Skip to main content

Full text of "A course of developed criticism : on passages of the New Testament materially affected by various readings"

See other formats


.,,S,H No,.. 















i ; ; 

1 1984 


THE books of the New Testament have been no more exempt 
from corrupting influences on their text than other writings of 
antiquity ; and hence has arisen the task of the critic to make, 
by the use of all available means, as near an approach as may 
be to purity; a task the importance of which may be best rated 
by that of the writings themselves. 

This importance, however, has been strangely disregarded : 
in proof of which it is enough to point to laboured expositions 
of matter undoubtedly spurious, encounters Avith difficulties that 
exist only in corruptions, and controversial citations where the 
reading is so questionable as to leave only the unhappy alter 
native of ignorance or disingenuousness. The same thing also 
appears in the circumstance, that calls are being made from time 
to time for new or revised versions of Scripture without betraying 
any consciousness of the necessity of a certain preliminary to such 
proceedings, namely, the determination of the text to be repre 
sented in such version or revision. 

The purpose of these statements is not, however, to introduce 
an expression of censure, but rather to specify a circumstance 
which might furnish a plea in excuse for the disregard that has 
been thus noticed. This circumstance shall now be explained. 

A critical edition of the New Testament offers on its pages 


two distinct things, the text itself as determined by the judgment 
of the critic, or, at least, furnished with indications of the form 
which he thinks it ought to take, and a register of the authorities 
on which, in each several case, his decision has been made to rest, 
as well as of variations in general. The latter is presented in 
a shape necessarily compressed, and apt to offer to an untrained 
eye an appearance of intricacy and confusion. Of the steps of 
reasoning connecting the resulting text with the cited authorities 
there are no intimations, except such as may be gathered from 
a few prefatory statements of general principles which the critic 
has thought proper to adopt ; with which, too, an occasional 
decision may have at least the appearance of inconsistency. 

The tendency of these circumstances is unfavourable to an 
interest in the important subject, and they may often have issued 
in an entire disregard of it. The present attempt has been made 
in the hope of meeting in some degree this difficulty, by offering 
complete discussions of places affected by such variations as are 
material to the careful reader and the interpreter of the New 
Testament. Not that any variation is in itself immaterial : to the 
critic each has its significance, and its consideration makes its 
contribution to the perfection of his art. 

The reader is merely supposed to be acquainted with the age 
and character of the principal MSS., and the notation by which 
they are conventionally cited, and with the history of the ancient 
versions.* In this place, accordingly, it will be sufficient to 
specify the various kinds of corruption to which the text has 
been exposed, and afterwards to notice some preliminary points 
of importance. 

* The necessary information may be found in several quarters, especially 
in the prefatory matter of various critical editions ; among which Tischen- 
dorf s may be particularly named. 

The MSS. of the Old Latin will be cited according to the notation used 
by Tischendorf. This title is here employed comprehensively for the 
Antehieronymian Latin in both its phases, the African and the Italic. Its 


The work of transcription can never be altogether exempt 
from the corruptions of mere accident, arising from the wander 
ings of the eye and the slips of the pen. A place affected by 
various readings should, therefore, be carefully scanned for the 
detection of any probable mechanical cause of such mischief, 
anything likely to betray a copyist into unwitting mistakes. Of 
the endless shapes which these might take two kinds may be 
especially mentioned, the interchange of words slightly differing 
in form, and omissions of words and clauses by oversight. 

Another process of corruption is the encroachment on the text 
of marginal or interlineary matter, which may, for the sake of 
convenience, be comprehended under the term glossarial. First, 
there is the gloss properly so called, namely, a term serving to 
furnish an explanation or attach a precise interpretation to one 
in the text. These may either become simply intrusive and 
produce accretion, or may be substituted for the genuine reading 
and exhibit usurpation. Again, this class embraces supplements 
of various extent, where the text may have been elliptical or 
seemed defective : these are a great source of accretion. There 
is, also, other matter coming under this head, in the way of illus 
tration or comment, ready materials of accretion.* It is scarcely 
necessary to observe, that the writings of the New Testament 

importance can hardly be overrated : its rival in this respect would be the 
Peshito, if tlie text of this latter were settled by the aid of copies of 
like antiquity and value with the imperfect Nitrian MS. of the Gospels. 
Whenever the Peshito is cited from this copy, the citation will be dis 
tinguished by the letter N. The writer is indebted for the means of doing 
it to the kindness of Dr. Tregelles, whose undaunted zeal and unwearied 
labours in the cause of sacred criticism are beyond all praise. 

* Of the corrupting process thus described the reader may furnish 
himself with abundant illustration, unattended by alarm or prejudice, 
by comparing the text of some of the more familiar orations of Demos 
thenes, as settled by recent criticism, with its previous form. The Third 
Philippic may be named as affording a good specimen in this way. 

Accretion is not merely a corruption of a writer s matter, but disguises 
the finer features of his manner, as much as smoke, dirt, and daubing, the 
touches and colouring of an old master. 


would from their peculiar character especially gather around 
them matter of this kind. Here it is the business of the critic 
to exercise discernment and reasoning on the facts which research 
has in each case brought forward, in order to discriminate the 
incrustation from the original substance, and the germ amidst 
the motley growth that overlies it. 

Corruption may also be the work of wilful tamperings ; and 
what is possible must not be left out of sight by the critic. 
Whether such a process has been perpetrated on the text of the 
New Testament, so as to leave still existing traces, is a question 
that must not be passed over without notice. Charges of falsifi 
cation have been boldly launched by ecclesiastical writers ; but, 
when unattended with specification of particulars in evidence, 
they must be allowed to have no more weight than is due to 
polemical criminations in general ; and such particulars as have 
been actually advanced, will on due examination be found to 
leave at the most but a slender ground for the belief, that much 
mischief was effected in that way. Besides, a disposition to 
falsify, wherever it might exist, would hardly be able to free 
itself from the restraining consciousness, that the attempt would 
be a bootless one. The idea, therefore, of falsification can only 
be admitted into the realm of criticism under check of such 
considerations as these. Least of all should a ready recourse 
be had to wilful suppression to account for the absence of any 
portion of text from important documents. There is reason, 
however, to admit the existence of meddlings of a less serious 
kind, in the way of improvements in grammar and expression : 
but among a group of rival readings there can in general be 
no great difficulty in distinguishing that which bears the stamp 
of such interference. It is also a fair supposition, that copyists 
would make mischief by arbitrary and inconsiderate corrections 
of imaginary mistakes, and of some, too, which were real. 

Lastly, there is a particular form of corruption, to which other 


writings might be occasionally open, but to which the volume 
of the New Testament, and more especially the Gospels, was 
exposed in a manner peculiar to itself, namely, the process by 
which passages originally possessing some resemblance in matter 
and language would be brought into a still closer agreement, 
and which may be properly styled assimilation. By this term, 
however, it is not intended to imply of necessity an immediate 
interference with the text, with the direct purpose of producing 
a closer conformity than originally existed. In undoubted cases 
there are circumstances to be observed scarcely compatible with 
a deliberate operation of that kind ; while, on the other hand, 
appearances in general may be accounted for on the supposition, 
that the matter which, when introduced into the text, had an 
assimilative effect, was, in the first instance, simply marginal 
or interlinear. 

The work to which the critic of the New Testament is called, 
must consist to a considerable extent in disentangling the text 
from intrusive and usurping matter, having its origin in the 
margin ; in detaching accretions, and replacing whatever may 
have been dislodged by a spurious rival : and with this view one 
leading principle must be especially noticed. 

Corruption of this particular kind must be the work of time, 
because the growth of such matter itself would be gradual, and 
its sliding into the text by the agency of reckless, ill- taught, and 
foolish hands, and through the general propensity of copyists for 
amplification, would be likewise gradual : the evil, too, unchecked 
in its earlier stages by due watchfulness or control, would go on 
spreading with the advance of time. It follows of necessity from 
this, that the more ancient documents will in general exhibit 
a greater approach to purity in this particular respect than those 
of later date, and, as a practical consequence, that the adverse 
testimony of but a few witnesses of high antiquity, in the case 


of matter of questioned genuineness, must receive the first and 
foremost regard, even though it were certain that their text was 
unsound in certain other respects, as, for instance, in the touches 
of critical hands. Fewness must not discourage a reliance on 
their testimony, because, if an intrusion took place at a particular 
point at a remote date and there is sufficient proof that such 
mischief was very early at work such a numerical disparity 
is precisely the state of things to be encountered in the body 
of surviving documents, where the really ancient must, from 
the very nature of things, form but a small minority, and even of 
these all cannot be expected to have escaped intrusive influence. 

This canon, as it may be called, does not rest on an unreasoning 
prepossession in favour of antiquity, but is a logical consequence 
from unquestionable premises. 

Since in citing the MSS. which exhibit a certain reading, a 
great preponderance of mere numbers is imposing in appearance, 
and may seem to be a circumstance that cannot lightly be set 
aside or countervailed by other considerations, it will be well 
to state fairly and precisely how much may be concluded from 
the circumstance. 

Out of the entire body of existing copies, as has already been 
remarked, those of high antiquity form a very small portion ; 
and, accordingly, any great majority of the whole must be almost 
entirely composed of those of later date. Whenever, therefore, 
a particular reading is supported by a greatly preponderating 
part of the mass in contrast with a group of distinctively ancient 
copies, all that can be at once concluded from this bare fact is, 
that the reading in question had a settled currency in later times. 
This narrow conclusion is all that in such a case can be taken 
into account from MSS. alone in a discussion of the claims of 
a reading; without any prejudice, however, to arguments for 
antiquity and genuineness which may be derivable from other 
quarters notwithstanding. 


In one particular way mere numbers would be important 
evidence of genuineness, namely, in case there were something 
in the character of the reading itself adverse to its acceptance 
in the presence of rivals, and, therefore, to that currency which 
those numbers indicate. 

Mere numerical considerations do not therefore possess that 
prime importance which they might at first sight seem to claim, 
and which they have too frequently been allowed to exercise. 

Instead of proceeding to detail in this place other guiding 
principles, they will be severally stated as cases occur in discus 
sion where they will respectively require to be applied. 

That the mass of MSS. appears to fall into certain divisions, 
grouped by features of resemblance exhibited by their text, has 
been remarked by independent observers, who at the same time 
differed in their views of the precise number and character of 
the groups. Such division cannot therefore be viewed as purely 
a thing of fancy. Indeed, some such result must be regarded 
as almost inevitable from the very nature of things. Particular 
readings being established in the text, by whatever means, in 
a certain quarter would there maintain a widening currency with 
little or no interference from tendencies of the same kind else 
where ; and thus there would spring up distinct streams of text, 
as they may be termed, which would not be obliterated even 
by a partial commixture in after time. Thus much may well 
be admitted, but not allowed to stand as a reality so palpable 
and well-defined as to furnish the groundwork for a formal 
scheme of critical operation. 

One circumstance, however, of this class may be ascertained 
with tolerable distinctness. A certain portion of MSS. exhibit 
peculiar forms of words which marked the dialect of Alexandria. 
These forms are a sufficient indication that the text belongs 
to that quarter. For, if the writers of the New Testament 


themselves used them, their elimination from copies is the work 
of transcribers, and would take place wherever the current form 
of the language did not acknowledge them : they would there 
fore, be retained only in the quarter where such influence did 
not exist. If, on the contrary, they were not originally in the 
text, their presence is the work, in the first instance at least, 
of an Egyptian copyist. This last must not be identified with 
an Alexandrian critic ; and it should be remembered that the 
same document may exhibit readings derived from the improve 
ments of a learned man, and also the vulgarisms and peculiarities 
of a scribe. 

In a review of authorities special regard will reasonably be 
paid to antiquity: but this must not be overstrained into a 
summary neglect of more recent witnesses, as necessarily offering 
nothing worthy of notice. 

The critic should not suffer himself to be encumbered by 
prepossessions or assumptions, nor bind himself to the routine 
of a mechanical method of procedure. If he allows himself to 
be thus warped and trammelled, instead of ever maintaining the 
free employment of a watchful, calm, and unfettered mind, he 
abandons his duty and mars his work. 







i. 25 .. 

. 1 

xi. 10 . . 

. 44 

vii. 8 . . 

v. 11 .. 

. 3 

26 . . 

. . 44 

52 . . 

22 . . 

. 4 

32 . 

. 45 

vii. 53 . . 

44. . 

. 6 

xiii. 14 . . 

. . 46 

viii. 16 . . 

46,47 . 

. 7 

xiv. 24 . 

. 47 

38 . . 

vi. 1. . 

. 8 

27 . . 

. . 47 

59 . . 

4, 6, 18 

. 10 

70 . 

. 48 

x. 38 .. 

13. . 

. 11 

xv. 28 . . 

. . 49 

xi. 41 . . 

vii. 14 . . 

. 13 

xvi. 9-20 

. 49 

xii. 7 . . 

viii. 31 .. 

. 14 

xiii. 24 . . 

ix. 13 . . 

. 15 


xvi. 16 . . 

36. . 

. 16 

iv. 5 . 

. 54 

xvii. 11, 12 . 

x. 8 . . 

. 16 

v. 32 . 

. . 15 

21 . . 

xi. 2. . 

. 17 

vi. 1 . 

. 56 

xviii. 11 . . 

. 18 

26 . 

. . 57 


xix. 16, 17 

. 19 

xi. 2-4 

. 58 

i. 25. . 

xx. 22,23 . 

. 22 

48 . 

. . 60 

ii. 30 . 

xxi. 28-31 

. 23 

xiv. 5 . 

. 61 

iii. 20 .. 

xxiii. 14 . . 

. 26 

xvi. 9 

. . 62 

iv. 27 . 

25. . 

. 27 

25 . 

. . 63 

vi. 8 . . 

xxv. 13 . . 

. 28 

xvii. 9 

. . 64 

vii. 37 . 

xxvi. 26 . . 

. 28 

36 . 

. . 64 

viii. 10 . . 

28 . . 

. 30 

xxii. 43, 44 

. . 65 

37 . 

xxvii. 34 . . 

. 31 

64 . 

. . 67 

ix. 5,6 . 

35 . . 

. 32 

xxiii. 34 

. . 68 

x. 6 . 

xxviii. 9 . . 

. 33 

xxiv. 1 . 

. . 69 

19 . 

12 . 

. . 70 

xi. 12 . . 


51 . 

. . 71 

20 . 

i. 2 . . . 

. 35 

xiii. 18 . . 

4 . . 

. 36 



27 . . . 

. 37 

i. 16 .. 

. . 72 

33 . . 

ii. 7 . . 

. 39 

18 . 

. . 73 

xv. 17, 18 

17 . . . 

. 15 

28 . . 

. . 74 

24. . 

iii. 29 . . 

. 39 

iii. 25 . 

. . 75 

33 . 

iv. 24 . . . 

. 40 

v. 3,4 . 

. . 76 

34 . . 

ix. 23 . . 

. 41 

16 . 

. . 78 

xvi. 7 . 

43, 44 . . 

. 42 

vi. 22 .. 

. . 79 

xviii. 5 . . 

. 79 

. 80 
. 81 

. 83 
. 83 

. 85 
. 85 

. 86 
. 86 

. 87 
. 88 

. 89 

. 93 
. 94 
. 96 
. 97 



xviii. 17 . 
21 . 


. 109 
. . 110 

iii. 1 ... 
iv. 7 . . 


. 146 

xii. 18. .. 
xiii 9 


. 167 

xx. 28 . 

. Ill 

14 ... 

. 147 

xxi. 22 . 

. . 112 

v. 1 . 



25 . 

. 113 

i. 19 ... 

. 168 

xxii. 9 . 

. . 114 


ii. 5. . . . 


xxiii. 9 

. 114 

iii. 9 ... 

. 149 

18 ... 

. 169 

xxiv. 6-8 

. . 115 

v. 5 . . . 


iii. 3 . . . . 


18 . 

. 116 

vi. 12 . . . 

. 150 

12 ... 

. 171 

xxvii. 14 . 

. . 116 

iv. 12 .... 


xxviii. 29 

. 117 


iii. 16 . . . 




i. 22, 23 . . 

. 172 

ii. 13 . . 

. . 118 


ii. 2 . . . 


iii. 28 . . 

. 120 

i. 6 ... 

. 152 

iii. 8 ... 

. 173 

iv. 1. . 

. . 120 

14 . . . . 


15 . . . 


v. 1 . . 

. 121 

ii. 2 . . . 

. 153 

20 ... 

. 175 

vi. 12 . . 

. . 123 

18 ... 


21 . . . 


vii. 6 . . 

. 124 

iv. 14 ... 

. 176 

14. . 

. . 125 


viii. 1 . 

. 126 

ii. 7 . . . 

. 155 


11. . 

. . 127 

i. 3 . . . 


xi. 6 . 

. 128 


ii. 2 ... 

. 178 

xii. 11. . 

. . 129 

i. 4 . . 


13 . . . 


xiv. 6 . 

. 130 

iii. 3 ... 

. 156 

18 ... 

. 179 


16 . . 


iii. 3 . . 


iii. 1, 4 . 
13 . 

. . 131 
. 131 

iv. 12 ... 
vi. 5 . . 

. 160 
. 160 

1 JOHN. 

v. 1 

. . 131 

19 ... 

. 161 

ii. 18 ... 

. 181 

vi. 20 . 
vii. 3 . 
5 . 

. . 132 
. . 132 
. 133 

iv. 1. . . 

. 161 

23 . . 

iv 3 



v. 7, 8 . . 

ix. 10 . 

. . 134 

14 ... 

, 162 

13 ... 




x. 1 

. . 136 



28 . 

. . 136 

ii. 7 . . . 

. 163 

4 . . 

. 187 

xi. 24 

. . 137 

12 ... 

. 178 

29 . 

. . 138 


22 . . 

. 187 

xiii. 3 

. . 139 

7 . . . 

. 164 

24 ... 

. 188 

xv. 49 . 

. . 140 

51 . 

. . 141 



ii. 7 . . 

. 165 

ii. 20 .. 

. 189 


vii. 16. .. 

. 165 

x. 7 . . 

. 190 

i. 20 . 

. . 143 

ix. 1 . . 

. 166 

xvii. 8 . . 

. 190 

iii. 1 . . 

. . 144 

x. 31. .. 

. 166 

xxii. 14 . . 

. 191 

xii. 1 

. . 144 

xi. 13 . . 

. 167 




JEcof ov ere/ce TOV viov avrrjs rov 
* Till she had brought forth \JierJirstborn son X a son]. 

THE variation which will demand notice in this place, gives occa 
sion, at the outset, to certain general observations, preliminary 
to the consideration not only of the present instance but of many 
others of like complexion. 

It is clear, from the nature of the case, that the intrusion of 
glossarial matter into the text must be a gradual process, and, 
as such, favoured by lapse of time. From this it follows, as 
a general principle, that documents of a later age would be more 
extensively infected Avith such corruption, and that the circum 
stances of the more ancient are favourable to their purity in this 
particular respect. Accordingly, a shorter reading, especially if 
it be of a kind to call forth glosses, provided it is supported by 
a few authorities of high antiquity, has at once a strong presump 
tion in its favour : though before such presumption is accepted, it 
should be ascertained that there is no reason either in the outward 

* In order to furnish the ordinary reader of tlie English Bible with, some 
information of the matters with which the criticism of the original text is 
concerned, the Authorised Version of each passage is added, having those 
portions, the entire omission of which is the point in question, simply 
included in brackets ; but when the discussion relates to the claims of a 
rival reading, a rendering of that reading is inserted within the brackets, 
preceded by the mark X. 




shape of the passage for referring the briefer form to accidental 
curtailment in transcription, or in its purport for suspecting wilful 

In the present place, instead of the common reading, a shorter 
one, eo>? ov ereicev vlov, is exhibited by B, Z, and supported by the 
Syriac (N), by the Old Latin in a, b, c, g l , as well as the Coptic 
and Sahidic versions. Another of the same class of Latin docu 
ments (y 2 ) adds unigenitum. The remaining mass of authorities 
have the common form, except that D sec. man. and L omit avrfy. 

If the text stood originally as it is presented by the few authori 
ties just cited, the bare statement furnished by the words eo>5 ov 
eretcev vlov would leave a blank respecting the subsequent con 
dition of the mother of Jesus, which thought or fancy would not 
fail to occupy. Another evangelist, indeed, undoubtedly supplies 
rbv TrpwroroKov (Lu. ii. 7); but this term, though it might be 
regarded as looking towards a certain conclusion, that Mary was 
the mother of other children, still does not absolutely imply so 
much and bar the exercise of opinion. 

Under these circumstances, the simpler reading, if original, 
could hardly escape the application of supplementary glosses, 
perhaps of opposite tendencies; and, since it is supported by clear 
testimony, the fuller form must fall under the suspicion of having 
its origin in the accretion of such matter, especially if, as in the 
present case, this is at once supplied by a parallel passage. 

To append in the margin rov TrpwroroKOv from the other Gospel 
would be a simple proceeding, but having a ready issue in the 
amplification of the text itself. The Latin addition unigenitum, 
already noticed, is the bolder expression of an opinion, widely 
held and stoutly maintained, as may be seen in the comment 
of Chrysostom. 

When these considerations are taken into account, it is unrea 
sonable to acquiesce confidently in the common reading : and, 
notwithstanding the great preponderance in the amount of the 
opposing documentary evidence, the few, but ancient, Greek, 
Syriac, Latin, and other witnesses for the shorter form press 
strongly for the conclusion, that the longer reading is the result 
of assimilation, and that the original shape of the clause was 
simply etw<? ov ereicev vlov. 



l core, OTOLV oveidlo-co(ni> vjjLa? KOU 8ia>- 
G)(ri, KOL e lTToxri irav iroinqpov prjfMa Kaff 

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute 
you, and shall say all manner of evil against you [falsely ,] 
for my sake. 

The word tyevSotMevoi is wanting in D, and in Z>, c, d, g l , h, k 
of the Old Latin, Origen, Tertullian, Hilary, etc. 

The term is altogether a redundance as regards the sense ; for 
reproach directed against true servants of Christ in enmity to 
their Master, which is the case supposed, cannot rest in truth, and 
thus the declaration here made need not be guarded by a formal 
hypothesis of falsehood in the charges alleged ; which is done 
by the introduction of the word in question. 

If the combination of this consideration with the direct adverse 
evidence, already cited, serves to indicate spuriousness, it is an 
instance of the effects of an ill-directed officiousness, engaged in 
stocking the margin with superfluous expressions of such ideas 
as were left by the original text to simple implication and sugges 
tion, and thus furnishing the first step to an eventual encumbrance 
of the text itself with feeble and impertinent accretions.* 

A less important variation, though of a similar complexion, 
is the omission of pfjfj,a by B, D, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, 
^Ethiopic, etc. 

* An indisposition, which, is often manifested, to admit the reality of this 
final stage, in the actual accretion of marginal matter a disposition to 
regard omission and curtailment as more likely than amplification is best 
confronted by opinions of high authorities, such, as the following: "Perhaps 
you think it an affected and absurd idea that a marginal note can ever 
creep into the text : yet I hope you are not so ignorant as not to know that 
this has actually happened, not merely in hundreds or thousands, but in 
millions of places. Natura, says Daille, ita comparatum est, ut auctorum 
probatorum libros plerique omnes amplos quam breves malint; verentes 
scilicet, ne quid sibi desit, quod auctoris vel sit vel esse dicatur. To the 



s r&> a8e\(f)w avrov ciicrj 

(TTai Trj Kpl(T6l. 

Whosoever is angry with his by-other [without a cause,"] shall 
be in danger of the judgment. 

Doubt is thrown on the genuineness of elicf] a terra which 
might seem materially to affect the sense of the passage by its 
absence from B, 48, 198, and by the intimations of suspicion in 
A and several others. Jerome describes the evidence of copies in 
his time as strongly adverse to its genuineness, and his decision 
is given accordingly : and hence its absence from the Vulgate, 
as seen both in its current text and the best MSS. It is also 
wanting in the ./Ethiopia. A, C, and Z are defective in this place. 

The grounds for rejecting elicr) as furnished by existing docu 
ments are numerically slight : but the testimony of Jerome, whose 
information respecting contemporary evidence could not be other 
wise than correct, most materially alters the state of the case. 
The clear statement of an ancient writer respecting the reading 
of authorities which in his day were themselves styled ancient, 
claims the first consideration : and it is to be regretted that there 
are but few instances where evidence so peculiar can be cited. 

The term in question certainly wears the appearance of an 
officious stepping in, by a marginal suggestion at least, to the 
rescue of Scripture from a seemingly harsh and startling declara 
tion; one, however, which will bear a different aspect, when the 
passage is rightly interpreted without the presence of the disputed 

same purpose Bengelius, Non facile pro superfluo aliquid hodie habent 
complures docti viri (he might have added, omnesque indocti), eademque 
mente plerique quondam librarii fuere. From this known propensity of 
transcribers to turn everything into text -which they found written on the 
margin of their MSS. or between the lines, so many interpolations have 
proceeded, that at present the surest canon of criticism is, Praeferatur 
lectio bremor." Person to Travis, Letter VI. 


Judicial responsibility for homicide, as to whether each par 
ticular act is justifiable or not, is the utmost that is signified by 
the words, eW^o? co-rat rfj fcplaei, in the preceding verse; this 
being a limiting provision added to the summary command of the 
decalogue, ov $oz/euo-et9. The appended teaching of Jesus, as 
expressed without the presence of et /c?}, is simply an extension of 
this enactment to the act of anger, making it too a matter of 
similar responsibility of solemn inquisition whether, in each 
case, it has arisen from sufficient cause and has not exceeded 
due bounds. 

This simple view of the passage does not require the aid of 
any saving term, like el/cr). The assignment of an exaggerated 
meaning, however, would be natural enough, and would then 
lead to a looking for relief in this particular way. 

On the other hand, if eltcij be viewed as an original portion of 
the text, no motive can be assigned for a desire to be rid of it, nor 
any mechanical cause, specially attaching to it, for an accidental 

These considerations, combined with the adverse external evi 
dence, at least forbid any reasonable confidence in the genuineness 
of the word. If it be condemned as spurious, the case is interest 
ing, as being an instance of corruption having its source in a gloss 
called forth not by ordinary causes but by misinterpretation. 

It is also, as has been already observed, one of the few instances 
where positive patristic testimony introduces the modern critic 
to a state of documentary evidence very different from that of his 
own day. 



rouy t\6poi)s vfjiuv, evAoyetre TOVS 
vfjids, /caXcoy iroieire rovs IUO-OVVTO.S 
KOL irpocrevytorOe virep TGJV eTrrj pea^ovrow 


Love your enemies, [bless them that curse you,~] [do good 
to them that hate you, ] and pray for them which [despite- 
fully use you, and\ persecute you. 

The three clauses, ev\o<y. v/*a9, /ca\w9 u/^a?, eTrrjp. /cat, 
are wanting in B, 1, 11, etc, in the Syriac (N), and the Coptic; 
the first in the Vulgate and most copies of the Old Latin ; the 
second and third in k; the third in the jEthiopic ; and all appear 
to have been unknown to various Greek and Latin Fathers. 

This is one of the instances where, as regards existing Greek 
MSS., the evidence is numerically slender on one side, while there 
is, at the same time, sufficient indication that a form of the text 
which is thus slenderly supported at present, was, at least, widely 
current in remote times. Whenever there is assurance that such 
a discovery is fairly made, reason requires that it should be 
allowed to have all the force that is due to testimony which is 
really ancient. 

It only remains to observe, that the entire matter of these dis 
puted clauses is found in exact terms in the parallel place (Luke 
vi. 27, 28); and hence arises a suspicion of assimilative influence, 
which combines in great force with the direct adverse evidence. 


MATTHEW V. 46, 47. 

Eav yap ayaTrrjaijTe rovs 
riva jJLLcrOov e^ere; ov^l KOL ol reXcovai TO avro 


/JLOVOV, TL Trepicrcrov 7roiLT; ov^i Koi ol TeXwvai, 

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? 
do not even the \_publicans )( heathen] the same? And if ye 
salute your [brethren X friends] only, what do ye more than 
others ? do not even the [publicans X heathen] so? 

In either place, instead of Te\wvcu different copies have e 
This circumstance combined with the remark, that either term is 
too simple and precise to call forth glossarial illustration, so that 
one might be the offspring of the other, at once gives ground for 
a presumption, that the latter word was originally found in one 
of the two clauses, and that its place was unsettled by the careless 
ness of transcribers. 

In the first, eOviKoL is very slightly supported, but in the second 
by B, D, Z, and several others, by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, 
the Coptic, the ^Ethiopic, etc. It is clear also that Chrysostom 
read thus, from a cited passage having a direct bearing on the 
term (1 Th. iv. 5). 

If it be said that eOvtKoL is the work of some one who disliked 
the bare repetition of the same clause, it is enough to observe 
that, before such suggestions are allowed to have weight, more 
evidence is needed than is at present possessed either of the exist 
ence of fastidious correctors of the text itself, or of a taste for 
elegant variety of expression on the part of those who employed 
themselves in the margin. 

The reading should be edvucoi in the second place. 

These remarks upon the readings reXwrat and edviicot apply 
exactly to the circumstances of another pair in the passage, OVTCO 
and TO avro, except that the determination of their respective 


places is not so clear as in the other case. In the first, OVTM? is 
given by D, Z, 33, etc., supported by h, A, etc.; in the second, TO 
avro by B, D, M, U, Z, and many others, besides several versions. 

The variation <f)t\ov<; for aSeX^ov? is well supported by E, K, 
L, M, S, U, J,/, A, etc., but has strongly the appearance of an 
interpretative comment, indicating the wide meaning rightly to 
be attached to the literally limited term aSeX^ou?. This latter 
too is the reading of B, D, etc., the Syriac, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, 
Vulgate, and most copies of the Old Latin. 

The passage then should in all probability stand thus : Eav 
K. r. X. ; ov-ftl ical oi reXwvai, OVTCD Troiovcri; teal eav do-TrdcrrjcrOe 

W aSeX(/>ou9 vpwv povov, TI Trepicrabv TroieiTe; ovw Kal ol e 


e TT]V e\TJ/JLO(TVl rjl> V/ 

Trpo&Oev rwv avO pw 
Take heed that ye do not your [alms \ righteousness] before 


In this place, instead of eXerj/jLoa-vvrjv, SiKatocrvvi^v is exhibited 
by B, D, and a few others, and is further supported by the Old 
Latin in most of its copies, by the Vulgate, by a special comment 
of Jerome, and several other patristic authorities. 

It may be observed, in the first place, that it can scarcely 
be imagined that this variation has arisen from the accidents 
of transcription, and accordingly it may be safely assumed that 
one reading is the artificial issue of the other. 

It may also be remarked, as a general principle, that if a case 
be conceived in which each of two rival readings is equally likely 
to be the glossarial offspring of the other, in such a case the 
reading which might happen to be found in only a few copies 
of the highest antiquity ought to be preferred, because the usurpa- 


tion of glosses is favoured, and their occupation extended and 
strengthened by mere lapse of time. 

If, however, it shall appear in the present instance, that the 
two readings are not thus equally matched in themselves, but that 
one may reasonably be regarded as the germ-reading, and is at 
the same time upheld by ancient evidence, this must receive 
a decided preference a fortiori. 

Now, on the supposition of eX. being the original reading, 
there is nothing to provoke a gloss at all; and such a gloss as 
SIK. would exhibit the preposterous process of illustrating a term 
which would be to every reader perfectly ordinary and intelligible, 
by means of a peculiar usage of Hebrew or Aramaean origin. 
On the other hand, SIK. in the text would at once present a pecu 
liarity to a Greek reader, for which an explanatory comment 
would be readily supplied by the succeeding context, as also by 
the LXX. (Gen. xxi. 23 ; Ps. cxi. 8 ; Is. Ixiii. 7), and the New 
Testament itself (2 Cor. ix. 9, 10). Reason accordingly requires 
that Site, should be regarded as the true reading and eX. the 
usurping gloss. 

The common text is here supported by the great mass of MSS., 
but A and C are defective in this place. The evidence of the 
Syriac is indecisive, since it would give the same rendering (Jo>i , 
jAoji) for either Greek word. 

This instance, though altogether unimportant as regards the 
meaning of the passage, is in another respect most instructive, 
because it presents a scanty amount of testimony but including 
ancient witnesses, combining with strong internal reasons to ask 
the judgment of an unbiassed and unfettered criticism against 
array of numbers. 


MATTHEW VI. 4, 6, 18. 

Kai o iroLT7]p crov 6 /3Ae7r<oz> ez/ rw Kpvirrw avrof 
dirodcocreL aoi ev TW (f)avepa). 

And thy Father, which seeth in secret, \himself~\ shall 
reward thee [openly]. 

In the common text the form of this clause is the same in the 
three places, except that the first alone has auro?. The question 
which arises on them, relates to the genuineness of the words 

In the last place they are omitted in B, D, G, K, L, M, S, U, 
and a considerable number of others, and in many versions ; on 
which grounds they may safely be condemned, though supported 
by the Old Latin in a, b, c, etc. 

In the first place the words are wanting in B, D, Z, 1, 22, 209, 
etc., the Vulgate, the Old Latin in^, &, the Coptic, etc. 

In the second, the authorities to the same effect nearly recur, 
with the addition of the Sahidic, etc. In all three they are 
wanting in the Syriac (N). 

These, though not imposing in number, are serious by their 
weight, and their adverse testimony conspires with the appearance 
which the words in question undoubtedly wear, of a marginal 
supplement presenting to the eye what the mind would naturally 
append in antithesis to the words ev TG> KpvTrrm, as giving a 
completeness of point to the sentence. 

A similar origin may reasonably be assigned to auro?, which 
is wanting in B, K, L, U, Z, etc., and is unsupported by the 
majority of the versions, as well as by Chrysostom and others. 

In the third place, instead of an exact verbal repetition of the 
clause, B, D, 1, 22 have ev rep tcpv^aiy, in which variation of 
term there may be recognised a correspondence to a change of 
circumstance. In the two preceding instances, the case described 
is that of an act in itself palpable almsgiving or prayer-uttering 
simply screened from the gaze of others, that is, TO tcpvirrov: 


in the present, the act fasting being not discernible, and a 
disguise being supposed to be thrown over appearances which 
might betoken it, the matter is more intimately covert, and, as 
such, may be well termed TO /cpvfaiiov or icpvfytov. 


OTL crov (TTLV T? (BoKTiXcia KOL rj dvvafu? KOU rj 

els row alwvas 

[For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for 
ever. Amen]. 

The question here to be considered relates to the genuineness 
of a passage omitted by a few authorities, including some of 
ancient date, but acknowledged by the remaining mass. 

The clause is omitted in B, D, Z, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, the 
Vulgate, the Old Latin in most copies, the Coptic, and by various 
Greek and Latin Fathers, especially the critics Origen and Jerome. 
Several MSS. which contain the clause, have also a scholium 
mentioning its absence from other copies. A, C, F, H are here 

There are peculiar circumstances affecting the Lord s prayer, 
as given in this Gospel, which attach in an equal degree to no 
other portion of the New Testament. By its mode of introduc 
tion the injunction which ushers it in precise attention would 
at once be especially drawn to it, and exact recollection secured 
for it, as a model summary of prayer. More than this, it soon 
began not merely to be regarded as a type, but used as a form. 
Under these circumstances, probabilities are opposed even to the 
accidental omission of a clause in transcription ; and if an instance 
occurred, there would be immediate detection, and an instant 
check to a multiplication of the error. And yet, if the clause be 
genuine, such an error has from the first possessed the entire Latin 
Church, which has never acknowledged the doxology. 


An early and widely spread use of so brief a form, especially its 
liturgical employment, must be regarded as a safeguard against a 
suppression, in any degree or manner, of any constituent portion. 

But liturgical influence, though thus in a manner conservative, 
might also have a mischievous tendency in a different direction. 
If the prayer did not originally conclude with a doxological 
clause, such an appendage would be naturally attached to it in 
practice ; not put forward as an original portion of it, but as 
adding a feature which would place it in better keeping with the 
formularies into which it was introduced. From the service-book 
the clause would soon find its way into the Lectionary, and after 
wards into the margin and text of continually multiplying copies. 

It appears then that, from the peculiar circumstances of the 
case, there is an especial difficulty in reconciling the genuineness of 
the clause with its omission in a few ancient documents, versions, 
and Fathers; while the same circumstances suggest a ready mode 
of accounting for its presence elsewhere. This latter array, there 
fore, though imposing in appearance, ought not to be allowed 
in this instance to countervail the former, and an acknowledge 
ment of genuineness cannot be reasonably demanded. 

It may be further remarked that, had the simple and distinct 
doxological clause, now found in the common text, existed from 
the first, it would have been as secure from fluctuation of form 
as the other clauses of the prayer : and, accordingly, the strange 
variety which is observable on comparing the doxologies exhibited 
in -the Syriac (N), which has nothing corresponding to teal rj 
Svvafus, in one copy (A) of the Old Latin, and in various patristic 
passages, is an evidence that the original text of St. Matthew was 
not their source, but that they are merely the shifting shapes 
of an artificial appendage. 



f OTL (rrevj] 77 TrvXr), K. r. A. 
[Because X How~\ strait is the gate, etc. 

Instead of ort, ri is found in B sec. man., C, E, G, K, L, M, S, 
U, V, A, and very many others, and is supported by the Syriac, 
the Old Latin in most copies, the Vulgate, the ^Ethiopic, and 
other versions, by several Greek commentators, as also by Jerome 
and other writers. The common reading is found in B, X, with 
many of inferior note, in f, ff of the Old Latin, and some copies 
of the Vulgate, in the Coptic, the Armenian, etc. Thus the 
amount of external evidence is in favour of rl. 

The case, however, admits of two remarks of some importance. 

First, on account of the cr immediately preceding, the o in OTI 
might easily be lost by oversight in the transcription of uncial, 
and therefore earlier, MSS. An accidental origination of rl from 
OTt is thus readily admissible. 

Again, the whole of this discourse is pervaded by Hebraic 
parallelism, and in some parts exhibits its strictest form ; and it 
must be at once felt, that an abrupt interrogation, like rt, without 
another in parallel, breaks strangely upon the flow of the strain 
(vs. 13, 14). This, however, is a point on which copyists and 
Greek and Latin commentators would not be sensitive, and thus 
would accept without question the reading TI, if it came in their 
way by accidental corruption. 

The common reading ort may well be retained. 



rjjuv direXOelv elf TTJV dyeXrjv TWV 
[Suffer us to go X Send us] away into the herd of swine. 

Here certain authorities have a7r6aTei\ov ^9 instead of eiri- 

It is at once evident that this variation cannot be traced to 
a purely accidental origin; but each reading shows a slight but 
distinct modification of the strict meaning of the other. 

In such a case as the present attention should in the first place 
be directed to the parallel passages, which stand thus : 
etf Tou? ^o/poi"?, iva et? avrovs lae\,da>fjiV. KOI eT 
ls (Mark v. 12, 13), and, irapeicaXeaav avrbv "va 67 

ei<? Kivov<i el<re\6elv. fcal eirirpe-fyev avrois (Luke viii. 32). 

Now on these it may at once be remarked, that they do not 
suggest any origination of the particular expression airoareiXov 
r)/j,ds as an intrusive reading, because assimilation would have 
imported from the parallel clause in St. Mark the precise term 
which is there employed, namely, ire^ov : but, on the other 
hand, a modifying gloss upon aTroo-reiXov rjfAas in the shape 
of eViV. 77. a7r. is readily furnished from both places. 

Evidence of a disposition to interfere, at least by glossarial 
hints, with the strict language of these passages, and in the direc 
tion of a less positive form of expression in the petition addressed 
to Jesus, is found in the readings of D, which, in the former 
place, for Tre^ov . . . aTrekOw^iev has simply a-TreX&o/z.ez , and, in 
the latter, for iva . . . ela-e\6elv has the more vague expression 
iva ei? roi? ^oi/jot"? eure\.d(i)(TLV. In the place under consideration 
D is defective. 

These considerations are in favour of the reading aTroa-reiXov 
*7/ua9, and must be allowed to add their weight to the direct evi 
dence by which it is supported, namely B and some others, the Old 
Latin, with the exception of/, A, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, 
etc. A and Z are defective. D would probably have supplied 
a reading of the same complexion as in the parallel passages. 



Ov yap r]X6ov KaXecrat SiKaLOVf AA d 


MAKE II. 17. 
OVK r)\6ov KaXecrai SiKalovf dXXd d/JLaprcoXovf elf 

I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners [to repentance~\. 

LUKE V. 32. 
OVK eXr]Xv6a KaXeaai 0UUUOVS dXXa dfjLaprcoXov? 


Had the state of evidence been decidedly adverse to the genuine 
ness of the words et9 i^erdvoiav in each of these places, they would 
have reasonably been regarded as instances of a supplementary- 
gloss inevitably suggested by the clause to which they were 

No suspicion, however, attaches to them in the third place. 
In the second, they are omitted in A, B, D, K, L, and many 
others, as well as by the principal versions. In the first, by B, D, 
V, A, etc., by both Syriac versions, the JEthiopic, Old Latin, 
Vulgate, etc., and by Jerome and several other writers. From 
both these places they must accordingly be discarded. 

The case is of no great importance as regards the matter in 
question, but it is in one sense worthy of note, as supplying 
a very simple, but no less clear and instructive, instance of the 
assimilative influence of the text of the several gospels on each 
other. This again appears in the minor variations exhibited in 
some copies, namely, the insertion of jap before rfKOov in the 
second passage, and the substitution of rjKOov for ekr)\v6a in the 



OTL i)crav 
Because they \_fainted X were harassed]. 

Instead of e/cXeXv/iei/oi, <TK,v\iievoi is given by B, C, D, E, F, 
G, K, S, and a multitude of others. The rendering of the Old 
Latin and Vulgate, vexati, certainly represents it, as do probably 
those of other versions. It is also the reading of Chrysostom and 
other writers. This amount of evidence leaves no doubt that it 
is the genuine reading. 

The other may have arisen from accident in transcription, but 
was more probably an interpretative gloss, conveying an approxi 
mate meaning of the rarer term by one more usual and elegant. 


OepaTreverc, Xeirpovf 
yelpere, 8a.L/jiovia e/c/3a 

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, [raise the dead^] cast out devils. 

The important clause veKpovs eyeipere is omitted by C ter. man. 
E, F, K, L, M, S, U, V, and a considerable number besides, by 
/ of the Old Latin, the Sahidic, and other versions, Eusebius, 
Athanasius, etc. 

This array of adverse evidence is too great to be so far over 
borne by whatever can be cited on the opposite side, as to allow 
of any confidence in the genuineness of the clause. It is found, 
however, in B, C, D, P, J, and some others, the Vulgate, the 
Old Latin, and other versions and writers, and thus has the 
advantage in the general antiquity of its documents. 

Omission might have arisen by accidental oversight from the 


similar ending of the words ve/cpovs and \7rpovs. But it is more 
important to remark, that B, C, D, and other of its authorities, 
place it after depcnrevere ; P, A, etc., after e/c/SaXXere ; and the 
Latin in the Codex Forojuliensis before dcrOevovvras, and thus 
together with the common text exhibit four different situations. 

It is impossible to discard the impression, that this shifting of 
place, wherever it occurs, betokens a marginal appendage slipped 
into the text by different pens at different points, according to 
chance or the fancy of the copyist. The clause in question would 
be readily suggested by a passage presently occurring (xi. 5). 
Instead of imagining a suppression prompted by an unwillingness 
to regard the Apostles as depositaries of power so great, a dispo 
sition to invest them with it may be supposed with much more 


r s 8vo rwv ^.a6r]Twv avrov. 
He sent [two of his disciples X word by his disciples^. 

Instead of Suo, Sia is given by B, C, D, P, Z, A, etc., supported 
by either Syriac, the Armenian, and Gothic, as also in effect by 
the Old Latin, which in a, &, c, ^, jf, k, has discipulos as a free 
representative of Sta jjuadriTwv. The evidence for the common 
reading consists of the great majority of authorities. 

If the choice between the two is to be determined by the anti 
quity of the MSS. cited for each respectively, the preponderance 
is as much in favour of 8id, as mere number would be for &vo. 
At the same time, the reading of the less ancient body of copies 
is found to be itself possessed of high antiquity, as having been 
quoted by Origen, and thus having acquired an Established cur 
rency before his time. In this case, as elsewhere, the right to be 
styled ancient is not solely possessed by the reading of the most 
ancient existing copies. 



The remaining consideration, and perhaps the decisive one, is 
this, that Svo is found in the parallel place (Luke vii. 19) without 
any variation, and, in fact, where a variation is scarcely conceiv 
able ; and the appending of this word, interlinear or marginal, 
if Sia p. were original, would serve as a comment fixing the less 
precise language of Matthew, and in this way would readily come 
to he taken by copyists for a correction or a preferable various 
reading. It is probable, therefore, that the presence of Bvo in 
this place, though of early date and wide currency, is due to 


H\6ev yap o vio? TOV avOpairov crwcraL ro a 

[For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.~] 

A question is raised respecting the genuineness of this entire 
verse by its absence from B, L, 1, 13, 33, from e, ff, of the Old 
Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, Syriac Hieros., Origen, the Eusebian 
Canons, Jerome, Juvenalis. Here A, C, Z, are defective. That 
its place, however, in the text is of some antiquity at least, is seen 
from its presence in the Syriac (N), and copies of the Old Latin. 

Thus there is a fair conflict of evidence. It will therefore be 
necessary to see whether other considerations claim a place in the 

If the disputed verse be put out of sight, there might seem an 
abruptness in the introduction of the succeeding context, and, 
at first, a want of connectedness between the preceding and suc 
ceeding matter. If the verse were originally wanting, such an 
appearance would lead to the suggestion of a supplement, if such 
could be found, which might furnish something towards an easier 
transition, -or at least serve as a suitable preliminary to matter 
which wore an air of abruptness. This would certainly be the 
effect of the clause in question ; and it might be said that it was 
readily supplied from Luke xix. 10. 


But this way of accounting for its origin is at once open to the 
objection, that, if it were so borrowed, it would have been taken 
entire: for, though several MSS. do insert the words ^rrjcrat Kal 
in this place, yet the best and the greater number of those which 
contain the verse, omit them. 

The case is marked by some degree of perplexity. On the one 
hand it is impossible to resist grave suspicion, arising from the 
silence of a few ancient authorities ; and on the other, there must 
be a recognition of an antiquity possessed by that form of the text 
which the great majority of existing copies present, and also 
of the difficulty, already noticed, which attends the supposition 
of an insertion of the clause from another Gospel. 

A remark which has been before made may be repeated here, 
that a reading may be fairly ascertained to be ancient, which is 
not supported by MSS. which are now especially styled ancient. 

MATTHEW XIX. 16, 17. 

dyaOe, ri dyaOov iroL-qcra) iva. 
aiwvLov; 6 8e ehrev aura) Ti fie Aeyew 
ovdelf dyaflo? fi [J.r) elf 6 Oeos. 

\_Good~\ Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may 
have eternal life? And he said unto him, \Why callest thou 
me good? X Wliy askest thou me about that which is good?~\ 
[there is none good but one, that is God X the good Being is 

e is omitted by B, D, L, etc., and the omission is supported 
by most copies of the Old Latin, by the -ZEthiopic, and by Origen: 
it is thus rendered at least very suspicious. This, however, is a 
point of little moment in itself; but it gains importance by its 
connexion with another variation immediately following, one of 
the most marked in the whole text of the Xew Testament, and, 
in all its circumstances, one of the most perplexing. 


Instead of the double clause rl pe \eyeis . . . 0eo?, there is ex 
hibited, ri pe epwra? Trepl TOV ayaOov; et<? etrrlv 6 aryaQos, by B, D 
(om. TOV, 6), L, 1, 22, and supported by other authorities, the 
principal of which are the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Coptic, 
the ^Ethiopic for the first clause, the Armenian, and Origen, 
though some of these would add 6 @eo9 or 6 Trar^p, which how 
ever are merely intrusive glosses. 

The first clause, as containing the more important variation, 
will require separate remarks. 

In the first place, neither form can be regarded as derived from 
the other, even by any accidental process. 

With regard to the suggestion, that the passage originally stood 
as in the common text, and that an accidental omission of ayaOe 
rendered the subsequent question apparently unmeaning, and thus 
led to the arbitrary substitution of another clause ; to this it may 
be replied, that such a state of things would of itself have at once 
pointed to the true remedy in the simple replacement of the 
missing word, even without the ready aid of the parallel places. 

It is also a ready suggestion, that the clause in question was 
devised as an escape from a theological embarrassment arising 
from the common reading : but this is at once open to the remark, 
that in the two parallel places there is no evidence of a like 
attempt, though they offer the same provocation. Besides, to 
a calm mind such charges of deliberate tamperings, though often 
thrown out, will perhaps appear to be made more readily than 
considerately, and to be more easily advanced than justified. 

Another case may be imagined on the supposition that the 
common text is here the true one. Besides the exception taken 
to the epithet d<yade, the clause in question gives the purport 
of another which might very naturally have been added ; and 
therefore the clause, it might be said, was merely a marginal note 
suggesting such an additional interrogation, and giving greater 
symmetry and completeness to the dialogue ; the drift of which, 
with this imaginary supplement, would stand thus : Why callest 
thou me good? no one is good but God: and why askest thou 
me respecting that which is good, with the perfect law of that 
good Being already before thee ? Such a suggestive note might 
certainly have been made, and, being made, might easily have 


crept into the text; but, in that case, it would have been found 
side by side with the other question, there being no reason why 
it should supplant it, since the two are quite compatible. This 
difficulty must be removed before such an account of the origin 
of the clause can be entertained. 

With regard to the second clause, it is important to remark, 
that even if the various reading in the first, which has just 
been considered, could be readily imagined to be a wilful fabri 
cation, no reason can be assigned for altering the second at the 
same time, especially with a mere change of form, and into a 
form, too, less explicit in its expression than the other. The less 
developed form, efc ecrrlv 6 wyaOos, has thus an internal mark of 
genuineness, and in that a plea for the genuineness of the whole. 

The question may now revert to the claim of the entire varia 
tion to be accepted as genuine. The positive evidence is found 
in the antiquity of the authorities which support it ; and this, 
again, finds indirect but strong support in the difficulties which, 
as has been seen, attach to the several ways of spurious origination 
which may be imagined. 

On the other hand, if its genuineness be fairly admitted, there 
would come forth a startling instance of the effect of assimilation 
on the text of the Gospels, in the extensive elimination of a 
characteristic passage from the current text, as evidenced by the 
bulk of existing documents and the facts of patristic usage. 

Still such a consideration ought not to be admitted as a bar to 
the positive evidence, which tends to exhibit the true form of the 
whole passage as follows: AtSda-Ka\e, TI cuyaQov Trotr/o-o) iva 
%a>r)v alfovtov; 6 Se elirev avra., ri pe epwras Trepl rov aryaOov; 
ecrrlv 6 


MATTHEW XX. 22, 23. 

Avvacrde TTLelv TO Trorrjptov o eyw //e AAo) 
KOL TO fiaTTTKr/JLa o ey<i) /3a7rr/b/xcu, fiairTLcr6r)vai ; 
\eyov(riv avTM 8vva^e6a. KCU Xeyci avToif TO 
iroTrjpLov JJLOV Triecrde, KCU TO /3a7rricr/m b 
y fiairTicrO-qo-ecrOe- K. T. A. 

Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, [and 
to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ?] 
They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, 
Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized icith the 
baptism that I am baptized with, etc. 

This passage in the common text corresponds in form, though 
with slight verbal differences, with the parallel place (Mark 
x. 38 40), which is affected by no variation. But here the 
clause teal TO ... /3a7rria-d., both in the question and answer, is 
wanting in B, D, L, Z, 1, 22, the Vulgate, the Old Latin in most 
copies, the Syriac (N), the Coptic, Sahidic, ^Etliiopic, etc. 

There can be no reasonable doubt that these ancient authorities 
exhibit the true, in the shorter, form of the passage, and that the 
common reading presents a clear instance of assimilative intrusion. 



"AvOpwiros e/^e TCKWX, 8vo, KOL irpoo-eXOwv TW 
eivre, TCKVOV, vTraye, a-rjiJLtpov epya^ov tv 
rw dfJLTreXwvi /JLOV 6 8e aTroKpidel? eiirev, ov 
varepov 8e ^.ra^.\r)6els airriX0. /ecu 
ra> Bevrepcp ehrev wcravTW 6 8e airoKpLdels eiirev, 
ej/co, Kvpif, KOL OVK aTrfjXQe. TL? K TWV Svo 
7rolr)(r TO OeXy/jLa TOV Trarpos ; Xeyovtriv 

A certain man had two sons ; and lie came to the first, 
and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He an 
swered and said, 1 will not ; but afterward he repented, and 
went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And 
he answered and said, /go, sir ; and went not. Whether of 
them twain did the will ofhis father? They say unto him, 

*** The variations on this passage are too complicated to be expressed 
by marks. They consist mainly in the substitution for the word 
" first," in the reply, of terms having an opposite meaning to it, 
accompanied in some cases by an inverted order of the answers of 
the sons. 

This passage, if the form here presented be supposed to be the 
original one, is just of a kind to escape the growth of various 
readings, except, it might be, of the most trifling and accidental 
sort ; because it is one of those where, in the clearness and sim 
plicity both of the whole and of its several terms, there is nothing 
to provoke any gloss, emendation, or conjecture. If, therefore, 
it is found, on the contrary, to be affected by remarkable and 
perplexing variations, there might arise a presumption that this 
shape is not the original one. To entertain such a presumption, 
however, would be unfavourable to the free and full investigation 
of a question of considerable difficulty. Accordingly, it will be 
best to dismiss it, and at once to state the variations as they are 
exhibited by the principal authorities. 


The reading erepw for Sevrepw is strongly supported, and may 
be regarded as the true one, but is immaterial to the main 
question which arises on the passage. 

The facts which principally claim attention are the following. 

For Trpwro? B has va-repof with an inverted order of the 
answers of the two sons. 

In the same place 4 has Sei/repo?, and 13, 69, have ecr^a-ros, 
all with the inverted order ; while D exhibits ecr^aro? with the 
common order. "Ea-^aro<? has also some patristic support, besides 
that of ancient Latin copies, some still existing, others prior to 
the time of Jerome. 

Though mere numbers of authorities are overwhelmingly in 
favour of the common form of the passage, yet variations so 
peculiar and thus supported fairly challenge at least a careful 

Two causes of unsettlement are in this case conceivable : either 
the passage might have exhibited originally some embarrassing 
peculiarity, which would provoke to hasty tampering ; or such 
peculiarity might, on the contrary, have been produced by some 
purely accidental disarrangement of form, which further led to 
wilful interference. The only accidental disarrangement to which 
it is exposed, seems to be a transposition, in transcription, of the 
answers of the two sons. 

Now, if the original form be supposed to be that which is 
exhibited in the common text, and such displacement to have 
accidentally arisen in transcription, and have found its way into 
copies, a marked discrepancy would then have presented itself; 
and the remedy, whether suggested in the margin or thrust upon 
the text, would naturally be directed to the term 7rpcoro9, and 
would be at once furnished by the simple numeral Seurepo?. But, 
with this at hand, recourse would not be had to varepos, which 
is never used to express a mere place in numerical succession, 
is never a bare numeral; and still less, if possible, would eo-^aro? 
be thought of, because, though a kind of numeral, it is out of 
place when only two things are concerned. It can hardly, there 
fore, be conceived that either of these readings could be produced 
by any circumstances from Trpwro?. It may be remarked, how 
ever, that Seure/309 is a natural gloss upon uo-repo? or e 


Thus far, then, there is reason for further considering the fact 
of the existence of these latter readings. 

If the passage be supposed originally to have had varepos, with 
the same order of the answers as in the common text, varepof 
would be allowed to pass as a mere equivalent of Bevrepos, because 
no other very obvious meaning offered; and a perplexity would 
thus present itself. From this there would be two ways of escape, 
either by placing the answers in the order in which, as has been 
seen, they stand in several copies, or by the arbitrary substitution 
of TrpwTo?. 

It appears, then, from what has preceded, that there is great 
difficulty in imagining a process by which varepo^ or eo-^aro? 
could be evolved from TT/OWTO?, while a case is quite conceivable 
in which the latter might take the place of either of the former. 

It remains to be inquired, what amount of difficulty really 
attends that shape of the passage which has vorepo? or eV^aro?, 
with the common order of the answers ; whether it admits of any 
other construction than that which was adopted by Jerome, 
namely, that the reply of the Jews was a wilfully perverse one. 
The answer of the second son is liable to be hastily regarded as 
necessarily a piece of cool hypocrisy, but it is quite as much the 
language of a sincerity inconsiderate and transient, feeble and 
fruitless by its levity. In that case the first son was, at the com 
mencement of the business, varepos, in the rear, behindhand, with 
respect to the other, for he had not advanced as far as well meant 
profession : and the same remark applies to the stronger term 
eo")(aTos. It may be said that neither term is so simple a mode 
of expressing this idea as might be imagined; but either term 
may be viewed as a near rather than a clear rendering of some 
derivative of the root "1)"|J$> which would express backwardness 
of position, whether that position were real or only apparent.* 

Such, then, are the claims for attention possessed by these two 
kindred readings : Sevrepos being dismissed as a gloss upon one 
or the other. If either is to be regarded as genuine, probability 
would incline to the stronger term ecr^aro?. This latter also 
furnishes a means of accounting for the existence of 7T/3wro9 less 

* The solution which makes 6 vo-repos equivalent to 6 va-repov /nera/xeXr^e/s, 
is more ingenious in conception than admissible by the laws of language. 


violent than that of arbitrary substitution. It might have been 
a marginal comment on ca^aro?, suggested by such a passage as 
xx. 16 of this Gospel, and implying, that he who was originally 
eo-%aro5 in one sense, was eventually TT/JWTO? in another. 


Oval vjjuv, ypa^/mrets KOLL (frapuraLOL, VTTOKpiTOl, 
OTL KareaOiere ra$ oi/aW TUV yr)pa>v, KOL Trpotyao-et 
fj,a.Kpa 7rpo<Tev)(6iJLevoi 8ia TOVTO Xfj^eade Trepicr- 

[Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye 
devour widows houses, and for a pretence make long prayer : 
therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.^ 

The genuineness of this entire verse is a matter of question. 
It is wanting in B, D, L, Z, 1, 33, 118, 203, 209, 346, in the 
Codex Amiatinus and other important copies of the Vulgate 
being also omitted by Jerome himself in a, e, ff l , g l , of the Old 
Latin, and probably the Eusebian canons. 

These are the main facts that impeach the genuineness of the 
passage, together with the circumstance that its matter, though 
not its grammatical form, is derivable from two parallel places 
(Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47), and also the shifting position of 
the portion OTI . . . Kpifjua; since in the MSS. which are its best 
support, it is found to precede the words on /cXetere . . . ela-eXOetv, 
a circumstance which favours the suspicion of intrusion from the 
margin, as if one copyist had let in at one point of the text, and 
another at another, a supplement which a glossarist had framed 
from the parallel places. 

On the other hand it may be argued, that on account of the 
recurrence of the commencing words oval vjuv . . . , a clause so 
introduced might readily be lost in transcription by oversight. 

If, however, there is ground for hesitation in condemning the 
verse as spurious, still it cannot be regarded with confidence as 
genuine in the face of important ancient evidence. 



8c ycfjiowriv e apirayr^s KCU aKpacrlas. 

Within they are full of extortion and \_excess \ injustice], 

Upon d/cpacrlas there are the variations d 

A glance at these terms at once shews that the variation is 
due to interpretative glosses ; and the group may accordingly be 
scanned with respect to the probability which each reading 
presents of being the germ of the others. 

With regard to the three first variations it may be observed, 
that since they are terms of kindred meaning, each might well 
be a gloss upon either of the others, while the fourth is quite 
distinct from them in signification; but that all four are too clear 
and simple in their meaning to require or tempt a gloss at all, 
if found in the text. 

On the other hand, aicpavia is in itself a term of various signi 
fication. It may either signify the condition of one who is 
aKpartfs in the more ordinary sense, that is, in respect of lustful 
indulgence, in which case it would be explained by d/caOapala; 
or that of one who is dfcparr]? epSov9 (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 7, 4), 
and, in consequence, aSitcos, Troz^po?, TrXeoz/e/CT^?. In this place 
then it appears that a/cpacr/a? is a term which, in the text, might 
well be prolific of glosses and so eventually of various readings. 
It may be remarked too, that at the other occurrence of the word 
(1 Cor. vii. 5), where the context restricts the sense, there is no 
variation; and, again, that there is none upon the more precise 
term Trowrjplas in the parallel place (Luke xi. 39). 

Upon external evidence the issue is between dtcpacrias and 
d8i/aa5, the authorities for the others being slight. For the 
former there are cited B, D, L, ,J, 1, 13, 33, 69, etc.: for the 
latter C, E, F, G, H, K, S, and a large number of others; in fact, 
the great majority of MSS. 

Yet, notwithstanding this disparity of numbers and the weight 
of some of the authorities for aSwa a?, as just cited, the importance 
of the opposing documents and internal considerations sanction the 


conclusion that atcpacrias is the original reading, and aSi/aa<? its 
interpretation : one which the parallel Trovripias and the association 
with dpTrcvyfjs would shew to be correct. 

The evidence of versions is in this instance unimportant, because 
a translator with aicpao-tas before him, would give such a rendering 
as would convey his own view of the sense in which the term was 


rj 6 vios TOV dvOpaxrov e 

\_Wherein the son of man cometh~\. 

The absence of this clause from A, B, C, D, L, X, and others, 
as also from both Syriac versions, the Old Latin, the Coptic, 
Sahidic, ^iEthiopic, etc., is a sufficient ground for condemning 
it as undoubtedly spurious. It is an intrusive supplement. 


Aafiwv 6 Irjcrov? TOV aprov KOL v\oyr)<ra$ e/cAa<re. 

Jesus took bread, and [blessed it % gave thanks~\, and brake it. 

The great majority of MSS., including A, E, F, H, K, M, S, 
U, V, read ev^apca-rtja-a^ for evXe^o-a?. The latter is supported 
by B, D, L, Z, and some others. The case is evidently one where 
versions must be cited with caution ; but both the Vulgate and 
Syriac give a different rendering in this and the following verse, 
where eu%apto-T?)cra9 is unquestioned, and thus are distinctly 
evidence for evKwyrjcras. 

It might be urged that eu^. was the original reading, and was 
changed into euX. by the influence of the parallel place (Mark 
xiv. 22), where eu\. is undoubted. On this it may be remarked, 
that there is another parallel (Luke xvii. 19) on which a precisely 


similar argument might be grounded in favour of ev\. ; and thus 
all argument from assimilation is in a manner neutralised. 

When the general similarity of the present passage with that 
in Mark is considered, it is more probable that the resemblance 
originally included the term in question, than that there was a 
process of assimilation. An accidental change, too, of eiiX. into 
ev%. is readily conceivable, either from the succeeding verse 
through the wandering eye of a copyist, or rather through inad 
vertence of mind, favoured by the free convertibility of the two 
familiar terms. That they were so convertible, will be evident 
on a review of the following passages: Mat. xiv. 19; xv. 36; 
Mark vi. 41; viii. 6, 7; xiv. 22, 23; Luke xxii. 17, 19; xxiv. 30; 
John vi. 11; 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 24. 

Notwithstanding the preponderating amount of evidence for 
eir^aptcrT^cra?, that which supports the rival reading is sufficiently 
important to render the case open to the influence of other con 
siderations. These favour the probability that the common read 
ing is the true one, thus placing the passage in original agreement 
with the parallel in Mark. 

Tov before aprov is omitted in B, C, D, G, L, Z, and others : 
but it should be retained even in the face of this weighty forbid 
ding. Its accidental omission is possible enough, while a chance 
intrusion can hardly be conceived, and there can have been no 
motive for a wilful insertion, but rather the contrary. In fact, 
the influence of the parallel places would favour the absence of 
the article, and its presence might be viewed as a difficulty. Its 
use, however, is the same as in another place (Luke xxiv. 30), 
and is the strict expression of a simple circumstance, that of " the 
loaf" singly placed before the master of the feast. Though the 
presence of the article thus serves to a more precise and lively 
description, yet its absence in the parallel places is in no way 
remarkable, since the anarthrous term answers all the purposes 
of the narrative. 

The general principle on which the reading of the common 
text should be here sustained, is this; that readings which present 
a form of which either the significance is not obvious, as in the 
present instance, or the usage is not ordinary, possess in that very 
circumstance a token of genuineness. 



TOVTO yap ecrn TO alpd /JLOV TO rrjy Kaivrjs 

For this is my blood of the [new] testament. 

MAKE XIV. 24. 


This is my blood of the [new~\ testament. 

A shorter reading, TO al^d pov TT}? SiaOrfKr)?, is found in both 
these places. In the former this is the reading of B, L, Z, 33, 
102; in the latter of B, C, D, L, etc., k of the Old Latin, and 
the Coptic. Though this evidence is slender in amount, there 
are certain considerations which come to its aid. An accidental 
omission of tcatvijs by oversight in transcription, if the word were 
originally in the text, is certainly possible from the triple recur 
rence of the two final letters; but, all circumstances considered, 
cannot be regarded as very probable. The improbability, how 
ever, is very great that such accidental omission, in itself by no 
means probable, should have befallen both places: and, had it 
happened in one, this would not have affected the other, since 
assimilative influence acts in the way of addition, not of abridge 

On the other hand, the addition of tcaivf)<; to the shorter read 
ing, if that were the original form, at least under the shape of a 
marginal suggestion in the first instance, would be a most likely 
occurrence, because the epithet would in this place be naturally 
and rightly associated in the mind with Butd^icr^ to say nothing 
of positive suggestion from the parallel place (Luke xxii. 20). 

Upon the whole, there is great probability that the shorter 
reading is the true one in both places, and the true exponent 
of the language actually employed on the occasion: while the 
narrative of St. Luke, as well as its counterpart in the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians, must be regarded as conveying the 


purport rather than the verbal form ; which is clearly the case in 
the more simple and less figurative language of the clause, e&>9 orov 
rj fiaa-CKela rov @eov e\0r), compared with the corresponding 
portions of the other narratives. This leads to the further remark, 
that in the absence of /caivi)? the language of Jesus appears less 
communicative and explicit, and, as such, approaches nearer to 
the reserved and figurative style of various communications to the 
Apostles previous to his passion. 

It will be seen that an important portion of the preceding 
reasoning is derived entirely from a joint view of both the places 
in question, and thus that one main step towards a conclusion 
would have been lost by a separate consideration of each. 

This circumstance furnishes a peculiar indication of the insuf 
ficiency of any mere routine process applied mechanically to 
each several instance, instead of a free employment of such special 
aids to investigation as various cases may happen to offer. 


> avrw TTLelv oi^os ytiera x^7? 
They gave him [vinegar X wine] to drink, mingled with gall. 

As a rival reading to 0^09, olvov is given by B, D, K, L, and 
a few others, supported by the Vulgate, by most copies of the 
Old Latin, by the Coptic, Sahidic, -^Ethiopia, Armenian, etc. 
On the other hand, 0^09 is found in the remaining mass of MSS., 
except C and Z, which are defective in this place. 

The antiquity of witnesses preponderates for olvov ; yet antiquity 
of existence as a reading is also undoubted in the case of 0^09. 

Each might readily originate in the other. The common 
reading might have been merely a gloss upon olvov, suggestive 
rightly or not that the liquor might also be termed 0^09, or 
directly identifying it with that which was afterwards adminis 
tered. But still olvov does not seem very provocative of such 
a comment. 


Again, S& being supposed original, olvov would be at once 
supplied, either as a gloss or emendation, from the parallel place 
(Mark xv. 23): and, of two rival readings, suspicion cannot but 
attach in the first instance to that which places two gospel narra 
tives in verbal concord; and this is done by olvov, for the apparent 
discrepancy lies solely in the words oo? and olvov, wpvpviapkvov 
bein" at once reconcileable with the expression /^ %oX% p,e^- 
^vov, since % o7^ may be allowed to signify any ingredient of 
a strongly bitter or acrid flavour. 

In such a conflict of evidence as the present instance presents, 
a positive decision either way would deserve the imputation 
of rashness. The last mentioned consideration seems rather to 
give a preponderance in favour of the common text. 


"Iva TrXrjpooQf} TO pyOtv VTTO rov 7rpo(j)r)Tov 
SifJLpi(ravTO TO. l^ana JJLOV eavrois, /cat eiri TOV 
LfjiaTLcrfjioi IJLOV efSaXov K\ripov. 

[ That it might be fulfilled ivhich was spoken by the pro 
phet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my 
vesture did they cast lots.~\ 

This passage is wanting in all the uncial MSS. except A, and 
many others, and in the most important versions except the 
Armenian, and is unknown to Origen, Chrysostom, and various 
other writers. 

There is no ground whatever for hesitation in condemning 
it as spurious. It is a clear case of assimilative intrusion, the 
matter being derived from the parallel place (John xix. 24). 

Though the quarter may be thus certainly indicated from which 
the application of the Old Testament citation was borrowed, it 
ought to be remarked that the introductory words are changed, 
the quotation being here fitted with St. Matthew s formula, Iva 
7r\r)p(i)6fi, K. r. \. This has the appearance of direct interpolation. 



e7TOpvovro ctTTayyeiat ros fJLarjrou? avrov. 
[And as they went to tell his disciplesJ] 

This clause is wanting in B, D, and a considerable number 
of other MSS. (Z is defective), in the Vulgate, in all copies 
of the Old Latin except f, in the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, 
and others, and is omitted by Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and 

Notwithstanding the amount of testimony in its favour, includ 
ing A and C, this adverse evidence, containing so much that is 
ancient, must bear strongly against the genuineness of the clause. 
It might have been a supplement, originally in the form of a 
scholium, to a narrative which without it appears disjointed, and 
as such would lead to its suggestion. 

At the same time there must be taken into account the possi 
bility of the loss of the clause, if genuine, by oversight in tran 
scription, on account of its ending being the same with that of 
the preceding one a marked instance, in fact, of 6f^oiore\evrov. 

But, again, one copy has only &><? eV. a?r 07764 Acw, and two 
others no more than ox? eiropevovro ; and these can hardly be 
viewed as curtailments from oversight, but, since they may be 
presumed to be transcriptions from older MSS., are rather tokens 
of a gradual growth of supplementary matter, that is, of the 
spuriousness of the whole. 

A peculiar interest attaches to the consideration of this passage, 
because, if the words in question are rejected, the time and 
place of the meeting with the women are left indeterminate ; 
and a statement is removed, namely, that they encountered 
Jesus on their return from the sepulchre, which is a main source 
of difficulty in reconciling the different narratives of the resur 



A plea for the genuineness of the clause might be grounded 
on this circumstance, by alleging that it points to a motive for 
expunging it, and thus accounting for its absence from MSS. and 
versions. But before this consideration can be admitted within 
the pale of legitimate criticism, evidence must be furnished, that 
a practice of making summary riddance of difficult or obnoxious 
matter is something more than a creature of imagination or an 
allegation of party warfare. 


MARK I. 2. 

tv rols 7rpo(f)r]Tais. 

As it. is written [in the prophets X in Isaiah the prophet]. 

On the common reading eV rofc 7rpo<?frat9 there is the marked 
variation eV T&> Hcrata T&> Trpo^ry, for which there are cited 
B, D (om. ro3 before f H.), L, A, and many others, the Peshito, 
the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, etc., as well as Irenaeus, and 
various other writers. 

Readings that serve to obviate difficulties and peculiarities are 
on that very account open to strong suspicion. Tamperings, if 
their existence be admitted, and glosses would be framed to 
relieve, not to generate, awkwardness and perplexity. This 
general principle must be applied to the present instance. 

The citation in this place prefixes to certain words of Isaiah 
others which cannot be referred to that prophet, combining a 
prediction expressly applied by Jesus to the Baptist (Mat. xi. 10), 
with another which the latter adopted as belonging to himself 
(Jno. i. 23). With this combination the introductory words 
according to the common reading are in harmony, and would not 
accordingly provoke such a gloss or emendation as v TW ( H. ro> 
Trp., and call up an appearance of inconsistency which did not 
exist before. On this ground, in addition to its positive evidence 
already stated, the latter claims decision in its favour. 

One MS. has simply ev ro3 Trpo^r^, and the question might 
be asked, whether this can be the original reading. The question 
is not altogether unreasonable; but, since critical decisions must 
be supported by a certain amount of evidence, it cannot critically 
receive an answer in the affirmative. 


MAKE I. 4. 

*Iwavvr]S fiairTifav tv rfj cpr^a /cat 
/3a7mo>ta ^eravoias elf a(j)to-iv dfj.ap- 


John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism 
of repentance for the remission of sins* 

Another form of this sentence is as follows, eyevero 

v ev rfj epr/fjup Kypvacrajv, K. r. X. The article before 
is found in B, L, J, 33 (C is defective and the absence 
of articles is habitual with D); while B, 33, 73, 102, omit /cal 
before Krjpvcrcrwv, the presence of which is scarcely compatible 
with that of the previous article. 

From the very nature of the question as far as it relates to 6, 
no aid can be obtained from the versions ; nor, in fact, do the 
Greek Fathers furnish any evidence on the point. 

The preponderance, therefore, of testimony, thus confined to 
MSS., is enormous in numerical amount in favour of the common 

It is necessary, however, to remark the correctness of language 
exhibited by the rival reading ; for with the article prefixed /3a7r- 
TI&V becomes a mere distinctive appellation or title, and the pre 
dicate is found in the words ev rfj epr;yu,&> Krjpva-a-wv, K. r. X. This 
is just as it should be ; for the words of Isaiah found a fulfilment 
not in John s baptising, but in the work and purport of his preach 
ment and its locality. According to this form of the sentence, its 
meaning might be put in such a shape as the following: There 
came [in accordance with such prophecies] John the baptiser 
preaching in the wilderness, etc. 

If this reading be not the true one, it is either a purely arbitrary 
improvement from the hand of an observant and ingenious critic, 

* In this and some other places where no marks are attached to the 
English Version, a translation of the passage, exhibiting the variation, 
is included in the body of the article. 


or it must be supposed that Kal was lost in some transcript by 
accident, and the resulting awkwardness was critically remedied 
by prefixing o to ftaTrri&v. But upon this there arises the 
question, whether there are grounds for admitting that critical 
hands ever exercised themselves in such operations of extreme 
nicety upon the text of the New Testament. It is far more easy 
to take refuge in such a view than to prove its truth. 

MARK I. 27. 

TL ecrTL TOVTO ; ris IT) SiSa^r] 77 KaLvri avrr], on 
KOLT c^owriav KOL rols Trvev/JLao-i, K. r. X. 

What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with 
authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, etc. 

It will be necessary to give the principal variations of this 
passage at length, with their authorities. 

TL earn rovro ; SiSa^f) rj Kaivrj KCUT e^ovcriav Kal .... B. 
TL e. r.; StBa^rj Kawr) KOT e^ovcrlav teal .... L, 33, 102. 
TL e. T. ; SiSa^r) /caivr) avrTj KOTT e%ova~iav Kal .... 1, 118, etc. 
TY<? rj BiSa-xf) e/ceivr) rj Kaivrj avrrj r/ e^ovala^ on Kal .... D. 

The appearance thus presented is one of more than ordinary 
perplexity ; still a clue may perhaps be found by a careful atten 
tion to the various points offered by the whole. 

The clause, 8tSa^ f) Kaivr/ Kar e^ovcriav, given by B, is not 
a legitimate Greek form, at least for the conveyance of the only 
admissible meaning. But it must be remarked, that of the read 
ings rj Kawrj and eKeivrj, which are found together in D, each 
might readily spring by accident from the other. Again, cKeivrj 
is peculiarly appropriate to a comment made aside, as in the 
present instance. And further, if eKetvtj were original and after 
wards lost by accidental transformation into 77 Kawrj or Kaivr), 
an appearance of incompleteness without a demonstrative word 
would lead to the intrusion of avrrj ; and an account is thus 


afforded for the existence of that reading, as also of its shifting 
position in various copies. ^ f 

These considerations indicate at least a probability that e/ceiz/7j 
is original, -and that the clause should stand SiSajch e/celvr) K ar 
efrvaiav, or, if a hint be taken from D, 8tSa % ^ eWw; efrvvla. 
At all events, the choice appears to lie between one of these and 
StSaxv KaaJj Kar egovffiav, the reading of L. One thing may 
be regarded as certain, that so remarkable an amount of variation 
has grown from some abrupt and elliptical clause. 

The clause ri ean rovro; is not free from suspicion on account 
of its absence from D, and three evangelistaria, from the Old 
Latin with the exception of two copies, from several important 
ones of the Vulgate, the ^Ethiopic, etc., and with this circum 
stance must be combined the remark, that the preceding term 
o-y&reiv, though not absolutely requiring it, would rather lead 
to the expectation of an interrogative form of speech, and would 
accordingly favour the intrusion jof such a form and not its disap 
pearance. It is, therefore, possible that the succeeding clause, 
under one of the three forms mentioned above, is the only 
genuine portion preceding the words KOI rot? Trvevftaa-i. 

With regard to this clause itself there is still another con 
ceivable case, namely, that its original shape was simply SiSa^r; 
Kar egovaiav, that e/ceivr) was the first intrusion, and that the 
accidental change of this into 17 Kaivrj made an opening for the 
subsequent entrance of avrrj. This is suggested by the fact that 
Kaivrj is wanting in 123, 235, and that the omission is supported 
by the important Latin MSS. b, c, ff. According to this view 
the purport would be as follows : Here is a teaching with 
authority. He commands even the unclean spirits, etc. 

It may be remarked here, that in various passages of this 
Gospel the expression, especially in recording the language of 
speakers, assumes a more abrupt and pointed form according to 
the reading of certain authorities. In favour of such readings 
a presumption at once arises from the unquestionable fact, that 
the tendency of external influences, whether in the shape of direct 
critical meddlings or indirect intrusions, is not to bestow pecu 
liarities or striking points of style on an author, but rather to 
smooth down such as may already exist. 


MARK II. 7. 

Ti ovrof ovrco \a\el /3Xao-(f)r)[jLia?. 
Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies ? 

This passage is noticed not as affected by any important varia 
tion, but merely as affording a plain illustration of the last remark. 

Instead of the simple clause of the common text, another form, 
more abrupt and keen in expression, is found in B, D, L, and 
supported by the Vulgate and most copies of the Old Latin, 
namely, r/9 ot>ro9 ovrco \a\ei; (3Xaa-(fyr)/j,el. Who is this that 
speaks in this manner? He blasphemes. 

If it be said that this is the arbitrary alteration of a critic in 
the way of improvement, the question arises in reply, what is 
there in the common form to instigate a critic s interference? 

MARK III. 29. 

eoTif aicoviov 
Is in danger of eternal [damnation % guilt]. 

The common reading Kpla-ews is exhibited by the mass of 
documents. On the other hand, a^aprrj yu-aro? is given by B, L, 
28, 33, while C perhaps, D, 13, 69, 346, have dpaprtas : one or 
other of which readings is represented in the copies of the Old 
Latin except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, etc. 

The evidence is sufficient to prove on the part of KpfoeeaQ an 
established currency of no recent date, while antiquity of existing 
testimonies is in favour of dfj,apr^paro<; or ajJMpT&K. It remains, 
therefore, to see what features of the case would point to one as 
being the glossarial offspring of the other. 

The remaining variation o\ao-eo>9, rests on very trifling 
authority, and its birthplace was manifestly the margin. 


The expression auovfov a^aprr/^aro^ is peculiar, though possess 
ing some special force in its peculiarity. By the word tpdprnpa 
nomore is properly signified than a single faulty act; and, accord 
ingly, auoviov could not be combined with it in this its strict 
meaning. If, therefore, the Evangelist wrote a^aprr,p,aro^, he 
used it to signify a condition of guilt, a sense which, though in 
the case of this term peculiar and striking, is not unfrequently 
borne by d^apria; and, accordingly, this latter term might 
readily occur as the simplest interpretation of apaprr) paras as 
here employed, and would thus be the readiest gloss, as exhibiting 
the slightest deviation of form. The remaining readings, Kpia-ews 
and *oXacrc&>9, would do the same thing more broadly and boldly. 

These considerations point to a^apTijparo<i as the true reading. 

MARK IV. 24. 

ai TrpocrTeOrjo-erat VJMV rois OLKOVOVCTL. 
\_And unto you that hear shall more be givenJ\ 

This entire clause is wanting in D, G (114 also omitting KOI 
irp. v.), and in important copies of the Old Latin and Vulgate. 

The words rois O.K. are omitted also by B, C, L, A, etc., and 
several versions. They may at once be discarded as an artificial 
and not very judicious supplement ; while the Latin variation 
credentibus* evidently of like origin, is more appropriate. 

It is not so easy to arrive at a decision on the remaining and 
more important words KOL irp. v.- but there are various circum 
stances, besides the omissions already mentioned, that require 

The Armenian represents them as following d/covere, while two 
MSS., 13 and 69, also place them there, and then repeat them as 
they stand in the common text. These MSS. also have KOI 
irp. v. rot? cue. after axovere in the parallel place (Lu. viii. 18). 
Besides, jrpoa-redijo-ercu is the reading of D for So^crerat, which 
MS. also has a similar substitution, TrpovriOercu, in the parallel 


place (Lu. xix. 26), the glossarial nature of which reading is clear 
enough. It may be remarked, moreover, that though TrpooTe- 
OrjcreTat, would be at once furnished as a gloss on Sodija-erai, by 
the words in question, if these were originally a part of the text, 
and its existence as such, which may be concluded by its having 
supplanted the original word in D, might accordingly be viewed 
as evidence of their genuineness ; yet, on the other hand, Trpoo-re- 
OtjcreTat is of itself too obvious an interpretation to need sugges 
tion from any quarter; and, if once introduced in this way, might 
readily be the germ of the clause teal Trpoa-redija-erai v\uv. The 
clause might indeed have been lost by homceoteleuton, but this 
will hardly account for the shifting of place already noticed. 

MARK IX. 23. 
O 5e /ncrouy eiirev avrco* TO el dvvacrai 


(TOLL Travra dvvara ro> iricrTevovrL. 

Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are 
possible to him that believeth. 

The question between Bvvaaai, and &vvr), being one of a mere 
variety of inflexion, is in itself of little moment. However, B, 
D, A, have the latter, and also in the preceding verse. 

D, characteristically, does not exhibit the article TO, as is the 
case also with K, M, U, and others : but this can hardly be 
admitted as an impeachment of its genuineness, when it is con 
sidered that its presence is otherwise unaccountable. Its employ 
ment in this place has been explained as an intimation on the 
part of the Evangelist, that the expression to which it is prefixed, 
el Svvao-ac Trto-reva-at,, was habitual in such cases with Jesus ; and 
no doubt the writer might readily fall into such a usage, if the 
supposed fact were present to his mind. 

All this rests upon the assumption that TTLcrreva-at is genuine. 
It is, however, wanting in B, C pr. man., L, A, the Old Latin 


in k, the Coptic, Armenian, ^Ethiopic, etc. If on this authority 
the word were expunged the passage would stand thus, 6 Se 
J^croi}? eiTrev avT(0, TO el Svvr) Trdvra, K. T. A. In this case the 
article may be regarded as prefixed simply on the principle of 
previous mention, and as serving to indicate that the expression, 
el Si/vy, is merely a repetition of the preceding speaker s own 
words (v. 22), cited to him by Jesus in reply, with a tone of 
demur or exception. 

It must be admitted that TrLarevcrcu might be lost by accident 
from sameness of ending with Swacrat ; though two of the authori 
ties for its omission have ^vvrj. On the other hand, if the word 
was not original, a notion of an ellipsis after Svvy would readily 
lead to the borrowing of a supplement from TnarevovTL. 

Without the word in question, the sense of the passage may 
be expressed thus : Jesus said to him, [sayest thou to me,] If 
thou art able? All things are possible for the believer. 

MARK IX. 43, 44. 

TT]v ycevvav, ety TO irvp TO ao-fiecrTov, OTTOV 
o o-KcaXrjg O.VTWV ov TcXevTa, KOL TO irvp ov o-fiev- 


Into hell, [into the fire that never shall be quenched;] 
[where their worm dwth not, and the fire is not quenched]. 

In the common text the passage included in vs. 43-48 consists 

three strains or stanzas cast with so near a correspondence, that 

the whole originally borne this mechanically regular form, 

could have strongly tended to prevent the loss of a mere clause 

by accident in transcription; though the oversight of an entire 

ion would not be unlikely from similarity of commencement 

he words K al ed v , as is actually the case with the second 

few unimportant copies. If, therefore, this regularity of 

hape is not exhibited by important authorities, it may be con- 


eluded that the present form of the text is due to assimilative 
interpolation or accretion. 

The clause OTTOV .... a^evvvrai in the first instance is wanting 
in B, C, L, J, 1, 28, 118, 251, 255, the Old Latin in k, the 
Coptic, and Armenian ; and to this adverse evidence may be 
added the remark, that had the common form of the passage been 
original, and the eye of a transcriber wandered from the first OTTOV 
to the second or third, still his copy would have exhibited the 
first portion entire, with the loss of one or both of the others. 
Doubt attaches also to the words ei? TO TT. TO. acr. on account of 
their absence from L, A, the Syriac, etc., while D, supported by 
copies of the Old Latin, has OTTOV earlv TO IT. TO acr., and F reads 
simply TOU irvpos. 

In the second portion the same authorities for the omission 
of the clause OTTOV .... o-/3. are cited as before, except that 255 
omits the whole ; while the other, et? TO TT. TO acr., is wanting 
in B, C, L, A, 1, 28, 118, 251, b, k, the Coptic, Armenian, 
Syriac, etc. The words TOU Trvpos following yeevvav on its third 
occurrence (v. 47) are wanting in B, D, L, A, 1, 28, 118, 209, 
and versions. 

The clause OTTOU .... crfievvvTai may be safely discarded from 
the first and second places, and els TO TT. TO acr. from the second. 
Great doubt must necessarily attach to the latter in the first place 
also, from the amount of variation which occurs there, and its 
glossarial appearance. 


MARK XL 10. 

r) epxofJ-wrj fiacriXeia ev 
Kvpiov TOV irarpos rjpwv Ja/3/<5. 

Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh 
[in the name of the. Lord"}: Hosanna in the highest. 

The amount of evidence adverse to the words eV ovbpcuri Kvpiov 
is sufficient to put their spuriousness beyond all doubt. They 
have evidently been introduced from the preceding parallel clause. 
The place is noticed because it resembles the one which has been 
just discussed, in exhibiting, in the common text, the result 
of a process which may be termed self-assimilation, by the intru 
sion of a further uniformity upon an already existing parallelism. 

MARK XL 26. 

El de vfj.els OVK a0/ere, ovSe o Trarrjp v^wv 6 eV 
roty ovpavols a(J)r)O i ra Tra/jaTrreo^ara VJJLWV. 

[But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is 
in heaven forgive your trespasses.~\ 

The genuineness of this entire verse is called in question on 
account of its absence from B, L, S, A, and a few others, from 
<7 2 , k, /, of the Old Latin, the Coptic, and Armenian. 

The importance of this adverse evidence, though narrow in 
amount, cannot be denied: still its force is weakened by the very- 
obvious possibility of an accidental loss by oversight in transcrip 
tion, on account of the recurring close ra irapaTrr^ara vp&v. 

Again, if on the one hand, it may be said that the verse 
is a spurious intrusion from the parallel place (Mat. vi. 15), on 
the other, it is important to observe, that undoubted cases of 


assimilation generally exhibit a simple transfer of exact words, 
or nearly so ; whereas in the present instance the form of expres 
sion is considerably varied. Several copies proceed to make an 
unquestionable assimilative addition of two entire verses (Mat. vii. 
7, 8), but they are introduced without alteration. 

The clause itself is affected by some fluctuation of form ; some 
copies omitting rot?, and others the words 6 ev r. o., while others 
insert vfiiv after a^aei. 

On the whole, however, there is hardly sufficient ground for 
expunging the verse as spurious, though it cannot be viewed as 
unaffected by reasonable suspicion. 

MAKE XL 32. 



But if we shall say , Of men; they feared the people. 

In this place, as in others already noticed in this Gospel, 
influences have been at work on the text to smooth down what 
would otherwise possess a lively abruptness of manner, to an 
ordinary cast of expression. Thus, a certain number of MSS., 
well supported by versions, exhibit this process in its full result 
by reading <f)o/3ov/j,eda, and thus giving the sentence the same 
form as in the parallel place in Matthew (xxi. 26). The same 
process is seen partially in the common text, if edv be spurious. 

On the removal of this word the form will stand thus, a\\a 
i7T(i)/j,ev, e dvdpoiTTwv ; e(f)o{3ovvro TOV Xaw, with the lively 
deliberative expression eiTrw^ev ; instead of the hypothetical edv 
eiTra)/j,6v. But, would it be well to say, From men? They 
feared the people. 

The word in question is wanting in A, B, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, 
and many others. Its presence may most readily be referred 
to the influence of the preceding clause, and is an instance of 


self-assimilation. To a suggestion that edv was removed from 
the text by way of critical improvement, it may be replied, that 
though a critic might view its absence as an improvement, yet 
there is really nothing in its presence to provoke alteration. 

It may be noticed that even B and C read rbv o^Xoz/, a 
manifest gloss, as being a more strictly correct term, and probably 
derived from the parallel place. 


OTO.V Se id-rjTe TO (SSeXvy/JLa rrj9 eprjfjLwo-eo)? TO 
prjdev VTTO Aaviri\ TOV 7rpo(f)rjTOV, AC. T. X. 

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, \spoken 
of by Daniel the prophet^] etc. 

The common text here exhibits a correspondence with the 
parallel place (Mat. xxiv. 15), except in having VTTO instead of 
Sid ; which latter however, is also read in this place in several 
MSS. Accordingly, facts tending to raise a doubt of the genuine 
ness of any portion would be countenanced by the possibility 
of assimilative influence. 

The clause TO p. v. A. r. TT. is wanting in B, D, L, the copies 
of the Old Latin except two, the Vulgate, Coptic, etc. 

If the Evangelist wrote no more than TO /38. r?}9 e., he employed 
an expression which might seem to many readers in after time to 
need some additional specification ; a need readily met by append 
ing the words supplied by the parallel place. 

It is also difficult to discern any motive for suppression, or any 
cause for accidental omission of the clause in question. 

The only plea that can be urged in its favour, must rest upon 
the fewness of the adverse authorities. Its genuineness can 
hardly be defended. 


MAKE XIV. 24. 

MARK XIV. 27. 

Havrts <TK.av$a\ia-0r)o-O-6e v e/xot ei> rrj VVKTL 


All ye shall be offended [because of me this night]. 

The words eV e. eV rfj v. r. are wanting in B, C pr. m., D, G, 
H, L, S, V, X, A, etc., and ff of the Old Latin; while other copies 
of this latter, with several MSS., omit the words eV 777 v. T., and, 
again, other MSS., with important copies of the Vulgate, omit 
ev e/iot. 

The brief expression Trdvres ove., with its abrupt pointedness, 
is quite in accordance with the style which in so many places 
marks the colloquial parts of this Gospel, and, as such, would not 
fail to provoke glossarial amplification. 

However, the adverse evidence alone is sufficient to mark the 
whole of the words in question as spurious. They are an assimi 
lative accretion from the parallel place (Mat. xxvi. 31). 


MAEK XIV. 70. 

AXr)0o)? ef avrwv ci, K.OLL yap FaXiXaLOs t KOLL 

N \ c 

T XaXia crov o 

Surely thou art one of them ; for tliou art a Galilaan, [and 
thy speech agreetli thereto.] 

In one of the parallel places (Mat. xxvi. 73) the reason appended 
to the charge against Peter is, Kal yap 77 \a\td crov Bfj\6v ere 
in the other (Lu. xxii. 59) it takes the form, KOL jap 
ecmv : and it should be remarked that they are virtually equivalent, 
each involving the other ; for an appeal to Peter s dialect could 
only be made by way of proof that he was a Galilaean, and thus 
there would be no need to express the implied conclusion ; and, 
again, the direct allegation of his being a Galilean could only rest 
on his dialect, and, accordingly, there would be no need of an 
actual statement of the ground. Still, both might be expressed ; 
and this is actually shown in the common text in the present 
place, but with an evident awkwardness, which is in strong con 
trast with the short and lively manner of recording conversations, 
which has been already remarked as a characteristic of this 
Evangelist. In one MS. the matter is somewhat mended by an 
inverted order of the two members, namely, KOI r) \. cr. b Kal yap 
P. el: but this transposition is of itself suspicious. 

The words Kal rj \. cr. 6. are wanting in B, C, D, L, and 
others, and have nothing answering to them in a, c,jf, g l , k, of 
the Old Latin, and the Vulgate, while the JEthiopic represents 
8f)\.6v ere Trotet instead of ouoid&i. 

This evidence, thus giving its weighty confirmation to other 
considerations, should leave little or no doubt that the words 
in question are an intrusion of an officious supplement. 


MAKE XV. 28. 
KOLL 7rXrjpa>0r) rj ypatyrj rj AeyoiKTd KOL 

[And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was 
numbered with the transgressors^] 

This entire verse is wanting in A, B, C, D, X, and a con 
siderable number of others, as also in k of the Old Latin, and 
in the Sahidic. 

But little weight is due to the adverse argument, that it is 
not the practice of this Evangelist, while recording circumstances, 
to note fulfilments of prophecy; while, on the other hand, acci 
dental omission can only be regarded as simply possible. 

The direct evidence, however, against the genuineness of the 
passage is very weighty, and can scarcely leave any doubt that 
it is an intrusion, though of an early date, since it is recognised 
by Origen and the Eusebian canons. If spurious, it cannot be 
actually termed an instance of assimilation, because, though the 
application of the prophecy is recorded elsewhere (Lu. xxii. 37), 
yet the occasion and manner are altogether different from the 
present. But in that application, made prospectively by Jesus 
himself, may be seen the cause of its intrusive appearance in 
another place. 

MAKK XVI. 9-20. 

The criticism of the text of the New Testament is to a con 
siderable extent engaged on matter of which the genuineness is 
questioned, but which is very fragmentary in shape, ranging from 
a single word to a single clause. In the present instance, how 
ever, an entire paragraph is the subject of discussion, the question 
being, whether it forms a part of the original Gospel, or is a 
subsequent supplement by another hand. 



It cannot be imagined that the Evangelist formally brought his 
narrative to a close at the end of the eighth verse with the words 
tyopovvro yap. If, therefore, the passage in question is spurious, 
either the Gospel was never completed, or its conclusion perished, 
by some peculiar accident, previous to transcription. If such 
were reaUy the case, a supplement was furnished at an early 
period, for the nineteenth verse is cited by Irenaeus as a portion 
of this Gospel (User. iii. 11). 

If the question were to be decided by a mere enumeration of 
MSS. the evidence would be overwhelming in favour of the 
authenticity of the passage. But this summary method would 
ignore various points most material to a correct view of the real 
state of the case. 

B alone exhibits a bare termination at the eighth verse. L, 
after that verse, adds the following supplement, prefacing it with 
the words <f>eperat TTOV /cat ravra, a form of expression sufficiently 
intimating that the matter is not vouched for as genuine : irdvra 
8e TO, TraprjyyeXpeva rots irepl TOV Tlerpov crwro/io)? e^ijy<yei\av. 
//.era Se ravra /cat auro? o JT/crofc O-TTO dvaTO\rj<f Kal ayjpi Sucretog 
e^aTreo-retXe Si avrwv TO lepbv Kal afyQaprov /c^pvyfjta r?}? alwviov 
cr&>T77pia<?. This supplement is also found in 274, and the margin 
of the later Syriac. L next subjoins the passage in question, with 
a prefatory clause of the same import as the former: eariv Se /cat 
Tavra ^>epop,eva //.era TO efyoftovvro yap. The evidence, therefore, 
of this MS. is in fact adverse. It may also be remarked, that the 
author of the supplement preserved in it was either unacquainted 
with the present termination of the Gospel, or, deeming it spurious, 
thought himself at liberty to furnish one of his own. Certain 
copies of the ^Ethiopia also give both conclusions. 

In two MSS. the passage is marked with asterisks, and a con 
siderable number exhibit it as excluded from the Eusebian and 
Ammonian divisions. 

The present is one of the places where something can be ascer 
tained respecting the state of copies in remote times. This infor 
mation is partly supplied by the scholia in several MSS., whose 
varying statements taken together are sufficient evidence of some 
amount of uncertainty attaching to the passage at the date of their 


Tho language, however, of several ecclesiastical writers not only 
carries the evidence higher, but is sufficiently explicit. Eusebius 
says that the accurate copies (ra aKpiftfj TWV dvTtypdfjxav) close 
the Gospel with the words, efoflovvro yap ; and, again, that this 
is the termination in nearly all the copies (cr^eSoz/ ev aTracn rot? 
dvrvypd<f>oi<i) ; and one or other of these statements is also made 
by several writers besides, but especially by the critic Jerome, 
who affirms that the paragraph is wanting in nearly all the Greek 
MSS. (omnibus Grcscice libris pene). Now, if it were even certain 
that these statements describe the evidence of MSS. only so far 
as it fell under the observation of the individuals, still they show 
a condition of that evidence very different from that which exists 
at the present day. A circumstance has been thus ascertained 
which materially affects the present question, if it be not rather 
the most material of all ; and not only so, but it has an important 
bearing upon the criticism of the New Testament in general, 
because it shows that documentary testimony as a whole has been 
liable to fluctuation, a fact which must be taken in abatement 
of the force of mere numerical preponderance at the present day 
in any particular instance ; a circumstance on which so much 
stress has frequently been laid. 

The passage is supported by the versions, except the Arme 
nian, and the Old Latin in a single copy (), which exhibits 
a termination of similar purport with that contained in L and 272 
already cited. 

Patristic authorities are divided, Irenasus and Tatian being the 
only positive witnesses before the third century. 

The portion is of sufficient length to admit of being tried on 
internal grounds, as exhibiting similarity or discrepancy of style 
and language with the rest of the Gospel. It certainly contains a 
considerable proportion, relatively to its limited extent, of words 
and expressions occurring now for the first time in this Gospel ; 
but on several of these it would be unreasonable to insist, as being 
terms uncalled for elsewhere : others are material, as the following. 

Instead of TrpaiTT) cra{3(3dTov, v. 9, the term for the first day of 
the week is just before, v. 2, as also in every other place (Mat. 
xxviii. 1; Lu. xxiv. 1; Jno. xx. 19; Ac. xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2), 
the peculiar Hebraism //,/ aa 


The employment of diro, v. 9, is not only at variance with the 
practice of this Evangelist, whose term is e/c with reference to the 
ejection of unclean spirits, but is especially remarkable, because 
St. Mark himself presents a contrast on this point with St. Matthew 
and St. Luke, who always employ the former preposition with the 
exception of one passage (Lu. iv. 35) where both occur (Mat. 
xii. 43; xvii. 18; Lu. viii. 2, 29, 33, 35, 38; xi. 24). Qedopai, 
is used twice (vs. 11, 14) but not elsewhere, though employed by 
the other Evangelists. It is remarkable, that so common a term 
as the simple verb Tropevoftai, is unknown to the rest of the 
Gospel, but occurs three times in this portion (vs. 10, 12, 15). 

With respect to the matter it may be observed, that the clause 
d<f> 979 eic@e(3\riKet, eTrra Sai/juovia is oddly appended for the first 
time to the name of Mary Magdalene after a threefold mention 
within the compass of a few verses. There appears, too, through 
out the passage a defect of easy coherence, the natural result 
of a compression of borrowed materials. 

It now remains to observe, that, if some difficulty attends the 
idea of the Gospel being left unfinished when so near its com 
pletion, the same is also the case with the supposition, that the 
passage, though genuine, was designedly suppressed by some who 
were unable to reconcile all its contents with the statements of 
the other evangelists ; because such a supposition includes the 
highly improbable circumstance of such persons being blind to 
the fact, that an entire suppression was impossible and a partial 
one of no avail ; and, further, because such an object would have 
been more easily and safely pursued by means of some slight 
alteration than by the more violent process ; a process, too, to the 
adoption of which other places offered an equal temptation but 
show no traces of the attempt. 

Whatever judgment may be formed respecting the passage, 
the investigation is certainly important and interesting, both on 
account of the matter in question, and the peculiar features of the 
evidence. But even if it were necessary to reject it as spurious, 
there would be no historical loss, because, with the exception of 
one clause, itself of a suspicious complexion, KCLV .... (SXd-^rrj, 
the contents are all derivable from the New Testament. 

One important remark remains to be made. That the passage 


was found in copies at a very early date is clear, as has already 
been observed. If then it were a spurious addition, the natural 
result of early intrusion would be, that the evidence descending 
to modern times would embrace an adverse portion sufficiently 
distinct in significance but narrow in extent. This, as has been 
seen, is the actual state of things; which, therefore, points unmis 
takably in the direction of a spurious origin. On such a suppo 
sition, too, the prevalence of the passage in the current text until 
it reached the extent which is visible at the present day, must 
have exhibited stages in advance with advancing time, and the 
glimpse obtained through Jerome and others shows that such was 
actually the case. 

Thus does the hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfy the 
body of facts in evidence. 


LUKE IV. 5. 

KOLL a.vaya.ywv OLVTOV 6 SidfloXo? elf opos v 
K. T. A. 

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, etc. 

The words 6 8idfio\o? are wanting in B, D, L, etc., e of the 
Old Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian versions; as also 
et? 6 po? Ttyr)\6v in B, L, the Coptic, the Anglo-Saxon, and 
several important MSS. both of the Old and Hieronymian Latin. 

With regard to the latter words, it might be urged that their 
removal leaves language so incomplete and unmeaning as could 
hardly have proceeded from the Evangelist. But this peculiar 
appearance, when rightly viewed, is really a strong evidence of 
the genuineness of the shorter expression. 

A clear and lively impression of localities and details on the 
mind of a narrator is apt to betray him into an artless use of 
language imperfectly adapted, on the score of particularity, to 
persons differently circumstanced. Of this every-day life furnishes 
constant proof, and there are several striking instances in the 
Gospel narratives. 

One is at once supplied by a term which has just preceded, 
rj ep?7/io?, which, as it comes from the writer, is vague enough. 
St. Matthew s term avrj^dr], and other external considerations, 
sufficiently show that it was an upland tract. This being the 
case, all at once becomes clear, for, in that case, the second 
temptation requires no change of scene, but simply the con 
ducting of Jesus to some point overtopping the elevated district, 
a proceeding which finds a sufficient expression in the bare term 
dvcvyayvv, when once the subsisting locality the already upland 
situation is present to the mind ; though a cautious and studied 
writer might have been more explicit. 

The effect of the words 6 Sta/SoXo? et? opo? ir^\6v is to mark 
more strongly a step in the narrative, which would correspond 
to a broadly marked and independent stage in the entire transac- 


tion. But if there was no such demarcation present to the mind 
of the writer, he would be naturally led to express the simple and 
ready sequence of the second stage of the temptation by language 
such as the text exhibits when disencumbered of the words in 
question. In St. Matthew s account, on the contrary, such demar 
cation is strongly made by the insertion of the temptation which 
is here the third in order, and hence the necessity with him of 
corresponding language. 

The ancient evidence, cited above, authorises a reduction of 
the text to that form whicji, when rightly scanned, thus bears 
intrinsic marks of genuineness. 

In this way not only is intrusive matter removed, but there 
is restored to view a delicate indication of the true order and 
connection of events, which was otherwise overlaid and lost. 
Without this aid no decision can be made on the discrepancy 
between the two Evangelists ; but in this light St. Luke appears 
to have given the real succession ; and St. Matthew may be 
regarded as having adopted the other arrangement for the purpose 
of placing the most imposing temptation at the conclusion. 

Other debatable matter occurs in the common text of the 
present passage. The clause, aAA, eVt Travrl p^f^an 0eov, is 
wanting in B, L, and the Sahidic, while a number of copies, 
supported by the Coptic and ^Ethiopic, insert the words eicrro- 
pevoftevq) Sia crro^aro^. The whole must be viewed as very 
doubtful. The clause, irrraye OTTUTO) pov crcnava, is wanting in 
B, D, L, and several others, in nearly all the versions, Origen, 
etc. It must be discarded as an undoubted assimilation. 

The passage (vs. 3 8) when reduced would stand thus: And 
the devil said to him, etc. And Jesus answered him, It is written 
that man shall not live on bread alone. And conducting him 
upwards he shewed him, etc. And in reply to him Jesus said, 
It is written, Thou shalt worship, etc. 


LUKE VI. 1. 
<5e ev 0-a33arw foureOTreoro), AC. r. X. 

And it came to pass on [the second sabbath after the first \ 
a sabbath,~\ etc. 

The word SevTepoTrpwra), which has so much taxed the learning 
and ingenuity of commentators to determine its meaning, is want 
ing in B, L, 1, 22, 33, 69, pr. man., 118, 157, 209, and has no 
representative in 5, c, e^f sec. man., of the Old Latin, the Peshito, 
^Ethiopic, Coptic, etc. 

It might be argued against this adverse evidence, that there 
was a disposition or at least no unwillingness on the part of tran 
scribers and translators to make riddance of a difficult or unintelli 
gible term, and hence its absence from existing documents. But 
it should be remembered, that, if the word be a reality and origi 
nally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have 
been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would 
have been traditionally known from the first, and the presumed 
difficulty would hardly have existed. 

Still, if the spuriousness of the word is to be maintained, some 
cause must be suggested for its introduction into the text ; and 
here it is important to observe the existence of two other readings, 
Seurepw Trpwrw and Seurepw. This would point to an origination 
of the strange term in a fusion of two marginal words TT/WTW 
and Seurepa), which might be at first distinct glossarial appen 
dages to the bare term o-a^/Sarw, expressive of certain relative 
positions in time ascribed to that particular day in the view 
of the respective glossarists. That the narrative is such as to 
provoke speculation and give rise to difference of view, is evident 
from its want of precision in marks of time, and also from discre 
pancy, since the event which is presently described as occurring 
on another sabbath, appears clearly in St. Matthew s account, 
and apparently in that of St. Mark, as taking place on the same. 


A difficulty presented by a particular reading affords in general 
a presumption in favour of its genuineness ; but this rule must not 
be pressed when the difficulty rests with a word which may, as in 
the present case, be resolved into a mere figment, the offspring 
of accident. 

LUKE VI. 26. 


Woe unto you when [alT\ men shall speak well of you ! 

Havre? is wanting in D, F, L, S, V, A, and a considerable 
number of others, and has nothing answering to it in the Syriac, 
Vulgate, -^Ethiopic, etc. It is supported by A, B, E, K, M, P, 
Q, U, X, etc, the Old Latin, three principal MSS. of the Hiero- 
nymian Latin, and other versions, Irenseus, Chrysostom, etc. 

The evidence is fairly conflicting, as being completely mingled, 
for neither side can appropriate antiquity or a particular class of 
authorities ; but the decision is practically unimportant, for the 
expression ol avOpwrrot, signifies, in virtue of the article, people in 
the bulk the world and, therefore, the addition of irdvre<? is 
of little or no moment. The word may well have been originally 
a marginal addition for the purpose of making the sense doubly 
safe ; but, in that case, its currency as a part of the text was of 
early date. 


LUKE XL 2-4. 

Ilarcp THLWV, o ev rot? ovpavols, dyiao-flrjTca TO 
vow eX0TQ> rj fiacriXeia vow yevq0v}T& TO 

O-QV toy ev ovpavw KOU eir rry yy TOV 
apTOV r)n.tov TOV tiriovcnQv didov rjiuv TO Kaff rjfAt- 
pav KOI a0ey rjjjuv ray dfjiapTia? rjfjicov, KOL yap 
avTol d(J)i/jLi> TravTi 6(f)ei\ovTL rj^wv K.a.1 fj,rj eiae- 
veyKy? ?;/xay ely Treipao-fjiov, dXXa pvaai r^as diro 
TOV irovripov. 

\_Our~] Father [which art in heaven, ] Hallowed be thy 
name. Thy kingdom come. [ Thy will be done, as in heaven, 
so in earth ]. Give us day by day our daily bread. And 
forgive us our sins ; for we also forgive every one that is 
indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; [but 
deliver us from evil]. 

In discussing the genuineness of the doxology, Mat. vi. 13, it 
was shown that the Lord s Prayer, as there recited, possessed in 
its own peculiar circumstances an intrinsic safeguard against the 
disappearance of a genuine portion of its text from any number 
of current copies. And this must be also true of its record in 
another Gospel. 

Yet, if the common form of the present passage be the true 
one, this has actually befallen it in three several places, consisting 
each of an entire clause. The first, 6 ev rot? ovpavols, is wanting 
in B, L, 1, 22, 33, 57, 130, 346 of which, also, L alone has 
W&v the Vulgate, etc., and the fact is also noticed in the 
scholia of certain MSS.; the second, jevrjO^rca .... 7775, in B, L, 
1, 22, 130, 346, the Syriac (N),^ of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, 
the Armenian, etc.; the third, a\\a .... irovypov, in B, L, 1, 22, 
57, 130, etc., the Vulgate, the Armenian, etc. 

If the improbability of a triple omission by accident is very 
great, neither can the absence of these clauses be assigned to wil- 
fulness on account of awkward discrepancy from the other Evan- 


gelist; for they show, on the contrary, an exact resemblance, in 
contrast with the partial variations of the remaining part. But 
if the form given in one Gospel was originally shorter than in 
another, this is, of all such parallels, the one where influence 
in the way of assimilative accretion on the briefer recital would 
be most certainly and powerfully exercised. 

The conclusion to be drawn is, that the Lord s Prayer as given 
in this Gospel can only be allowed to stand in the abridged form 
in which it was read by Origen. 

Hdrep, dyiaadrJTO) TO ovo/id crov eXOerca r\ {SaatXela crov rbv 
aprov r)/jia)v rbv eiriovcnov SiSou THMV rb KO.& r/fjiepav /cal a<e<? 
T<x9 dfAaprias f)fiu>v, ical yap avrol dcfrlepev iravri bfyeiKovri 
/cal fj,rj elcreve<yKr)<; rjfj,d<; et? ireipacrfjLov. 

If it be asked, why was not the assimilation completed by the 
addition of the doxology ? it is enough to reply, that that spurious 
clause had not obtained a fixed form or a general currency at a 
sufficiently early period to be used in that way, together with the 
genuine matter borrowed from the other Gospel. 

Besides, it is the fuller form of that Gospel that would be 
adopted for liturgical usage, and on it alone would liturgical 
influence operate. The absence of such an appendage in this 
place is rather an argument that the shorter form is here original, 
because, being less full, it would not be preferred for private or 
public use, and, accordingly, would not attract to itself an arti 
ficial complement devised for that use alone. 

The clause, eXderco TO dyiov irvev^d crov e<> r]pa<$ teal /caOapi- 
crdrw ?5/u,a9, which Gregory Nyssene and Maximus say proceeded 
from this Evangelist instead of the words \0erco rj (Baa-ikeia trov, 
is clearly an expository scholium on this latter. It is as old at 
least as Tertullian, and must have met with that favour at the 
hands of transcribers which was so liberally bestowed on amplified 


LUKE XL 48. 
* OTL avroi fJiev aireKTeivav avrov?, v^tls Se oiKodo- 

fJLLT OLVTtoV TO, fJLl>1]/JLLa. 

For they indeed killed them, and ye build [their sepulchres}. 

The genuineness of the words avrwv ra fjuvrj/j,eta is a matter 
of question. 

On their removal the sentence undoubtedly presents at the 
first view an appearance of unusual abruptness. Still that abrupt 
ness is not of a really unusual sort, but is produced by a process 
frequently adopted in keen or stern language, namely, a sup 
pression of the objects of verbs, when they have been previously 
mentioned or may be readily understood, the effect of which is 
a dry and cutting manner of address. Examples of this usage 
may be seen 1 Kings xxi. 19; James iv. 2. 

Besides the reading of the common text the following also are 
found, avT<t)v ra yu-z^/iara, avrwv rou9 ra^oy?, and TOU? ra<ot9 
avrwv, this last being also placed in some copies before olKoSof^eire. 
This fivefold shifting of shape is alone> sufficient to impair a con 
fidence in the genuineness of the words in question. They are 
altogether omitted in B, D, L, and by the Old Latin in a, b, i, /, 
while e has the words vos autem gloriamini. 

It appears, then, that the shorter reading has in its abruptness 
a significance and propriety of its own, but at the same time 
would, if genuine, be strongly provocative of a supplementary 
gloss; and that a glossarial origin is strongly indicated by the 
shifting shape of the matter itself, and is further evidenced 
directly by its absence from authorities few indeed but weighty. 


Tivos vfjiwv bvos TJ /3ov? ety (frpeap efjnrecreLTai, K. r. \. 

Which of you shall have an [ass X son] or an ox fallen into 
a pit, etc. 

The common reading ovo? is found in K, L, X, etc, supported 
by the Old Latin in all copies but two, the Vulgate, Coptic, 
./Ethiopic, and Armenian. The reading is therefore an ancient 

But ww5 is the reading of A, B, E, G, H, M, S, U, V, A (A 
and U prefixing the article), and a great number besides, and 
is represented in both Syriac versions, e and /of the Old Latin, 
the Sahidic, etc. 

The expression produced by this latter reading could hardly 
fail to be generally viewed as strange. But this circumstance 
would rather add force to the testimony of its wide prevalence 
in the mass of MSS. It must, however, be further remarked 
upon it, that it quite destroys the reasoning a fortiori from the 
brute creation to a human subject a mode which is prominently 
used on other similar occasions (xiii. 15, 16; Mat. xii. 11, 12) 
but, more than this, it actually throws the stress of the argument 
on the wrong side, by supposing a case where the motive for 
a formal breach of sabbath strictness is as valid as can well be 
conceived, namely, the overpowering law of natural affection. 

These considerations are at least a bar to a summary rejection 
of the common reading, even in the face of a preponderating mass 
of documentary evidence. 

IIp6/3aTov is the reading of D alone. Should this be regarded 
as the bold remedy of some one who was staggered by vio? and 
knew nothing of 6Vo? ? 

Mill conjectured 045, a word little likely to be found in such 
a place. 



Iva, OTOLV K\L7rr)Te, Se^covTCU, K. r. A. 

That, [when ye fail X when it shall fail, ] they may receive 
you, etc. 

In support of the common reading eKkiir^re or e/cXetV^Te for 
the difference is practically immaterial, and the evidence of the 
generality of MSS., on account of the habitual confusion of i and 
, equally so there are cited E, F, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, A, 
and many others, the Vulgate, etc. The rival reading e/eTu Tr?; 
or e/cXewn; is supported by A, B, D, L, X, and others, the Old 
Latin in a, e, I pr. man., the Coptic, jiEthiopic, Armenian, etc. 

Evidence thus strongly ranged on either side would forbid 
a positive decision. If the words, fugati fueritis, in Irenseus are 
to be taken as testimony in favour of the common reading, its 
antiquity is established ; though on this point the existing docu 
ments which oppose it have the advantage. There is nothing 
in the nature of the variation that points to any other than a 
purely accidental origination ; and on consideration what might 
be the effect of accident in this case, it would appear more pro 
bable that the shorter form was the offspring of the longer, than 
the contrary. On the other hand, the sense which e /cXtV^ would 
bear, since /ia/i/i<wm<? must be its subject, agrees with the other 
single occurrence of the word in this Gospel (xxii. 32). On the 
whole the balance is perhaps rather in favour of the common 


LUKE XVI. 25. 

TCKVOV, fJLvr^crOrjTi OTL aireXafies crv ra dyaOa crov 
ev rfj farj aovy KOL Aa^apos O/JLOLCOS ra KCCKCC. 

Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime reeeivedst thy good 
things, and likewise Lazarus evil things. 

The pronoun of emphasis crv is wanting in D, G, H, and many 
others, and is not represented in the Vulgate, the Old Latin 
except b, the Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, Armenian, and 
Slavonic. A places it after crov. It is also omitted by many 
Fathers. It is supported, however, by B apparently, E, F, K, M, 
S, U, V, X, J, etc. 

Notwithstanding this conflict of evidence, there need be no 
hesitation in regarding the word as intrusive, as a hasty and ill- 
judged addition made for the sake of marking by words an oppo 
sition between the two persons, which really existed, but the 
expression of which is out of place and mischievous, as standing 
in the way, and thus weakening the force, of the emphatic point 
of the sentence, centered in the single term aTreXa/Se?. That 
point is the circumstance of a receipt in full (a xo kaftelv) in either 
case, of good and ill respectively. 

The adoption of the lively &>Se, instead of 6 Se, is abundantly 
authorised by an overwhelming mass of authority. Critical hands 
are well employed in removing corruptions, however slight, 
which may in the least degree impair the force and beauty 
of this wonderful parable. 

Son, remember that thou hast received thy good things in thy 
lifetime, and Lazarus in like manner his ills : but now is he thus 
comforted, while thou art tormented. 



Mrj X^P LV *X L r( ? 8vty KCiv<p OTI 71-0/770-6 ra 

avrcp; ov *-"" 

Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that 
were commanded him ? I trow not. 

The words, ov SOA-W, in which Jesus here appears to reply 
to his own question, are wanting in B, L, X, 1, 28, 118, 131, 157, 
a, e, of the Old Latin, the Coptic, ^Ethiopic, Armenian. 

It may be remarked, that since the tone and drift of the 
question are fully marked by the prefixed particle ^77 , these words 
are in fact unnecessary ; that this abates the likelihood of their 
having proceeded from the writer, but at the same time would 
be no bar to the officiousness of glossarists, whose propensity was 
rather to overdo and to make assurance doubly sure. 

There are good grounds for expunging trceivay and avrw ; and 
it is probable that the Evangelist simply wrote, fj,rj "xapiv ej^et ro3 
Sov\w OTI eTTOirjcre ra Biara^devTa ; ovrw Kal u//,et?, K. T. X. Is 
he thankful to the servant because he performed his commands ? 
Likewise ye too, etc. 


Avo ecrovrcu ev rco ayput, o elf 7rapa\r)(J)0rjo-T(U 
KCLI 6 erepos a^eOrjcrerai.. 

[Two men shall be in the field-, the one shall be taken, and 
the other left.~\ 

This verse is supported by D, U, and many others, by the Old 
Latin, except that i places it before v. 35, e has nothing answering 
to the words Kal 6 er. a^., and o l altogether omits it, by the 
Vulgate, Syriac, Armenian, etc. 

On the other hand, it is wanting in all the uncial MSS., except 


the two just cited, and in a considerable number besides, as also 
in the Coptic, JEthiopic, Gothic, etc. 

It is quite possible that the passage may have been lost by 
oversight on account of the homoeoteleuton ; but, independently of 
external evidence, it is far more likely, from the strong tendency 
to assimilation everywhere manifested, that it was an artificial 
addition, deriving its matter from the parallel place (Mat. xxiv. 
40, 41), and conformed in its expression to the immediate con 
text. With this probability there combines, as has been already 
seen, an overbearing preponderance of the most important MSS., 
the versions being nearly balanced. With respect to its principal 
supporter D, it should always be remembered, that its marked 
character in the way of interpolation renders its testimony feeble 
in a case like the present, though it gives special force to its 
evidence whenever it is given on the negative side. 

LUKE XXII. 43, 44. 

One of the most curious questions with which the criticism 
of the New Testament is concerned relates to this passage, more 
especially because its absence from copies was long ago directly 
ascribed to wilful tampering arising from dogmatic motives, and, 
indeed, cannot well be assigned to any other cause if it be 

In the first place, it is recognised in the dialogue with Trypho, 
by Irenaeus and Hippolytus, not to mention later writers, and 
thus the fact of its currency in the text at a remote period is at 
once fairly established, whether it was rightfully a part of it or 

The statement of Hilary, that it was wanting et in Greeds et 
in Latinis codicibus complurimis, is strong, and would be most 
important, if reliance could certainly be placed on it as the 
expression of accurate personal observation. Jerome s authority 
on such a point is unimpeachable, and his expression, though 
differently cast, is equally strong to the same effect with the 



preceding, noting its occurrence in quibusdam exemplaribus tarn 
Greeds quam Latinis. The charges advanced by Photius and 
Kicon, against the Syrians and Armenians respectively, of wilful 
suppression, may be allowed to pass as evidence of the simple 
circumstance of the absence of the passage from current copies 
in those parts of Christendom : and the same may be said of other 
similar statements. More than this cannot be granted to them, 
when it is remembered that polemical accusations were made in 
those times as in others without assurance of their truth, and, 
it is to be feared, with little concern about it. 

It will be necessary now to pass to the evidence of existing 

The passage is altogether wanting in A, B, 124, in the Sahidic, 
in one copy (/) of the Old Latin, and one of the Coptic. In 69 
it finds its place after Mat. xxvi. 39; and the same is the case in 
some Evangelistaria, with a previous insertion of John xiii. 3 7 
after v. 20. In 13 the transcriber appears, for some reason or 
other, to have checked his pen after the words (o<j>drj Se, leaving 
the rest to be supplied in the margin by a later hand ; wishing, 
perhaps, to intimate thereby the occurrence of such a passage at 
that place, but, at the same time, its spuriousness or doubtful 
character. It is marked with asterisks or obeli in E, S, Y, J, 
24, 36, 123, 161, 166, 274, 344. 

The Ammonian and Eusebian notation is not attached to it 
in L, but it has the latter in M, etc. 

A scholium in 34 notes that some copies did not contain ra 

On the other hand, the passage is found in the mass of MSS. 
and versions. 

On a review of what has preceded, it must be observed that, 
while the passage was read in the text by very early writers, the 
language of Jerome, to the effect that it was found only in quibus 
dam exemplaribus, would imply a decided preponderance in his 
time of documentary evidence against it, a state of matters which 
could not have been a thing of sudden growth. There are, also, 
other clear indications of an absence from current copies to some 
extent or other. 

Of existing documents a few ancient authorities are directly 


adverse, and some others offer unfavourable testimony of a slighter 
kind, but the preponderance on the other side is great. 

By way of accounting for its absence thus much may be safely 
said, that certain dogmatic notions would tend to an inclination 
to make riddance of it. Epiphanius does not shrink from affirming 
that such an operation had been actually performed by orthodox 
hands. But if, in further argument for its genuineness, the ques 
tion be asked, from what spurious source such matter could have 
been borrowed and intruded on the text ; such a suggested diffi 
culty may be met by pointing to those narratives of various 
passages in the life and actions of Jesus which soon became 
current, and furnished materials for the memoirs alluded to by 
this Evangelist (I, 1). 

That the place had not escaped intrusive corruption, appears 
from the words of Epiphanius, to the effect that even the term 
K\av(T was read in unsound copies. 

If it would be a bold step to pronounce the passage spurious 
one on which no critic appears to have ventured still a due 
regard to evidence will not allow it to stand clear of doubt. 


Kai 7TpiKaXv\lfai>T? avrov, ervTrrov avrov TO Trpoa- 
Kca 7rr)p(OTCoi> avTQVj XeyovTts, K. r. X. 

And when they had blindfolded him, they [struck him on the 
face, and] asked him, saying, etc. 

This account as it stands in the common text is complete in 
details, in which respect it is in contrast with those of the two 
preceding Evangelists, the former of which makes no mention 
of the blindfolding, and the latter none of the prophetic answer 

But doubt is raised respecting the words ervirrov avrov TO 
7rp6<To)7rov Kal, the removal of which would leave the circum- 


stance expressed by them to be gathered from the question, rk 
<TTIV 6 iraurax o-e, unless the preceding term Sepovres be viewed 
as conveying it. 

That such a form of the text is not an unlikely one, is clear 
from the facts already noticed in the parallel places. Besides, 
it is not easy to detect anything that might cause accidental 
omission; and the existence of another shape of the disputed 
clause in D and elsewhere, namely, Trepix. avrov TO Trpoa-unrov 
eTVTTTOV avrov /ecu, is a suspicious circumstance. 

The Avords in question are wanting in B, K, L, M, and b, c, 
ff, i, of the Old Latin. They can hardly be viewed as genuine. 

O e I-rjaovs eXeye Ilarep, a(f)s avroif ov yap 


[ Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them ; for they know not 
what they doJ] 

Whatever may be the unwillingness to view these memorable 
words as open to the slightest doubt, still it is necessary to state 
the evidence which has that tendency. 

The passage is wanting in B, D pr. man., and two others, the 
Old Latin in a, b, d, a copy of the Coptic, and the Sahidic. 
There is also some variation in its form, Kvpios being the reading 
of Q, elirev of A, K, M, etc., and Trdrep being wanting in A. 

This evidence is sufficient at once to establish the fact of its 
absence from copies, to some extent or other, in ancient times. 
That it was also found in the text at an early period is equally 
clear from the circumstance, that Irenjeus in one place (iii. 18) 
has a distinct reference to it, and in another (iii. 20) cites the 
very words of the prayer. 

It must at the same time be admitted that there is nothing 
in the outward shape to point to the probability of an accidental 
oversight; and yet, if the passage be genuine, its absence from 


copies could have arisen only from accident, for there is nothing 
in its purport to excite a dogmatic inclination to its suppression. 

It is clear that the passage cannot have grown from the context 
nor from any parallel place ; if, therefore, it were certain that it 
is spurious, it might be reasonably viewed as having originally 
noted a traditional, but true, circumstance, being thus well fitted 
to obtain an early and firm footing in the text itself. 


Trj St fJLLa rwv craft/SaTaus opOpov fiaOeos rj\6ov 
7rl TO fj.vrj[jLa (ftepowrai a rjToifJLacrav apw^ara^ Kai 
rives crvv avrai?. 

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the 
morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices 
tvhich they had prepared, [and certain others with them~\. 

The last clause, teal .... avrals, is wanting in B, C pr. man., 
L, etc., the Old Latin in all copies except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, 
.^Ethiopia, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Augustine. 

The words certainly wear the appearance of an officious addition, 
intended to help the Evangelist to exact consistency; for, if those 
women alone brought the spices who had witnessed the burial 
on the preceding evening, which is the strict meaning of this 
verse when the clause is withdrawn, their number was very small 
(Mat. xxvii. 61 ; Mark xv. 47), and, therefore, at variance with 
the larger company implied in the words teal al \onral avv avrals 
(v. 10). The words in question come to the rescue from this 
immaterial inconsistency, which involves nothing more than a 
very simple looseness of language, and they thus encounter a 
suspicion of a meddling appendage. 

There need not be much scruple in rejecting the clause. 

The word apwfMira is also wanting in D, in several copies of 
the Old Latin, and the Sahidic. 



O 8e Ilerpos avaaras cSpa/*i> eirl TO 
KOL 7rapaKV\l/as /SAeVet ra oOovia K^i^eva /jLova- /cat 
a.7rr)X0e trpo? lavrov Oavfidfatv TO ytyovos. 

{Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre: and stoop 
ing down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and 
departed, wondering in himself at that which had come to 

This entire verse is wanting in D, in a, b, e, I of the Old Latin, 
and is not recognised by the Eusebian canons. The Jerusalem 
Syriac puts it in the margin. 

This range of adverse evidence is certainly narrow ; but it 
should be added, that in the ancient copies which contain the 
passage, A, B, and others, there are several variations of form, 
which are often the shiftings of a spurious growth. 

The passage rather interrupts the thread of the narrative. The 
transaction is the same as that described John xx. 3 10, but 
dissimilarity and discrepancy exclude the idea of the passage 
having been directly borrowed from thence. This independence 
of matter and words might be urged as an argument for its 
genuineness ; but the force of such argument could only be 
derived from the assumption, that mutual influence of the Gospels 
is the sole source of intrusion. On the contrary, it is quite possi 
ble that the passage might be a marginal addition, made by hands 
which the fourth Gospel had never reached, and noting a piece 
of tradition. 

In this instance there is occasion to recur to the remark, that 
in a case of very early intrusion the natural issue of things would 
be, that among the more ancient of surviving documents there 
would occur adverse testimony distinct in expression but narrow 
in compass. 



KOLL dve<pepeTO ei? rov ovpavov* 
\_And carried up into heaven .] 

This clause is omitted by D only, but the omission is supported 
by the Old Latin in a, b, e,ff, I. 

The clause too is one which might well have been wanting in 
the original narrative, but, in that case, could hardly fail to be 
supplemented in the margin. Hence it cannot be free from 

There are other similar instances where D thus stands alone, 
especially Acts xvii. 18; xviii. 3. 


JOHN I. 16. 
KaL K TOV TrXrjpoj/JLaros avrov rjfJLCis Travrts eXa- 

\And X For] of his fulness have all we received. 

The connexion of this verse is with the clause 
teal a\i]deia<s (v. 14), to which it is plainly linked by the expres 
sion rov TrXrjpcopaTos; and, whether teal or the various reading 
OTI be taken as its opening particle, it contains the argument in 
proof of the proposition involved in those preceding words, drawn 
from the experience of the persons emphatically signified by the 
term ^//.et?, in the circumstance of their own derived endowments. 
This connection is locally severed by interposing the statement of 
the Baptist s testimony to the surpassing dignity of his successor. 
A passage of a similar structure proceeding from this writer occurs 
in his First Epistle, v. 1 4, where the fourth verse contains the 
logical proof of the proposition laid down in the first clause of the 
first verse, and is introduced by ort, after a digression made in 
the two intervening verses. In this there must be recognised 
an argument in favour of the variation on in the present place, 
drawn from the author s practice elsewhere. 

The various reading is found in B, C pr. man., D, L, X, 33, 
supported by a, b, e,ff, of the Old Latin, the Coptic, ^Ethiopic, 
Armenian, and several Fathers. 

Without a careful noting of the true structure of the present 
passage, ort, if in the text, would wear a somewhat strange 
appearance, so that Kai might be carelessly suggested and adopted. 
It does not, indeed, destroy the real connexion of the passage, 
and, as such, would not provoke any interpretation or substitution, 
such for instance as OTI- but at the same time it fails to bring that 
connexion fairly into view, and in all probability did not proceed 
from the Evangelist. 


JOHN I. 18. 

O fjiovoyeitrj? vios, 6 a>*>, AC. r. A. 

The only begotten \_Son X God], which is, etc. 

Here instead of t/to? there is encountered the remarkable varia 
tion 0eo9, supported by B, C pr. man , L, 33, the Syriac, Coptic, 
-/Ethiopia, and various Fathers. These last, however, would 
probably be more disposed to give currency to so marked an 
expression, if it came in their way, than to scrutinise its claims to 
reception. What was the reading followed by Irenseus, Clement, 
and Origen, must be left an open question. 

The testimony of Theodotus and Arius in favour of Oeos might 
appear peculiarly strong on account of their respective dogmatic 
views. But it must be remembered with respect to the former, 
that, though his scheme was simply humanitarian in one aspect, 
this term was in perfect harmony with its Gnostic conceptions 
and subtleties (Clem. Alex. Op. p. 968). With respect to the 
latter it may be remarked, that, if he found no bar to his creed in 
the term fiovoyevr)?, neither would $eo9 stand in his way. The 
evidence, however, of Theodotus at once shows that this reading 
was current at an early period. 

The common text, besides the mass of MSS., has the weighty 
support of the Nitrian Syriac Text, the Old Latin, and Vulgate. 

The variation m o<? TOV deov clearly exhibits an accretion upon 
v/09, and is thus an evidence in favour of it. The other, u/o? 
0eo9, is important as serving to point to an origination of 0e6$ as 
a deductive gloss upon the expression 6 /jLovoyevrjs 1*169, becoming 
afterwards an accretion. 

It is possible that the Evangelist wrote no more than 6 JJLOVO- 
Vevrjs, of which form there are some traces. The preponderance, 
however, of evidence, supported by the preceding considerations, 
requires that the common reading should be retained, without 
impeachment of the antiquity of its rival, and the weight of the 
few authorities which support it. 


JOHN I. 28. 

Tavra ev JBrj0a(3apa eyevero irepav rov lopftavov. 

These things were done in \Bethabara X Bethany] beyond 

The reading Bydafiapa is given by C sec. man., K, U, 22, 33, 
69, and many others, while Brjdavla is found in all the other 
imcial MSS. that contain the passage, and the great majority 
of the rest, as well as in nearly all the versions, and is the reading 
of Heracleon, Chrysostom, and other writers. 

Origen confesses that this latter was the reading of nearly all 
the copies; from which it appears that the aspect of the evidence 
has not been changed materially down to the present time. Not 
withstanding, he expresses his conviction in favour of the other 
reading, denying with the authority of a local investigator the 
existence of a Bethany on the Jordan. This argument cannot 
but carry weight, whatever may be thought of others which are 
appended to it (Comm. in Johan. p. 130, ed. Huet.). Jerome is 
on the same side, and possesses a like authority as being per 
sonally acquainted with the country. 

These considerations forbid an utter discarding of the common 
reading, notwithstanding the preponderance of the opposing 
evidence. It may also be remarked, that ByOaftapa cannot have 
been an arbitrary alteration derived from the Septuagint, which 
represents rna iva by BaiOrjpd or BaiOfiypd. The question, 
however, is rather curious than important. 


JOHN III. 25. 

ovv ^rrjcns e/c rwv fJLaOrirwv Icoavvov 

fJLTOL IoV$OLl(>V 7T6/H KOidapiCrfJLOV. 

Then there arose a question between some of Johns disciples 
and \the Jews % a Jew~\ about purifying. 

Instead of JouSatW, lov&alov is given by A, B, E, F, K, L, 
M, S, U, V, A, and a large body of others, supported by both 
Syriac versions, and various Fathers. 

In support of the common reading there are cited G, H, 1, 13, 
69, etc., the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, etc., and 

No other origin can well be conceived for this variation 
than accident in transcription ; and preference must, therefore, 
be simply given to that reading in favour of which the evidence 
preponderates, namely, lovSalov ; though the weight of the 
versions lies on the other side. 

In this place Bentley and Markland were each independently 
led by the succeeding context to conjecture I^aoO, taking, how 
ever, yu-era lyo-ov to stand for //.era rwv ^aOrjrwv J^croO, an 
ellipsis requiring for its justification instances more closely perti 
nent than those which were actually cited for that purpose (Mat. 
xxiv. 51 ; John v. 36 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16). Conjectural ingenuity, 
however happy its feats have occasionally been in other quarters, 
has made but a sorry adventure on the New Testament; and to 
this the present instance is no exception. 

The appeal of John s disciples to their master was probably 
caused by their having learnt incidentally, through the Jewish 
disputant, some particulars of the doings and success of Jesus. 


JOHN V. 3, 4. 

Ev ravraif KCLTKLTO TrXrjOos TroXv r&v ao~6e- 
VOVVTWV, Tv(j)Xc*i>, x^w"? np& v 9 Mexpfuifmf rrjv 
TOV VOOLTOS KLvr](nv. ayyeXos yap Kara Kaipov 
KaTtfiaivev ev rrj KoXvpfirjOpa, KOL erapaaae TO 
v8cop. 6 ovv irpwTO? tafias ^fJLtTO. Tr)v rapa^rjv 
rov vSaTO?, v-yirj? eyivtTO, o> SrjTTOTe 

In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, 
halt, withered, [waiting for the moving of the water. For 
an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and 
troubled the water : whosoever then first after the troubling 
of the. water stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever 
disease he had.~\ 

The question which arises on this passage, relates to the genu 
ineness of the portion e/cSe^ofjievcav .... voa-rj/juari. 

If an entire passage or clause is exhibited by different authorities 
with considerable variations of form, and presents, as a whole, a 
changeable and unsettled appearance, such a circumstance can be 
reasonably referred to only one cause, and lead to only one 
conclusion, namely, that the portion of text in question, even if 
not one existing copy entirely wants it, is a mere concretion of 
spurious matter. 

In the present instance, the clause e /cSe^. . . . tcivrja-iv, is wanting 
in A pr. man., L, 18; and the succeeding portion, 0^776X09 .... 
voa^art, in D, 33, /, /, being also marked with an asterisk in S, 
and many others. The clause o ovv . . . . vo<r^ari is obelised in 
the later Syriac; and the three, Kara icaipov, ev -rfj ico\v^r)0pa, 
$ . . . . voa-^an, have nothing answering to them in a, b,ff, of 
the Old Latin, etc. 

Thus far alone the appearances are such as to realise the case 
which has been just supposed, and are, therefore open to the con 
clusion attached to it, without the aid of further reasons. That 


conclusion is, however, especially strengthened by the fact, that the 
entire passage in question is wanting in B, C pr. man., 157, 314, 
the Sahidic, and copies of the Coptic, and has nothing cor 
responding to it in the metrical paraphrase of Nonnus. 

It will now be proper to look at the aspect which the narrative 
wears, when the disputed portion is omitted. The first thing 
that must strike a reader, is the absence of any assigned reason 
for the gathering of the sick folk around the pool, until, subse 
quently, implication supplies some information on the point, in 
the answer of the impotent man (v. 7); whose words intimate 
thus much, that the presence of himself, and, therefore, of the 
others, arose from a belief in a healing virtue immediately 
following upon a certain occasional stirring of the water. Now 
this is certainly not the form which the narrative would take at 
the hands of a careful and practised historian; but it is natural 
enough in an inartificial account, and would be one of several 
instances occurring in the Gospels, where the language is uncon 
sciously made to reflect the writer s familiarity with localities and 
scenes, rather than framed to meet the absence of that condition 
on the part of the general reader, a circumstance, however, 
which is a vivid evidence of the artless truthfulness of an eye 

If such were the original form of the text, there was a more 
than ordinary opening for marginal supplements. The clause, 

e/cS Kivr](Tiv, is the simplest form that such a supplement 

could well take, since it expresses no more than what is barely 
suggested by the succeeding context (v. 7). On this becoming, 
by intrusion, part of the text, the entire passage would take the 
shape in which it is seen in D. The clause, ayyeX^os .... VO<TIJ- 
fj,an, supplies something more circumstantial. Its separate ad- 
rence to the text would give it the form under which it appears 
in A, L. The eventual addition of both together would produce 
the common reading of the passage. 

That such has been the actual process, there are strong reasons 
for concluding from the documentary evidence, even without 
regard to these internal considerations, which so curiously tally 
with the facts of the MSS. It may be remarked, too, that the 
supposition that the two clauses are independent glossarial supple- 


raents, is supported by the circumstance, that, while one has 
rapa^tjv, Kcvrjaiv in the other betrays a different hand. It should 
also be observed, that no mechanical causes can be discerned, 
which would lead to the accidental omission of the whole or part 
of the disputed portion. 

The entire portion, eK^e^o^evwv .... voo-tffjiaTi, may then 
safely be removed from the text : and if the resulting shape of 
the narrative be somewhat peculiar, this peculiarity, when rightly 
viewed, is an evidence of the genuineness of the form. A clear 
impression of scenes and circumstances, tends, if a narrator is 
artless, to an unwitting scantiness of descriptive and explanatory 
detail for those who require it. Perhaps an instance of this is 
supplied by the very probable reading rj eoprij (v. 1); " the 
feast " being that which was particularly present to the mind of 
the writer, as the one to which the preceding account of well 
remembered events had just brought him. In that case, rj e 
is probably Pentecost. 

JOHN V. 16. 

Kai dta TOVTO eSicoKOV ol lovSouoi TOV 
KCU e^fjTovv avrov diroKTeivai, on, K. T. A. 

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, [and sought to 
slay him,~\ because, etc. 

It may be remarked of narrative writers, especially if their 
method be an unstudied one, that they frequently do not express, 
in their proper place, with full particularity, circumstances which 
presently clearly appear from the succeeding context. Here 
officiousness would readily step in with a supplement for such 
oversight or defect. 

An illustration of this would be furnished by the present 
passage, if the clause KOI .... airoicreivcu were removed; for the 
following words, S TOVTO obv pa\\ov e a. ol I. Air. imply a 


previous circumstance, which may be involved in the general 
term eSlw/cov, but is not precisely expressed. 

The clause in question is wanting in B, C, D, L, 33, 69, etc.; 
the Old Latin in all copies except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, Arme 
nian, the paraphrase of Nonnus, etc. 

It may fairly be regarded as a supplement, originating in the 
way which has been just described. 

JOHN VI. 22. 

IScov OTI TrXoiapiov aXXo OVK i)v eKel el fArj ei> elf 
o eveftrjcrav ol fjLaflrjTal avrov, K. r. X. 

The people saio that there teas none other boat there, save 
[that one wherein his disciples were entered X one~\, etc. 

This case is precisely of the same kind as the last, as respects 
the clause et? o . . . . aurou, and admits of the same conclusion, 
the clause being wanting in A, B, L, etc., and a considerable 
number of versions. 


w OVTTCO dvafiaivco elf rrjv eoprrjv ravrrji>. 
I go not [yet] unto this feast. 

The simple negative ou/c, instead of OUTTW, is given by D, K, M, 
and three others. This slender amount of MS. evidence is, 
however, strongly supported by the Old Latin in nearly all the 
copies, the Vulgate, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, etc., and by various 
ecclesiastical writers. 

The present is an instance calling for the exercise of that 
simple and important rule in criticism, that, in a conflict of 


evidence, a reading which makes all clear, and smooth, and 
consistent, which does not challenge attention by difficulty or 
peculiarity, has less claim for acceptance than one of the opposite 
character. Now the intention expressed in the present passage, 
as it stands in the common text, is in complete accordance with 
the subsequent proceeding (vs. 10, 14): on the contrary, with the 
absolute negative, it has an appearance, at least, of inconsistency; 
so much so, that Porphyry, according to Jerome, drew from it an 
attack upon the character of Jesus. 

The incongruity, however, disappears when it is considered, 
that attendance at a festival was made with form and publicity, in 
associated companies, and often by anticipation of the exact time 
(xi. 55); and accordingly, one who made the journey o>9 ev 
KpVTTTw, and appeared TT}? eoprrjs pea-ovcnr;, did not go up to the 
feast according to the established acceptance of the term. 

There is no need to regard OVTTW as a wilful alteration: it is 
more likely to have been originally a marginal suggestion, just as 
Chrysostom interprets by the modifying additions, apri, 


JOHN VII. 52. 

Eptvvi]crov real t 5e, on Trpo^rrjs CK TYJS 
Xaia? OVK 

Search and look: for out of Galilee [ariseth X there has 
arisen] no prophet 

On the word ejr/yeprai, there is the variation eyeipeTai. Both 
readings are strongly supported; fyfoeprcu by E, G, L, M, S, X, 
1, and many others, as well as the margin of the later Syriac; 
ejelperai by B, D, K, the margin of S, T, A, and some others, 
as also by the principal versions, including those which express a 
future. Origen also appears to have read the same. The pre 
ponderance on the score of the antiquity of the testimonies is in 
favour of the latter. 


If attention be directed to the readings themselves, it must be 
observed, that eyrjyeprai has this peculiarity, that it involves a 
statement of at least doubtful truth, though not the less likely, on 
that account, to be put forward controversially. The reasoning 
intended to be associated with the statement would be, that, as 
Galilee had been no cradle of prophets, it was least of all likely to 
send forth the Messiah. 

This peculiarity attending the reading tyfyepTtu, would not 
tend to procure it a preference in case of a free choice between 
the two, nor would it be a comment of improvement or inter 
pretation on eryeipercu. Such considerations should at least 
produce hesitation in discarding the common text. 

JOHN VII. 53. VIII. 11. 

The question which arises respecting the spuriousness of this 
entire passage, is one of special interest, not only from its import 
ance, but on account of singular points involved in the evidence. 

In the first place, there must be noted the circumstance of its 
shifting position. It is placed by one MS. after vii. 36 of this 
Gospel, at the end of it by at least ten, and at the end of 
Luke xxi. by four. Though none of these MSS. are of high 
antiquity, yet on this particular point their evidence is not 
impaired on that account. Now the several copyists that respec 
tively first gave to the passage these various positions, must have 
encountered it in some detached state, which left them free to 
give it a location according to the judgment or fancy of each. 
But it is not easy to conceive a genuine portion of the Gospel 
narrative thus set adrift, to find a fresh lodgment as it may. 

Next, there is a remarkable variation of shape. One distinct 
phase or cast of the passage is exhibited by D alone; and in the 
other copies that contain it, the text fluctuates more broadly than 
to the extent of various readings, ordinarily so called, and seems 
to indicate the existence of two other shapes. 

The passage is visibly wanting in B, L, T, X, J, and more 



than fifty others, besides lectionaries ; and though A and C are 
here defective, its absence from them in their complete state is 
ascertainable by strict calculation, based on the uniform amount 
of matter in their pages. Of the mass of MSS. which contain the 
passage more than sixty stigmatise it with marks of suspicion. 

It is wanting in a,/, etc., of the Old Latin, in the Sahidic, the 
Gothic, and the best authorities of the Coptic, Armenian, and 
both Syriac versions. 

The commentaries of Origen and Chrysostom evince no know 
ledge, or, at least, no recognition of this section: and the same 
may be said of Tertullian, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril, Basil, 
and others. The paraphrase of Nonnus has nothing answering 
to it. Though the judgment of Jerome is in favour of it, and 
hence its place in the Vulgate, yet this is accompanied with an 
admission of its absence from many copies: and to the same 
purport are the scholia in various MSS. 

In the face of evidence thus varied and significant, the genu 
ineness of the passage cannot be maintained. It may be regarded 
as having been originally a detached narrative, founded on a real 
transaction, and one of a probably numerous class that obtained 
more or less currency. Such a view agrees well with an air of 
strangeness, that, apart from the miraculous, is not observable in 
the other Gospel narratives. The cast of the story has an artificial 
look, as designed for effect. 

In this case, as elsewhere, recourse has been freely had, both in 
ancient and modern times, to the suggestion of wilful suppression. 
With respect to the likelihood of such a proceeding, opinions may 
vary; but one thing at least is certain, that such a supposition 
will not serve, in the case of the present passage, to account for 
two principal facts of adverse evidence, namely, its shiftings of 
place and shape. 

It may be well to note the entire coherence of the narrative on 
the removal of this section. The scene has been transferred, and 
with it also the dispute about Galilee, from the populace to the 
conclave (vs. 45 52). This, however, implies no suspension of 
the discourse of Jesus with those about him; and the broken 
report of the really unbroken discourse is at once resumed after 
the digression by the words 7rd\iv ovv, K. r. \, 



Kcu ea*> Kpivto de eyo>, TJ Kpicns rj eyu,?} aXr)6r)$ 

(TTtl>, OTi, K. T. A. 

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for, etc. 

Here, instead of aX?;^?, ak^Qivr) is given by B, D, L, T, X, 
33, and Origen in one place. 

The reading supported by these important authorities gives a 
sense better suited to the context, which may be thus expressed: 
I judge no one. Yes (/cat .... Se), and if I were to exercise 
judgment, the judgment that I exercise, is a genuine one 
(uXTjOivrj} not an idle, ineffective process, unworthy of the name 
because, etc. ^AX^dri^, which would convey the idea of 
truthfulness and uprightness, is an epithet far less to the purpose 
in the present place, as involving a less direct and forcible anti 
thesis to the statement, ey&> ov icpivw ovSeva. It probably crept 
in under the influence of the context (vs. 13, 14, 17). A\ijdivij 
is the reading of D in v. 14, and may be regarded as having 
sprung in the same way from the word in the present passage. 


* Eyu> o fwpaKa Trapa TIM Trarpi JJLOV, XaXco. KCU 
ovv b copaKare Trapa TCD Trarpi 

I speak that which I have seen icith my Father : and ye 
do that which ye have seen with your father. 

The following is the form in which this passage was read by 
Origen: 670) a ewpaica irapa TO> vrarpt, AaXco. ical v(j,ei<$ ovv a 
jrapa rov Trarpo?, Troielre. A comparison of these two 


forms at once leads to the remark, that, in the latter, the same 
person is necessarily signified by the terms TO> irarpi, and rov 
Trarpos, while, in the former, by the addition of the pronouns, 
two are presented, not only distinct but directly contrasted. By 
the term t>/*et9, Origen understands the believing Jews (v. 31): 
and from the expression ol e eTao/iewt, which he applies to them, 
it would seem that he put an interrogative construction on the 
last clause, so that the sense would be, 4 Are you too then per- 
formino- what things you have heard from the Father? The 
other construction which the words will bear, is an imperative 
one, and the meaning of the passage may be given thus : I for 
my part am speaking things which I have seen with the Father. 
Do you too then perform what things you have heard from the 
Father, whether by my mouth or otherwise. The address need 
not be restricted, as is done by Origen. 

The pronoun /Ltot, is omitted by B, C, L, X, various versions, 
and Cyril: vpuv, by B, L, etc.: the jEthiopic, Sahidic, and 
Cyril. The reading r^Kovcrare Trapa TOV irarpos, is supported by 
B, C, K, L, X, 1, 13, 33, 69, etc., the Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, 
Armenian, Gothic, and the margin of the later Syriac, by Cyril 
and Chrysostom. The immaterial variation, a, in both places, 
rests upon similar authority. 

If, on these grounds, this latter form be regarded as genuine, it 
may be considered that the first step in the way of deviation 
would be an appending of vpwv in the margin, under the influ 
ence of the succeeding context (vs. 41, 44), and thus producing a 
discrimination of Trarpbs from TrarpL The other principal varia 
tion is the effect of self-assimilation. 



de eKpvfif] KCU ^ri\6ev K rou lepov, 
O(DV 8ia fjL(rov avTcov, KCU Traprjytv OVTCO?. 

But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, \_going 
through the midst of them, and so passed by~\. 

The entire clause, Bte\da>v .... o{/TW9, is wanting in B, D, the 
Old Latin except f, the Vulgate, Sahidic, etc. Variations of 
form are also exhibited both by MSS. and Versions. 

It is an incongruous appendage, derived from Luke iv. 30. 

JOHN X. 38. 

Iva yvtore Kai TrKTTevcnjTe on eV eyuot 6 Trarrjp, 
K. r. X. 

That ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, etc. 

Instead of jncrrevcrrire, yivwa/cijTe is the reading of B, L, X, 
and four others, supported by the Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian, 
Athanasius, Theodoret, and Hilary. 

On the adoption of the latter reading the sense of the passage 
might be given thus: Even if ye believe not me, believe the 
works, that ye may mark their nature and significance, and 
gather that the Father is in me and I in the Father. 

It is clear that Tna-reva-^re would be a ready gloss on fytvaxTKijTC 
but an opposite origination is not conceivable. The second verb 
is wanting in D, and a, b, c, e, ff, I of the Old Latin. This 
absence, however, may have been caused by the similarity of its 
near neighbour ^z/wre : otherwise it must have been viewed as 


JOHN XL 41. 
ovv TOV \i0ov ov r]v o 

Then they took away the stone [from the place where the 
dead was laid~\. 

The clause ov . . . xetfievos is wanting in B, C pr. man., D, L, X, 
and three others, as also in the principal versions, and it seems to 
have been unknown to Origen and Chrysostom. In the authorities, 
also, which contain it, it appears with some variations of shape. 

It may at once be regarded as spurious, and as an instructive 
instance of the propensity to append supplementary matter, wher 
ever the text left even the slightest opening. 



fjLOV TTrjpr)Kl> aVTO. 

Let her alone : against the day of my burying hath she kept 


Another form of this passage is, a$69 avrty a/a efc rrjv TJ. T. eV. 
fiov rr)p^arj avro; which, in the strict sense of the words, offers 
this incongruity, that it forbids interference with the execution 
of. a design which had already been visibly executed. To this 
it would be sufficient to reply, that it is nothing more than 
a laxity of colloquial language, of which every-day speech would 
readily furnish examples. But it is rather an instance of a usage 
common ^ with this writer, the employment of a clause of this 
grammatical form without any reference to its proper meaning 
of design, but simply to express a circumstance in the abstract 
(iv. 34 ; vi. 29). Accordingly, the sense of the passage under 
form might be thus freely given: Let alone do not censure 
-her reservation of the unguent against my burial rites. 

With the common reading all is smooth, and its purport cor- 


responds with the parallel places. On this ground it must yield 
to the claims of its rival, the features of which are peculiar, if only 
this latter rests on good authorities. These are B, D, K, L, Q, X, 
etc., the Old Latin except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, 
Armenian, etc. 

The common form of the passage may therefore be rejected 
without hesitation ; it betrays a hand busied in removing slight 
deviations from correctness and consistency, and belongs to a class 
which may be distinctively termed readings of rectification. 


Nevei ovv TOVTO> Si/mow Uerpo? TrvGeo-Qai r/y av 
eir) Trepl ov Xeyet. 

Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask 
ivho it should be of whom he spake. 

Another form of this passage, which cannot have arisen by 
accident, is the following: v. o. T. H. IT. /cat Xeyet avrat, Elire rk 
eanv TT. o. \. To him then Simon Peter beckons and says to 
him, Tell us who it is about whom he is speaking. 

The language here put into the mouth of Peter assumes that the 
person addressed is already in possession of the required informa 
tion, an assumption which the previous circumstances, so far as 
they are detailed, do not justify, and which the sequel shows to 
have been wrong. Still it might have rested on some slight cir 
cumstance which is not recorded; and, in any case, its hastiness is 
only in keeping with lively and eager conversation, and especially 
with the character of the speaker. The formal incongruity, how 
ever, thus appearing on the face of the narrative would be quite 
enough to catch the observation and excite the interference of 
those whose solicitude it was, at least in the margin, to rectify 
every the most slightly incongruous feature of the original text, 
and to append a supplement to every the slightest opening for 
such an operation. 


In contrast with the appearance presented by the various read 
ing is the considerate congruity of the common text, TruOecrdai TI<? 
av etrj jrepl ov \eyei. 

The case is of the same complexion as the last ; and, as in that 
instance, in order to a decision in favour of the various reading, 
it is only necessary to cite weighty authorities : they are B, C, L, 
X, 33, several copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, JEthiopic, 
and several citations by Origen. The rendering interroga, found in 
some copies of the Old Latin, betrays a feeling of the peculiarity 
which marks the various reading, and is thus an indirect evidence 
in favour of that reading, and also of the origin of the common 

In the next verse a slight but lively feature of the narrative is 
lost by the absence of ovrax; ; which must be restored on the 
authority of B, C, E, F, G, H, L, M, X, A, etc., so that the 
clause will stand, avaTrecrobv e/ceivos OVTCOS 7rl rb a-rfjOos rov 
Ii](Tov, K. r. X. The usage is the same as in another place of this 
Gospel (iv. 6), and is best explained by a reference to Demosth. 
Mid. p. 553, 3 Phil. p. 122. 

JOHN XVI. 16. 


LCy OTL lyco vTrayco irpos TOV Trarepa. 

A little while, and ye shall not see me : and again, a little 
ivhile, and ye shall see me, [because I go to the Father}. 

The clause Sri irarepa is wanting in B, D, L, the Old 

Latin in a, b, e,ff, the Coptic, and Sahidic. 

The succeeding context (v. 17) shows that such a clause ought 
to be looked for: but since two of that kind have already pre 
ceded (vs. 5, 10), its absence in this place from a few ancient 
authorities would seem to indicate an instance of that readiness in 
the furnishing of supplements and producing uniformities, of 
which the traces are so numerous. 


JOHN XVII. 11, 12. 

Udrep ayi, rrjprjcrov avrovs ev rc3 OVO\JLCLTL crou 
ovy 5eiSft)Acay [JLOI, Iva WCTLV tv Kadws rjfjieis. ore 
rj/j,rji> fjiT avTCov v rw /coer/ito, eyco fTrjpovv avrov? 
ev TW ovo^LarL crow ovs dedcoKa? fJLOi, 

Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom 
thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While 
I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: 
those that thou aavest me I have kept. 

The clause Tijprjcrov .... /iot presents a form, as respects the 
presence of avrou?, at variance not only with pure Greek usage 
but also with that of the writers of the New Testament, notwith 
standing certain peculiarities in their use of auro?; and if there 
were no positive grounds for questioning the reading of any part 
of the clause, it would be necessary at least to recognise a per 
plexing peculiarity. This necessity, however, is at once removed, 
not by any variation afiecting aurow, but by the simple restora 
tion of the clause to a correct form in the substitution of u> for ou?, 
a reading supported by an overbearing confluence of authorities. 
In behalf of it there are cited A, B, C, E, G, H, K, L, M, S, Y, A, 
and a considerable number besides, while D, U, X, and others 
exhibit o, which is merely an instance of the interchange of 
o and <u so prevalent among MSS. The amount of direct 
evidence is such as to put the reading & beyond all reasonable 
doubt, and on this point nothing more need be said : still it may 
be remarked, that it cannot well be urged that &> is only an arbi 
trary riddance of an anomalous usage, since an intention of that 
kind would have found a readier remedy by expunging avrov?. 
The support for ofc is mainly found in D, sec. man., the Latin, as 
exhibited in the Vulgate text and several of its ancient docu 
ments, and, among the Fathers, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Augus 
tine, and Leo. 

The same variation is again exhibited, at the next occurrence 


of the expression ofc SeSaiKas (v. 12), by B, C, L, and a few 
others of less importance. But not only is even this evidence 
feeble compared with the body previously cited an unlikely 
circumstance if both readings were genuine but this is evidently 
a case to invite a venture on arbitrary assimilation. Such a step 
would further require the insertion of /cat before e$v\a%a ; and 
this companion reading is actually presented by the same group 
of documents a close companionship which seems to betray 

The insertion of Kal before 9/^9 is well supported by B, M, S, 
U, Y, and several others, as well as Latin authorities; though 
it may possibly be an artificial addition of a scarcely necessary 
emphasis. On the other hand, the words ev ra> Koa-pw are omitted 
by B, C, D, L, and several versions and Fathers, and have also all 
the appearance of a gloss. 

The preceding considerations would lead to the following read 
ing of the passage. 

Ildrep ayie, rripr\aov avTOVs ev r> ovo^curL crov oS Se&w/ea? aot, 
iva O)(TIV ev KaOcos Kal T^tet?. ore rj^v per avrwv, eya> errfpovv 
avrovs ev TO) ovo/Jbarl croir 01)9 SeSw/ca? /xot, e^uXa^a, K. T. X. 

Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast bestowed 
on me, that they may be one just as we too are. When I was 
with them, I was keeping them in thy name. Those whom thou 
hast given me, I have guarded, etc. 

A similar question to the preceding arises at v. 24, where the 
variation 6 for ofo is found, resting mainly on the authority of 
B, D; a reading which adds force and spirit to the passage, but 
does not accord with the style of the Evangelist. 





That they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I 
in thee, that they may also be \one\ in us. 

The repeated word ez> is wanting in B, C pr. man., D, and has 
nothing answering to it in a, b, c, e of the Old Latin, in the 
Sahidic, and Armenian. 

On the one side it may be truly said, that the word might 
have been readily overlooked in transcription, especially as fol 
lowing rjjjblv. 

On the other, the effect of its removal should be noted. This 
effect is to set in clear distinctness two things ; one, a state barely 
expressed by a simple term (eV); the other, a representation of 
that state under a different aspect, in its internal and essential 
condition. I pray that all may be one ; that, just as thou, 
Father, art in me and I in thee, even they too may be in us. 

The word in question interferes with the distinct arrangement 
which has been just noted, and is probably an officious intrusion. 


ACTS I. 25. 
Aafieiv TOV KXffpov TTJS SiOKOvias Tovrqs KOL 

That he may take [part X the post] of this ministry and 

Instead of K\rjpov, TOTTOV is the reading of A, B, C pr. man., D 
(TOTTOV TOI/), the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, etc. 

The common reading has certainly the appearance of a gloss, 
borrowed from the expression, TOV tcXfjpov T?}9 Sia/covta? TavT???, 
immediately preceding (v. 17), and resulting in a reading of 
assimilation, as well as producing a resemblance to other expres 
sions (viii. 21; xxvi. 18). On the other hand, with regard to 
the common text, there is nothing in the reading itself, nor is 
there any external influence, to lead to so much as a gloss upon it. 

The question is not without its importance, because, if the 
various reading is adopted, it furnishes at once an interpretation 
of the language applied to Judas, d<f> ^9 jrape^rf Tropevdfjvai et? 
TOV TOTTOV TOV iStov; for, as the term TOTTOV is here used, in the 
first instance, to signify position of personal condition, it must be 
taken in the same sense in the second ; and thus the resulting 
meaning will be, that the traitor s forfeiture had made him pass 
(Tropev6fjvat) to that which, in respect of his true character, had 
been all along his rightful and appropriate place (TOV TOTTOV TOV 
totov}, namely, without the apostolic pale. 


ACTS II. 30. 

TTJS 6<r(f)vos avrov TO Kara crapKa dvacrTrjcretv TOV 
Xpicrrov Kadio-ai evr! TOV Opovov avTOv. 

Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that 
of the fruit of his loins, according to the fash, he would 
raise up Christ to sit on his throne. 

The words TO K. <r. a. r. Xpiarov are wanting in A, B, C, D 
sec. man., the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Syriac, .ZEthiopic, Arme 
nian, and various ecclesiastical writers. 

They have strongly the appearance of a gloss, giving a precise 
interpretation of the general terms under which the promise was 
originally conveyed, simply cited in that shape by the Apostle 
(2 Sam. vii. 11, 12; 1 Chron. xvii. 10 12; Ps. Ixxxix. 4). Some 
copies, too, exhibit only the words avacrrrja-etv TOV Xpicrrov. 

The shorter reading, thus supported, may be taken as the true 
one ; so that the sense of the passage would be as follows : Being 
then a prophet, and knowing that God had solemnly sworn that 
he would seat his offspring on his throne, he spoke in foresight 
concerning the resurrection of Christ, that he was not left, etc. 

ACTS III. 20. 

Kcu aTTOcrreiXr) rov 7rpOKeK.r)pvyiJievov vjuv Irj(TOvv 

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was \_preached 
X appointed"^ unto you. 

Instead of Trpo/ceKijpvy/Aevov, TrpoKe^eipiafjievov is the reading 
of A, B, C, D, E, and a considerable number of others, supported 
by various versions and writers. 


The common reading may be regarded as a gloss upon 
Xeipurpevov, suggested by the following context, Moxr^ pev yap, 
K . T . \. a mistaken view of connexion which also led to the 
intrusion of the undoubtedly spurious particle yap, at a point 
where a new ground of argument and appeal commences (v. 22). 

The reading which is so strongly supported by external evi 
dence, conveys the more forcible and complete idea of a person 
both before appointed for an advent of visitation, and also ever 
ready to execute that function, whenever the time should be ripe 
for the event. 

ACTS IV. 27. 

yap ejr a\r)6eias eiri TOV ayiov 
crov Irjcrovv, K. T. X. 

For of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, etc. 

After a\r)6eia<f, the addition ev ry TroXet ravrrj is found in A 
(TroXet <TOV), B, D, E, and more than twenty others, supported by 
the unanimous voice of versions, and a considerable number of 
ecclesiastical writers. For truly there were gathered in this 
city, etc. 

It might seem a piece of inconsistency, or an instance of pre 
judice in favour of mere antiquity, to call for the admission of 
matter into the text on the evidence of those very authorities 
which are continually invoked for the contrary purpose. A con 
sideration, however, is at hand to show that here too the ancient 
authorities must prevail. The practice of stichometry* was 
attended by this evil, that entire <rri%oi, such as eV 777 TroXet 
rainrj, would be liable to be overlooked in transcription, especially 
when, as in the present case, one was not material to the sense, 
and several successive ones began with the same letter. The 

* Some account of this method may be seen in Davidson s Biblical 
Criticism, Vol. II. chap. ii. 


custom of recording the number of the crri^oi at the end of 
a book would no doubt act as a safeguard, if only that machinery 
were constantly and accurately employed by copyists : but omis 
sions arising from this particular cause would be transferred with 
out chance of detection into transcripts where the stichometrical 
arrangement was not retained. 

When, therefore, a group of words which would be thrown 
into a err t%o<?, is wanting in later copies, its absence must be 
assigned to this particular cause, and it must be replaced in the 
text on evidence which ascends higher than the date of sticho 
metrical influence ; and thus a peculiar exception will be admitted 
to that general principle of criticism, according to which the 
shorter reading claims a preference. 

ACTS VI. 8. 

e TrXrjprjs 7naTea>? KOU (^a/news*, K. r. A. 
And Stephen, full vf \_faitk \grace~\ and power, etc. 

On Tricrreo)? the variation ^apm><? is the reading of A, B, D, 
and more than twenty others, supported by the Vulgate, Coptic, 
Sahidic, Armenian, etc., and various writers ; while E has 

On this evidence the variation claims the preference, the com 
mon reading having probably been at first an interpretation of it, 
purporting that the grace by which the miracles were wrought 
was that of vigorous faith. 


ACTS VII. 37. 

i>fJLiv dvao-Trjcrei Kvpios o Oeo$> K 
d8e\(j)a>v vfJiwv coy efj,e- avrov aKOvo-taOe. 

A prophet shall [the Lord your] God raise up unto you of 
your brethren, like unto me; [him shall ye hear]. 

The last clause is wanting in A, B, H, and more than thirty 
others, the Sahidic, etc. It is thus rendered at least doubtful, 
especially when assimilative influence is taken into account; from 
which also must have arisen K. 6. 6. v. for the simple form 6 0eo?. 


Ovros e&Tiv rj BvvafJLLS TOV Oeov 77 

This man is the great power of God. 

A fuller expression, 77 Kakovpevr) fj,eyd\.rj, is found in A, B, C, 
D, E, and nine others, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, Armenian, 
etc., and especially Irenasus, so far at least as the Latin translation 
may be accepted as evidence. 

The variation is not immaterial ; for the words, as they stand 
in the common text, might be no more than an exclamation of 
excessive wonder, but, by the insertion of the word in question, 
they express an identification of Simon with an individual energy 
of which the idea was previously present to the minds of the 
speakers, and its designation was specifically rj Svva/M? TOV eov 
i] peyaXr) The (so styled) great power of God. 

This identity was also formally assumed by Simon according 
to the statement of Origen, e^xzcr/cey avrbv elvai Swa/ui> eou rrjv 
Ka\ov/Aevr)v fjt,jd\rjv (c. Cels. vi. p. 282); while the term itself 
appears to have been a primary one of his scheme of philosophy. 


It might be fairly suggested that KaXovpivrj was originally 
a gloss, explaining in this way the definiteness of the expression 
TI Svva/Ais rj peyaXij ; but the general character of marginal matter, 
as far as it is brought into view, is of a far less refined and 
artificial character than this. The word, too, might easily have 
been lost by 6^oiore\evTov. 


e o <& iXnriros t TricrTeveis e 0X779 rrjs 
^ea-TLv. airoKpiOeis 8e elire inoTCVG) TOV 
vlov rov Oeov elvcu, TOV Irjaovi XpicrTov. 

[And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, 
tliou moyest. And he answered and said, I believe that 
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.~\ 

This entire verse is wanting in A, B, C, G, H, and more than 
sixty others, the Codex Amiatinus of the Hieronymian Latin 
pr. man., the Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, etc. 

The passage also exhibits that mark of spuriousness, shiftings 
of shape. Thus, for instance, its best authority E, instead of 
e^ecrriv has crwOija-rj, and for TTICTTCVCO . . . Xpia-rov, reads Tnareva) 
et9 TOV X. TOV vL TOV &. 

The whole is undoubtedly an artificial supplement, where the 
unstudied brevity of the narrative had left the appearance of an 
unconditional administration of the rite. 


ACTS IX. 5, 6. 

*O de Kvpios elirev eyco d^i lya-ovs ov (TV 

Sl.a>Kl?- (TK\J]pOV (TOL TTpOf KWTpa XaKTL^LV. Tpt- 

re Kal Qa^wv elire- Kvpie, ri /ue QeXfi? TTOLTJ- 
Kal o Kvpioy irpos avrov avacrTT]6L, K. r.\. 

And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest : 
[it is hard for thee to hick against the pricks. And he 
trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have 
me to do 9 And the Lord said unto him, ] etc. 

When it is considered that this transaction is thrice narrated 
in this book, it would have been strange, unless the three narra 
tives had originally been cast in close verbal agreement, had there 
been no traces of mutual influence. 

For the entire portion crK\^p6v . . . Trpo? avrov not one existing 
Greek MS. can be cited ; though E, 180, and the Peshito, add 
the clause a-Khypov .... Aa/mety at the end of the preceding 
verse, being evidently an assimilative accretion from the parallel 
place (xxvi. 14). The authorities for the common text are little 
more than the ordinary Vulgate and the JEthiopic. 

In place of the portion in question must be substituted, in 
accordance with the mass of authorities, simply the connecting 
particle d\\d. 

A, B, C, and five others, with the Vulgate, omit the words 
L7rev. A, C, E, and three others, with the Peshito, 
Coptic, JEthiopic, etc., append after I^croO? the assimilation 
6 vafopaios (xxii. 8). 


ACTS X. 6. 

Ovrof gevi^ETOU Trapd TLVL ^lyiwvi (3vpo~ei <a 
<TTLV OLKLa Trapa 6aXa<T(Ta.v ovrof XaX^aei croi ri 
ae 8ei 

He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by 
the sea side : he shall tell tliee ivhat thou oughtest to do. 

v. 32. 

Ovrof 1-evifieTOU ei> OLKLO, Siifjiwvos (Svpcrecos Trapa 
OaXacraav os TrapaytvofJievos XaXrjo-ei croi. 

He is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner, by the 
sea side ; who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee. 

In the former of these parallel places the entire clause ouro9 - . 
is wanting in A, B, C, E, G, and many others, and the 
versions in general. The strongest support is found in the 
^Ethiopia and the common text of the Vulgate, though it is 
wanting in the Codex Amiatinus and other important copies of 
the latter. It is clearly spurious. 

In the latter, the clause 05 ... croi, is wanting in A, B, and 
seven others, the Vulgate, Coptic, and JEthiopic ; but it has the 
support of C, D, E, G, H, and the remaining majority of MSS. 
and versions, as also Chrysostom and Theophylact. In this con 
flict it must be attended with doubt. 

In the third parallel place (xi. 13, 14), the corresponding clause 
is not affected by any variation. 


ACTS X. 19. 

"Avdpes rpel? r)TOvcri ere. 

[ Three] men seek thee. 

There are some peculiar circumstances relating to the reading 
rpeif. Its authorities are A, C, E, etc., the Vulgate, Peshito, the 
margin of the later Syriac. 

The word is altogether wanting in D, G, H, and more than 
fifty others, the Armenian, the later Syriac, etc., as well as in 
several writers, including Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem, and 
in the Apostolical Constitutions. This is sufficient to raise grave 
doubts at least of the genuineness of the word, especially since 
it would be so obvious a supplement from the preceding context, 
as also from the subsequent statement of the number (xi. 11). 

Thus far the case is only one of a very numerous class ; but 
there exists besides a circumstance which must enter into the 
discussion. I&ou avSpes Svo ^rouvre? ae, is the reading of B 
alone. The term Svo at once challenges remark, and calls up 
several observations. 

In the first place, Svo is not really incompatible with the pre 
ceding context ; for, though Cornelius despatched three persons, 
yet the two domestics alone may be viewed as the bearers of the 
communication, the trusty soldier being merely a protective escort. 

All this, however, by no means helps forward an attempt to 
account for the existence of the word ; for it must be at once 
seen, that in case of the bare reading avSpes being found in the 
text, the ready supplement would not be Svo, but rpefc supplied 
from two places ; and still less likely is the suggestion of Svo 
upon T/36t9, which latter would call for neither explanation nor 
improvement on account of any real or seeming inconsistency. 

Under these circumstances a question at least will steal in, 
whether the solitary but high authority B may have preserved 
the "true reading. At all events there is much to favour the idea, 
that Tpefc is either an arbitrary supplement, or a corrective gloss 
upon Svo. 


ACTS XL 12. 
Efartv 8e fJLOL TO irvevfJia crvveXOelv avrois 

And the Spirit bade me go with them [nothing doubting], 

The words /ArjSev Biafepivo/Aevov are wanting in D, and have 
nothing answering to them in the later Syriac ; while fj,TjSev 
Sia/cplvavra or [ArjSev Siafcpivovra, the difference being immaterial, 
is the reading of A, B, and some others. 

The slender amount of evidence for the simple spuriousness 
of the words in question is enforced by the appearance, which 
they present, of an assimilative accretion from the parallel place 
(x. 30). 

On the other hand, it may be urged in support of the genuine 
ness of the rival reading above mentioned, that it cannot be 
resolved into a supplement borrowed from that place, since it 
bears a different meaning, namely, making no difference 
between Jew and Gentile. 

Besides, SiaKpivo/jievov might have been a borrowed, though 
erroneous, gloss on SiaKpivovra ; but the converse process is hardly 

The case is a perplexing one, but its bearing seems on the 
whole adverse to the common text. 


ACTS XI. 20. 

Se TLves e avrtov avSpts Kvirpwi KCU 
oirives eXOovres elf Ai>TLO\eiap cXa- 
Xovv Trpof rovf EXXrjVHTTas. 

And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, 
which, tvhen they were come to Antioch, spake unto the 
[Grecians X Greeks ^. 

The common reading .EXX^wo-ra? is supported by B apparently, 
D sec. man., E, G, H, and the mass of MSS., A and D pr. man. 
alone exhibiting "EXX^ra?, which appears, too, to have been read 
by Eusebius, Cassiodorus, and others. 

This overwhelming numerical preponderance of external evi 
dence is fairly overbalanced by an internal consideration of sin 
gular force, namely, the positive absurdity of the common reading ; 
for the distinctive term from EX\,v)viaTai is Eftpaioi, (vi. 1), not 
lovSaioi (v. 19); and the persons who are here represented as 
taking a marked step by addressing the Gospel message in a new 
quarter, were themselves EX\.r)Vicrrai. 

Thus the variation tr E\\rjva?, with its narrow amount of exter 
nal support, must be at once adopted. Cypriot and Cyrenean 
Jews were qualified, as being EXX^i/tcrrat, to address themselves 
to those who were strictly f E\\ijves. 

A, B, and a few others, supported by the Vulgate, prefix an 
emphatic /cat, so that the reading would be e XaXow KOI 777)09 TOJ)? 

The restored reading is most important, as bringing into view 
the first decisive effort towards raising the Gentile church, of 
which little more than the foundation stone had been laid in 



Kcu to? TecrcrapaKovTaerri yjpovov e 
GLVTOVS ev rfj 

And about the time of forty years \_suffered he their man 
ners \ nourished them] in the icilderness. 

The striking variation as regards meaning, though slight in 
form, erpo(J3o(f)6pf}crv, is given by A, C pr. man., E, and seven 
others, and is represented by most of the versions ; while the 
common reading is that of B apparently, C sec. man., D, G, H, 
and the remaining mass, being represented also in the Vulgate, 
and written in the margin of the later Syriac; it is also found in 
Origen, Chrysostom, and other writers. 

The evidence is thus fairly conflicting, though that of the 
versions alone is strongly in favour of the variation. 

It is most probable that a variation so slight in form had its 
rise in mere accident, and therefore decisive aid is not to be 
expected from internal considerations. It may, however, be 
remarked that rpoTrofopecv, being found in one of the Greek 
scraps of Cicero s epistles (Att. xiii. 29), may be regarded as 
a term of familiar currency, while rpo<j)o(f>opelv is certainly rare, 
and may even be a coinage of Jewish Greek : a copyist would 
therefore readily slip from the latter into the former. The 
peculiar meaning too of rpoiro^opelv does not harmonise with 
the tone of the narrative, in which there is nothing objurgatory, 
and which sets forth the positive favours of divine interposition. 


ACTS XIII. 19, 20. 

Ka\ KaOtXcov eOinj eVra ev yfj Xavaav *are- 
K\r)po$orr](Tev avrols TTJV yr\v OLVTWV. Kal yuera 
ravra ws ereo-i rtTpaKOO-iois KOLL irevrrjKOVTa edw- 


And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of 
Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after 
that, he gave unto them judges, about the space of four 
hundred and fifty years. 

This passage has been remarkable for its contribution to the 
chronological difficulties that beset the present text of Scripture. 
The view that would naturally be taken of the clause &>? err. T. 
Kal TT., is that it expresses the period included between the settle 
ment of the tribes and the administration of Samuel ; a reckoning 
exhibiting a certain accordance with an incidental mention of 
time in the Book of Judges (xi. 26), but quite irreconcilable with 
one positive date given in the First Book of Kings (vi. 1), and 
still more so with conclusions involved in genealogical and other 
recorded facts. It might, however, be viewed as parenthetically 
intimating the time embraced by the events previously mentioned 
(ravra), from the settlement of the tribes up to the period signi 
fied in the words ee\earo rou9 Trarepa? rifjiwv. The difficulty 
would in this view be lessened on account of the vagueness of the 
epoch implied in those words, but the construction is awkward. 
This awkwardness, however, would be removed, and this meaning 
necessarily borne by the clause, if it stood at the end of the pre 
ceding verse ; a position in which it actually appears in A, B, C, 
and six others, the Coptic, and Armenian. 

It might be objected to this evidence, that there has been 
a wilful shifting of the clause; but a concern about the matter, 
if such there were, would rather have led to a remedy more 
marked and complete. 



/cat e TW ajJicp TU> evTp(p ye-ypanrrai. 
As it also is written in the [second %jirst] psalm. 

In this place the reading of the common text is found in E, G, 
etc., Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose ; while A, B, C, 
and some others, have ev r. -fy. 767. TO> 8., and another arrange 
ment, ev r. 8. i/r., is given in H and others. These shiftings are 
of themselves suspicious. Ev TU> Trpcorw tyaXfjufp is the reading 
of D alone, but supported by the testimony of Origen, Tertullian, 
Hilary, Jerome, and other writers. 

This is a case where internal considerations abundantly com 
pensate for scantiness of external evidence; since accidental origi 
nation of the various reading is not conceivable, and its peculiarity 
is such as to exclude the idea of an artificial one, even in the 
margin. The variation may be adopted without hesitation. 

It would follow then that an arrangement or numbering of the 
Psalms once had currency, according to which the citation here 
made would be from the first Psalm ; but whether by a fusion 
of those which ordinarily appear as the first and second, or by 
reckoning that which is now numbered first, as a detached preface 
to the book, or in any other way, this is not the place to inquire. 

There are traces of the simple reading ev TU> ^aA/toS ; which 
may exhibit a summary avoidance of the difficulty attending the 


ACTS XV. 17, 18. 

Kvpios o iroi&v ravra iravra. 
air aiwvos eari rw Otw iravra ra epya avrov. 

Saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto 
God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 

The common text is here supported by E, G, H, etc., the later 
Syriac, the Apostolical Constitutions, Chrysostom, and others; 
while A reads yvwa-rbv air at. T& Kvpiw TO epyov avrov, as does 
D with the addition of eariv after at., and with this agree the 
Vulgate, the margin of the later Syriac with the omission of 
ra> K , and Irenasus according to the Latin translation. A shorter 
form, Xey. K. 6 IT. ravia yvaxrra air atwz^o?, is given by B, C, 
and more than ten others, the Sahidic, and Coptic. This is again 
varied in a few copies as follows, Xey. K. 6 TT. r. a eanv <yv. avrut 
cm at., with which the ^Ethiopia agrees. 

The appearance of these and other variations is of a kind to 
throw a suspicion on all that is found after raura; and there 
is no difficulty in assigning an origin for additional matter. In 
the original prophecy the reference of ravra is clear enough, 
namely, to those impending visitations of divine wrath which 
were the immediate subject of the prophet s communication ; but, 
looking at the citation as it here stands detached from its context, 
a reader would be led to refer the term to the events described 
in the passage itself; and, as it might seem necessary to explain 
in what way God might speak of himself as actually doing 
(TTOIWV) things which belonged to a distant futurity, comments 
in the way of explanation would readily arise, of forms at present 
embodied in the text of various copies, namely, fyavepa <yap air 
apxfc eVrt, K. r. \. a ea-ri <yva)<TTa, K. r. X. yvwarov e crrt, 
K. T. X., and so forth. 

The choice lies between two forms, namely, X. K. 6 TT. r. <yv. 
air at., Saith the Lord who makes these things known from all 
time; and X. K. 6 TT. T., Saith the Lord who is doing these 


ACTS XV. 24. 

ray fyvyas vfjL&v, Aej/oj/res- 
7rpiT[jLi>(r0ai /cat rr]peti> TOP VOJJLOV, ois ov 

Subverting your souls, \_saying, Ye must be circumcised, 
and keep the law :] to whom ive gave no such commandment. 

The clause \eyovres . . . vopov is wanting in A, B, D, 13, etc., 
the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, and ^Ethiopic versions, the Aposto 
lical Constitutions, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and others.. 

With this direct evidence of spuriousness there combines the 
appearance, which the clause undoubtedly wears, of an explana 
tory comment on the preceding words. 

ACTS XV. 33. 
AireXvOrjO av per eiprjwrjs OLTTO TU>V dSeXfiunr Trpo? 


They were let go in peace from the brethren [unto the 
apostles x those that sent them]. 

Instead of TOT)? aTroo-roAoi"?, which has the support of E, G, H, 
both Syriac versions, etc., row aTroa-TetXavra? avrovs is the reading 
of A, B, C, D, and many others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, and 
^Ethiopic versions, etc. 

It is possible that these latter words were a marginal appendage 
to the common reading, and afterwards supplanted it ; but a far 
more likely process is that of writing row? a/TrocrroXov? as a gloss; 
and since the amount of external evidence is on the whole also 
in favour of the various reading, it should therefore be preferred. 


ACTS XV. 34. 

"ESo^t 8e TW JEJ/Aa en-ifieivai avToi). 
[Notwithstanding, it pleased Silas to abide there still. ] 

This verse exhibits a considerable amount of variation, D 
having pr. man. at/row, sec. man. Trpo? avrovs, besides which 
ourot9 and avrodt, are found ; while D, as also the common text 
of the Vulgate, has the additional clause povos Se louSa? eVo- 
pevOrj, which is also found elsewhere. 

This might seem somewhat suspicious : but the entire verse, 
though found in C, the common Vulgate, and the Sahidic, is 
wanting in A, B, E, G, H, and about fifty others, the Latin 
in the Codices Amiatinus and Demidovianus, the Coptic, the 
.ZEthiopic, etc. 

The passage is undoubtedly spurious, being an officious appen 
dage directly expressing what is at once concluded from the 
succeeding context, namely, that Silas, though with his colleague 
Judas he had received his formal leave of the Antiochene church 
in his official capacity, still continued on the spot, till the separa 
tion took place between Paul and Barnabas. 


Kai OVK eiao-ev OLVTOVS TO 
But the Spirit -\- of Jesus + suffered them not* 

To this clause there is the addition Irjaov in A, B, C sec. man., 
D, E, and seven others, the Vulgate, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, Armenian, 
and both Syriac versions, Cyril, Jerome, and others. The omis 
sion is supported by G, H, the Sahidic, etc., Chrysostom, Theo- 
phylact, and (Ecumenius. 

* The marks + + include an addition to the common text. 


The evidence for the addition is strong ; still the bare term 
TO Trvevfut, would be of a kind to provoke an appendage ; and 
C, with the Codex Demidovianus, reads Kvptov. 


rw Trifev/JLart 6 HavXoy. 
Paul was pressed in the spirit. 

A marked variation, \6ya) for vrvevftaTt, is given by A, B, D, 
E, G, etc., the versions in general, Basil, Theodoret, and others. 
The common reading is found in H, etc., the Armenian, the 
margin of the later Syriac, Theophylact, and CEcumenius. 

The weight of external evidence -is clearly in favour of the 
variation. The words rc3 Trvev^an may have been originally 
a comment, attached to o-we/^ero for the purpose of intimating 
that the term was to be taken in a mental sense. 

But on the arrival from Macedonia of both Silas and Timo- 
theus, Paul was closely engaged with the word, while testifying, 
etc. ; that is, by the time of their arrival the Apostle was in full 


L de iravres ol EXXrjvts ^( 
TOV apyi<TVvaya>yov, K. r. A. 

Then [all the Greeks X they alf] took Sosthenes, the chief 
ruler of the synagogue. 

The words ol "E\\r)V$ are wanting in A, B, the Vulgate, 
Coptic, etc. 

The adverse evidence is thus narrow in amount but significant, 


and is indirectly supported by the fact that several copies have 
lovScuot or ol lavSaioi, a reading which could only have arisen 
as an explanatory appendage to the bare term Trdvres. 

It is not easy to see what motive the Greeks could have had 
for maltreatment of the Jews on this occasion, however much 
they might have been disposed to indulge a scornful merriment 
at their expense ; but by the absence of the words in question the 
transaction is at once cleared up. In this way it would appear 
that the body of the Jews, mortified at the rebuff they had 
received, but at the same time interpreting the proconsul s words 
(cnlrecr#e avroi) as giving them a certain licence, proceeded to 
beat a principal apostate to the new doctrine ; a measure viewed 
by Gallio with the same unconcern as the previous appeal to his 
magisterial authority. Thus Sosthenes appears as a Christian 
convert, to be readily identified with the associate and companion 
of the Apostle when he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthian 

ACTS XVIIl. 21. 

aTrera^aro avrols eLTrcov del (JL iravraiS rrjv 
eoprrjv rr]v ep^ofjievrjv TTOLrjcraL ely lepoo-oXv/Jia. 

But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep 
this feast that cometh in Jerusalem. 

The entire clause Set ... lepoaoKv^a is wanting in A, B, E, 
and nine others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, and 
Armenian versions; its main authorities being D, G, H, and both 
Syriac versions. 

Besides the omission, other variations, similarly supported, 
would give to the entire passage the following form : a\\a 
aTTora^dfjievof Kal eiirdov, ird\iv dvatcdfji^a} ?rpo9 ty/.a<? rov &eov 
0eXovTO?, dvr) %9r) dirb TT}? Efyeaov. But after taking leave, and 
saying, I will return to you again if God will, he set sail from 


The reader of the Acts must often have noticed the incon 
sistency between the importance which the Apostle s language, 
according to the common text, here attaches to his intended visit 
to Jerusalem, and its insignificance in the subsequent narrative, 
where the entire transaction is left to be gathered by implication 
from the necessary meaning of the word avaftds (v. 22). 

ACTS XX. 28. 

v TT]V iK.K\r)crLav rov Oeov, K. r. X. 
To feed the church [of God X of the LordJ] 

The variations upon rov eov are the following, rov Kvplov, 
TOV K. /cal ., TOV 0. Kal K., TOV K. ., and TOV XpiaTov. A 
glance at this group at once shows that it has grown from the 
margin, whatever may have been the original germ. 

The last mentioned variation rests almost solely on the Peshito, 
being also found once in Origen, twice in Theodoret, and in three 
copies of Athanasius. It may thus be disposed of at once, and 
may be regarded as a gloss which might have been appended 
either to eov or Kvpiov; but, when once interlinear or marginal, 
it could hardly have been substituted by a transcriber for the 
former, though it might have been readily for the latter. 

The three which precede it, may be classed together, as only 
different shapes of a concretion of the text and the margin ; 
though the first of them, TOV K. teal ., has really the greatest 
numerical amount of external evidence in its favour of all the 
readings, namely, C ter. man., G, H, and more than a hundred 
others, etc., while the evidence for the remaining two of the 
three is quite immaterial. Thus the discussion finally lies between 
eov and Kvpiov. 

In support of the former there are cited B, and about twenty 
others, the Vulgate undoubtedly, and the later Syriac, Epipha- 
nius, Ambrose, CEcumenius, and other writers. 

The latter is the reading of A, C pr. mail., D, E, (the two 


latter also in their Old Latin), and fourteen others, the Coptic, 
Sahidic, Armenian, and the margin of the later Syriac, Irenaeus 
as represented in the Latin translation, Eusebius, the Apostolical 
Constitutions, Lucifer, Augustine, and others. 

Chrysostom cannot be decisively cited, though in one place 
(Eph. iv. 12) the text is quoted with Kvplov, but without reference 
to the word in the comment ; and the matter must also be left in 
uncertainty with respect to Athanasius and Theophylact. 

It will be at once seen that the common text, though possessed 
of very considerable support, is met by a preponderance of evi 
dence on the side of the rival reading, on the several grounds of 
MSS., versions, and writers. 

It remains to make one important remark; that, according to 
the common reading, the passage bears strongly upon more than 
one great dogmatic controversy, and, accordingly, had this form 
possessed established currency in the age of those disputes, its 
employment as a dogmatic weapon ought to be of no unfrequent 
occurrence in the writings of that age ; whereas the contrary 
is evidently the case. 

Indeed, in the present instance, no fact in evidence more 
strongly challenges attention, than that a reading of so marked 
a polemical significance does not emerge clearly into view on 
the page of ecclesiastical literature before the age of Epiphanius, 
Cyril of Alexandria, and Ambrose. 

ACTS XXI. 22. 
del TrXrjflo? <TvveX0iv 9 aKOvcrovTai yap on 

The multitude must needs come together : for they will hear 
that thou art come. 

In the place of this passage a shorter form, irdvrw^ aKovaovrai 
OTI, e\tf\vOas, is found in B, C pr. man., and five others, in the 
Coptic, Sahidic, the later Syriac, and substantially in the Peshito, 
-flSthiopic, and Armenian. The common text is given by A, C 


sec. man., D, E, G, H, the Vulgate, etc., but with some variations. 
It has, however, been in all probability amplified by the intrusion 
of a marginal clause, Set 7rX7?0o9 o-vve\0elv, so many of which 
were framed to make expression of ideas which would necessarily 
or readily rise to the mind from the bare text, unfurnished with 
such gloss or augmentation. Clear instances of this process are 
also supplied by the variations occurring xxii. 20; xxiv. 23, 26; 
xxv. 16. 

According then to the variation, the passage is thus reduced: 
They will certainly hear that thou art come. 

ACTS XXI. 25. 

Kpivavres /JLijdev TOLOVTOV rriptiv avrov? el JJLTJ 
avrov? TO re i8a>Xo0vTov, K. r. A. 

Concluded [that they observe no such thing, save only] that 
they keep themselves from things offered to idols, etc. 

This case, respecting the genuineness of the words fj,r)Sev .... 
et IJLTJ, resembles the last, and is open to a similar conclusion. 

The words in question are wanting in A, B, and three others, 
the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, and ^Ethiopia versions. 
They are found, however, in C, D, E, G, H, the later Syriac, etc., 
but with some variations, which are themselves tokens of spu- 



Ol Se crvv IfjLol ovres TO fj.ev (pcos eOeaa-avro KOU 

rr/i> de (f)(Dvr)v, K. r. A. 

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, \and were 
afraid ;] but they heard not the voice, etc. 

This case, again, is of a precisely similar complexion. The 
words Kal e/A<f)o/3oi ejevovro are wanting in A, B, H, and seven 
others, the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic, Armenian, etc. They are 
found in D, E, G, the Sahidic, the later Syriac, etc.; but the 
weight of evidence is against them. 

El 8e TrvevfJia e\a\r)crev avTcp r) ayyeXos*, fjifj 6eo- 

If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, [let us not fight 
against God~\. 

The concluding clause, yu-r) Oeopa^M/^ev, is wanting in A, B, C 
pr. man., E, and three others, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, 
Armenian, and later Syriac. 

The clause is clearly a supplement ; and the scholiast who 
framed it has not shown a nice judgment, for the speakers, 
having no partizanship for the prisoner, would not be likely 
to commit themselves to language so marked as fjur) Oeoi^a^Mf^ev : 
while the aposiopesis of the writer gives a representation as true 
as it is lively. The supplement exhibited by the Peshito, ]lio 
IjOlO O1O A*] , What [harm] is there in that? is more cautious 
and consistent. Its existence, too, supplies indirect evidence, if 
such were required, of the spuriousness of the clause in question. 


ACTS XXIV. 6, 7, 8. 

Ov KCU KpaTr)(ra/Jii> KCU Kara TOV 

r]BeXr)craiJLev Kpiveiv. TraptXOwv 8e Avcrias 
6 yiXiapyos fiera TroXXfj? /3la? e/c rwv xeipco 
aTrrjyaye, KeXevcra? rovs Karrf-yopovs avrov 
6cu CTTL cr Trap ov $vvr)O"ri) K. T. X. 

Whom we took, [and would have judged according to our 
law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with 
great violence took him aioay out of our hands. Command 
ing his accusers to come unto thee:~\ by examining of whom, 

The question which arises here, concerns the genuineness of 
the entire portion ical Kara .... eVl ere. 

In the first place, the whole is found under a distinct phase 
of expression in some copies, and with considerable variations 
in others circumstances in themselves indicative of spurious 

The matter in question, however, is entirely wanting in A, B, 
G, H, and about forty others, the Codices Amiatinus and Tole- 
tanus of the Hieronymian Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, etc., its 
main support being E, and both Syriac versions. On these 
grounds it may be discarded without hesitation. 


ACTS. XXIV. 18. 

Ev oly evpov /JL r]yvL(T^ivov ev ro> iepcp, ov 
yuera o%Xov ovde /zera Oopvfiov, TLVZS UTTO TTJS 
Acrlas lovSaioi ov? edei eTrl aov Trapelvai, K. r. A. 

Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in 
the temple, neither with multitude^ nor with tumult: who 
ought to have been here before thee, etc. 

The particle Be must be inserted after rives on the authority 
of A, C, E, and a considerable number besides, the Vulgate, 
Coptic, Sahidic, the later Syriac, etc. 

This slight addition materially alters the form of the passage, 
and brings out an abrupt and disjointed shape which bears the 
impress of reality. It will stand thus: ev ot<? . . . . 0opv/3ou, rives 
Se UTTO Acrlas lovSaloi ou? e Sa .... TT/JO? e/jue >) avrol, K. r. \: 
1 On which occasion they found me purified in the temple: but 
certain Asiatic Jews persons that ought to have been here, etc., 
or let these here themselves say, etc. The statement com 
menced with the words rive? Se is at once broken off and never 
resumed, the speaker following the train of his sudden digression. 


TV(f)(t)l>LKO$ O 

A tempestuous wind called [Eurocly don X Euroaquilo\. 

The common reading, Evpo/cXvScw or Evpo/cXvSwv, is that of 
the great majority of copies, including G and H. It is, however, 
internally suspicious, because the formation and meaning of the 
word are not very intelligible. Evpa/cvXwv, the reading of A 
and B pr. man., though in itself still more unaccountable, has its 


form at once cleared up, and its claim for adoption established, 
by means of its representative in the Vulgate, Euroaquilo. 

The strange shapes, evpafcrjXfov, evrpa/cfacw, evpa,K\v&ov, a 
knowledge of which is acquired through the Sahidic, Coptic, and 
later Syriac respectively, may be regarded as perversions of this 
latter, readily arising with those who, unlike the Latin translator, 
had no means of unriddling the true form. 

Evpv/c\v8a)v, found in B sec. man. and two others, though 
unobjectionable in form, rests upon too slight authority to acquire 
a particular claim to consideration. 

Evpaitvkwv, wliich simply Grecises Euroaquilo, demands the 
preference among the various shapes of the name. 

Kca ravra avrov eiTrovTO?, aTrrfXOov ol lovdaioi, 

\And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and 
had great reasoning among themselves^] 

This entire verse is wanting in A, B, E, 13, 40, 68, the Codices 
Amiatinus and Demidovianus, k, and other Latin authorities, the 
Peshito, Coptic, etc. ; its principal witnesses being G, H, and the 

There can hardly be a doubt that it is a spurious incumbrance, 
idly repeating what has been distinctly told already (v. 25). 



Ov yap OL aKpoarai TOV VO/JLOV SiKaiot irapa 

For not the hearers of [the] law are just before God, but the 
doers of [the] law shall be justified. 

In the writings of St. Paul the term 6 vopos can signify only 
the Mosaic law, except there be cases where the article has been 
prefixed purely on account of previous mention or implication. 

On the other hand, there are places where, though the Mosaic 
law in particular must have been present to the mind of the 
Apostle, yet the word i/6/io? is anarthrous ; and it might be 
thence concluded, that the converse of the rule just given is not 
true, but that the article has been occasionally omitted by a very 
natural license. 

This is indeed possible : but it would be an unworthy treat 
ment of the writer to dismiss the matter in a way so summary 
and incurious, and to consign at once to license what may be 
designed and significant. 

It is more reasonable to recognise in these places an instance 
of a practice not uncommon, especially in pointed and antithetical 
language, a practice of giving a more general, and by that means 
more striking, turn of expression to a limited proposition by the 
substitution of anarthrous terms for the definite. Such a process 
can hardly fail to be recognised in the words, eyeo <yap 8ia vo^iov 
vo/j,o) aTreOavov (Gal. ii. 19), Through law died to law, that is, 
the condemnatory operation of law, experienced in the case of the 
Law, cut me off from any reliance on law for justification. Equally 
clear is the antithetical effect produced by the absence of the 
article in another place, el yap etc VO/AOV rj K\ijpovofi,la, ov/ceri e 
6^0776X10,9 (Gal. iii. 18); and there is a peculiar forcibleness in 


the general range given by the same means to the proposition, 
e epyatv VO/AOV ov SiKaiwdrfa-erai Tracra (rapt; (ii. 16). 

The passage in question is reduced to such a form according 
to certain authorities which omit the article before vo/nov in both 
clauses, namely, A, B, D pr. man., G, etc.: and their reading 
must be at once accepted, when it is considered that there would 
be a strong disposition to supplement a seeming omission. The 
same conclusion must also be adopted with regard to the omission 
of TO) before vofta), ver. 17. 

These passages, and others to which the preceding observations 
apply, may be thus exhibited : For it is not the hearers of law 
that are just in the estimation of God, but the doers of law shall 

be justified But if thou art styled a Jew and art resting on 

law .... thou then that makest a boast in law, through breach 
of the Law dishonourest thou God? .... For circumcision is an 
advantage, if thou performest law, but if thou art a transgressor 

of law, thy circumcision has become uncircumcision The 

natural uncircumcision, in case of its discharging the Law, shall 
bring a sentence on thee who, though in possession of a written 
form [of enactment] and bearing the badge of circumcision, art 
a transgressor of law. 

In these and other passages there is sufficient illustration of an 
intensity of expression, acquired by discarding the article, far 
more in character with the writer than a license of usage which, 
if recourse be had to it, must be allowed to have been used in a 
way altogether capricious. 


a ovv 8iKatovor0ai Triarft avOpayrrov 

[ Therefore X For] we conclude that a man is justified by 
faith without the deeds of the law. 

Instead of the particle ovv, wliicli is supported by B apparently, 
C, D ter. man., E perhaps, J, K, and a great number besides, 
by both Syriac versions, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
CEcumcnius, etc., the variation yap is given by A, D pr. man., F, 
G, and nine others, the Coptic, the Latin versions, and Fathers. 

The resulting difference of meaning is, that, with the former 
reading, the statement appears as a logical deduction from the 
preceding matter, while, with the latter, there is an appeal to it 
as a point already established or admitted. 

This latter is quite in accordance with the context; for, that 
justification is %&>pi9 epyow VO/AOV, has been just before formally 
concluded (vs. 20, 21), as also the actual means of its attainment 
(vs. 21, 22). 

Thus, in the conflict of evidence, the probability is on the side 
of the various reading yap. 

Ti ovv epov/jLcv Afipaafji TOP Trarepa r^av fvprj- 


What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as per 
taining to the flesh, hath found? 

A considerable portion of the body of various readings exhibits 
no more than a difference of order in the words, and of these 
some are altogether immaterial, and others simply offer some 


slight variety of point or emphasis. The present one, however, 
concerns the construction and meaning of the sentence. 

As it stands in the common text, the immediate connexion of 
the words KCITCI, adp/ca is with evprjtcevai, according to the laws of 
collocation. But if this latter be placed before A/3pad/m, the 
former most readily link with Trarepa. 

This arrangement is exhibited by A, C, D, F, G, and a few 
others, several versions, Eusebius, Cyril, etc.; the common one 
by B (for aught that has been noted to the contrary), J, K, and 
the remaining mass of MSS., both Syriac versions, and several 
commentators. Chrysostom, in his comment, connects the words 
Kara adp/ca with Trarepa, which shews that either, while reading 
as in the common text, he took the liberty of interpreting as if 
it had been rov TT. 77. ev. TOV K. cr., or that he had before him a 
different collocation. 

There would be a ready, though mistaken, tendency to fall 
into this connexion of the words, and hence would also arise 
a disposition to arrange the sentence so as to exhibit such con 
nexion directly. This consideration serves to abate the force of 
the evidence against the order of the common text. It may well 
be retained : and the interpretation of the passage should be 
strictly conformed to it. 

ROMANS V. I.>6evTs ovv K Trio-Tews eiprjvrjv 
rov Oebv 8ia TOV Kvpiov rj^wv Irjaov XpicrTov. 

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The question which arises on this passage, respects the claims 
of the variation e^wpev. It is supported by A, B, C, D, J, K, 
and several others; while e^o/uey rests upon E, F, G, and a large 
number besides. Thus far the evidence for e^w^ev is considerable. 
But this is a case where the testimony of MSS. must be received 


with caution, if not with abatement, on account of that inter 
change of o and w which, with others of like kind, affects in 
different degrees many existing copies : still, no exception can 
be taken on this ground to the evidence of B, on account of its 
general orthographical correctness, a character which may also 
be claimed, in the main, for the entire group. It is in such an 
instance that patristic testimony and that of versions acquire a 
special importance. 

The Old Latin and the Vulgate support e%<a/uei/, and many 
Latin writers, as might be expected, range on the same side. 
This is also the reading of the Greek commentators. The 
evidence of Chrysostom is important, because, while he deals 
with rival interpretations of the place, a proceeding which the 
adoption of e%o/tev would render unnecessary, he betrays no con 
sciousness of conflicting readings. It is, therefore, not unreason 
able to conclude, that e%&>/uez/ stood in the text of the passage as 
it was current in the ecclesiastical region with which the great 
commentator was connected. 

It must be admitted, then, that this reading has strong claims 
for, at least, a favourable attention. 

It is by no means unlikely that it has encountered tacit dis 
favour in more recent times, because its adoption would produce 
a singular, if not a difficult, expression ; a circumstance which 
cannot be denied, but which, according to critical rules, ought 
not to be an adverse one. 

Chrysostom discusses the passage at length, but the main points 
of his observations are the following. Tl eartv, elprjvijv e^w/iez/; 
uve9 pev (fracriv on [JLTJ &iacrra(ndcra>fjiev <j)i\oveiKovvre? rov VO/JLOV 
elcrayayetv e ^oi Be 8o/cet Trepl TroXtreta? r^lv \OITTOV SiaXeyeaQai,. 
.... elp^vrjv fytopeir TOirreart, py/ceri ajJbaprdvwpev, /i^Se 777309 
ra irporepa eTravepxcofAeOa rovro ydp eart iro\efiov e)(eiv 777309 
rov eov. To the same effect Theodoret: Trpoo-ijtcei Se u/ia9 rrjv 
Trpov rov eov ryeyevfifievrjv <f)v\drreiv elpqvtjv. According to 
these commentators the words in question contain an exhortation 
to the maintenance, by practical holiness, of peace with God, 
already founded in justification through faith ; an interpretation 
which the words may fairly bear. It may, however, be observed 
that they seem to find their best illustration, as regards their 


precise meaning, in the passage, ravra \e\d\rjKa vjuv fra eV e/uot 
elprjvijv e^re (John xvi. 33); and that, in general, the expression 
e^eiv elp., strictly represents the object as a matter of positive 
enjoyment and possession, as distinguished from the ordinary 
ayeiv elp., which expresses a bare condition. Hence the words 
may be rendered: Having, then, obtained justification from 
faith, let us have [conscious] peace towards God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ. 


Mr] ovv /3a(n\veTO) 77 dfjiaprla ev TW 

rcofjiaTi elf TO viraKOVCLV avrfj kv rals em- 

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, [that ye 
should obey it in the lusts thereof ~\. 

On the clause et<? TO .... avrov there are two variations; et<? TO 
inr. Tais eV. avrov, which is the reading of A, B, C pr. man., and 
six others, supported by the Vulgate, the Latin sec. man. of D, 
the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, ./Ethiopia, Armenian, Origen, many 
Latin writers, etc., and et? TO VTT. avrfj, found in D with its Latin 
version pr. man., E, F, G with its Latin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, 
and Victor Tununensis. 

These facts suggest at least the question, whether the Apostle 
wrote no more than et? TO inraKovetv, so that the variations 
would exhibit two independent accretions, both of early origina 
tion, by the fusion of which the common text has been produced. 

Such a form is actually exhibited by 178, the Latin of E, 
Ambrose, and Faustinus. This slender amount of evidence, how 
ever, acquires considerable accession of force from the peculiar 
complexion of the facts previously noted, and, so supported, 
leaves, at least, serious doubt attaching to the whole, notwith 
standing the evidence in favour of the portion Tat? 


Nvvi 8e KaTr)pyr)0 r]/uLi> OLTTO TOV z/o/iou, airoOavov- 

> T / f\ 

TOS l> C) 

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead 
wherein we were held. 

In behalf of the reading airoQavwros it might be pleaded, that 
the sense produced by it exhibits an exact correspondence with 
the case just cited in illustration, namely, that believers have been 
set free from the hold of the Law by the death of the same, just 
as a wife is freed from the conjugal tie by the demise of her 
husband. But this circumstance ought rather to bring the read 
ing under the suspicion of artificial rectification. Besides, the 
Law is nowhere described by the Apostle as dead; and, accord 
ingly, he has already been obliged to deal rather loosely with his 
own illustration in the words, v/iefc edavarcodr)T rca VO/JUM (v. 4). 

Recourse must therefore be had to the variation airoOavovres, 
supported by A, C, J, K (the reading of B must be regarded as 
unknown), and more than sixty others, the Latin of the Codex 
Amiatinus, both Syriac versions, the Coptic, -<Ethiopic, Arme 
nian, etc., and many Greek and Latin Fathers. 

The sense would then be, But now we have been rid, by a 
death-parting, from the Law, in whose grasp we once were. 

The reading TOV OavaTov, though it has the considerable sup 
port of D, E, F, G, the Vulgate, etc., must be regarded as a case 
of usurpation ; having been originally a gloss appended to TOV 
vopov, which dislodged the word c 



-p \ <\V / > 

But I am carnal. 


OVK rjSvvq&rjv XaXrjcrai v^uv cos* TTvevfJLariKOis AA 

I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto 


These passages are considered together, because the same 
question arises upon both in the existence of the same variation. 

In the former, a-dp/ctvos is the reading of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 
and many others ; J, K, being the principal authorities for the 
common text. In the latter, crapKivoif is found in A, B, C pr> 
man., D pr. man., etc.; the common reading in D ter. man., E, 
F, G, J, etc, In this particular case the evidence of versions is 
nothing, and that of writers mainly uncertain. 

Though the difference of form is only in the termination, the 
resulting difference of meaning is not unimportant, being prima 
rily that between constituent matter and subject matter. Thus 
adpfcwos is a word of deeper signification, and, in its secondary 
use, must indicate some inner and deep seated quality, as con 
trasted with active principle and occupation, signified by words 
of the same form as crap/a/co?. 

Thus the Apostle terms the Corinthians aapKiKol (v. 3), in 
reference to their low and narrow rivalries and cliques. It is true 
that here too <rdpicivoi is the reading of D, F, G; but it may be 
at once rejected as the offspring of assimilation. In the next 
instance (v. 4), avdparn-oi, should be read on the authority of A, 
B, C, D, E, F, G, the Vulgate, Coptic, -^Ethiopic, etc. 

On the other hand, when speaking of himself as a sample of 
humanity in contrast with the abstract model of morality pro- 


pounded in the Law, the Apostle might well term himself crdp- 
KIVOS, Trejrpapevos virb rr)V a^apriav, a thing of flesh, sold under 
sin; and the Corinthians as vdpiavoi, creatures of flesh, with 
reference to the state in which the Gospel found them. 


apa vvv KaraKpi/jLa TOL? ev Xpicrrw 
T) Kara orapKa TrepnraTOvcnv aXXa Kara 

There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which 
are in Christ Jesus, [who walk not after the Jlesh, but after 
the Spirit], 

The entire clause fjurj . . . . Trvevpa is wanting in B, C, D pr. 
man., F, G, and a few others, the Coptic, Sahidic, and JEthiopic 
versions, and several Fathers. The first member alone is found 
in A, D sec. man., the Vulgate, Syriac, etc., Chrysostom, Basil, 
and various Latin writers. The whole appears in D ter. man., E, 
J, K, etc., Theodoret, Theophylact, and CEcumenius. 

These facts clearly point to the whole as an expository com 
ment on the words rot? / X. I., consisting in the first instance 
of the first member alone, and receiving in course of time the 
addition of the second. 



O eyetpas TOP Xpurrov e/c vtKputv o)07roir}a i 
TO. Oirqra crco/mra VJJLCOI dia TOV CVOLKOVVTOS 
CLVTOV Trvev^aros ev v\uv. 

He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken 
your mortal bodies \ly \ for the sake of~\ his Spirit that 
dwelleth in you. 

A variation, merely grammatical in form but not unimportant 
in effect, here claims attention, namely, Sia TO CVOIKOVV avrov 

The variation is the reading of B, D, E, F, G, J, K, and the 
great majority of copies, and is represented in the Vulgate, Syriac, 
and Sahidic. Of Fathers there are cited in support of it, Irenrcus, 
Origen, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theophylact, CEcumenius, etc. 
The comment of Chrysostom is based upon it, though he is also 
cited twice for the other reading. 

The common text rests upon A, C, and thirteen others, the 
Coptic, -ZEthiopic, later Syriac, and Sclavonic ; the cited Fathers 
being Clement, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Didy- 
mus, and Augustine . 

It is at once seen that ancient evidence is found on both sides ; 
and thus, whatever was the period at which the place was first 
affected by variation, it was at no recent date. The prepon 
derance, however, of existing testimony is in favour of the various 

The question has a dogmatic complexion, and, as such, is 
especially noted in the Dialogue between a Macedonian and an 
Orthodox Disputant; according to the latter of whom the reading 
which now appears in the common text, was at that time found 
in all the ancient copies ; a statement which, being polemical, 
must be taken with the caution and abatement requisite in such 

The rise of variation on this place is clearly of early date, and, 
as such, ascends beyond the time of actual dogmatic conflict on 


the point on which it bears : so that, though it can hardly have 
sprung from accidental causes, it would be unreasonable to refer 
it to positive dogmatic origination. Still a feeling, not absolutely 
controversial, may be readily imagined which would favour 
and foster the reading of the present common text, because it 
represents the subject of the expression in the more elevated and 
prominent position of direct agency and operation, instead of one 
of indirect causation. The same disposition would be called forth 
on another passage (v. 37) affected by a variation of the same 
form, namely, in the rival readings 8t,a TOV a^airrja-avro^ and Sia 
rov dycnrija-avTa; the latter of which is supported by D, E, F, G, 
the Vulgate, Sclavonic, and many Latin Fathers. 

Whatever be the decision on this parallel instance, in the place 
under discussion the preference is claimed for the variation Sia TO 
evoitcovv avrov 


El Se x a P iri > OVKCTI ef tpywv, eTret 77 
ovKTL yiverai x/^s" ^ Se ef epycov, ovKeri ecrrl 


And if by grace, then is it no more of works : otherwise 
grace is no more grace. \Eut if it be of works, then is it 
no more grace: otherwise work is no more work]. 

The genuineness of the entire portion el Be . . . . epyov is a 
matter of question. 

^ It is found in B, J, and the general mass of copies, in both 
Syriac versions, etc. It appears, too, in the present text of 
Chrysostom and Theodoret, but without any notice in the com 
mentary, in Theophylact, and CEcumenius. 

^ On^the other hand, besides that B has % ^ 9 instead of the 
final ep 7 ov, the first member el Se- ---- x dp^ is wanting in three 

>S., and the latter, eVel ---- %py ov , m one ; circumstances not 
unattended by suspicion. 


The whole is omitted by A, C, D, E, F, G, 47, the Vulgate, 
Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, and ^Ethiopic, by Johannes Damas- 
cenus, and the bulk of the Latins. 

The clause itself has an officious appearance, presenting merely 
the converse of the preceding proposition, without any bearing 
upon the context or addition to the force of the passage. Its 
genuineness cannot be maintained. 


Tw Kvplcp SovXevovre?. 
Serving [the Lord X the opportunity^. 

The common text is here supported by A, B, D ter. man., E, 
J, and the remaining mass of MSS., by the versions in general, 
and a great number of Greek and Latin writers. But /caipq) 
is the reading of D pr. man., F, G, 5, and appears to have been 
represented in various Latin copies. 

The variation of reading has all the appearance of having 
originated in accident. The great excess, however, of evidence 
in favour of the common text must suffer abatement from the 
consideration, that the various reading may itself be viewed as 
ancient ; that it gives a sense less simple and obvious than its 
rival, but one at least as well suited to the context; and that 
it might easily have been changed by a slip in transcription into 
an abbreviated form of Kvpiw. 




typovwv rrjv rj^epav Kvpiw (frpovel, KCU 6 fj,rj 
fypovcov rrjv YjfJLepav Kvpiw ov (j)poi>c o eorOiwv 

KvpLCp O-0ll, K. T. A. 

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; 
and [he that regardeth not the day, to the. Lord he doth not 
regard it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, etc. 

The entire clause 6 ^77 .... (frpovel is wanting in A, B, C pr. 
man., D, E, F, G, 23, 57, 67 sec. man., the Vulgate, Coptic, 
^Ethiopia, as also Jerome, and other Latin writers. It is found, 
however, in C ter. man., J, and the mass of MSS., in both Syriac 
versions, and various Greek writers. 

Here is a conflict mainly between antiquity and numbers. In 
aid of the latter there comes in the consideration, that oversight 
in transcription would here be favoured by similarity of ending 
in two consecutive clauses. 

But, on the other hand, it is important to observe that, had 
such omission taken place, it would have included the introduc 
tory particle icai: whereas, while the authorities for the omission 
read real 6 eadiwv, in many of those which contain it. the next 
clause commences without the conjunction, as in the common 
text. This appearance would result from the slipping in of an 
interlinear supplement between teat and 6 eadLwv, and thus con 
spires with the ancient evidence against the genuineness of the 

The supplementing of such a member would be readily sug 
gested by the shape of the succeeding context, to give a symme 
trical completeness to the entire passage, a symmetry of which the 
Apostle was not studious. 


See ROMANS VII. 14. 


J^Kao~TOv TO epyov OTTOIOV <TTLV TO irvp 8oKLfjLao~et. 
The fire shall try every man s work of what sort it is. 

The fuller reading, TO rrrvp avrb, is found in A, B, C, and 
seven others, the Sahidic, Origen in one place, and other writers. 

The addition, thus supported by ancient authority, is not im 
material. It implies that the agent, described as vrvp, will not 
discharge a merely preliminary process waiting completion by 
another hand, but will do its work of proof thoroughly. Every 
one s several work shall the fire of itself put to proof, of what 
sort it is. 


Tropveia TJTLS ovSe ei> roty tOvecnv oj 
Such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles. 

The verb ovof^d^erai is wanting in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and 
six others, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, Armenian, Origen, 
Tertullian, Lucifer, etc. 

It is an officious appendage, apparently suggested by the pre 
ceding d/coverai ; so that the sense is simply : Such fornication 
as occurs not even among the Gentiles. 


&T 8r> rov Oeov ev raj o-copari v^v KOL ev 

a . , cf I > ~ r\ 

TO) TrvevjJiaTL V/JLWV, anva eari rov t/eou. 

Therefore glorify God in your body, [and in your spirit, 
which are God s]. 

The words KOI eV ro> TTV. v. a. e. T. 0. are wanting in A, B, C 
pr. man., D pr. man., E, F, G, and five others, the Vulgate, 
Coptic, Basmuric, ^Ethiopic, and a large number of writers. 
They are found in C ter. man., J, K, both Syriac versions, etc., 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and (Ecumenius, but must, 
notwithstanding, be discarded without hesitation. They are a 
feeble appendage to the nervous language to which they have 
become adherent. 


Ty yvvaiKi 6 avrjp TTJV ofaiXopevrjv CVVOLOLV diro- 


Let the husband render unto the wife [due benevolence X her due~\. 

Instead of ryv o$. ei;., rrjv o^eiXtjv is the simpler reading of A, 
B, C, D, E, F, G, and six others, and is represented in the 
Vulgate, Coptic, Basmuric, ^Ethiopia, and Armenian, and read 
by Clement, Origen, etc., and the Latin Fathers. 

The reading of the common text which is found in J, both 
Syriac versions, etc., Theodoret, Theophylact, and CEcumenius, 
is too palpably a gloss to stand for a moment against the weight 
of opposing evidence. 

Another similar reading was, rrjv o<^ei\o^,evr]v TI/JL^V ; for not 
only does Chrysostom quote this form in the seventh Homily on 


Matthew (p. 117), but the succeeding exposition rests unmis 
takably on the term nptjv. At the place under consideration, 
too, the present text exhibits the same citation, followed by the 
words ri Se earns f) ofaiXopevri TI^T] : but the comment not only 
exhibits the true reading bfaikrjv, but is explanatory of that 
precise term and no other. There qan be no doubt, then, respect 
ing the form under which the text was really cited by the com 
mentator in this instance ; and it seems as if assimilative corruption 
had emanated from the other homily. This is instructive, as 
shewing that there can be no absolute reliance, for critical pur 
poses, upon bare citations of passages as they stand in the present 
text of ecclesiastical writers. 


Iva cr\oXa^r)T rfj tnjOTCta KCU rrj 
That ye may give yourselves to \_fasting and~\ prayer. 

The words 777 vya-rela Kal are wanting in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 
etc., the Vulgate, and other versions, Clement, Origen, etc., and 
the Latins in general. They are found in J, both Syriac versions, 
etc., the comment of Theodoret, the present text of Chrysostom, 
and Theophylact, but without notice in the commentary. 

They are undoubtedly a spurious accretion, the suggestion of 
an ascetic spirit. 



eXTTidi 60e/Aet 6 aporpL&v dporptav, KOL o 
rrjy eXTriSos avrov fjf%tv eV \7ridi. 

He that ploweth should plow in hope ; and he that thresheth 
[in hope] should be partaker of his hope. 

In the latter clause the words eV e Xvr/Si are wanting in D 
pr. man., F, G; so that, according to this form, the sense of the 
passage would be : For our sake no doubt was it written, to the 
purport that the plower ought to plow in hope, and the thresher 
to partake in [the matter of] his hope. By this means the two 
parties are represented respectively in their true positions, the one 
expectant, the other passed from expectation into possession. 

But there is another distinct form of the clause, namely, Kal 6 
a\owv eV e\7r/8t rov /^ere^eiv. This is given by A, B, C, and 
three others, by both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Basmuric, 
Armenian, etc., Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, and Augustine : the 
Vulgate, too, seems to represent it. 

On the score of authorities this has the stronger claim: but the 
resulting meaning cannot be reconciled with the observation just 
made without assigning to the term eir e\7riSi in the second place 
a stronger signification that of assurance than it has in the 
first. The enactment of the law secured for the treading ox, 
not bare hope, but freedom of participation. 

The amount of variation on both clauses is so considerable, that 
it cannot be viewed without perplexity and misgiving with regard 
to the real form and purport of the sentence. 




To them that are under the law, as under the law, that I 
might gain them that are under the law. 

An entire clause, prj wv auro? inrb vopov, is inserted before iva 
by certain authorities. These are A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and many 
others, the Vulgate, Sahidic, the later Syriac, Armenian, and 
Gothic, Cyril, Chrysostom, and others. The omission occurs in 
K, etc., the Peshito Syriac, the Coptic, Origen, Theodoret, etc. 

On account of the recurring termination virb v6(4ov, an acci 
dental omission would be a likely occurrence, especially in sticho- 
metrical practice. It is from the same cause that J exhibits a loss 
of the entire portion rot<? VTTO VOJMOV .... /cepS^o-rw. 

This consideration places the ancient authorities, in the present 
and some other instances, in a position the opposite of that which 
they so frequently occupy, rendering them trusty witnesses to the 
genuineness of the longer reading. 

On the restoration of the clause, the sense of the entire passage 
would stand thus : And I made myself to the Jews as a Jew, 
that I might win Jews: to those under law as one under law 
not being actually under law that I might win those under 



Ov OeXco Se vfjias ayvoeiv, K. r. \. 

[Moreover, \ For] brethren, I would not that ye should be 
ignorant, etc. 

Instead of the particle &e, yap is the reading of A, B, C, D, E, 
F, G, etc., and a great number of versions and Fathers: Se being 
found in J, K, both Syriac versions, etc., Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
and others. 

The restoration of <ydp, thus abundantly authorised, is not 
unimportant ; because it places the succeeding context in the 
proper position of matter of logical enforcement, drawn from past 
events, to the solemn lesson just before laid down (ix. 24 27). 


Tov yap Kvpiov r) 777 Kca TO TrXrjpco/jLa 
[For the earth is the Lord s, and the fulness thereof. ~\ 

The repetition of this clause does not occur in A, B, C, D, E, 
F, G, H pr. man., and twelve others, the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, 
Sahidic, etc. 

In addition to this decisive evidence, it may be remarked, that 
its presence in this place, though it receives the comments of 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius, and Theophylact, is alto 
gether idle and irrelevant to the immediate context. 

It is found in H sec. man., J, K, the later Syriac, the Gothic, 



Koi etTre, Aa/3eT, 0ayere TOVTO 
(TT\ TO o~a>fjLa TO vjrep VJJLWV K\O>IJLVOV. 

He brake it, and said, \_Take, eat:~^ this is my body, which 
is [broken] for you. 

The first question on this passage relates to the words, 
(fidyeTe, which are wanting in A, B, C pr. man., D, E, F, G, and 
many others, the Latin of the Codex Amiatinus, and others, the 
Coptic, Sahidic, etc. They are found in C ter. man., J, K, both 
Syriac versions, the common text of the Vulgate, Cyril of Jeru 
salem, Chrysostom, and others. There need not be any hesitation 
in discarding them as an assimilative accretion from the parallel 
place (Mat. xxvi. 26). 

A similar question affects the word K\m/juevov, which is wanting 
in A, B, C pr. man., 17, 67 sec. man., Cyril of Alexandria, Atha- 
nasius, and Fulgentius. It is read, however, in C ter. man., D 
ter. man., E, F, G, J, K, both Syriac versions, the Gothic, etc., 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Johannes Damascenus, (Ecumenius, and 

Thus far there is ground for considerable doubt ; though not 
enforced by an appearance of assimilation. But it must be further 
remarked, that D pr. man. has dpvTTTo/Aevov; and that the Coptic, 
Sahidic, and Armenian, either represent SiBopevov, or so supply 
an ellipsis in the original ; as is also the appearance presented by 
the Vulgate. These facts serve further to point to the bare read 
ing TO vTrep VJJLWV as genuine; the abrupt appearance of which 
supplies, besides, an internal argument in its favour, because it 
would be provocative of supplements, such as /c\ct)/jivov and 
OpvTTTOftevov, which, though not borrowed from a parallel place, 
are sufficiently suggested by the preceding term eic\acre. 



*O -yap ecrOiwv KCU irivcov ava^iws KpifJLa e 
(T0it KCU Trivet, JJLTJ SiaKpivcov TO cra>/xa TOV 

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord s 

Here the genuineness of the word ava^ims is questioned. The 
word itself, which might seem at first sight so material to the 
sense of the passage, is in fact altogether needless ; for without it 
the meaning would stand thus, the participial clause being hypo 
thetical : For he that eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment 
to himself, if he makes no distinction of the Lord s body. 

In this way the proposition is the same with that which has 
just preceded (ver. 27), the clause pJrj . . . . Kvpiov in this place 
being identical in purport with the single term ava%iw<s in the 
former, and, in fact, serving to fix the meaning of that term. 
This identity might have been pointed out by appending ava^iws 
as a marginal note to the clause, as is seen more clearly in the 
fuller form which Chrysostorn read, ava^iws TOV Kvpiov. Or 
ava^io)<f may have been an officious marginal supplement of an 
ellipsis purely imaginary, as has been already shewn ; or it may 
be no more than an instance of assimilative influence. 

The evidence for the word in question is considerable, con 
sisting of C ter. man., D, E, F, G, J, K, and a large number 
besides, with many versions and writers. It is wanting in A, B, 
C pr. man., 17, the Sahidic, and ^Ethiopic. 

It appears, then, that the word is not necessary to the sense ; 
that an intrusion into the text may be readily accounted for; that 
there is no evident cause tending to an accidental or designed 
omission ; and that the adverse evidence, though scanty, proceeds 
from witnesses of the highest antiquity. 

The testimony of these must be at once accepted, as pure from 
an early and widely prevalent accretion. 


The words TOV Kvplov are also questioned, tlie evidence on 
either side being nearly the same as in the case of ava%i<a<$ ; and, 
though the point is less material, it must be left to the same 

Thus the original words may be concluded to be : 6 yap 
KOI TTIVWV Kpijjia eavrat eadlei KOI -Trivet,, ^ Siafcplvwv TO 


* EO.V Trapadco TO acofj-a yuou, tva Kav0r](ra)fJLaL 
Though I give my body \to be burned x that I might vaunt]. 

The reading of the common text, /cavOtfo-w/jiai, is that of C, 
K, etc., while Kavdijao/jiai is found in D, E, F, G, J, and many 
others. But these two, the difference between which is a point 
of mere grammar and in other respects quite immaterial, may be 
viewed as combining in common rivalry against another, Kavyf}- 
aa)[j,ai,, the reading of A, B, 17, and the -/Ethiopic, and favoured 
by Jerome, who, however, admits a conflict of evidence. 

The variation has at once the appearance of accidental origin ; 
and, when it is considered that, in the presence of a rival, Kav6rj- 
a-(i)/j,ai would be viewed with disfavour on account of its anoma 
lous grammatical form, even the undoubted antiquity of that 
rival, and the importance of the few existing witnesses in its 
favour, must -not be allowed to procure for it a place in the text. 



KaOws (f)op(rafJLei> rrjv elKova rov ^oucou, (f)ope- 
KOU TTJV elKova rov eirovpaviov. 

As we have borne the image of the earthy, ice shall also 
bear the image of the heavenly. 

The common reading ^opeaofiev has for its authorities B, if the 
collations rightly omit to notice any variation, 17, and a number 
of others, both Syriac versions, the ^Ethiopia, and Armenian : 
but <f)opeo-(0/nev is the reading of A, C, D, E, F, G, J, K, and 
a great majority besides, and represented in the Vulgate, Coptic, 
Gothic, and Slavonic. 

The array of MSS. is thus decidedly on the side of the varia 
tion : but there must be taken into account the circumstance, 
that in some documents the confusion between the two vowels 
in question is so extensive as to nullify, and in others sufficient 
to impair, their testimony on such a point as the present. Still 
the most important are free from this impeachment, and are only 
open to the possibility of a too faithful transmission of errors 
already arisen from that particular cause. The evidence of ver 
sions appears fairly balanced. 

Patristic testimony will here be important, wherever it can 
be clearly ascertained. The Latin Fathers, especially Tertullian, 
range with the Vulgate in favour of the variation. Theodotus, 
according to the present text, has (popea-ca/jiev ; but there is no 
decisive indication of his actual reading supplied by his application 
of the passage ; nor can Origen be cited either way, because the 
current text varies. The evidence of Chrysostom, however, is 
unmistakable, as shewn by the interpretation, apiara 7rpd!~(i)/j,ev, 
which he puts upon the clause, and by the subsequent observation, 
ei Se Trepl <uo-e&>9 r)v 6 \6yos, ov Trapa/cXr/crew eSeiro TO Trpajfia. 

Theodoret ranges as distinctly on the other side; but his 
pointed words, TrpoppyTiKws ov Trapatvert/cw?, imply the existence 
of a rival view. Theophylact and CEcumenius would interpret 


v to the same effect as Chrysostom, but condemn the 
reading and the interpretation with it. 

With regard to the interpretation itself, it may be remarked 
that it is hardly a ready and simple one, and certainly ill assorts 
with the drift of the writer, who is here occupied not with moral 
inculcation, but high teachings of the future destinies of man. 
Chrysostom, however, is so far consistent that he puts a moral 
meaning upon the entire context. 

If then, on the grounds already specified, ^opeawfjuev were 
recognised as having proceeded from the Apostle, there must be 
an accompanying recognition of a marked peculiarity of language, 
though not confined to this place, but one which has already 
challenged attention (Rom. v. 1). On this principle the sense 
of the passage might be given thus : The first man is from earth 
earthy, the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, such 
too are the earthy ones, and as is the heavenly, such too are the 
heavenly. And as we have worn the likeness of the earthy one, 
let us wear too let us count ourselves as destined wearers of 
the likeness of the heavenly one. And this is what I aver, 
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God s kingdom, etc. 
The words 6 tcvpios (ver. 47) have here been passed over as a 
glossarial accretion, on the authority of B, C, D pr. man., E, F, 
G, 17, 67 sec. man., the Vulgate, Coptic, etc. 


ov Koi/JLr)6r)o-ofJL0a, Travres Se a 
a ev aro/xw, AC. r. A. 

We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in. a 

There are two variations on this place calling for remark, not 
merely by their form and purport, but from the circumstance that 
they possessed currency in early times before the age of Jerome. 
The first is Trdwres pev Koi/nrjOrjcro/AeOa, ov Travre? Be a\\., the 


reading of C and of F, G, with the insertion of ovv after //,ev, 
as also of 17, with the further variation dX>C ov Trdvres. The 
reading of A is confused, but may be allowed to range with these. 
It is also supported by the JEthiopic and Armenian, Jerome, etc. 
The second is vravre? avaa-rrja-of^eda, ov Trdvres Se aXX., found 
in D pr. man., the Vulgate, and many Latin writers. 

On these it is most important to remark, that though their 
verbal form in the first clause is so different, yet their entire drift 
is the same; a sure mark of artificial origination. Both are 
framed to square with the presumption, that the only change 
occurring among the risen dead would be into a state of glorifi 

The reading of the common text, with the omission of fjuev 
in some copies, is that of B, D ter. man., E, J, K, and the great 
mass besides, of both Syriac versions, the Coptic and Gothic, with 
many writers. It may be retained without any hesitation. 


Ocrai yap eirayyekiaL Oeov, ev avrw TO vai, /cat 

V ai)TW TO d[JL7]l>. 

For all the promises of God in him are yea, [and in him 
X wherefore through him too is\ Amen. 

Instead of the words ical ev avr<a, Sib /col Si avrov is the reading 
of A, B, C, F, G, and seven others, supported by various versions 
and Fathers. 

These authorities would at once claim especial regard, and 
perhaps something more, but for the appearance which the 
reading too plainly wears a mark, as it were, of its birth 
the appearance of being no more than an inferential scholium, 
usurping the place of the words to which it was appended, to the 
effect that, because TO afj,tjv is found in Christ, therefore (816) 
it is that through him (Si avrov) the solemn Amen is given 
in response to offered prayer or praise. 

That such an appendage is no coinage of fancy but a real 
process, is seen from the comment of Theodoret ; who, after 
rightly explaining the Apostle s language, as signifying a realisa 
tion of promises to man on the part of God by means of his Son, 
adds inferentially, ov Srj %dpiv /cal Si avrov rbv T^? evj^apicnias 
avrw Trpoa-fyepofjuev V/JLVOV, and more to the same effect. 

The other reading, /cal Si avrov, found in D pr. man., has 
evidently the same purport and origin. 


9a TraXiv tavrovs crvvicrTaveiv ; el JJUTJ 

Ypr)ofJLl>, toy TLVZSy AC. T. X. 

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as 
some, etc. 

Instead of the common reading et /AT), found in A, B apparently, 
J, K, etc., the variation fj fir] is given by C, D, E, F, G, and 
many others, and is generally represented in the versions. 

A variation, however slight in form, like the present, is not 
immaterial if it bestows life and freshness on a passage, especially 
an epistolary one. In its new combination, the particle ^77 marks 
an interrogation made in a tone of ironical insinuation. The 
passage may therefore stand thus: a/3%. IT. e. avvia-rdvetv. rj fj,rj 
Xprj&fjiev, K. T. X. We are beginning again to recommend 
ourselves. Or is it that we stand in need of recommendatory 
letters to you or from you? The interrogation should by all 
means be withdrawn from the first clause, there being in it an 
allusion to the language just preceding. 


Srj ov trvfufrcpei [JLOI, eXevcrofJLOLL yap, 
K. T. X. 

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will 
come, etc. 

Instead of the particle 877, Set is the reading of B, D ter. man., 
E, F, G, J, and about twenty others, both Syriac versions, the 
Gothic, etc., while the Vulgate and Latin writers represent et K. 
Set. The authorities for the common reading are K, and a con- 


siderable number besides, the Coptic, -ZEthiopic, Chrysostom, 
Athanasius, Theodoret, CEcumenius, etc., while- Se is given by 
D pr. man., 114, the Sclavonic version, and Theophylact. 

Besides this, the most material point, on the particle yap 
there are the variations 8e, found in F, G, and three others, and 
expressed in the Vulgate and Coptic; and Se /cal, in B, 213; 
while B, F, G. 17, 67 sec. man., also read crvptyepov p,ev, thus 
producing a nice symmetry, especially with respect to the par 
ticles, which cannot escape a suspicion of artificial origin. 

The preceding facts and considerations, with the addition that 
D pr. man., with the Syriac, and Gothic, omits IJLOI, would favour 
the following form of the passage: Kav^dadat 8ei ov crv^epei 
e\ev(ro{j,ai yap, K. r. \. Boast I must it is no advantage [I 
say this] for I shall proceed to visions and revelations of the 




9 /2 avorjTOi FaXaTai, ris v^d? efiacrKavev rrj 
aX7]0ia jJLr) 7rL0ecr0ai ; oly KOLT o^OaXfJLOVS * It]- 
(rovf Xpio-ros Trpoeypdfir) ev v\uv ecrravpw^evo^. 

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, \that ye 
should not obey the truth, ~\ before whose eyes Jesus Christ 
hath been evidently set forth, crucified [among you] ? 

The clause rfj d\. prj. TT. is wanting in A, B, D pr. man., E 
pr. man., F, G, etc., various versions, Jerome, Cyril, and many 
other Fathers. The authorities which support it are C, D ter. 
man., E sec. man., J, K, etc., the common text of the Vulgate, 
the JEthiopic, etc. 

There need not be any hesitation in rejecting it as an assimi 
lative supplement derived from a similar passage (v. 7). 

Great doubt, also, is thrown upon the words ev V/MV, by their 
absence from A, B, C, and ten others, the Latin of the Codices 
Amiatinus and Toletanus, the Syriac, etc. They are supported, 
however, by D, E, F, G, J, K, and many others, the common 
text and some copies of the Vulgate, the later Syriac, the Gothic, 
etc. It is at once seen that antiquity of evidence is against 



El Se via?, /cat K\tjpovofJLO? Oeov dia Xpicrrov. 
And if a son, then an heir [of God through Christ]. 

Instead of the words 0. B. X., 8ia eov is the reading of A, 
B, C pr. man., 17, of the Vulgate, Coptic, Clement, Athanasius, 
Basil, Cyril, and other Fathers : Sia Qeov of F, G : while from 
versions and other sources evidence is derived of the existence 
of other forms, as Bta Xpcarov, @eov, @eov Xpiarov, eov Sia 
Trvev/naros. This fluctuation of shape throws doubt on the 
genuineness of the whole. It is quite possible that the Apostle 
wrote no more than /cat K\r)pov6/j,os, a form which has been noted 
in one MS., 178. 


KOLL TOV TreLpacrfJLOV /JLOV TOV ev rfj aapKi fj,ov OVK 

And my temptation which was in my flesli ye despised not. 

The common reading, rov TT. /AOV TOV, is that of D ter. man., 
E, J, K, and a great majority besides, the later Syriac, etc., 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, and CEcumenius. But a 
marked variation, rov TT. vfjiwv ev r. a: pov, is found in A, B, 
C sec. man. (vpcov rov), D pr. man., F, G, 17, 39, 67 sec. man., 
the Vulgate, Coptic, Cyril, and the Latin Fathers. 

If the question lay entirely between these two readings, the 
preference would be claimed by the latter, both on account of the 
greater antiquity of its authorities, and because its meaning is less 
simple and obvious. The meaning would be : The trial that you 
had in my flesh, that is, those personal circumstances of mine 


which were a source of trial and difficulty in the way of your 
reception of my mission. 

But it must also be noted that another form, rov ireipao-pbv TOV 
eV r. a. /JLOV, appears in C pr. man., seemingly, and nine others, 
the Syriac, Armenian, Gothic, etc. From this it is possible that 
both the others sprung, by simply appending a pronoun indicating 
the subject of the condition expressed by the term 

Tfj eXcvdepia ovv 17 Xpicrros i 

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath 
made us free. 

A material effect would be produced upon this passage by the 
absence of the relative $, since the clause would then become 
an independent sentence, and one which could only be understood 
by recognising in it the representation of a particular intensive 
Hebraism by means of a Dative. But it is important to observe, 
that in other instances of this peculiar usage the Dative is anar 

The word in question is wanting in A, B, C, D pr. man., and 
eight others, the Coptic, etc.; but it should be remarked that, 
of these, A, B, D, together with E, F, G, and others, place ^yua? 
before X/KO-TO?, which may accordingly be taken as its true 
position. But that position would favour an accidental oversight 
of 17 on account of the recurrence of the same letter ; and this 
consideration weakens the force of the evidence for the omission 
of that word. There are, therefore, good grounds for retaining it. 

The position of the particle ovv in the common text, which it 
has also in C ter. man., J, K, etc., sufficiently indicates a specific 
arrangement of the passage, by which a period commences with 
the words -777 e\. But the particle is placed after anJKere in A, 


B, C pr. man., F, G, and some others, in some copies of the 
Vulgate, the Coptic, Gothic, etc.; according to which arrange 
ment the sense would stand thus : Wherefore, brethren, we are 
not children of a bondmaid but of the free woman, by the freedom 
with which Christ has freed us. Stand firm then, etc. 

In spite, however, of the strong testimony for this position 
of the particle, the question will suggest itself, whether in either 
case its presence is not artificial, noting respectively two different 
opinions about the order of the sentence : and its entire absence 
from D and E, from the Vulgate, the later Syriac, Jerome, etc., 
would favour an answer in the affirmative. The effect of this 
would be to revive uncertainty respecting the arrangement of 
the passage. 

The reading of F and G, y e X., represented also in the Vulgate 
and Gothic, presents a form not likely to have proceeded from 
the writer. It may have been an attempt to remedy the absence 
of the following relative, already noticed. 

Tis TJ KOivcavia TOV fjLVcrrrjpiov TOV a 

(JLl>OV, AC. T. X. 

What is the fellowship of the mystery, which, etc. 

Instead of icoiv&vla, olKovofiia is the reading of the mass of 
authorities, the common text being found only in a very few 
unimportant MSS.; having arisen probably from a mere error 
in transcription, since its meaning is less simple and easy than 
that afforded by the other : What is the stewardship [specially 
vested in me] of the secret which has been from all time hidden 
in God, who created all things. The words Bia Ifjcrov Xpiarov 
must be discarded, as being wanting in A, B, C, D pr. man., G, 
etc., and a considerable number of versions and Fathers. 



TOVTO yap ecrre yiv(>crK.QVTts. 

For this ye know. 

TOVTO jap care ryiva)o~KovTe<$ is the reading of A, B, D pr. man., 
F, G, and about thirty others, the principal versions, Clement, 
Cyprian, and many other Greek and Latin Fathers : the chief 
authorities for the common text being D ter. man., E, J, K, the 
later Syriac, Theodoret, Johannes Damascenus, and Theophylact. 

The evidence is thus clear in favour of the variation ; and the 
expression must be viewed as the representative of a common 
intensive Hebraism : For this you know assuredly. 

ras apxa?> Trpof ray l^buertay, Trpof TOV? 


Against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of 
the darkness of this world. 

The words TOV ai&vos are wanting in A, B, D pr. man., F, G, 
17, 67 sec. man., 80, the principal versions, Clement, Origen, 
Tertullian, Cyprian, and many other Greek and Latin Fathers. 

They are a mere gloss, of no higher stamp than the generality 
of such intrusive matter. Our struggle is against the prince 
doms, the powers, the world-sovereigns of this [realm of] dark 





w avrw (TTOiev KOLVOVL TO avro 

Let us walk [by the same rule, let us mind the same thing 

The latter clause, TO av. </?., is placed first by D, E, F, G, the 
Vulgate, the Gothic, etc. The word KOVQVI is also found in 
various positions. This is sufficient, especially since means of 
assimilative supplements were at hand (Gal. vi. 16; Phi. ii. 2; 
iv. 2; Ro. xii. 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 11), to throw suspicion on the 
common form of the passage; the principal authorities for which 
are J, K, the later Syriac, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. 

The existence of a shorter form, simply ro5 avrw aroi^fiv, 
accords with this suspicion ; a form exhibited by A, B, 17, 67 
sec. man., the Coptic, Sahidic, -(Ethiopia, Augustine, Hilary, etc. 
This abrupt form may reasonably be regarded as the nucleus 
around which, as is usual in such cases, accretion has gathered. 



Ka\ CTTt Kap7TO(j)OpOV[JLl>Ol> Ka6(>S KOLL V VfMV. 

And Iringeth forth fruit + and receives increase, + as it 
doth also in you. 

The additional words KOI av^avo^evov are found in A, B, C, 
D pr. man., E pr. man., F, G, J, and about thirty others, the 
bulk of the versions, and many Fathers. The principal authority 
for their omission is K. 

They must be added without hesitation to the text, and their 
absence from copies referred to oversight caused by similarity 
of termination in the two participles, aided perhaps by sticho- 
metrical arrangement. (See on Acts iv. 27.) 


Ev w %ofjii> rrfv afrroXvTpwcnv dia rov 

In whom we have redemption [throuah his blood~\. 

The words Sia r. al. avrov are wanting in all the uncial MSS., 
and the great majority of the rest, are not represented in the 
Latin of the Codex Anaiatinus, the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, 
etc., and appear to have been unknown to the generality of the 
Fathers. Their character is at once evident. 


Els eiriyvKHTiv TOV [JLV<TTr}plov TOV Oeov KGLL Trarpos 


To the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, [and of the 
Father, and of Christ^. 

The question on this place respects the genuineness of the 
words fcal IT. teal r. X. 

The bare amount of variation affecting the matter that is found 
following Qeov, is such as to press strongly for the spuriousness 
of every particle, previous to any particular inspection of its 
internal character. 

On the word Trarpos it is enough simply to observe, that it 
would be a ready appendage to eov. The reading 6 eari 
XpicrTos, given by D pr. man., followed by Augustine and 
Vigilius, and nearly represented in the -<iEthiopic, is from its 
very form an unmistakable gloss on /jLva-rrjpiov, derived probably 
from 1 Ti. iii. 17, while TOV ev Xpia-rq), found in 17, is another 
of precisely the same purport. These could not have been 
appended to the text in its present form ; and thus their very 
existence is an evidence against it. Such a gloss might further 
have taken the simpler form Xpta-rov ; but this would rather 
spring from eov, as is seen in the frequent rivalry of these two 
terms occurring in the body of various readings. Here, then, are 
materials from the accretion and concretion of which an origin 
is furnished for the other various shapes of the disputed portion, 
namely, simply Xpiarov, the reading of B and Hilary; Trarpos 
rov Xpicrrov, of A, C, etc., and some versions; Trarpos /col TOV 
Xpicrrov, of other MSS. and versions; and the common text, 
which is found in D ter. man,, E, J, K, etc. 

There is thus far sufficient ground for discarding the whole, 
and reducing the text to the form in which it actually appears 
in 37, 67 sec. man., 71, 81 pr. man., 116. 



* A /U 
Intruding into those things which he hath not seen. 

A remarkable circumstance, affecting the form and meaning of 
this clause, is the omission of the negative ptj by no less authorities 
than A, B, D pr. man., as well as three others, Tertullian, and 
the Coptic version. Its occasional absence from copies was also 
known to Augustine. 

The resulting meaning of the clause would be : Plodding the 
ground of things which he has seen, that is, busied upon the 
lower sphere of things visible and material : e^jBa-revtav thus 
receiving a signification an instance of which occurs 2 Mac. ii. 30. 

The common reading is that of C, D ter. man., E, J, K, and 
the MSS. in general, both Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic, 
etc., Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others. 

The question resolves itself into this, whether the reading, 
thus exhibited by a few ancient authorities, is the result of the 
accidental omission of a small particle a case far from impos 
sible; or whether, on the other hand, the negative is an artificial 
remedy for a seeming inconsistency with the preceding words 
rf) Oprjcnceia TWV ayyeXcav. The latter view may seem to be 
favoured by the fact that F and G read ov/c, which might be 
another form of the same interference ; but it may also be 
regarded as a ready variation on the other negative. 



rTrtoi ev fJLcrq> 

But ice were \_gentle \ child-like] among you. 

Instead of JJTTIOI, vrfmoL is given by B, C pr. man., D pr. man., 
F, G, and many others, and is supported by the Old Latin, 
Vulgate, and Coptic, Clement, Origen, Cyril, etc. 

It is at once clear that either reading might have had an 
accidental origin from the other, and both with nearly equal 

In favour of the common text there are cited A, C sec. man., 
D ter. man., E, J, K, with a great majority besides, both Syriac 
versions, the Sahidic, Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc. 

The term vrymos may seem to wear a strange appearance in 
this place ; perhaps to be hardly intelligible. But it will bear 
examination ; and if the Apostle says, We made ourselves viJTrioi 
among you, his language may be taken to mean, that, notwith 
standing their divine illumination and high commission, they had 
adopted a demeanour among their converts as unassuming and 
simple as mere children. 

If the various reading be adopted, as being the more difficult 
and figurative term, and possessed of a preponderance of ancient 
testimony, a period must be put at the end of the clause to detach 
it from the succeeding context, which introduces a change of 


1 TIMOTHY I. 4. 

Alnves fyjTrjo-ei? Trape^ovcri fjLaXXov 77 
Oeov rrjv ev TTiVret. 

Which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which 
is in faith. 

The term oi/coSopiav appears to rest solely on D ter. man., but 
its equivalent owcoSo/^v is the original reading of that MS., and 
is expressed in the Vulgate, Gothic, Peshito, and the margin 
of the later Syriac, and it appears also to have been read by 
Irenaeus, as it is by various Latin Fathers : it is therefore ancient. 

But when placed by the side of its rival oiKovo^iav, it has 
at once the appearance of affording a readier signification, and 
so far has its claim weakened. The latter, too, is the unvarying 
reading of the bulk of the MSS., and must accordingly be 
adopted; so that the sense would be: Inasmuch as they give 
rise to debatings rather than steward- service of God done in 


rj Trapoivov, /Jir) TrXrjKTrjv, fjitj ala")(pOKp8rj. 
Not given to wine, no striker, [not greedy ofjilthy lucre]. 

The presence of the words yu,?) ala^poKep^rj in the common 
text of this passage, the authority for which is quite insignificant, 
must be noted as an instance of assimilative influence, operating 
wherever there is an opening. The words in question might 
be readily suggested by the succeeding context (ver. 8), but they 
are directly supplied from the parallel place (Tit. i. 7). 



Ka\ ofjio\0"yov[jLi>a>? /ue ya etrrt ro rrjf evaefielas 
Oeof efyavepwOrj ev (rapid, K. r. X. 

And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness : 
[God X who X which] was manifest in the flesh, etc. 

On the common reading @eo<? there are the two variations 
05 and o ; but these, since they differ only by a grammatical 
shade, range together in a joint rivalry of the other reading. 
The mechanical connection, however, is between 05 and eo?, 
and that, too, of close approximation, under their respective 
forms oc and ec ; so that each might be readily evolved from 
the other, whether by accident or design. 

The common reading is that of the great bulk of MSS., the 
most important, however, being D ter. man., J, K. Of versions, 
it is represented only in the Arabic of the Polyglot and the 
Sclavonic, neither of which is of any weight in the criticism 
of the text ; so that it may be regarded as finding no support 
in this department of evidence. 

The severe mechanical scrutiny to which the older MSS. which 
contain the passage have been subjected B, E, H, being defec 
tive leaves, at length, no doubt as to their real reading; so that 
it may be safely stated, that A pr. man., C pr. man., F, G, 17, 
73, 181, have 05, and D pr. man. o. 

A pronominal rendering is also found in every version except 
the two already named, that is, in the Latin of the Greek-Latin 
MSS., the Vulgate, both Syriac versions, the Coptic, Sahidic, 
jiEthiopic, Armenian, and Gothic ; in all, in fact, whose evidence 
is of any account. 

The testimony of MSS. is thus in respect of antiquity decidedly 
adverse to the common text ; while that of versions is, to all 
intents and purposes, entirely one sided. In these two depart 
ments, then, there is no direct evidence still extant, of an early 
currency of that form of the passage. 

In places like the present, having a marked dogmatic signifi- 


cance, the enquiry is especially drawn to patristic testimony ; but 
on account of that significance it must be cited warily, because 
the propensity of copyists to conform the citations made by their 
authors from the New Testament to the current text with which 
they were themselves familiar, would, in such cases, come par 
ticularly into play. 

The following Greek writers have distinct references to the 
passage, but couched in such terms as are incompatible with the 
reading of the common text, namely, Clement of Alexandria as 
cited by (Ecumenius, Origen, Theodotus, Epiphanius, Gregory 
Nyssene, Basil, Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria. From the 
last mentioned writer it may be well to give one quotation, since 
@eo9 has crept into the current text of his works : /JLTJ etSore? .... 
TO yiieya rr)s evcre/Seia? /jivcrTijpiov, rovreart, Xpiarbv, 09 e<a- 
vepwdrj, K. r. X. Not knowing the great mystery of godliness, 
that is Christ, who was manifested, etc. 

Those passages must, in the next place, be put altogether aside, 
the only connection of which with the present place is, that they 
are expressions of the same dogmatic sentiment as is conveyed 
by the common form of the text, namely, Godhead manifested 
in flesh. Such have been cited from Ignatius, Hippolytus, and 
the Apostolical Constitutions. 

But there are others which undoubtedly deal with the present 
passage, but on which the question arises, whether they were 
written with the reading 0eo9 actually before the authors, or 
merely under the influence of the dogmatic view just mentioned, 
assumed as an established truth and vividly impressed upon their 
minds. Of this kind is Theodoret s explanation of the term 
fjbvaTrjpiov, namely, @eo9 yap wv KOL Seov v/09, Kal aoparov ej(wv 
rrjv <j>v(7iv, 877X09 aTracnv evavO pwirrjcras eyevero. aafyws Be 77/1019 
Ta9 Bvo <f)ixrei$ eSt Sa^ev, ev crap/a <yap rrjv Oeiav ecfrij (fravepcoOfjvat 
fyvaiv. For being God and Son of God, and having his nature 
an invisible one, he became clearly visible by putting on man 
hood. And distinctly has he taught us the two natures, for he 
said that the divine nature was manifested in flesh. Of the 
same kind, also, is the statement of Christ s unity of person made 
by Dionysius of Alexandria : ev avrov TrpocrwTrov, doparos 0eo9 
KOI oparos yevo/Aevos, 0eo9 yap efyavepwOri ev crapicl. His person 


is one, invisible God become also visible, for God was manifested 
in flesh. Certain expressions of Gregory Nyssene must necessarily 
be referred to the latter case, unless, as is by no means unlikely, 
his text has been corrupted. 

With regard to the comment of Chrysostom on this place, the 
present text of his works certainly exhibits @eo9 ; but a want 
of clearness and coherence might well countenance a suspicion 
that here, too, there had been tampering. This suspicion is 
reduced to a certainty, by the good service which a Catena has 
rendered in embalming the comment in its pure form, a form 
incompatible with a knowledge or adoption of the reading @eo9 
on the part of the great commentator. 

The later writers Johannes Damascenus, CEcumenius, and 
Theophylact, undoubtedly agree with the common text. 

With the exception of a preference for 09 on the part of 
Jerome, the reading of the entire Latin Church is quod. 

On the field, then, of patristic testimony, the evidence, in 
respect both of numbers and antiquity, strongly preponderates 
against the common text, even if Dionysius and Theodoret 
should be counted among its supporters. 

The main question may now be considered as settled on the 
score of positive evidence ; but if this were not decisive, there 
would be an important enquiry still to be met, namely, how 
it is that a passage, so pointedly dogmatic as the common reading 
would make it, is not constantly employed in those writings 
where its service would be so signal. For instance, no such 
appearance is presented by the genuine text of Athanasius. To 
this only one answer can be given, especially when it is con 
sidered, that controversialists were not wont to leave any matter 
which could be pressed into their service, inclusum in tabulis, 
tanquam gladium in vagina reconditum. 

With regard to the remaining question between 09 and o, it 
may be stated that they are respectively supported by the Gothic 
and Latin versions, the others affording no certain evidence of 
a more precise kind than their representation of a pronominal 
term. It may also be remarked, that grammatical formality 
would tend to evolve o from 09, while the assignment of a per 
sonal signification to the term fMvaTijpiov, which was the prevail- 


ing view, would favour the opposite effect. The evidence of 
MSS., as has been seen, is on the side of 09. 

According to that ancient view the sense would be: And 
confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of 
him], who [mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in flesh, 


If the rejection of the common reading of this passage robs 
it of a ready dogmatic handle, it at the same time leaves unim 
paired its deep dogmatic significance. 

1 TIMOTHY IV. 12. 

*AX\a TVTTOS yivov TWV TncrrcSf, ev Aoyw, ez/ dva- 
(TTpof^riy ei> ayairri) ev TrvevfJuiTt, K. r. X. 

But be ihou an example of the believers, in word, in con 
versation, in charity, \in spirit], etc. 

The words ev Trvev/^art, are wanting in A, C, D, F, G, and 

about ten others, as well as many versions and Fathers, their 

principal authorities being J, K, and some late commentators. 
They are certainly spurious. 

1 TIMOTHY VI. 5. . 


From such withdraw thyself. 

This clause, though found in J, K, both Syriac versions, many 
Greek writers, etc., is wanting in A, ~D pr. man., F, G, 17, 67 
sec. man., 93, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, Gothic, 
etc.; and thus the force of evidence preponderates against its 


1 TIMOTHY VI. 19. 

Iva. 7riXd(Ba>i>Tai Trj? aiawlov 

That they may lay hold on \eternal life X that which is 
really life]. 

Instead of auovlov, 6Wo>9 is the reading of A, D pr. man., 
E pr. man., F, G, and many others, the versions in general, and 
many Greek and Latin Fathers. 

The common reading, which is found in D ter. man., E sec. 
man., J, K, etc., is evidently a usurping gloss, which weakens 
the antithetic point of the sentence. One copy, by reading 
alwviov 0^x0)9, exhibits it as simply intrusive. 


rov Kvpiov Irjaov Xpiarov TOV /ieAAo^roy KpL- 
veiv ftavras /ecu veitpovs Kara TTJV kirifyaveLav avrov 
KOU rrjv {3ao-i\iai> avrov. 

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus 
Christ, ivho shall judge the quick and the dead at his 
appearing and his kingdom. 

The words ovv eyco may at once be expunged as being absent 
from A, C, D pr. man., F, G, J, etc., and many versions and 
Fathers, as may also TOV Kvpiov on similar grounds. 

The important question arises on the reading icai for Kara, 
which is found in A, C, D pr. man., F, G, 17, 67 sec. man., the 
Latin of the Codex Amiatinus and others, the Coptic, Cyril, etc. 



A reading so supported at once challenges special attention, 
and this is further enforced if it presents difficulty or peculiarity. 
A form which had obtained a currency such as is here indicated, 
must have been at least intelligible ; and the question at once 
arises, what is the sense to be assigned to it? The passage in this 
shape might be rendered : I solemnly avouch, before God and 
Christ Jesus who is to be judge of quick and dead, both his 
appearing and his kingdom; an interpretation which is recognised 
as admissible by Chrysostom. But this meaning deprives the 
passage of all apparent connexion with the entire context, which 
is occupied with very different matters, and it further involves 
an inconsistency, because the Apostle is made to end with pro 
testing the truth of a doctrine which he had just assumed by 
implication in the words rov p. tc. . K. v. 

The words eTnfydveiav and /3ao-i\e{av, however, may still be 
in direct government by SiapapTuponai, though in a different 
sense, namely, as objects of adjuration, but such as would not 
admit of a continuation of the construction with evcomov. The 
whole would thus be an adjuration prefatory to a practical injunc 
tion ; of which an instance has already occurred in the former 
Epistle (v. 21). I make earnest adjuration, before God and 
Christ Jesus who is to be judge of quick and dead, both by his 
appearing and his kingdom : publish the word, etc. 

2 TIMOTHY IV. 14. 

cpr] avra> o Kvpios Kara ra cpya avrov. 
The Lord [reward X will reward] him according to his works. 

An apparently significant variation, aTroSwaei, is given by A, 
C, D pr. man., E pr. man., F, G, and about fifteen others, the 
Vulgate in its current text, etc.; the common reading being 


that of D ter. man., E sec. man., J, K, and many others, the 
Latin of the Codices Amiatinus and Toletanus, Jerome, etc. 

The force of the evidence in favour of the variation suffers 
abatement from the consideration, that it at once clears the 
Apostle from all appearance of revengeful imprecation, a circum 
stance which might suggest or foster it. Those commentators, 
therefore, as Theodoret and Theophylact, who abide by the 
common reading but do not view it as absolutely imprecatory, 
were probably right. 


* Ev rfj 8i8acTKaXia d8ia(f)0opiai>. 
In doctrine shewing uncorruptness. 

A slightly varied form, afyOopiav, is given by A, C, D pr. man., 
Ejor. man., K, 17, and about forty others. From this afyOovlav, 
which is found in F and G, has to all appearance sprung by 
accident, and, in this view, is indirectly an evidence for it. 

The common reading, which is supported by D ter. man., E 
sec. man., J, etc., may be regarded as originally a gloss, marking 
the signification of afyOopiav more pointedly ; and to the same 
source may be referred ar/veiav, added by C and others, and 
dipdapcrlav after cref^voTrjra, by D ter. man., J, K, etc. 



Xapw yap e^o^ev TroXhrjv, K. r. A. 
For we have great joy and consolation, etc. 

The common reading in this place is that of J, K, and a very 
great majority of MSS., while A, C, D, E, F, G, and some 
others, have ^apdv. 

The variation, being thus slight in form, might at first sight 
be taken to be the issue of mere accident, attended, as is usual 
in such cases, with some difficulty of decision. 

It is important, however, to observe that Theophylact and 
other Greek commentators read %apiv, giving at the same time 
Xfipdv as the exponent of its use in this place : of which use there 
is another instance (2 Cor. i. 15); where also Chrysostom writes, 
"Xfipiv Se evravda ^apav \yei. 

This use of %aptv, which might be expressed by the terms 
gratification, satisfaction, is unusual, not being absolutely the 
same with its occasional employment to convey the idea of grati 
fication of physical origin (Plato Gorg. p. 462); but, as being 
such, it imparts to the reading a mark of genuineness, and also 
suggests a ready origin for the variation in the way of an inter 
pretative gloss. 

The fact of the currency of the above mentioned explanation 
of %apti> neutralises the evidence of versions, which would other 
wise favour yapav; because yaudium of the Latin, for instance, 
may as well have represented ^dpiv so interpreted, as ^apav. 

In the conflict of external evidence x a P iV ^ as thus a distinct 
claim on the ground, that it exhibits a peculiarity of usage 
in contrast with so ordinary a term as ^apdv : and, though it 
might have sprung from this latter by accident, it would hardly, 
even in that case, have maintained its ground, and obtained that 
wide currency which appears from existing documents. In this 
case mere numerical amount of MSS. is important, because it 
prevails, in spite of an internal peculiarity of usage, and the con 
temporaneous existence of another reading of ordinary complexion. 



Kai KaT<rTrj(ra? avrov 7rl ra epya TWV 


[And didst set him over the works of thy hands J] 

This entire clause, though retained in A, C, D pr. man., E, 
etc., and various versions, is wanting in B, D ter. man., J, K, 
and a great majority besides, probably also in the Peshito, and 
marked with suspicion in the later Syriac. 

In this conflict of weighty authorities it is important to remark, 
that its presence completes the citation, but is not required for 
the application here made of the passage from the Psalm. Accor 
dingly, it becomes at once suspected of artificial introduction, 
probably as a marginal appendage in the first instance, and can 
hardly be viewed as a genuine part of the Epistle. 

A similar process may be recognised in the clause rj 

(xii. 20), which is certainly an interpolation. 


Of ov Kara VOJJLOV kvroXrjs (rapKiKij? yeyovtv. 
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment. 

Here crapKivv}^ is the reading of A, B, C pr. man., D pr. man., 
J, and a considerable number besides, as well as of various 
Fathers: and on this authority it may be at once placed in the 

The case is precisely- similar to one which has been already 


discussed (Rom. vii. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1), and reference may there 
fore be made to that place, with the additional remark applicable 
to the present instance in particular, that the variation expresses 
more directly and strongly mortality and transitoriness, in oppo 
sition to the antithetical clause, Kara Svvaptv &w}5 aKarakinov. 


Elye fjiev ovv /cat rj TTpcorrj (rKTjvrj 

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of 
divine service. 

The authority for the word atcyvri is so trifling in amount and 
character as to be of no real account whatever : but the case 
is worthy of notice, as showing that incongruity with the context 
and consequent absurdity were no bar to a place in the margin 
and subsequent intrusion into the text itself. 


ai yap TOLS e&iJLo? /aou 

For ye had compassion of [me in my bonds \ the prisoners^. 

On the expression rot? Seoyzofc pov there is the marked varia 
tion rot? 8eoyuot9, exhibited by A, D pr. man., 67 sec. man., 73, 
etc., the Vulgate, Coptic, both Syriac versions, and a considerable 
number of Greek and Latin Fathers. The principal authorities 
for the common text are D ter. man., E, J, K. Origen has 
simply rots 8e<r//,ot9 ; and the old Latin rendering vinculis eorum 


seems to have sprung from the same bare reading by an arbitrary 
supplement of the pronoun, a reading which may be regarded as 
having itself sprung from TO<? ecryu.tW by error in transcription. 
The same reading, too, would readily receive ftov as an appen 
dage, under an impression of the Pauline authorship of the 

IloppcoOev avra? iSovrc? KOI dcnrao a/jLei OL KCU 

Having seen them afar off, \_and were persuaded of them,] 
and embraced them. 

The words real Treia-Oevres rest upon the slightest possible 
ground, and have evidently sprung as a gloss from d 


Ov yap Trpoo-eXrjXvQare ^Aa0o>/x,eW opei 

KeK.aVjJLei>(> TTVply K. T. A. 

For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, 
and that burned with fire, etc. 

A remarkable omission in this place, namely, of the term opei, 
is seen in A, C, 17, 47, and represented in the important Latin 
authorities, the Codices Amiatinus, Demidovianus, Harleianus, 
and Toletanus, the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, -^Ethiopic, etc. 

According to this omission the sense would be : For ye have 
not approached to a fire palpable and blazing, and to gloom, and 
darkness, and storm, etc. 




Be not carried [about x aside] with divers and strange doctrines. 

The common text is here mainly supported by J, K, etc. ; but 
-n-apafepeaee is the reading of A, C, D, and a great number 
besides, the Vulgate, Coptic, etc., and many Fathers, and must 
be accepted without hesitation. 

In the common reading may be traced the influence of another 
place of like import (Eph. iv. 14). 

A precisely similar case occurs Jude 12. 

JAMES I. 19. 

pov ayaTT^ro/, eara) Tray 

, AC. r. A. 

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be, etc. 

The form and meaning of this sentence are considerably affected 
by two variations ; tcrre, the reading of A with the addition of Se, 
B, C, 73, 83, represented also by the Old Latin in^f, the Vulgate, 
Coptic, Armenian, the margin of the later Syriac, etc., while 
B, C, 81, at the same time have GO-TO) Se, supported by ff, the 
Vulgate, Coptic, etc., and A, 13, KCU ea-rco. The common text 
rests mainly on G, J, and a number of others. 

In accordance with the above mentioned ancient authorities 
the passage would stand thus : fcrre, d8eX</>oi /JLOV aryaTT rjTol. ecrrco 
Be K. T. X. Ye know it, beloved brethren : but let every man 
be quick for hearing, etc. And so the Vulgate. 


6 Oeos e^eXe^aro TOV? TTTCO^OVS rov 

TOVTOV, K. T. \. 

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, etc. 

In the first place, TOVTOV is omitted by A sec. man., G, J, 
and a considerable number besides, and lias nothing answering 
to it in various versions ; while the later Syriac expresses ev T<U 
tf6oy/,ft), which is also found in some copies, and the Vulgate ev 


All this is cleared up by the entrance of the simple reading 
TO) KOGfjLm, furnished by A pr. man., B, C; according to which 
the sense of the passage is : Did not God choose out those that 
are poor by worldly condition, rich ones in faith, etc. 

JAMES II. 18. 

Acif^ov JJLOL TT)v TT KTTLV crov e*c TWV epycov orov. 
Kayo) dei^ca <roi IK TWV epycov jj,ov rr]V Tflcmv JJLOV. 

Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee 
my faith by my works. 

On the authority of A, B, O, and many others, as well as the 
versions in general, %&>p/9 should be substituted in the former 
clause for e /c, which is the reading of G, and a few others; and, 
at the same time, the latter crov, though found in C, G, etc., 
should be omitted, as being wanting in A, B, and four others, 
the Old Latin in ff, the Vulgate, Coptic. Sahidic, and both 
Syriac versions ; as also the corresponding fjuov, with B, C, ff, 
etc. But some one will say, Thou hast faith and I have works. 
Shew me [if thou canst] thy faith apart from its works, and 
I will shew thee from my works the faith that actuates them. 


/ ft ^ \ \ f 

loov, T(DV iTnrcov rovs ^O\LVOVS ei? ra aro^ara 

Behold, we put bits in the horses mouths. 

The authority for the particle ISov is quite insignificant ; but 
tSe, which may be taken as an equivalent to it, is the reading 
of C and about forty others. It is unlikely, however, that the 
writer would have immediately varied his form to ISov about 
which in the following place there is no doubt without any 
motive or resulting effect ; and with this observation there con 
spires the fact, that el 8e is the reading of A, B, G, J, and about 
twenty others, and is represented in the Old Latin in ff^ the 
Vulgate, Coptic, etc. This must accordingly be adopted. 

The connexion of the sentence, as expressed by this form, 
is simple and easy, leaving iSov to be introductory to a more 
imposing similitude in illustration, in the next verse. If any 
one does not trip in word, here is a perfect man, able to bridle 
also the entire body. And if we put the horses bits into their 
mouths, that they may be obedient to us, we sway also their 
entire body. Lo, the ships too, etc. 



ovSefJLia 77-1777) O.XVKOV KOU y\VKV 

So can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. 

This clause takes the shorter form, ovre aXvKov <y\vKv TT. v., 
in A, B, C, 83, etc., the Old Latin in^f, the Vulgate, etc. 

The common text which is given by G, J, the later Syriac, 
etc., has the appearance of having sprung from a desire to round 
off the sentence in precise correspondence with its commencement 
in the preceding verse ; or it may have been an artificial remedy 
for the embarrassment arising from an accidental substitution in 
transcription of ovrws for ovre. 

Does the spring vent from the same opening the sweet and 
the bitter ? Can, my brethren, a fig tree produce olives, or 
a vine figs ? [No] nor yet can brackish water produce sweet. 

JAMES IV. 12. 

Els ecmv 6 voi*o0eTr)$. 
There is one lawgiver + and judge. 

The words /col Kpir^ are found added in A, B, and about 
forty others, as well as in the versions in general, and various 
writers. Their omission was probably accidental, caused by a 
recurring termination, aided perhaps by stichometry. (See on 
Acts iv. 27). 


1 PETER I. 22, 23. 

Td? -(^v)(df V/JLCOI> yyvLKores ev rrj vTraKofj 

? Sia Trvev^aros elf 0tAa<5eA0/ai> d 
TOV, K KaOapas KapSias dXXrjXov? 
(KTevaJ?, dvayeyevvrjiJievoi OVK e/c cnropas ([)6apTrj? 
dXX d(f)0dpTOv, did Xoyov fftWo? Oeov KCU 
els TOV 

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth 
\through the Spirit] unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see 
that ye love one another with [a pure~] heart fervently : being 
born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by 
the word of God, which liveth and abideth \_for ever]. 

The compass of this passage includes three instances of ques 
tioned matter. First, the words Bta TrvevfiaTos are wanting in 
A, B, C, 13, 27, 73, and are not represented in the Vulgate, 
Coptic, jEthiopic, Armenian, and both Syriac versions : in the 
face of which ancient evidence their genuineness cannot be main 
tained. Again, icadapds is also wanting in A, B, and is thus 
rendered doubtful : but an omission might have arisen from the 
consecutive similar endings. 

The final words et? TOV alwva, though supported by G, J, etc., 
several versions, Theophylact, and CEcumenius, are wanting in 
A, B, C, etc., the Codex Demidovianus, and other Latin copies, 
the Coptic, Armenian, and later Syriac, Cyril, and Jerome. 
This strong evidence, combined with the appearance which the 
words wear, of an assimilative supplement from the succeeding 
context (ver. 25), hardly leaves a doubt that they are spurious. 

It may be also noticed that the common reading dv6pa>7rov, 
in the next verse, affords an instructive instance of a process 
to be traced in many places, by which the citations have been 
brought into agreement with the text of the Septuagint. In this 


case the variation airrr)<; is placed beyond all doubt, as being the 
reading of A, B, C, G, J, etc., the Vulgate, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, 
both Syriac versions, etc. 

1 PETER II. 2. 

Iva ev avro) 
That ye may grow thereby + to salvation. 

After au^T/^re the words et9 o-wr^piav are added in A, B, C, 
J, and more than fifty others, besides the versions in general, 
Clement, Cyril, etc. 

The words by themselves might be viewed as possibly a glos- 
sarial appendage, and this possibility would have some weight 
if the evidence were conflicting ; but the confluence of authorities 
demands for them an unhesitating admission into the text not 
withstanding ; leaving their absence from G and others to be 
referred to accidental oversight, probably in transcription from 
a stichometrical copy. 

1 PETER III. 8. 
Ilavres ofJLCxppoves; o-vfjaraOeisy (piXaSeX<f)oi, ev- 

Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another ; 
as brethren, be pitiful, [be courteous X lowly-minded]. 

In the place of the term (j>i\6(f>pov<-s, A, B, C, and many others, 
give TaTreivcxfrpoves, which is also represented in the Latin of the 
Codices Amiatinus and Demidovianus, both Syriac versions, the 
Coptic, Armenian, etc. 


A combination of the two readings is exhibited by G and 
others, and by the common text of the Vulgate; and it might 
be suggested, that this fuller form, being original, had given rise 
to the other two by an oversight of either term in transcription, 
caused by the similar endings. 

This is certainly possible ; but there can be little doubt that 
<f)i\6cf>poves was originally an interlinear gloss on evcnrXarfxyot,, 
becoming in some copies usurping, in others simply intrusive. 

1 PETER III. 15. 
Kvpwv Se TOV Otbv ayiaa-OLTe ev TOLLS 


But sanctify the Lord [ God X Christ] in your hearts. 

The common text here rests upon G, J, and later authorities ; 
while Xpiarov is given instead of @eov"by A, B, C, 7, 13, etc., 
expressed also in the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, both 
Syriac versions, etc. 

If this evidence needed any further support, it would be fur 
nished by the circumstance, that the variation gives a striking 
instance of that tacit adaptation of the language of the Old Testa 
ment to present spiritualities, which is a strong characteristic 
of this Epistle. 


1 PETER III. 20. 

Ore aira^ e^ede^ero rj TOV Oeov 

When [once the long suffering of God waited \ the longsuffer- 
ing of God teas waiting out], 

In place of the not very intelligible reading 
and another still less so, avraf eSe^ero, the former resting on no 
authority, the latter on a trifling amount ; a mass of evidence 
of every kind at once establishes the clear and appropriate term 

1 PETER III. 21. 

*f2i KOA, rjfjia? avTirvirov vvv cra>ei /3a7mcr/>ia. 
The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us. 

Instead of o5, which is very slightly supported, o is given by 
the great mass of authorities of every kind. Such a corruption 
would be likely to arise, both on account of the composition 
of the word avrirvTrov, and the readier grammatical construction 
of the entire clause that results from it. 

The effect produced on the sense by the restoration of the true 
reading is not very material. Which [element], in answering 
fashion, now saves us too, namely, baptism. 


1 PETER IV. 14. 

El bveiSea-Ot h bvofJLari Xpicrrov, 
OTI TO Trjf 86^-ijf KOL TO TOV Oeov TTvevfJLa e(j) 
avairaveTai- Kara pev OLVTOV? /3Aao-<?7/*emw, Kara 

If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are 
ye ; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you : 
[on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is 

In the first place, the words KOI Sum/ieco? are added after 
in A, and more than twenty-five others ; but they are omitted 
in B apparently, G, J, and many others, and are not acknow 
ledged by the Latin in the Codices Amiatinus and Luxoviensis, 
the Syriac, Clement, Tertullian, Cyril, etc. 

The word &wa/ie&>9 has certainly the appearance of a gloss, 
indicating the sense to be attached in this place to the expression 
TO r. &. irv.\ and with this agrees the circumstance, that several 
versions which represent the word, as the Sahidic, ^Ethiopia, 
and later Syriac, put it in connexion with @eoO. 

Under all these circumstances, the claim of the words in 
question to a place in the text cannot be regarded as established. 

The more important question affects the genuineness of the 
latter portion of the passage, namely, Kara pev .... So^d^erai. 

It is omitted in A, B, and about twenty others, the Vulgate, 
Coptic, JEthiopic, Armenian, and also by Tertullian and others ; 
its principal supporters being G, J, the Latin in the Codices 
Harleianus and Toletanus, the Sahidic, and later Syriac, the last, 
however, marking it with an asterisk. 

The evidence is thus decidedly adverse. Its appearance, too, 
is that of a mere comment, feebly repeating the circumstances 
implied in the words immediately preceding ; and, as such, ill 
according with the vigorous strain of the context and of the 
entire Epistle. 


2 PETEE I. 3. 

Tov KaXecravTO? rjjjias 8ia 8o^r}f KOI aperrjf. 

Of him that hath called us [to glory and virtue \ by his own 
glory and excellence^. 

Here, IBla Sof^y KOI apery is the reading of A, C, and a con 
siderable number besides, supported by the Vulgate, the evidence 
of other versions being somewhat indistinct ; while on the other 
side are B apparently, G, J, etc. 

Variation in this place has probably arisen from mere accident. 
In fact, the common reading might have had its origin in an 
omission of the first letter in the word ISta, leaving an unintelli 
gible result to which the next copyist might apply a mistaken 
remedy. Erroneous attempts on the part of transcribers to rectify 
something palpably wrong are a possible source of various read 
ings, which has not been sufficiently noticed. 

But still the cause may have been from the first artificial, 
for the purport of the two readings is substantially the same ; 
in which view the preference would be claimed by the common 
text, because its expression is the less simple and explicit of the 

A case admitting of similar observations is furnished by another 
variation presently occurring, namely, ^eXX^crw (ver. 12), found 
in A, B, C, etc., and supported by the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, 
Armenian, etc.; evidence with which internal considerations 
combine to claim a decision in its favour. 



2 PETER II. 2. 

And many shall follow [their pernicious ways \ their wan- 

The common reading avrcoXe/at? appears to rest solely on an 
insignificant amount of MS. authority; but the variation aae\- 
yeutis has the general support of MSS. both in weight and 
number, as well as that of all the versions. 

Thus far there is presented the remarkable and in itself per 
plexing circumstance, that, while the various reading has an 
overwhelming weight of testimony, the other seems to bear a 
mark of genuineness in the very strangeness of the term. All, 
however, is cleared up by the context, from which the word 
has obviously sprung, whether by simple accident or assimilation. 

2 PETER II. 13. 

/Cat fJLOJ/JLOl, VTpV(f)Wl>Tf V TOU? aTTa 

Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves [with 
their own deceiving s \ in their love-feasts ], while they feast 
with you. 

JUDE 12. 
Ovroi elcriv ev rals ayonraLS vfJiwv cnrLXade?, avv- 

These are spots in your feasts of charity, ichen they feast 
with you, feeding themselves without fear. 

The similarity of language in the entire contexts to which 
these passages belong is remarkable; and if they at the same time 


originally differed in some particular expression, a mutually 
assimilative influence on this point would be reasonably looked 
for, on account of their general approximation. Such a point 
is afforded in the respective terms anrdTats and ayaTrcus, with 
the additional circumstance of an approach between the words 
in their outward shape. 

In accordance with such expectation, ayaTrais is the reading, 
in the first passage, of A sec. man., but apparently proceeding 
from the copyist himself, B, the Vulgate, the Peshito, the margin 
of the later Syriac, the Sahidic, etc. ; while the common reading 
is that of the MSS. in general, the Coptic, the later Syriac, etc. 

Again, in the other place, avrarat? is found in A, C, and three 
others. It is, however, unintelligible ; and, if it be not the result 
of pure accident, can be due only to the influence of the parallel 
place. There, indeed, the various reading has considerable sup 
port ; but, since the existence of variation may be best referred 
to an original difference at this point, the common reading should 
be retained, since in the latter passage ar^airai^ is unquestionable. 

The facts of the case are, however, curious and instructive 
in a critical light. 

2 PETER II. 18. 

AeXed^ovcrtv ev eTTiOvjJiiais crap/coy, fv acreAye/at? 
rovs OVTCO? aTTo^vyovTa?, K. T. A. 

Tliey allure through the lusts of the fash, through much 
wantonness, those that were clean escaped. 

In the first place, the authority for the preposition before acreX- 
is so insignificant that it may be at once discarded; the 
resulting expression being that of A, B, C, G, J, and many 
others, the Sahidic, etc. 

There is, however, a variation, ao-eA/yeia? ; and though no 
uncial MS. is cited for it, it is given by about twenty others, 
including several of the most important of the class. The result- 


ing form would be a Hebraism, ev eindv^a^ crap/cos acreX/ye/a?, 
signifying, By lusts of wanton flesh. (Compare Eom. viii. 3 
for a similar grammatical form.) Marked Hebraisms have a 
strong internal claim, because there could be no tendency on 
the part of copyists to generate or spread them. 

More important, however, is a variation affecting the word 
OVTCOS, namely, oXi/y9. The two words are so widely remote in 
meaning unless the rare term 6X/7&>9 were taken as equivalent 
to oXi/you, almost that the variation must be referred to pure 
accident, and the decision must be simply by documentary 
evidence. For the variation there are cited A, B, and seven 
others, most of the versions, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, 
etc. : on the other side, C, G, J, and others, the Armenian, 
Theophylact, CEcumenius, etc. A few copies read oX<ryoi>, which, 
being merely an improvement in the way of purer usage, is thus 
an indirect evidence for oXtryw?. This reading must be adopted, 
and also aTrofavyovras, on similar grounds : so that the expression 
would be, TOW 0X470)9 aTrofavyovras, Those that are gone a 
little way in escaping. 

2 PETER III. 3. 

67T (T^aTOV TWV 

There shall come in the last days + bitter + scoffers. 

Before e/jmaiKTai the words ev e^Traiy/^ovy are inserted in A, 
B, C, and many others, the versions in general, Chrysostom, 
Cyril, and the Latin writers, thus producing a Hebraic form 
of intensiveness. 

This evidence would require their admission, even without 
the further consideration, that copyists, as has been already 
remarked, were not given to Hebraising, and there is no parallel 
place to exert an assimilative influence in this instance. 


1 JOHN II. 18. 

Ka6a>s rjKovo-are on 6 avTiypicrTOs ep^erai. 
As ye have heard that + an + antichrist shall come. 

The expression 6 dvri%p UTTOS must here signify, in virtue of 
the prefixed article, only an individual, or, at least, a personified 
power, to whom the term dz/Ti^ptcn-os would be applicable in 
a special way, in distinction from the many that might also in 
a manner be so termed. But this usage must not be confounded 
with another which occurs presently (ver. 22), where the expres 
sions o tyeua-rt]*; and 6 avrixpurros, as is seen from the appended 
definitions, are generic terms significative of classes. 

But in this place the article, though found in A, G, J, etc., 
and read by Theophylact and (Ecumenius, is wanting in B, C, 
and three others, and is twice omitted by Origen. 

Even if the adverse evidence were less weighty, its presence 
would be attended with suspicion, because its introduction into 
the text would be favoured both by the influence of other 
passages of the Epistle, and by prevailing opinions respecting 
an individual antichrist. 

1 JOHN II. 23. 
lias 6 apvovfjitvos rov vlov ov8e rov Trarepa e 

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father -j- 
he that confesses the Son has the Father also. 

The question here relates to an additional clause, 6 6fjt,o\oywv 
rov vlov Kal rov Trarepa fyei. 

It might be remarked upon it, that it might well have been 


a marginal complementary appendage to the preceding one; and 
this consideration would not be without weight, if there were 
also weighty external evidence against it. 

But there is another internal consideration of a contrary ten 
dency, namely, that the clause, if genuine, would have been 
exposed in no ordinary degree to oversight in transcription, on 
account of the recurrence of the same ending to the extent 

of three words. 

The direct evidence in its favour consists of A, B, C, and more 
than thirty others, the versions in general, Clement, Origen, 
Athanasius, the Cyrils, Vigilius, Pelagius, etc. 

On these grounds the clause may be admitted into the text 
without hesitation. 

1 JOHN IV. 3. 

Kal irav irvev^a o pr) bpoXoyel TOV Irjcrovv tv 
crapKL eXrjXvOora, K. T. A. 

And every spirit that confesseth not [that Jesus Christ is 
come in the flesh \ Jesus], etc. 

The final words ev <r. e A. are omitted by A, B, 27, 29, the 
Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Irenseus, Cyril, Lucifer, etc. 

It might be said that they were accidentally overlooked from 
similarity to a preceding clause ; but their proximity is not suf 
ficient for that effect. On the contrary, they would be an appen 
dage readily furnished for an expression wearing an appearance 
of incompleteness. 

Indirect adverse evidence, if such were needed, is furnished 
by the existence in ancient copies, mentioned by Socrates, of 
the reading o Xvet in the place of o /LO) 6fio\oyet, which is also 
represented in the Vulgate, and the Latin translation of Irenseus, 
and traceable in other quarters. It furnishes this evidence, 
because it is clearly an interpretative gloss, and one which could 
not have been called forth by the fulness and explicitness of the 


common text, but must have been put upon the bare reading 
o fjirj 6. rbv I. Viewing, in accordance with the context, the 
non-confession of Jesus as signifying a non-acknowledgement of 
his proper manhood, the glossarist represents it by the term \vei, 
as virtually doing away with the individual, since nothing is then 
left but a Docetic etSwXov. Lucifer seems to have regarded this 
as its purport, from his rendering qui destruit. 

1 JOHN V. 7, 8. 

On Tpels io~\v ol naprvpovvres ei> TO* ovpavw, 

7raTr)p, o Aoyoy, KOL TO ayiov Trvevfjia, KCU OVTOL 

01 Tpeif ev elo~L. KOU rpels elcriv ol fjLaprvpovvTCs 
ev TTf yrjy TO Trvev/Jia Koi TO vdcop KCLL TO ai/*a, KCU 
ol Tpels elf TO v elaiv. 

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the 
Father, the JVord, and the Holy Ghost: and these three 
are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth~\, the 
Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree 
in one. 

To write the history of the controversy respecting the Heavenly 
Witnesses, as the question is termed, would of itself require a 
volume. It might be thence inferred, that the conflicting evi 
dence was so nearly balanced that, in order to a decision, it 
required the nicest adjustment and the utmost delicacy of critical 
skill. How far such an inference would be from the actual truth, 
may be best seen from the following citation. 

" In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its 
absence from all the visible Greek MSS. except two ; one of 
which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the 
other transcribes it from a printed book ; notwithstanding its 
absence from all the versions except the Vulgate, and even from 
many of the best and oldest MSS. of the Vulgate; notwith- 


standing the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down 
to the thirteenth, and most of the Latins down to the middle 
of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, it be 
still genuine, no part of Scripture whatsoever can be proved 
either spurious or genuine." Porson to Travis, Letter XII. 

The state of the case is but slightly altered since this statement 
was made. The two MSS. mentioned may now be regarded as 
increased to five, containing the passage tinder some guise or 
other, by an accession of like stamp with themselves, that is 
deriving their matter in this place, whether in the text or margin, 
either from the Vulgate or a printed copy. 

It is not too much to say that, if a critic could be supposed 
to be debarred from all documentary evidence on either side in 
the present case, except those few MSS. which exhibit the verse, 
and the only version that has it, namely, the common text 
of the Vulgate, the circumstances which even thus would come 
under his notice, would form a sufficient ground for its condem 
nation as a spurious accretion. 

It was no doubt the dogmatic aspect of the passage that 
rendered the strife keen and lasting, and thus served in the end 
to give advancement to sound criticism. But if it sharpened the 
eagerness of its defenders, it appears to have had a contrary effect 
on their sensibility to certain points of material consideration. 
Of these, two may be mentioned in particular. First, the fact 
that the very applicability of the words in question to dogmatic 
purposes gives overwhelming force to the argument derived from 
the silence of a host of ecclesiastical writers. Secondly, the 
strange appearance presented by the passage, of a testification 
the most solemn made in a quarter where it must be altogether 
needless. This was remarked by Newton ; though sagacity like 
his was not needed to make the discovery. Something of 
the same kind must have been felt also by the contriver of the 
reading OTTO rov ovpavov, found in one copy. In fact, the 
spurious matter introduces something far less in accordance with 
the spirit of Scripture than with the epic machinery of Paradise 

The advocates of genuineness relied also on the plea of an 
intimate connexion and consequent adhesion of the questioned 


portion to the context ; and the assumed difficulty of detachment 
might seem to have been viewed as an oracular intimation, that 
the attempt was being made by presumptuous hands. 

Their opponents, however, were equally at liberty to plead on 
their side the close and smooth coherence which is the real con 
sequence of its removal ; and this it may not be uninstructive 
to notice. 

After a pointed mention of the Water and the Blood, as 
serving for material tokens touching the true personal nature of 
the Saviour, the function of giving forth direct actual testimony 
is then assigned by the Apostle to the Spirit. The three are 
next personified into witnesses giving testimony (ot paprvpovvre^, 
and this numerical discrepancy with the preceding statement of 
the existence of a single witness, is again rectified by the affirma 
tion, that the three merge in a virtual identity with the single 
one previously mentioned. And the Spirit is that which testi 
fies, because the Spirit is the truth. For the testifiers are three, 
the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and the three amount 
to the one. 

There are other circumstances, besides the amount of con 
troversy, which render the present question remarkable. 

The critic from time to time discards matter from the current 
text without hesitation, as having undoubtedly crept in from the 
margin; but the process of transit, though undoubted, is not 
traceable in its steps: but in the present instance the whole is 
patent, from the first germ in an early prescriptive interpretation 
of the witnesses really mentioned as mystically signifying three 
divine persons, down to a final lodgment in the written text near 
the close of the age of MSS. 

Another important feature of the question is, that extending 
beyond its immediate subject, it most seriously affected the more 
general one of the evidence on which any matter is to be accepted 
as Scripture : and those who, with more honesty than skill, pro 
fessed to come to the rescue of a genuine portion of it, were in 
reality the unwitting foes of the integrity of Holy Writ. 


1 JOHN V. 13. 

Tavra eyponlra viuv rols iricrrevovariv elf TO 

C I ~ .Tk ~ <* >*~ " /- V 


e\ere aitoviov, KCU tva Trio-revere elf ro ovo^a rov 
VLOV rov Oeov. 

These things have I written unto you [that believe on the 
name of the Son of God{] that ye may know that ye have 
eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son 
of God. 

According to this form of the passage, the Apostle declares his 
object to be the production of belief in those whom he at the 
same time addresses as believers : this is not artlessness but absur 

The entire clause, however, rot? .... Qeov is wanting in A, 
B, and eight others, as well as all the principal versions ; and 
the same authorities, with the exception of B, which has rot? 
mcrTevovo-iv, read ol Trio-revoine? in the place of the words /cal 
Iva Tna-TeinjTe ; so that the resulting meaning is : These things 
have I written to you, that you may know that you have eternal 
life, who believe on the name of the Son of God. 


JUDE 4. 

Kai rov fjiovov deo-TTOTrjv Oeov KOL Kvpiov T/j 
XpL&rov a 

And denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus 


The word @eov is wanting in A, B, C, and more than twenty 
others, the majority of the versions, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, 
Cyril, Lucifer, etc.; its main supporters being G, J, and both 
Syriac versions. The sense resulting from the omission is : 
Denying our only master and lord, Jesus Christ. 

JUDE 22. 

KOLL ovs fJLi> eAee?re diaKptvofjievoi, ovs 8e ev (f)o(3a> 
o"<0ere, e/c rov Trvpos 

And of some have compassion, making a difference: and 
others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire. 

A very important variation, affecting this entire passage, is 
given by A, B, and a number of others, various versions, etc., 
namely, Kal 07)5 fj,ev eXey^ere SiaKpivojAevovs, 01)9 Se aca^ere IK 
Trvpbf apTrd^ovres, ou? Be eXeetre eV ^>o/3&). And some refute 
when they are disputing, but others save, snatching them out 
of fire, and others compassionate in fear. 

An abbreviated form of the latter portion of the passage is 
given by C, and represented in both Syriac versions, namely, 0^9 


Be a. etc IT. dp. ev <f)6/3q>: and it is by no means unlikely that this 
is its original shape. The word eXeetre might have either sprung 
by accident from eXey^ere in the first clause, or have been origi 
nally a note expressing the spirit of the second, becoming itself 
eventually the foundation of a third. 

Other shiftings of shape add to the uncertainty and perplexity 
of the entire question. 

JUDE 24. 

8e 8vva/uii>q) (f)v\aga 
Now unto him that is able to keep \j/ou X them\ from falling. 

Instead of t//*a9, avrovs is the reading of B, J, and about 
thirty others, Cyril, GEcumenius, etc.; while the common text 
is supported by C, G, etc., the versions in general, and the Latin 
Fathers ; and A and another have ^a?. 

In favour of the variation it may be said, that it is not what 
would be looked for : but, on the other hand, it might have been 
a marginal addition to vyu,a9, intimating by emphasis a contrast 
on the part of the persons signified by that word with others 
previously described. The versions, too, throw the balance of 
evidence on the side of the common reading. 



On eay TTJV yvva.lK.oi Te^a/S^A, >c. r. A. 
Because thou sufferest [that woman X thy wife] Jezebel, etc. 

It is well known that for the first published edition of the New 
Testament only one MS. of the Apocalypse was used, and that 
an imperfect one, its chasms being supplied by translation into 
Greek from the Vulgate. The common text exhibits these 
portions in only a partially amended form, and the whole is 
signally unhappy in respect of the purity of its source. It was 
accordingly beyond the compass and design of this work to 
discuss it at length, though every kind of corruption and disguise 
that infects the common text of the New Testament in general 
might be amply illustrated from this book alone. Thus only 
a few passages are noticed, where the effect of the various reading 
upon their meaning is important. 

This effect is produced in the present instance by the addition 
of crov to ryvvai/ca, by which means the female here styled Jezebel 
is represented as the wife of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira. 

The addition is sanctioned by A, B of the Apocalypse, and 
more than thirty others, the Syriac version, Cyprian, and the 
commentators Andreas, Arethas, and Primasius, though not by 
the Vulgate, Tertullian, Ep iphanius, Victor Tununensis, etc. 



tv TOLS yfjLepaiS rrj? (frcovrj? TOV e 
ayyeAof, orav ^XXrj o-aXirifav /cat TeXearOr) TO 
fj,vo~Tr]pioi> TOV Oeov. 

But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he 
shall begin to sound, the mystery of God [should be \ was~\ 

Instead of TeXea-Ofj, a reading which is intrinsically unattended 
with difficulty, e reXeo-^ is given by A, C, and about thirty 
more, with the Coptic ; while the common reading is that of 
B, etc., and Andreas ; and the Vulgate, ^Ethiopic, Armenian, 
etc., supported by Arethas and Primasius, represent rekea-O^a-erai. 

The weight of evidence is thus in favour of the variation, 
whatever questions of grammar or interpretation may be raised 
upon it. 


Kca Oavn-acrovTOii ol KaTOiKOvvTe? eirl Trjy 
.... ^AeTTOfres- TO 6r)plov OTI r\v^ KCU OVK cart, 


And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, .... when 
they behold the beast that was, and is not, and \jjet is X shall 
be present], 

A glance at the strange and enigmatical appearance of this 
passage would readily provoke a conjecture, KOI irapkvnv, the 
actual reading of some copies, which would give good Greek and 
good sense, if the clause on, K. r. \. be connected with pkeirovres : 
but there is another according to which the marks of time in the 
clause are made with relation to the speaker, namely, Trdpeo-rai, 
found in A, B, and many others, Hippolytus, Andreas, Arethas, 
Primasius, etc. ; evidence which requires its adoption. 



ol TTOiovvrts ray ez/roXay avrov. 

Blessed are they that [do his commandments )( wash their 
garments clean]. 

The common reading in this place is that of B, and the gene 
rality of copies, the Coptic, Syriac, etc., Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Tichonius, Andreas, and Arethas: but A, 7, 38, have the remark 
able variation ol TrKvvovres ra<? orcA-a? avrwv, supported by the 
Vulgate and JEthiopic, Primasius and Fulgentius. This latter 
evidence, though less in amount than the preceding, is important; 
but is, at the same time, open to one consideration in abatement, 
namely, that the various reading might have been derived from 
another place (vii. 14), while it is not easy to imagine an origi 
nation of the common text. 

These discussions on the text of the New Testament are 
not put forward as affording an entire treatment of the subject. 
Enough, however, will have been done, by a selection of such 
instances as are either material in themselves or instructive in 
respect of their facts and processes, both to shew the importance 
of the work of criticism, and to evince the soundness of its opera 
tions, and, notwithstanding occasional perplexity, the general 
certainty of its results. 

Especially should it be noted, that ancient copies, ancient 
versions, and the citations by ancient writers, when these are 
clearly ascertainable, continually range together in mutual 
support; and, more than this, such conspiring testimony is ever 
finding a confirmatory response from the readings themselves, the 


inner voice, so to say, of the forms of text which they exhibit. 
On the other hand, it is no less important to observe, that 
masses of recent MSS., versions whose date cannot be termed 
ancient, as the Arabic and Sclavonic, and the latest of Greek 
commentators, as (Ecumenius and Theophylact, are continually 
found in company. 

The materials of criticism are at present ample, though two 
requirements are still unsatisfied. These are a thorough and 
trustworthy collation of the Codex Vaticanus (B), the prime 
importance of which document cannot be disguised, in spite of 
all the watching and jealousy that environ it; and, secondly, 
means, if ever they can be found, for restoring to its ancient 
form the entire text of the Syriac version. These means may 
be in reality unattainable : the former task, in the course of 
events, must sooner or later be accomplished. 

Lastly, with regard to the common text it may be remarked, 
that at the time when it was declared to be in possession of 
universal currency and acceptance, there existed as yet no pub 
lished form materially different from it, and thus its position was 
not an exclusive prevalence won from opposing claimants, but 
merely a freedom from rivalry. The vantage ground, thus 
gained by accident, would be further strengthened by advance 
of time, and fenced by jealousy, listlessness, and the fear of unset- 
tlement and change. Such is the real amount of prerogative 
possessed by the common text, one altogether unworthy to bar 
the advance of sound and enlightened criticism.