor. i. 4.
[452] ’Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra’ (De Praescript., ad calcem).
[453]
Origen (commenting on St.
[454] ‘Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem et omnes Haereticos qui vetus laniant Testamentum: tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si saltem in novo continerent manus suas; et non auderent Christi (ut ipsi iactitant) boni Dei Filii, vel Evangelistas violare, vel Apostolos. Nunc vero, quum et Evangelia eius dissipaverint; et Apostolorum epistolas, non Apostolorum Christi fecerunt esse, sed proprias; miror quomodo sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de caeteris Epistolis taceam, (de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant, evaserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt); ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere.’ Hieron. Praef. ad Titum.
[455] ‘Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones praeferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa Evangelia. Siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est, Veritatis Evangelium titulent.’ Iren. iii. xi. 9.
[456] See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. xiii; also c. iii.
[457] ‘Tanta est circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod est secundum Matthaeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte praesumentes de Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam circumcidens, ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur. Qui autem Iesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Iesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium; cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes,’ &c. Iren. iii. xi. 7.
[458]
Ἡρακλέων, ὁ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιμώτατος. Clem.
Al. p. 595. Of Heracleon it is expressly related by Origen that he depraved the
text of the Gospel. Origen says (iv. 66) that Heracleon (regardless of the warning
in
[459] Celsus having objected that believers had again and again falsified the text of the Gospel, refashioning it, in order to meet the objections of assailants, Origen replies: Μεταχαράξαντας δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἄλλους οὐκ οἶδα, ἢ τοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος, καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου, οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Λουκάνου. τοῦτο δὲ λεγόμενον οὐ τοῦ λόγου ἐστὶν ἔγκλημα, ἀλλὰ τῶν τολμησάντων ῥᾳδιουργῆσαι τᾳ εὐαγγέλια. Opp. i. 411 B.
[460] De Praesc. Haer. c. 51.
[461] Οὗτος δὲ δημιουργὸς καὶ ποιητὴς τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου καὶ τῶν ἐ9ν αὐτῷ . . . ἔσται μὲν καταδεέστερος τοῦ τελείου Θεοῦ . . . ἅτε δὴ καὶ γεννητὸς ὤν, καὶ οὐκ ἀγέννητος. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. p. 217. Heracleon saw in the nobleman of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who, βασιλικὸς ὠνομάσθη οἱονεὶ μικρός τις βασιλεύς, ὑπὸ καθολικοῦ βασιλέως τεταγμένος ἐπὶ μικρὰς βασιλείας p. 373.
[462] Ὁ Ἰωάννης . . . βουλόμενος εἰπεῖν τὴν τῶν ὅλων γένεσιν, καθ᾽ ἢν τὰ πάντα προέβαλεν ὁ Πατήρ, ἀρχήν τινα ὑποτίθεται, τὸ πρῶτον γεννηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃν δὴ καὶ υἱὸν Μονογενῆ καὶ Θεὸν κέκληκεν, ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα ὁ Πατὴρ προέβαλε σπερματικᾶς. Ὑπὸ δὲ τούτου φησὶ τὸν Λόγον προβεβλῆσθαι, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ὅλην τῶν Αἰώνων οὐσίαν, ἢν αὐτὸς ὔστερον ἐμόρφωσεν ὁ Λόγος . . . Πάντα δι ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν· πᾶσι γὰρ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν Αἰῶσι μορφῆς καὶ γενέσεως αἵτ.ος ὁ Λόγος ἑγένετο.
[463] Ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡ ἀρχή, καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ Λόγος. Καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν· ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος· ἦν γὰρ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ. Καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τόν Θεόν· καὶ γὰρ ἡ Ἀρχή· καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγοςm ἀκολούθως. Τὸ γὰρ ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννηθὲν Θεός ἐστιν.—Ibid. p. 102. Compare the Excerpt. Theod. ap. Clem. Al. c. vi. p. 963.
[464] Ap. Orig. 938. 9.
[465] So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (ap. Epiph. i. 217), and so Heracleon (ap. Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian (ap. Epiph. 1. 882).
[466] See The Traditional Text, p. 113.
[467] Clem. Al. always has οὐδὲ ἕν (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273, 769, 787, 803, 812, 815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838) he has οὐδέν. Cyril, while writing his treatise De Trinitate, read οὐδέν in his copy. Eusebius, for example, has οὐδὲ ἕν, fifteen times; οὐδέν only twice, viz. Praep. 322: Esai. 529.
[468] Opp. 74.
[469] Ap. Iren. 102.
[470] Ibid. 940.
[471] Ap. Clem. Al. 968, 973.
[472] Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the Peratae: οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωή ἐστιν. ἐν αὐτῷ δέ, φησίν, ἡ Εὔα γέγονεν, ἡ Εὔα ζωή. Ibid. p. 134.
[473] Opp. 114, 218, 1009.
[474]
Cels. vi. 5: Princip. II. ix. 4: IV. i. 30: In
[475]
[476] Ἀναγκαίως φησίν, “ὃ γέγονεν, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν.” οὐ μόνον φησί, “δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,” ἀλλὰ καὶ εἱ τι γέγονεν ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ζωή. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ὁ μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, ἡ πάντων ἀρχή, καὶ σύστασις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων . . . αὐτὸς γὰρ ὑπάρχων ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ζωή, τὸ εἶναι καὶ ζῆν καὶ κινεῖσθαι πολυτρόπως τοῖς οὖσι χαρίσεται. Opp. iv. 49 e. He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the Λόγος, that, πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἦν ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὡς ζωή. Ibid. 60 c.
[477] Οὗτοι δὲ βούλονται αὐτὸ εἶναι κτίσμα κτίσματος. φασὶ γάρ, ὅτι πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ γέγονε, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ἄρα, φασὶ, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ τῶν ποιημάτων ὑπάρχει, ἐπειδὴ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ γέγονε. Opp. 741. Which is the teaching of Eusebius, Marcell. 333-4. The Macedonians were an offshoot of the Arians.
[478] i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80.
[479] Opp. viii. 40.
[480]
Consider
[481] Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this:—ἵνα μὴ τῆς γνώσεως ἴσον τὸν μέτρον νομίσῃς, ἄκουσον πῶς διορθοῦται αὐτὸ τῇ ἐπαγωγῇ· γινώσκω τὰ ἐμά, φησι, καὶ γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἴση ἡ γνῶσις, κ.τ.λ. viii. 352 d.
[482] P. 38. (Gall. vii. 26.)
[483] i. 298, 613.
[484] viii. 351, 352 d and e.
[485] iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.
[486] i. 748: iv. 274, 550.
[487] In Dionys. Ar. 192.
[488] Φησὶ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς Μάνης . . . τὰ ἐμὰ πρόβατα γινώσκει μέ, καὶ γινώσκω ⌄ὰ ἐ μὰ πρόβατα. (Epiphan. 697.)—Again,—ἤρπασεν ὁ αἱρετικὸς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν κατασκευὴν τῆς βλασφημίας. ἰδού, φησιν, εἴρηται· ὅτι γινώσκουσί (lower down, γινώσκει) με τὰ ἐμά, καὶ γινώσκω τὰ ἐμά. (Basil ii. 188 a, b.)
[489] Ἐν τάξει τῇ οἰκείᾳ καὶ πρεπωδεστάτῃ τῶν πραγμάτων ἕκαστα τιθείς. οὐ γὰρ ἔφη, γινώσκει με τὰ ἐμά, καὶ γινώσκω τὰ ἐμά, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐγνωκότα πρότερον εἰσφέρει τὰ ἴδια πρόβατα, εἶθ᾽ οὔτως γνωσθήσεσθαὶ φησι παρ᾽ αὐτῶν . . . οὐχ ἡμεῖς αὐτὸν ἐπεγνώκαμεν πρῶτοι, ἐπέγνω δὲ ἡμᾶς πρῶτον αὐτός . . . οὐχ ἡμεῖς ἡρξάμεθα τοῦ πράγματος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Θεὸς μονογενής—iv. 654 d, 655 a. (Note, that this passage appears in a mutilated form, viz. words are omitted, in the Catena of Corderius, p. 267,—where it is wrongly assigned to Chrysostom: an instructive instance.)
[490]
In
[491]
ii. 188 a:—which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds
exquisitely to shew (1886) that man’s ‘knowledge’ of God consists in his
keeping of God’s Commandments. (
[492] So Jerome, iv. 484: vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor Augustine should quote the place.
[493] See Revision Revised, p. 220.
[494] Or Saturnilus—τὸ δὲ γαμεῖν καὶ γεννᾷν ἀπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ φησὶν εἶναι. p. 245, 1. 38. So Marcion, 253.
[495]
[The MS. breaks off here,
with references to St.
[496] Mai, iv. 221.
[497] Πρὸς τοὶς δοκήσει τὸν Χριστὸν πεφηνέναι λέγοντας.
[498] Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανε, καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι.
[499] It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first Dialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).
[500] Opp. 953, 954—with suspicious emphasis.
[501] Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).
[502]
When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey,
vol. vi. 568),—“Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανε
καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙ, πληρούμενον ΣΟΦΙΑ καὶ ΧΑΡΙΤΙ.” καίτοι κατὰ
φύσιν παντέλειός ἐστιν ὡς Θεὸς καὶ ἐξ ἰδίου πληρώματος διανέμει τοῖς ἁγίοις τὰ
ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΑ, καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ ΣΟΦΙΑ, καὶ τῆς ΧΑΡΙΤΟΣ ὁ δοτήρ,—it is clear that
πνεύματι must have stood
in Cyril’s text. The same is the reading of Cyril’s Treatise, De Incarnatione
(Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on St. Luke (ibid. p. 136). One is surprised
at Tischendorf’s perverse inference concerning the last-named place. Cyril had
begun by quoting the whole of ver.
[503] ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times).
[504] Εἰ τέλειός ἐστι Θεὸς ὁ Χριστός, πῶς ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς λέγει, τὸ δὲ παιδίον Ἰησοῦς ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι;—S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (ap. Galland. vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30.
[505] ii. 36 d.
[506] Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p.53.—The only other Greek Fathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.
[507] Ἢν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ Epiph. i. 463.
[508] Instead of παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
[509] i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.
[510] i. 260, 463: 49.
[511] i. 705.
[512] viii. 365.
[513] (Glaph.) i. 18.
[514] iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (1. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv. 554: v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549) distinctly says that the latter is right, and παρὰ τοῦ πατρός wrong.
[515] Excerpt. Theod. 968.—Heracleon’s name is also connected by Origen with this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, ὃν δὴ καὶ υἱὸν Μονογενῆ καὶ Θεὸν κέκληκεν.
[516] Pp. 627, 630, 466.
[517] P. 956.
[518] ‘Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris ipse enarravit.’—(Comp. Tertullian:—‘Solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse exposuit’ (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21): but he elsewhere (ibid. c. 15) exhibits the passage in the usual way.) Clemens writes,—τότε ἐποπτεύσεις τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρός, ὃν ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς μόνος ἐξηγήσατο (956), and in the Excerpt. Theod. we find οὖτος τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐξηγήσατο ὁ Σωτήρ (969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord is often spoken of by the Fathers as ἡ δεξιά τοῦ ὑψίστου . . . κόλπος δέ τῆς δεξιᾶς ὁ Πατήρ.(Greg. Nyss. 192.)
[519]
[520] Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.
[521] Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.
[522] Opp. ii. 466.
[523] Opp. iii. 23, 358.
[524] Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 (θεὸς πάντως ὁ μονογενής, ὁ ἐν τοῖς κόλποις ὢν τοῦ Πατρός, οὕτως εἰπόντος τοῦ Ἰωάννου) Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506: (always ἐν τοῖς κόλποις). Basil, Opp. iii. 12.
[525] Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).
[526] Contra Eunom. I have noted ninety-eight places.
[527]
Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St.
[528]
He uses it seventeen times in his Comm.on Isaiah (ii. 4,
35, 122, &c.), and actually so reads St.
[529] De Trin. 76, 140, 372:—7.
[530] P. 117.
[531] Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.
[532] Who quoted Arius’ words:—‘Subsistit ante tempora et aeones plenus Deus, ungenitus, et immutabilis.’ But I cannot yet find Tischendorf’s reference.
[533] The reading Υἱός is established by unanswerable evidence.
[534]
The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors
of Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic doctrine of the
Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at work when St. John wrote his
first (
[535]
[536] Ἐπιπηδῶσιν ἡμῖν οἱ αἱρετικοί λέγοντες· ἰδοὺ οὐκ ἀνέλαβε πάρκα ὁ Χριστός· ὁ δεύτ. γάρ φησιν ἄνθρ. ὁ κ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Chrys. 114 b.
[537]
Τὴν γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀνελεῖν βουλόμενοι, ἐνήλλαξαν τό,
ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος· καὶ ἐποίησαν, ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος.
Dial. [ap. Orig.] i. 868.—Marcion had in fact already substituted
Κύριος for ἄνθρωπος
in
[538] Tertull. 304, (Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de Caelo).
[539] Dial. [Orig. i.] 868, (ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ).
[540] Τὸ δὲ πάντων χαλεπώτατον ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησιαστικαῖς συμφοραῖς, ἡ τῶν Ἀπολιναριστῶν ἐστὶ παρρησία. Greg. Naz. 167.
[541] ii. 168,—a very interesting place. See also p. 87.
[542] i. 831.
[543] ii. 443, 531.
[544] Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (primus homo de terrae limo, &c.).
[545] iii. 40.
[546] iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has ὁ δεύτ. ἄνθρ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.
[547] iv. 1051.
[548] Ap. Thdt. v. 1135.
[549] Ap. Galland. viii. 626, 627.
[550] i. 222 (where for ἄνθρ. he reads Ἀδάμ), 563. Also ii. 120, 346.
[551] ’Adversus Manichaeos,’—ap. Mai, iv. 68, 69.
[552] ii. 228:—οὐχ ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἤτοι τὸ ἀνθρώπινον πρόσλημμα, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἦν, ὡς ὁ ἄφρων Ἀπολιν8άριος ἐλήρει.
[553] Naz. ii. 87 (= Thdt. iv. 62), 168.—Nyss. ii. 11.
[554] Ap. Epiphan. i. 830.
[555] ii. 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.
[556] Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. ed. Fabr. ii. 30:—ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:—ed. Galland. ii. 483.)—Neither may the expression τοῦ δευτέρου ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed.
[557] Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo caelestis.—i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. 166, 437.
[558] ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.
[559] The places are given by Sabatier in loc.
[560] Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this reading appear in Orig. interp. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546.
[561] As Philastrius (ap. Galland. vii. 492, 516).—Pacianus (ib. 275).—Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).—Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But see the end of the next ensuing note.
[562] Vol. i. p. 1275,—ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρ. ὁ Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ οὐράνιος:—on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἀμφοτέρωθεν οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος ὀνομάζεται. And lower down,—Κύριος, διὰ τὴν μίαν ὑπόστασιν· δεύτ. μὲν ἄνθρ., κατὰ τὴν ἑνωμένην ἀνθρωπότητα. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δέ, κατὰ τὴν θεότητα.—P. 448,—ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐπουράνιος.—Ap. Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland. v. 167),—ὁ δεύτ. ἄνθρ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.—Note that Maximinus, an Arian bishop, A.D. 427-8 (ap. Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have possessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:—‘Ait ipse Paulus, Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de Caelo caelestis advenit.’
[563] See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114.
[564] This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is therefore earlier than the Dean’s later series.
[565] Proleg. 418.
[566]
The text of St.
[567] See the fragment (and Potter’s note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland. 157. First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric. ii. 71.
[568]
In St.
[569]
Bp.
Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 468. ‘Agnosco iudicis severitatem. E contrario Christi in eandem animadversionem
destinantes discipulos super illum viculum Samaritarum.’ Marc. iv.
23 (see p. 221). He adds,—‘Let Marcion also confess that by the same
terribly severe judge Christ’s leniency was foretold;’ and he cites in proof
[570]
Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him.
And he discusses St.
[571] Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (ap. Galland. v. 329 b), leaving others to note the correspondences between the New and the Old Testament, proposes to handle the ‘Contrasts’: πρὸς αὐτὰς τὰς ἀντιθέσεις τῶν λογίων χωρήσωμεν. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.
[572] Verba ὡς καὶ Ἠ. ἐποίησε cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba στρ. δὲ ἐπετί. αὐτοῖς excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum ὁ γὰρ υἱός, &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per se solum pro spurio haberi potest; cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctoritate arctissime cum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544.)
[573]Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)
[574] The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the last. Jerome.—Apostoli in Lege versati . . . ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, et imitari Eliam, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum venerat, sed ad salvandum, &c. . . . increpat eos quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.) Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.—‘Filius hominis non venit animas hominum perdere, sed salvare.’ p. 98. A.D. 253. Tatian.—Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Cam. c. 12 et 10: and Anim. c. 13.) Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the words twice,—x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a. Καὶ ὁ Κύριος πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους εἰπόντας ἐν πυρὶ κολάσαι τοὺς μὴ δεξαμένους αὐτοὺς κατὰ τὸν Ἠλίαν· Οὐκ οἴδατε φησὶ ποίου πνεύματός ἐστε. (p. 1019.) Theodoret, iii. 1119. (ποίου.) Epiph. ii. 31. (οἵου.) Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place. Augustine.—Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b. Cp. iii. (2), 194 b. Cyril Al.—Μήπω τῆς νέας κεκρατηκότες χάριτος . . . τοῦτο εἶπον, τὸ Ἠλίαν ἀφορῶντες τὸν πυρὶ κ.τ.λ. Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017.—By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew: but this is enough to shew that he admits that some reproof finds record in the Gospel. Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c. Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219. Didymus.—Οὐκ οἴδατε οἵου πνεύματός ἐστιν ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. De Trin. p. 188.
[575] Evst. 48 (Matthaei’s c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).
[576] See Matthaei, N. T. 1786, vol. p. 17.
[577] [I have been unable to discover this Lection.]
[578]
Compare
[579]
Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it, remarks
that our Lord’s words in
[580] So Eusebius Ὅτε κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ συναχθέντες οἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους ἄρχοντες ἐπὶ τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ, συνέδριον ἐποιήσαντο καὶ σκέψιν ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν· ἐν ᾦ οἱ μὲν θάνατον αὐτοῦ κατεψηφίσαντο· ἕτεροι δὲ ἀντέλεγον, ὡς ὁ Νικόδημος, κ.τ.λ. (in Psalmos, p. 230 a).
[581] Westcott and Hort’s prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text of the New Testament, p. xxvii.
[582]
So in the LXX. See
[583]
[584]
[585]
Compare
[586]
Consider
[587] Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi.
[588] Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829.
[589] Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364.
[590] Printed Texts, 1854, p. 241.
[591] Developed Criticism, p. 82.
[592] Outlines, &c., p. 103.
[593] Nicholson’s Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141.
[594] Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368.
[595] I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, an intelligent young American,—himself a very accurate observer and a competent judge,—collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, and assured me that he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codex and Woide’s reprint. One instance of italicism was in fact all that had been overlooked in the course of many pages.
[596] It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes. Praefat. p. xxx, § 86.
[597] ii. 630, addressing Rufinns, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9.
[598] i. 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, 896-7.
[599] i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii1. 774: iii2. 158, 183, 531-2 (where he quotes the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, 466 (largely quoted), 1120: v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places): vi. 407, 413 viii. 377, 574.
[600] Pacian (A.D. 372) refers the Novatians to the narrative as something which all men knew. ‘Nolite in Evangelio legere quod pepercerit Dominus etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat?’ Pacianus, Op. Epist. iii. Contr. Novat. (A.D. 372). Ap. Galland. vii. 267.
[601] Ap. Augustin. viii. 463.
[602] In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53.
[603] Chrysologus, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. Ile mystically explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. § 5.
[604] Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a whole chapter to it. Ap. Galland. ix. 553 and 590.
[605] ’Promiss.’ De Promissionibus dimid. temp. (saec. iv). Quotes viii. 4, 5, 9. P. 2, c. 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct., De Vocatione omnium Gentium (circa, A.D. 440), ap. Opp. Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. p. 460-1:—‘Adulteram ex legis constitutione lapidandam . . . liberavit . . . cum executores praecepti de conscientiis territi, trementem ream sub illius iudicio reliquissent. . . . Et inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus . . . “digito scribebat in terram,” ut legem mandatorum per gratiae decreta vacuaret,’ &c.
[606] Wrongly ascribed to Idacius.
[607] Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Conc. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, 11.
[608] Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. 11. See ii. p. 96, 3, 5-180.
[609] Dialogues, xiv. 15.
[610] ii. 748:—In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum.
[611] ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64, 73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736.
[612] Appendix, p. 88.
[613] vi. 407:—Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit, ‘Iam deinceps noli peccare;’ aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo illius peccati remissione sanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. adult. ii. cap. 7. i. 707:—Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit imperitis Evangelii lectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Christo oblatam, eamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis ea auribus accipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deus censuerit adulterium non esse damnandum.
[614]
Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (
[615]
Constt. App. (
[616]
Two precious verses (viz.
[617] ‘This celebrated paragraph . . . was probably not contained in the first edition of St. John’s Gospel but added at the time when his last chapter was annexed to what had once been the close of his narrative,—xx. 30, 31.’ Scrivener’s Introduction to Cod. D, p. 50.
[618] In an unpublished paper.
[619] It is omitted in some MSS. of the Peshitto.
[620] Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by α, Western by β, as far as I can understand, ‘other’ by γ, and ‘Syrian’ (= Traditional) by δ. But he nowhere gives an example of γ.
[621] Introduction, p. 103.
[622]
Cp. St.
[623] Thus ἔπαινος is used for a public encomium, or panegyric.
[624] An attempt in the Guardian has been made in a review full of errors to weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an unique set of details. A correction both of the reviewer’s figures in one instance and of .my own may be found above, pp. 144-153. There is no virtue in an exact proportion of 3:2, or of 6:1. A great majority will ultimately be found on our side.