Full text of "The causes of the corruption of the traditional text of the Holy Gospels; being the sequel to the traditional text of the Holy Gospels"

)ir
u

LUZBO d Co., (Opposite the British

CflMMP

LUZBO d Co., (Opposite the British

THE

CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION

THE TRADITIONAL TEXT

HOLY GOSPELS

Ojrforb

HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

THE

CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION

OF THE

TRADITIONAL TEXT

OF THE

HOLY GOSPELS

BEING THE SEQUEL TO

THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS

BY THE LATE

JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B.D.

DEAN OF CHICHESTER

ARRANGED, COMPLETED, AND EDITED
BY

EDWARD MILLER, M.A

WYKEHAMICAL PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER

LONDON
GEORGE BELL AND SONS

CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.
1896

' Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et
immotam Tertulliani regulam " Id verius quod prius, id prius
quod ab initio." Quo propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus.
eo purior decurrit Catholicae doctrinae rivus.'

CAVE'S Pro/eg: p. xliv.

' Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et
ambulate in ea.' Jerem. vi. 16.

' In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab
initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis ; pariter utique constabit.
id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Aposto-
lorum merit sacrosanctum.' TERTULL. adv. Marc. 1. iv. c. 5.

PREFACE

THE reception given by the learned world to the
First Volume of this work, as expressed hitherto
in smaller reviews and notices, has on the whole
been decidedly far from discouraging. All have had
some word of encomium on our efforts. Many have
accorded praise and signified their agreement, some-
times with unquestionable ability. Some have pro-
nounced adverse opinions with considerable candour
and courtesy. Others in opposing have employed
arguments so weak and even irrelevant to the real
question at issue, as to suggest that there is not
after all so much as I anticipated to advance against
our case. Longer examinations of this important
matter are doubtless impending, with all the interest
attaching to them and the judgements involved : but
I beg now to offer my acknowledgements for all the
words of encouragement that have been uttered.

Something however must be said in reply to an
attack made in the Guardian newspaper on May 20,
because it represents in the main the position
occupied by some members of an existing School.
I do not linger over an offhand stricture upon my
' adhesion to the extravagant claim of a second-
century origin for the Peshitto,' because I am

2032703

vi PREFACE.

content with the companionship of some of the very
first Syriac scholars, and with the teaching given
in an unanswered article in the Church Quarterly
Review for April, 1895. Nor except in passing
do I remark upon a fanciful censure of my account
of the use of papyrus in MSS. before the tenth
century as to which the reviewer is evidently not
versed in information recently collected, and de-
scribed for example in Sir E. Maunde Thompson's
Greek and Latin Palaeography, or in Mr. F. G.
Kenyon's Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,
and in an article in the just mentioned Review
which appeared in October, 1894. These obser-
vations and a large number of inaccuracies shew
that he was at the least not posted up to date. But
what will be thought, when attention is drawn to
the fact that in a question whether a singular set of
quotations from the early Fathers refer to a passage
in St. Matthew or the parallel one in St. Luke, the
peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew ' them that
persecute you ' is put out of sight, and both
passages (taking the lengthened reading of St.
Matthew) are represented as having equally only
four clauses ? And again, when quotations going
on to the succeeding verse in St. Matthew (v. 45)
are stated dogmatically to have been wrongly
referred by me to that Evangelist ? But as to the
details of this point in dispute, I beg to refer our
readers to pp. 144-153 of the present volume. The
reviewer appears also to be entirely unacquainted
with the history of the phrase \jLovoytvr\s @eoy in
St. John i. 1 8, which, as may be read on pp. 215-218,
was introduced by heretics and harmonized with

PREFACE. Vli

Arian tenets, and was rejected on the other side.
That some orthodox churchmen fell into the trap,
and like those who in these days are not aware of
the pedigree and use of the phrase, employed it even
for good purposes, is only an instance of a strange
phenomenon. We must not be led only by first
impressions as to what is to be taken for the genuine
words of the Gospels. Even if phrases or passages
make for orthodoxy, to accept them if condemned
by evidence and history is to alight upon the quick-
sands of conjecture.

A curious instance of a fate like this has been
supplied by a critic in the Athenaeum, who, when
contrasting Dean Burgon's style of writing with
mine to my discredit, quotes a passage of some
length as the Dean's which was really written
by me. Surely the principle upheld by our oppo-
nents, that much more importance than we allow
should be attributed to the 'Internal evidence
of Readings and Documents,' might have saved
him from error upon a piece of composition which
characteristically proclaimed its own origin. At all
events, after this undesigned support, I am the
less inclined to retire from our vantage ground.

But it is gratifying on all accounts to say now,
that such interpolations as in the companion volume
I was obliged frequently to supply in order to
fill up gaps in the several MSS. and in integral
portions of the treatise, which through their very
frequency would have there made square brackets
unpleasant to our readers, are not required so often
in this part of the work. Accordingly, except in
instances of pure editing or in simple bringing up

viii PREFACE.

to date, my own additions or insertions have been
so marked off. It will doubtless afford great
satisfaction to others as well as the admirers of
the Dean to know what was really his own writing :
and though some of the MSS., especially towards
the end of the volume, were not left as he would
have prepared them for the press if his life had
been prolonged, yet much of the book will afford,
on what he regarded as the chief study of his life,
excellent examples of his style, so vigorously fresh
and so happy in idiomatic and lucid expression.

But the Introduction, and Appendix II on 'Con-
flation ' and the ' Neutral Text,' have been neces-
sarily contributed by me. I am anxious to invite
attention particularly to the latter essay, because
it has been composed upon request, and also
because unless it contains some extraordinary
mistake it exhibits to a degree which has amazed
me the baselessness of Dr. Hort's theory.

The manner in which the Dean prepared piece-
meal for his book, and the large number of frag-
ments in which he left his materials, as has been
detailed in the Preface to the former volume, have
necessarily produced an amount of repetition which
I deplore. To have avoided it entirely, some of
the MSS. must have been rewritten. But in one
instance I discovered when it was too late that after
searching for, and finding with difficulty and treating,
an example which had not been supplied, I had
forestalled a subsequent examination of the same
passage from his abler hand. However I hope
that in nearly all, if not all cases, each treatment
involves some new contribution to the question

PREFACE. ix

discussed ; and that our readers will kindly make
allowance for the perplexity which such an assem-
blage of separate papers could not but entail.

My thanks are again due to the Rev. G. H.
Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, for
much, advice and suggestion, which he is so capable
of giving, and for his valuable care in looking
through all the first proofs of this volume ; to
' M. W.,' Dean Burgon's indefatigable secretary,
who in a pure labour of love copied out the text
of the MSS. before and after his death ; also to the
zealous printers at the Clarendon Press, for help in
unravelling intricacies still remaining in them.

This treatise is now commended to the fair and
candid consideration of readers and reviewers. The
latter body of men should remember that there was
perhaps never a time when reviewers were them-
selves reviewed by many intelligent readers more
than they are at present. I cannot hope that all
that we have advanced will be finally adopted,
though my opinion is unfaltering as resting in my
belief upon the Rock ; still less do I imagine that
errors may not be discovered in our work. But
I trust that under Divine Blessing some not un-
important contribution has been made towards
the establishment upon sound principles of the
reverent criticism of the Text of the New Testa-
ment. And I am sure that, as to the Dean's part
in it, this trust will be ultimately justified.

EDWARD MILLER.

9 BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD :
Sept. 2, 1896.

CONTENTS,

INTRODUCTION.

PACE

The Traditional Text established by evidence especially before
St. Chrysostom corruption early rise of it Galilee of the Gentiles
Syrio- Low- Latin source various causes and forms of corruption . pp. 1-9

CHAPTER I.
GENERAL CORRUPTION.

1. Modern re-editing difference between the New Testament and
other books immense number of copies ordinary causes of error
Doctrinal causes. 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings nature
of inquiry. 3. Smaller blemishes in MS5. unimportant except when
constant. 4. Most mistakes arose from inadvertency : many from
unfortunate design pp. 10-23

CHAPTER II.
ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. I. PURE ACCIDENT.

1. St. John x. 29. 2. Smaller instances, and Acts xx. 24.
3. St. Luke ii. 14. 4. St. Mark xv. 6; vii. 4 ; vi. 22. 5. St. Mark
viii. i ; vii. 14 St. John xiii. 37 pp. 24-35

CHAPTER III.
ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. II. HOMOEOTELEUTON.

St. Luke ii. 15 St. John vi. n ; vi. 55 81. Matt xxiii. 14; xix. 9
St. Luke xvi. 21 . . pp. 36-41

x ji CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IV.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. III. FROM
WRITING IN UNCIALS.

PAG

1. St. John iv. 35-36. 2. St. Luke xv. 17 St. John v. 44.
3. Acts xxvii. 14 St John iv. 15 St. Luke xvii. 37 St Matt. xxii.
23 and other passages. 4. SL John v. 4 St. Luke xxiii. n
St. Matt. iv. 23. 5. 2 St. Peter i. 21 Heb. vii. i. 6. St Matt,
xxvii. 17. .. ... pp. 42-55

CHAPTER V.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. IV. ITACISM.

1. Various passages St. John xii. i, 2 ; 41. 2. Rev. i. 5 Other
passages St. Mark vii. 19. 3. St. Mark iv. 8. 4. Titus ii. 5 . pp. 56-66

CHAPTER VI.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES DF CORRUPTION. V. LITURGICAL
INFLUENCE.

1. Lectionaries of the Church Liturgical influence Antiquity of
the Lectionary System. 2. St. John xiv. i Acts iii. i Last Twelve
Verses of St. Mark. 3. St. Luke vii. 31 ; ix. i Other passages.
4. St. Mark xv. 28. 5. Acts iii. i St. Matt. xiii. 44; xvii. 23.
6. St. Matt. vi. 13 (doxology ir. the Lord's Prayer) . . . pp. 67-88

CHAPTER VII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
I. HARMOSISTIC INFLUENCE.

1. St. Mark xvi. 9. 2. 5t. Luke xxiv. i other examples.
3. Chiefly intentional Diatesssrons St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26 Har-
monized narratives Other examp.es pp. 89-99

CHAPTER VIII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
II. ASSIMILATION.

1. Transfer from one Gospel tc another. 2. Not entirely inten-
tional Various passages. 3. St. John xvi. 16. 4. St. John xiii.
21-25. 5. St Mark i. i, 2 Other examples St. Matt. xii. 10 (St. Luke
xiv. 3) and others. 6. St. Mark *i. n. 7. St. Mark xiv. 70

pp. 100-122

CONTENTS. xiii

CHAPTER IX.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
III. ATTRACTION.

PAGE

1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. 2. Acts xx. 24 2 Cor. iii. 3

pp. 123-127

CHAPTER X.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
IV. OMISSION.

1. Omissions a class of their own Exemplified from the Last
Twelve Verses of St. Mark Omission the besetting fault of transcribers.
2. The onus probandi rests upon emitters. 3. St. Luke vi. i ;
and other omissions. 4. St. Matt. xxi. 44. 5. St. Matt. xv. 8.
6. St. Matt. v. 44 Reply to the Reviewer in the Guardian.
7. Shorter Omissions pp. 128-156

CHAPTER XI.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

V. TRANSPOSITION.

1. St. Mark i. 5; ii. 3 Other instances. 2. St Luke xiii. 9;
xxiv. 7. 3. Other examples St. John v. 27 Transpositions often
petty, but frequent pp. 157-163

VI. SUBSTITUTION.

4. If taken with Modifications, a large class Various instances

pp. 164-165

VII. ADDITION.

5. The smallest of the four St. Luke vi. 4 St. Matt. xx. 28.
6. St. Matt viii. 13; xxiv. 36 St. Mark iii. 16 Other examples

pp. 166-171

CHAPTER XII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

VIII. GLOSSES.

1. Not so numerous as has been supposed St. Matt. xiii. 36
St. Mark vii. 3. 2. St. Luke ix. 23. 3. St. John vi. 15 ; xiii. 24;
xx. 18 St. Matt. xxiv. 31. 4. St. John xviii. 14 St. Mark vi. n.
5. St. Mark xiv. 41 St. John ix. 22. 6. St. John xii. 7.
7. St. John xvii. 4. 8. St Luke i. 66. 9. St. Luke v. 7
Acts xx. 4 pp. 172-190

xiv CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XIII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
IX. CORRUPTION BY HERETICS.

PAGE

1. This class very evident Began in the earliest times Appeal to
what is earlier still Condemned in all ages and countries. 2. The
earliest depravers of the Text Tatian's Diatessaron. 3. Gnostics
St. John i. 3-4. 4. St. John x. 14, 15. 5. Doctrinal Matrimony
St. Matt i. 19 pp. 191-210

CHAPTER XIV.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
X. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX.

1. St. Luke xix. 41 ; ii. 40. 2. St. John viii. 40; and i 18.
3. i Cor. xv. 47. 4. St. John iii. 13. 5. St. Luke ix. 54-56

pp. 211-231

APPENDIX I.
PERICOPE DE ADULTERA pp . 232-265

APPENDIX II.

DR. HORT'S THEORY OF CONFLATION AND THE

NEUTRAL TEXT pp . 266-286

INDEX OF SUBJECTS pp . 287-288

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

DISCUSSED . . . .* . . pp 289 290

THE CAUSES OF THE

CORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT

OF THE HOLY GOSPELS.

INTRODUCTION.

IN the companion volume to this, the Traditional Text,
that is, the Text of the Gospels which is the resultant
of all the evidence faithfully and exhaustively presented
and estimated according to the best procedure of the courts
of law, has been traced back to the earliest ages in the
existence of those sacred writings. We have shewn, that
on the one hand, amidst the unprecedented advantages
afforded by modern conditions of life for collecting all the
evidence bearing upon the subject, the Traditional Text
must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious
revision of the Received Text ; and that on the other
hand it must, as far as we can judge, differ but slightly
from the Text now generally in vogue, which has been
generally received during the last two and a half centuries.

The strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies
in its being logically deducible and to be deduced from
all the varied evidence which the case supplies, when it
has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed, compared, com-
pounded, and contrasted with dissentient testimony. The
contrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon

II. B

2 INTRODUCTION.

which controversy has gathered. On one side the
vast mass of authorities is assembled : on the other
stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the ad-
vantage possessed by that group, as regards numerous
students who do not look beneath the surface, in the
general witness in their favour borne by the two oldest
MSS. of the Gospels in existence. That advantage
however shrinks into nothing under the light of rigid
examination. The claim for the Text in them made at
the Semiarian period was rejected when Semiarianism
in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And the
argument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional
Text was a new Text formed by successive recensions
has been refuted upon examination of the verdict of the
Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the early Syriac
and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manu-
scripts have been traced to a local source in the library
of Caesarea. And on the other hand a Catholic origin of
the Traditional Text found on later vellum manuscripts
has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus which
existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia,
and were to some degree in use even as late as the ninth
century ; before and during the employment of vellum in
the Caesarean school, and in localities where it was used in
imitation of the mode of writing books which was brought
well-nigh to perfection in that city.

It is evident that the turning-point of the controversy
between ourselves and the Neologian school must lie in
the centuries before St. Chrysostom. If, as Dr. Hort
maintains, the Traditional Text not only gained supremacy
at that era but did not exist in the early ages, then our
contention is vain. That Text can be Traditional only
if it goes back without break or intermission to the original
autographs, because if through break or intermission it
ceased or failed to exist, it loses the essential feature of

VERDICT OF THE EARLIEST CENTURIES. 3

genuine tradition. On the other hand, if it is proved to
reach back in unbroken line to the time of the Evangelists,
or to a period as near to them as surviving testimony can
prove, then Dr. Hort's theory of a ' Syrian ' text formed
by recension or otherwise just as evidently falls to the
ground. Following mainly upon the lines drawn by Dean
Burgo'n, though in a divergence of my own devising, I claim
to have proved Dr. Hort to have been conspicuously wrong,
and our maintenance of the Traditional Text in unbroken
succession to be eminently right. The school opposed to
us must disprove our arguments, not by discrediting the
testimony of the Fathers to whom all Textual Critics have
appealed including Dr. Hort, but by demonstrating if they
can that the Traditional Text is not recognized by them,
or they must yield eventually to us l .

In this volume, the other half of the subject will be
discussed. Instead of exploring the genuine Text, we
shall treat of the corruptions of it, and shall track error
in its ten thousand forms to a few sources or heads. The
origination of the pure Text in the inspired writings of the
Evangelists will thus be vindicated anew by the evident
paternity of deflections from it discoverable in the natural
defects or iniquities of men. Corruption will the more
shew itself in true colours :

Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra 2 :

and it will not so readily be mistaken for genuineness,
when the real history is unfolded, and the mistakes are
accounted for. It seems clear that corruption arose in the

1 It must be always borne in mind, that it is not enough for the purpose of
the other side to shew that the Traditional Text was in a minority as regards
attestation. They must prove that it was nowhere in the earliest ages, if they
are to establish their position that it was made in the third and fourth centuries.
Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 95.

'A hydra in her direful shape,
With fifty darkling throats agape.'

Altered from Conington's version, Aen. vi. 576.
B 2

4 INTRODUCTION.

very earliest age. As soon as the Gospel was preached,
the incapacity of human nature for preserving accuracy until
long years of intimate acquaintance have bred familiarity
must have asserted itself in constant distortion more or
less of the sacred stories, as they were told and retold
amongst Christians one to another whether in writing or
in oral transmission. Mistakes would inevitably arise from
the universal tendency to mix error with truth which
Virgil has so powerfully depicted in his description of
' Fame':

Tarn ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri 1 .

And as soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work, a spirit
of infidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the
details of the new religion must have impelled such as
were either imperfect Christians, or no Christians at all, to
corrupt the sacred stories.

Thus it appears that errors crept in at the very first
commencement of the life of the Church. This is a matter
so interesting and so important in the history of corruption,
that I must venture to place it again before our readers.

Why was Galilee chosen before Judea and Jerusalem as
the chief scene of our Lord's Life and Ministry, at least
as regards the time spent there ? Partly, no doubt, because
the Galileans were more likely than the other inhabitants
of Palestine to receive Him. But there was as I venture
to think also another very special reason.

' Galilee of the nations ' or ' the Gentiles,' not only had
a mixed population 2 and a provincial dialect 3 , but lay
contiguous to the rest of Palestine on the one side, and

' How oft soe'er the truth she tell,
What's false and wrong she loves too well.'

Altered from Conington, Aen. iv. 188.

* Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians, and
Phoenicians.

3 Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken in
Palestine in the time of Christ.

CORRUPTION AT THE FIRST. 5

on others to two districts in which Greek was largely
spoken, namely, Decapolis and the parts of Tyre and Sidon,
and also to the large country of Syria. Our Lord laid
foundations for a natural growth in these parts of the Chris-
tian religion after His death almost independent as it seems
of the centre of the Church at Jerusalem. Hence His
crossings of the lake, His miracles on the other side, His
retirement in that little understood episode in His life when
He shrank from persecution l , and remained secretly in the
parts of Tyre and Sidon, about the coasts of Decapolis, on
the shores of the lake, and in the towns of Caesarea Philippi,
where the traces of His footsteps are even now indicated
by tradition 2 . His success amongst these outlying popu-
lations is proved by the unique assemblage of the crowds
of 5000 and 4000 men besides women and children. What
wonder then if the Church sprang up at Damascus, and
suddenly as if without notice displayed such strength as
to draw persecution upon it ! In the same way the Words
of life appear to have passed throughout Syria over con-
genial soil, and Antioch became the haven whence the
first great missionaries went out for the conversion of
the world. Such were not only St. Paul, St. Peter, and
St. Barnabas, but also as is not unreasonable to infer
many of that assemblage of Christians at Rome whom
St. Paul enumerates to our surprise in the last chapter
of his Epistle to the Romans. Many no doubt were
friends whom the Apostle of the Gentiles had met in
Greece and elsewhere : but there are reasons to shew that
some at least of them, such as Andronicus and Junias
or Junia 3 and Herodion, may probably have passed along

1 Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352.

2 My devoted Syrian friend, Miss Helanie Baroody, told me during her stay
in England that a village is pointed out as having been traversed by our Lord
on His way from Caesarea Philippi to Mount Hermon.

3 It is hardly improbable that these two eminent Christians were some of
those whom St. Paul found at Antioch when St. Barnabas brought him there,

6 INTRODUCTION.

the stream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and
Rome 1 , and that this interconnexion between the queen
city of the empire and the emporium of the East may
in great measure account for the number of names well
known to the apostle, and for the then flourishing condition
of the Church which they adorned.

It has been shewn in our first volume that, as is well
known to all students of Textual Criticism, the chief
amount of corruption is to be found in what is termed the
Western Text ; and that the corruption of the West is so
closely akin to the corruption which is found in Syriac
remains, that practically they are included under one head
of classification. What is the reason of this phenomenon ?
It is evidently derived from the close commercial alliance
which subsisted between Syria and Italy. That is to say,
the corruption produced in Syria made its way over into
Italy, and there in many instances gathered fresh con-
tributions. For there is reason to suppose, that it first
arose in Syria.

We have seen how the Church grew of itself there
without regular teaching from Jerusalem in the first
beginnings, or any regular supervision exercised by the
Apostles. In fact, as far as the Syrian believers in Christ
at first consisted of Gentiles, they must perforce have been
regarded as being outside of the covenant of promise. Yet
there must have been many who revered the stories told
about our Lord, and felt extreme interest and delight in
them. The story of King Abgar illustrates the history :
but amongst those who actually heard our Lord preach
there must have been very many, probably a majority,
who were uneducated. They would easily learn from the

and thus came to know intimately as fellow- workers (iiriarjfioi ev rots airoaroKois,
o\ KaL irpb f/jiov ytyoraffiv ev Xpiffrw). Most of the names in Rom. xvi are either
Greek or Hebrew.

'Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes
Et linguam et mores . . . vexit.' Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3.

SYRIA AND THE WEST. 7

Jews, because the Aramaic dialects spoken by Hebrews
and Syrians did not greatly differ the one from the other.
What difference there was, would not so much hinder the
spread of the stories, as tend to introduce alien forms of
speech and synonymous words, and so to hinder absolute
accuracy from being maintained. Much time must neces-
sarily have elapsed, before such familiarity with the genuine
accounts of our Lord's sayings and doings grew up, as
would prevent mistakes being made and disseminated in
telling or in writing.

The Gospels were certainly not written till some thirty
years after the Ascension. More careful examination seems
to place them later rather than earlier. For myself,
I should suggest that the three first were not published
long before the year 70 A. D. at the earliest ; and that
St. Matthew's Gospel was written at Pella during the
siege of Jerusalem amidst Greek surroundings, and in face
of the necessity caused by new conditions of life that
Greek should become the ecclesiastical language. The
Gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their
entirety of the stories constituting the Life of our Lord ;
and corruption must have come into existence, before the
antidote was found in complete documents accepted and
commissioned by the authorities in the Church.

I must again remark with much emphasis that the
foregoing suggestions are offered to account for what may
now be regarded as a fact, viz., the connexion between the
Western Text, as it is called, and Syriac remains in
regard to corruption in the text of the Gospels and of
the Acts of the Apostles. If that corruption arose at the
very first spread of Christianity, before the record of our
Lord's Life had assumed permanent shape in the Four
Gospels, all is easy. Such corruption, inasmuch as it beset
the oral and written stories which were afterwards incor-
porated in the Gospels, would creep into the authorized

8 INTRODUCTION.

narrations, and would vitiate them till it was ultimately
cast out towards the end of the fourth and in the suc-
ceeding centuries. Starting from the very beginning, and
gaining additions in the several ways described in this
volume by Dean Burgon, it would possess such vigour
as to impress itself on Low-Latin manuscripts and even
on parts of the better Latin ones, perhaps on Tatian's
Diatessaron, on the Curetonian and Lewis manuscripts of
the fifth century, on the Codex Bezae of the sixth :
also on the Vatican and the Sinaitic of the fourth, on
the Dublin Palimpsest of St. Matthew of the sixth, on the
Codex Regius or L of the eighth, on the St. Gall MS.
of the ninth in St. Mark, on the Codex Zacynthius of the
eighth in St. Luke, and a few others. We on our side
admit that the corruption is old even though the manu-
scripts enshrining it do not date very far back, and cannot
always prove their ancestry. And it is in this admission
that I venture to think there is an opening for a meeting
of opinions which have been hitherto opposed.

In the following treatise, the causes of corruption are
divided into (I) such as proceeded from Accident, and
(II) those which were Intentional. Under the former class
we find (i) those which were involved in pure Accident,
or (2) in what is termed Homoeoteleuton where lines or
sentences ended with the same word or the same syllable,
or (3) such as arose in writing from Uncial letters, or (4) in
the confusion of vowels and diphthongs which is called
Itacism, or (5) in Liturgical Influence. The remaining
instances may be conveniently classed as Intentional,
not because in all cases there was a settled determination
to alter the text, for such if any was often of the faintest
character, but because some sort of design was to a
greater or less degree embedded in most of them. Such
causes were (i) Harmonistic Influence, (2) Assimilation,
(3) Attraction ; such instances too in their main character

THE VARIOUS CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. 9

were (4) Omissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions,
(7) Additions, (8) Glosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics,
(10) Corruption by Orthodox.

This dissection of the mass of corruption, or as perhaps
it may be better termed, this classification made by Dean
Burgon of the numerous causes which are found to have
been at work from time to time, appears to me to be most
interesting to the inquirer into the hidden history of the
Text of the Gospels, because by revealing the influences
which have been at work it sheds light upon the entire
controversy, and often enables the student to see clearly
how and why certain passages around which dispute has
gathered are really corrupt. Indeed, the vast and myste-
rious ogre called corruption assumes shape and form under
the acute penetration and the deft handling of the Dean,
whose great knowledge of the subject and orderly treat-
ment of puzzling details is still more commended by his
interesting style of writing. As far as has been possible,
I have let him in the sequel, except for such clerical
corrections as were required from time to time and have
been much fewer than his facile pen would have made,
speak entirely for himself.

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL CORRUPTION.

WE hear sometimes scholars complain, and with a certain
show of reason, that it is discreditable to us as a Church
not to have long since put forth by authority a revised
Greek Text of the New Testament. The chief writers of
antiquity, say they, have been of late years re-edited by
the aid of the best Manuscripts. Why should not the
Scriptures enjoy the same advantage? Men who so speak
evidently misunderstand the question. They assume that
the case of the Scriptures and that of other ancient writings
are similar.

Such remonstrances are commonly followed up by state-
ments like the following: That the received Text is that of
Erasmus : that it was constructed in haste, and without
skill : that it is based on a very few, and those bad
Manuscripts : that it belongs to an age when scarcely any
of our present critical helps were available, and when the
Science of Textual Criticism was unknown. To listen to
these advocates for Revision, you would almost suppose
that it fared with the Gospel at this instant as it had fared
with the original Copy of the Law for many years until the
days of King Josiah 1 .

Yielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the

1 2 Kings xxii. 8 = 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15.

REVISION. II

New Testament judiciously revised, I freely avow that
recent events have convinced me, and I suppose they have
convinced the public also, that we have not among us the
men to conduct such an undertaking. Better a thousand
times in my judgement to leave things as they are, than to
risk having the stamp of authority set upon such an unfor-
tunate production as that which appeared on the i7th May,
1 88 1, and which claims at this instant to represent the
combined learning of the Church, the chief Sects, and the
Socinian 1 body:

Now if the meaning of those who desire to see the
commonly received text of the New Testament made
absolutely faultless, were something of this kind : That
they are impatient for the collation of the copies which
have become known to us within the last two centuries, and
which amount already in all to upwards of three thousand :
that they are bent on procuring that the ancient Versions
shall be re-edited ; and would hail with delight the
announcement that a band of scholars had combined to
index every place of Scripture quoted by any of the
Fathers : if this were meant, we should all be entirely at
one ; especially if we could further gather from the pro-
gramme that a fixed intention was cherished of abiding by
the result of such an appeal to ancient evidence. But
unfortunately something entirely different is in contem-
plation.

Now I am bent on calling attention to certain features of
the problem which have very generally escaped attention.
It does not seem to be understood that the Scriptures of
the New Testament stand on an entirely different footing
from every other ancient writing which can be named.
A few plain remarks ought to bring this fact, for a fact it

1 [This name is used for want of a better. Churchmen are Unitarians as well
as Trinitarians. The two names in combination express our Faith. We dare
not alienate either of them.]

12 GENERAL CORRUPTION.

is, home to every thoughtful person. And the result will
be that men will approach the subject with more caution,
with doubts and misgivings, with a fixed determination to
be on their guard against any form of plausible influence.
Their prejudices they will scatter to the winds. At every
step they will insist on proof.

In the first place, then, let it be observed that the New
Testament Scriptures are wholly without a parallel in
respect of their having been so frequently multiplied from
the very first. They are by consequence contained at this
day in an extravagantly large number of copies [pro-
bably, if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts
and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evan-
gelistaries, and Apostolos, exceeding the number of four
thousand]. There is nothing like this, or at all approaching
to it. in the case of any profane writing that can be named 1 .

And the very necessity for multiplying copies, a neces-
sity which has made itself felt in every age and in every
clime, has perforce resulted in an immense number of
variants. Words have been inevitably dropped, vowels
have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or
less competent : and the meaning of Scripture in countless
places has suffered to a surprising degree in consequence.
This first.

But then further, the Scriptures for the very reason
because they were known to be the Word of God became
a mark for the shafts of Satan from the beginning. They
were by consequence as eagerly solicited by heretical
teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by
the orthodox on the other. Alike from friends and from
foes therefore, they are known to have experienced injury,
and that in the earliest age of all. Nothing of the kind
can be predicated of any other ancient writings. This

1 See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller), p. 21,
note i.

PECULIAR CONDITIONS. 13

consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of
judicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence
of whatever sort.

For I request it may be observed that I have not said
and I certainly do not mean that the Scriptures them-
selves" have been permanently corrupted either by friend
or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, and was contradicted
by other error : besides that it sank eventually before
a manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain
manuscripts belonging to a few small groups particular
copies of a Version individual Fathers or Doctors of the
Church, these do, to the present hour, bear traces incon-
testably of ancient mischief.

But what goes before is not nearly all. The fourfold
structure of the Gospel has lent itself to a certain kind of
licentious handling of which in other ancient writings we
have no experience. One critical owner of a Codex con-
sidered himself at liberty to assimilate the narratives :
another to correct them in order to bring them into (what
seemed to himself) greater harmony. Brevity is found to
have been a paramount object with some, and Transposition
to have amounted to a passion with others. Conjectural
Criticism was evidently practised largely : and almost with
as little felicity as when Bentley held the pen. Lastly,
there can be no question that there was a certain school of
Critics who considered themselves competent to improve
the style of the HOLY GHOST throughout. [And before the
members of the Church had gained a familiar acquaintance
with the words of the New Testament, blunders continually
crept into the text of more or less heinous importance.] All
this, which was chiefly done during the second and third
centuries, introduces an element of difficulty in the hand-
ling of ancient evidence which can never be safely neglected :
and will make a thoughtful man suspicious of every various
reading which comes in his way, especially if it is attended

! 4 GENERAL CORRUPTION.

with but slender attestation. [It has been already shewn
in the companion volume] that the names of the Codexes
chiefly vitiated in this sort prove to be BSCDL ; of the
Versions, the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain
specimens of the Old Latin; of the Fathers, Origen,
Clement of Alexandria, and to some extent Eusebius.

Add to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter
of the New Testament Scriptures, and it will become
abundantly plain why they should have been liable to
a series of assaults which make it reasonable that they
should now at last be approached by ourselves as no other
ancient writings are, or can be. The nature of GOD, His
Being and Attributes: the history of Man's Redemption :
the soul's eternal destiny: the mysteries of the unseen
world: concerning these and every other similar high
doctrinal subject, the sacred writings alone speak with
a voice of absolute authority. And surely by this time
enough has been said to explain why these Scriptures
should have been made a battle-field during some centuries,
and especially in the fourth ; and having thus been made
the subject of strenuous contention, that copies of them
should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverse
influences. I say it for the last time, of all such causes of
depravation the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers,
Historians, neither knew nor could know anything. And
it thus plainly appears that the Textual Criticism of the
New Testament is to be handled by ourselves in an entirely
different spirit from that of any other book.

I wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of
the Text of the New Testament. I do not entitle the
present a discussion of 'Various Readings,' because I con-
sider that expression to be incorrect and misleading 1 .
1 See Traditional Text, chapter ii, 6, p. 32.

ELIMINATION. 15

Freely allowing that the term ' variae lectiones,' for lack of
a better, may be allowed to stand on the Critic's page,
I yet think it necessary even a second time to call attention
to the impropriety which attends its use. Thus Codex B
differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture
in the Gospels alone in 7578 places ; of which no less than
2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissions constitute
by far the larger number of what are commonly called
' Various Readings.' How then can those be called ' various
readings ' which are really not readings at all ? How, for
example, can that be said to be a ( various reading' of
St. Mark xvi. 9-20, which consists in the circumstance that
the last 12 verses are left out by two MSS. ? Again,
How can it be called a 'various reading' of St. John xxi.
25, to bring the Gospel abruptly to a close, as Tischendorf
does, at v. 24 ? These are really nothing else but indica-
tions either of a mutilated or else an interpolated text.
And the question to be resolved is, On which side does
the corruption lie ? and, How did it originate ?

Waiving this however, the term is objectionable on other
grounds. It is to beg the whole question to assume that
every irregularity in the text of Scripture is a 'various
reading.' The very expression carries with it an assertion
of importance ; at least it implies a claim to consideration.
Even might it be thought that, because it is termed
a ' various reading,' therefore a critic is entitled to call in
question the commonly received text. Whereas, nine
divergences out of ten are of no manner of significance and
are entitled to no manner of consideration, as every one
must see at a glance who will attend to the matter ever so
little. ' Various readings ' in fact is a term which belongs
of right to the criticism of the text of profane authors :
and, like many other notions which have been imported
from the same region into this department of inquiry, it
only tends to confuse and perplex the judgement.

16 GENERAL CORRUPTION.

No variety in the Text of Scripture can properly be
called a ' various reading,' of which it may be safely declared
that it never has been, and never will be, read. In the
case of profane authors, where the MSS. are for the most
part exceedingly few, almost every plausible substitution of
one word for another, if really entitled to alteration, is
looked upon as a various reading of the text. But in the
Gospels, of which the copies are so numerous as has been
said, the case is far otherwise. We are there able to
convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed 'various
reading ' is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness or
inattention on the part of a previous scribe or scribes, and
we can afford to neglect it accordingly 1 . It follows there-
fore, and this is the point to which I desire to bring the
reader and to urge upon his consideration, that the number
of 'various readings' in the New Testament properly so
called has been greatly exaggerated. They are, in reality,
exceedingly few in number ; and it is to be expected that,
as sound (sacred) Criticism advances, and principles are
established, and conclusions recognized, instead of becoming
multiplied they will become fewer and fewer, and at last
will entirely disappear. We cannot afford to go on dis-
puting for ever ; and what is declared by common consent
to be untenable ought to be no longer reckoned. That
only in short, as I venture to think, deserves the name of
a Various Reading which comes to us so respectably
recommended as to be entitled to our sincere consideration
and respect ; or, better still, which is of such a kind as to
inspire some degree of reasonable suspicion that after all it
may prove to be the true way of exhibiting the text.

1 [Perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into two classes,
viz. (i) such as really have strong evidence for their support, and require
examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt; and (2) those
which afford no doubt as to their being destitute of foundation, and are only
interesting as specimens of the modes in which error was sometimes introduced.
Evidently, the latter class are not ' various ' at all.]

NATURE OF INQUIRY. IJ

The inquiry therefore on which we are about to engage,
grows naturally out of the considerations which have been
already offered. We propose to ascertain, as far as is
practicable at the end of so many hundred years, in what
way these many strange corruptions of the text have
arisen. Very often we shall only have to inquire how it
has come to pass that the text exhibits signs of perturbation
at a certain place. Such disquisitions as those which
follow, let it never be forgotten, have no place in reviewing
any other text than that of the New Testament, because
a few plain principles would suffice to solve every difficulty.
The less usual word mistaken for the word of more frequent
occurrence ; clerical carelessness ; a gloss finding its way
from the margin into the text ; such explanations as these
would probably in other cases suffice to account for every
ascertained corruption of the text. But it is far otherwise
here, as I propose to make fully apparent by and by.
Various disturbing influences have been at work for a great
many years, of which secular productions know absolutely
nothing, nor indeed can know.

The importance of such an inquiry will become apparent
as we proceed ; but it may be convenient that I should call
attention to the matter briefly at the outset. It frequently
happens that the one remaining plea of many critics for
adopting readings of a certain kind, is the inexplicable
nature of the phenomena which these readings exhibit.
' How will you possibly account for such a reading as the
present,' (say they,) ' if it be not authentic ?' Or they say
nothing, but leave it to be inferred that the reading they
adopt, in spite of its intrinsic improbability, in spite also
of the slender amount of evidence on which it rests, must
needs be accepted as true. They lose sight of the corre-
lative difficulty: How comes it to pass that the rest of the
copies read the place otherwise ? On all such occasions it
is impossible to overestimate the importance of detecting

II. C

T 8 GENERAL CORRUPTION.

the particular cause which has brought about, or which at
least will fully account for, this depravation. When this
has been done, it is hardly too much to say that a case
presents itself like as when a pasteboard mask has been
torn away, and the ghost is discovered with a broad grin
on his face behind it.

The discussion on which I now enter is then on the Causes
of the various Corruptions of the Text. [The reader shall
be shewn with illustrations to what particular source they
are to be severally ascribed. When representative passages
have been thus labelled, and the causes are seen in opera-
tion, he will be able to pierce the mystery, and all the better
to winnow the evil from among the good.]

When I take into my hands an ancient copy of the
Gospels, I expect that it will exhibit sundry inaccuracies
and imperfections : and I am never disappointed in my
expectation. The discovery however creates no uneasiness,
so long as the phenomena evolved are of a certain kind
and range within easily definable limits. Thus :

T. Whatever belongs to peculiarities of spelling or fashions
of writing, I can afford to disregard. For example, it is
clearly consistent with perfect good faith, that a scribe
should spell Kpaftarrov l in several different ways : that he
should write OVTO> for ovrw?, or the contrary : that he should
add or omit what grammarians call the v e^eAxuo-rtKoV.
The questions really touched by irregularities such as these
concern the date and country where the MS. was produced ;
not by any means the honesty or animus of the copyist.
The man fell into the method which was natural to him,
or which he found prevailing around him ; and that was all.

1 [I.e. generally xpafiarrov, or else Kpaftarov, or even KpaficucTov seldom
found as xpdfifiaTTov, or spelt in the corrupt

FREQUENT CASES. 19

{ Itacisms ' therefore, as they are called, of whatever kind,
by which is meant the interchange of such vowels and
diphthongs as i-et, at-e, rj-t, TJ-OI-V, o-a>, 7j-ei, need excite
no uneasiness. It is true that these variations may occa-
sionally result in very considerable inconvenience : for
it will sometimes happen that a different reading is the
consequence. But the copyist may have done his work in
perfect good faith for all that. It is not he who is respon-
sible for the perplexity he occasions me, but the language
and the imperfect customs amidst which he wrote.

2. In like manner the reduplication of syllables, words,
clauses, sentences, is consistent with entire sincerity of
purpose on the part of the copyist. This inaccuracy is
often to be deplored ; inasmuch as a reduplicated syllable
often really affects the sense. But for the most part
nothing worse ensues than that the page is disfigured
with errata.

3. So, on the other hand, the occasional omission of
words, whether few or many, especially that passing from
one line to the corresponding place in a subsequent line,
which generally results from the proximity of a similar
ending, is a purely venial offence. It is an evidence of
carelessness, but it proves nothing worse.

4. Then further, slight inversions, especially of ordinary
words ; or the adoption of some more obvious and familiar
collocation of particles in a sentence ; or again, the oc-
casional substitution of one common word for another,
as eiTre for eAeye, (jxavrja-av for Kpaav, and the like ; need
not provoke resentment. It is an indication, we are willing
to hope, of nothing worse than slovenliness on the part
of the writer or the group or succession of writers.

5. I will add that besides the substitution of one word
for another, cases frequently occur, where even the intro-
duction into the text of one or more words which cannot
be thought to have stood in the original autograph of the

c a

20 GENERAL CORRUPTION.

Evangelist, need create no offence. It is often possible
to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way.

But it is high time to point out, that irregularities which
fall under these last heads are only tolerable within narrow
limits, and always require careful watching ; for they may
easily become excessive or even betray an animus ; and
in either case they pass at once into quite a different
category. From cases of excusable oscitancy they de-
generate, either into instances of inexcusable licentiousness,
or else into cases of downright fraud.

6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex
(a) that entire sentences or significant clauses are habitually
omitted : (b) that again and again in the course of the
same page the phraseology of the Evangelist has upon
clear evidence been seriously tampered with : and (c) that
interpolations here and there occur which will not admit
of loyal interpretation : we cannot but learn to regard
with habitual distrust the Codex in which all these notes
are found combined. It is as when a witness, whom we
suspected of nothing worse than a bad memory or a random
tongue or a lively imagination, has been at last convicted
of deliberate suppression of parts of his evidence, misrepre-
sentation of facts, in fact, deliberate falsehood.

7. But now suppose the case of a MS. in which words
or clauses are clearly omitted with design ; where ex-
pressions are withheld which are confessedly harsh or
critically difficult, whole sentences or parts of them
which have a known controversial bearing ; Suppose fur-
ther that the same MS. abounds in worthless paraphrase,
and contains apocryphal additions throughout : What are
we to think of our guide then? There can be but one
opinion on the subject. From habitually trusting, we
shall entertain inveterate distrust. We have ascertained
his character. We thought he was a faithful witness, but
we now find from experience of his transgressions that

INADVERTENCY. 21

we have fallen into bad company. His witness may be
false no less than true : confidence is at an end.

It may be regarded as certain that most of the aber-
rations discoverable in Codexes of the Sacred Text have
arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency
of the scribes. That such was the case in a vast number
of cases is in fact demonstrable. [Inaccuracy in the ap-
prehension of the Divine Word, which in the earliest ages
was imperfectly understood, and ignorance of Greek in
primitive Latin translators, were prolific sources of error.
The influence of Lectionaries, in which Holy Scripture
was cut up into separate Lections either with or without
an introduction, remained with habitual hearers, and led
them off in copying to paths which had become familiar.
Acquaintance with ' Harmonies ' or Diatessarons caused
copyists insensibly to assimilate one Gospel to another.
And doctrinal predilections, as in the case of those who
belonged to the Origenistic school, were the source of
lapsing into expressions which were not the verba ipsissima
of Holy Writ. In such cases, when the inadvertency was
genuine and was unmingled with any overt design, it is
much to be noted that the error seldom propagated itself
extensively.]

But next, well-meant endeavours must have been made
at a very early period ' to rectify ' (biop6ovv) the text thus un-
intentionally corrupted ; and so, what began in inadvertence
is sometimes found in the end to exhibit traces of design,
and often becomes in a high degree perplexing. Thus,
to cite a favourite example, it is clear to me that in the
earliest age of all (A.D. 100?) some copyist of St. Luke ii. 14
(call him X) inadvertently omitted the second EN in the
Angelic Hymn. Now if the persons (call them Y and Z)
whose business it became in turn to reproduce the early

GENERAL CORRUPTION.

copy thus inadvertently depraved, had but been content
both of them to transcribe exactly what they saw before
them, the error of their immediate predecessor (X) must
infallibly have speedily been detected, remedied, and for-
gotten, simply because, as every one must have seen
as well as Y and Z, it was impossible to translate the
sentence which results, em yfjs elp^vri avOpwirois evboKia.
Reference would have been made to any other copy of
the third Gospel, and together with the omitted preposition
(et>) sense would have been restored to the passage. But
unhappily one of the two supposed Copyists being a learned
grammarian who had no other copy at hand to refer to,
undertook, good man that he was, proprio Marte to force
a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy
before him : and he did it by affixing to evboKia the sign
of the genitive case (s). Unhappy effort of misplaced
skill ! That copy [or those copies] became the immediate
progenitor [or progenitors] of a large family, from which
all the Latin copies are descended ; whereby it comes to
pass that Latin Christendom sings the Hymn 'Gloria in
excelsis ' incorrectly to the present hour, and may possibly
sing it incorrectly to the end of time. The error committed
by that same venerable Copyist survives in the four oldest
copies of the passage extant, B* and N*, A and D,
though happily in no others, in the Old Latin, Vulgate,
and Gothic, alone of Versions ; in Irenaeus and Origen
(who contradict themselves), and in the Latin Fathers.
All the Greek authorities, with the few exceptions just
recorded, of which A and D are the only consistent
witnesses, unite in condemning the evident blunder 1 .

1 I am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeeding that of the
Apostles, some person or persons of great influence and authority executed
a Revision of the N. T. and gave the world the result of such labours in
a 'corrected Text.' The guiding principle seems to have been to seek to
abridge the Text, to lop off whatever seemed redundant, or which might in any
way be spared, and to eliminate from one Gospel whatever expressions occurred

UNFORTUNATE DESIGN. 23

I ohce hoped that it might be possible to refer all the
Corruptions of the Text of Scripture to ordinary causes :
as, careless transcription, divers accidents, misplaced
critical assiduity, doctrinal animus, small acts of un-
pardonable licence.

But increased attention and enlarged acquaintance with
the subject, have convinced me that by far the larger
number of the omissions of such Codexes as NBLD must
needs be due to quite a different cause. These MSS. omit
so many words, phrases, sentences, verses of Scripture,
that it is altogether incredible that the proximity of
like endings can have much to do with the matter.
Inadvertency may be made to bear the blame of some
omissions : it cannot bear the blame of shrewd and signi-
ficant omissions of clauses, which invariably leave the
sense complete. A systematic and perpetual mutilation
of the inspired Text must needs be the result of design,
not of accident l .

[It will be seen therefore that the causes of the Cor-
ruptions of the Text class themselves under two main
heads, viz. (I.) Those which arose from Inadvertency, and
(II.) Those which took their origin in Design.]

elsewhere in another GospeL Clauses which slightly obscured the speaker's
meaning ; or which seemed to hang loose at the end of a sentence ; or which
introduced a consideration of difficulty : words which interfered with the easy
flow of a sentence : every thing of this kind such a personage seems to have held
himself free to discard. But what is more serious, passages which occasioned
some difficulty, as the pericope de aduliera ; physical perplexity, as the troubling
of the water ; spiritual revulsion, as the agony in the garden : all these the re-
viser or revisers seem to have judged it safest simply to eliminate. It is difficult
to understand how any persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred
deposit ; but it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period there
were found some who did act in some such way. Let it be observed, however,
that unlike some critics I do not base my real argument upon what appears
to me to be a not unlikely supposition.

1 [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption, as
described in The Traditional Text.]

CHAPTER II.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

I. PURE ACCIDENT.

[IT often happens that more causes than one are com-
bined in the origin of the corruption in any one passage.
In the following history of a blunder and of the fatal
consequences that ensued upon it, only the first step was
accidental. But much instruction may be derived from the
initial blunder, and though the later stages in the history
come under another head, they nevertheless illustrate the
effects of early accident, besides throwing light upon parts
of the discussion which are yet to come.]

We are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress
of accidental depravations of the text: and the study is as
instructive as it is interesting. Let me invite attention to
what is found in St. John x. 29 ; where, instead of, * My
Father, who hath given them [viz. My sheep] to Me, is
greater than all,' Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, are for
reading, ' That thing which My (or the) Father hath given
to Me is greater (i. e. is a greater thing) than all.' A vastly
different proposition, truly ; and, whatever it may mean,
wholly inadmissible here, as the context proves. It has
been the result of sheer accident moreover, as I proceed
to explain.

St. John certainly wrote the familiar words, 6 mm/p \LOV

PURE ACCIDENT. 25

6s Se'SoW jtxot, fj.eCa>v TravTMv eori. But, with the licentious-
ness [or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age,
some remote copyist is found to have substituted for os
8e'8a)Ke, its grammatical equivalent 6 8e8a>Kws. And this
proved fatal ; for it was only necessary that another scribe
should substitute jj.elov for pftfav (after the example of
such places as St. Matt. xii. 6, 41, 42, &c.), and thus the
door had been opened to at least four distinct deflections
from the evangelical verity, which straightway found
their way into manuscripts: (i) o 8ea>K(os . . . /lei^coi; of
which reading at this day D is the sole representative :

(2) o? 8e6coKe ... p,eiov which survives only in AX:

(3) o SeSojjce . . . ptifav which is only found in NL :

(4) o 8e8coKe . . . fjLiov which is the peculiar property
of B. The ist and 2nd of these sufficiently represent the
Evangelist's meaning, though neither of them is what he
actually wrote ; but the 3rd is untranslatable : while the 4th
is nothing else but a desperate attempt to force a meaning
into the 3rd, by writing peitjov for ptifav ; treating o not
as the article but as the neuter of the relative 6's.

This last exhibition of the text, which in fact scarcely
yields an intelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum
of manuscript evidence, would long since have been for-
gotten, but that, calamitously for the Western Church, its
Version of the 'New Testament Scriptures was executed
from MSS. of the same vicious type as Cod. B x . Accord-
ingly, all the Latin copies, and therefore all the Latin
Fathers 2 , translate, 'Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus
omnibus est V The Westerns resolutely extracted a mean-
ing from whatever they presumed to be genuine Scripture :

1 See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th ed.

2 Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 bis): Hilary (930 bis,
1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii 2 . 615) : Maximinus, an Arian bishop
(ap. Aug. viii. 651).

3 Pater (or Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (or mihi dedit), majus omnibus est
(or majus est omnibus : or omnibus majus est).

26 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

and one can but admire the piety which insists on finding
sound Divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else
but a sorry blunder. What, asks Augustine, was 'the
thing, greater than all,' which the Father gave to the SON ?
To be the Word of the Father (he answers), His only-
begotten Son and the brightness of His glory x . The Greeks
knew better. Basil 2 , Chrysostom 3 , Cyril on nine occasions 4 ,
Theodoret 5 as many as quote the place invariably
exhibit the textus rcceptus 6s ... /xet^coz;, which is obviously
the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation.
' But,' I shall perhaps be asked, ' although Patristic and
manuscript evidence are wanting for the reading 6 5c8coKe
/xot . . . fjLfifav, is it not a significant circumstance that
three translations of such high antiquity as the Latin, the
Bohairic, and the Gothic, should concur in supporting it ?
and does it not inspire extraordinary confidence in B to
find that B alone of MSS. agrees with them ? ' To which
I answer, It makes me, on the contrary, more and more
distrustful of the Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic
versions to find them exclusively siding with Cod. B on
such an occasion as the present. It is obviously not more
' significant ' that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic,
should here conspire with than that the Syriac, the Sahidic,
and the Ethiopic, should here combine against B. On the
other hand, how utterly insignificant is the testimony of B
when opposed to all the uncials, all the cursives, and all the
Greek fathers who quote the place. So far from inspiring
me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatal
sympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which
confessedly many of the Old Latin were executed, confirms

1 iii a . 615. He begins, ' Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus ? Ut ipsi ille
esset unigenitus Filius?

' 2 3"- 3 viii. 363 bis.

4 i. 188 : ii. 567 : Hi. 792 : iv. 666 (ed. Pusey) : v 1 . 326, 577, 578 : ap. Mai
ii. 13: iii. 336.

4 v. 1065 ( = Dial ap. Athanas. ii. 555).

PURE ACCIDENT. 27

me in my habitual distrust of it. About the true reading
of St. John x. 29, there really exists no manner of doubt.
As for the ' old uncials ' they are (as usual) hopelessly at
variance on the subject. In an easy sentence of only
9 words, which however Tischendorf exhibits in conformity
with no known Codex, while Tregelles and Alford blindly
follow Cod. B, they have contrived to invent five ' various
readings,' as may be seen at foot 1 . Shall we wonder more
at the badness of the Codexes to which we are just now
invited to pin our faith ; or at the infatuation of our guides ?

I do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to
grave disturbances of the Text which have resulted from
a slight clerical error. While we are enumerating the
various causes of Textual depravity, we may not fail to
specify this. Once trace a serious Textual disturbance
back to (what for convenience may be called) a ' clerical
error,' and you are supplied with an effectual answer to
a form of inquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing :
viz. If the true meaning of this passage be what you sup-
pose, for what conceivable reason should the scribe have
misrepresented it in this strange way, made nonsense, in
short, of the place ? . . . I will further remark, that it is
always interesting, sometimes instructive, after detecting
the remote origin of an ancient blunder, to note what has
been its subsequent history and progress.

Some specimens of the thing referred to I have already
given in another place. The reader is invited to acquaint
himself with the strange process by which the ' 276 souls '
who suffered shipwreck with St. Paul (Acts xxvii. 37),
have since dwindled down to ' about 76 V He is further

1 Viz. + (jiov ABD : - p.ov X | os A : o BSD | SeSoj/tev BKA : SfSco/ius \ pfifav
ND : /tof AB | /*ei. Ttavroiv eanv A : iravrajv /<. eonv BSD.

2 The Revision Revised, p. 51-3.

28 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

requested to note how ' a certain man ' who in the time of
St. Paul bore the name of ' Justus ' (Acts xviii. 7), has been
since transformed into ' Titus,' ' Titus Justus', and even
' Titius Justus^! But for a far sadder travestie of sacred
words, the reader is referred to what has happened in
St. Matt. xi. 23 and St. Luke x. 15, where our SAVIOUR
is made to ask an unmeaning question instead of being
permitted to announce a solemn fact concerning Caper-
naum ' 2 . The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island
of Malta, Melitene 3 , (for which geographers are indebted to
the adventurous spirit of Westcott and Hort), may also be
profitably considered in connexion with what is to be the
subject of the present chapter. And now to break up fresh
ground.

Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in
Acts xx. 24. It is but the change of a single letter (Ao'yoT
for Ao'yoN), yet has that minute deflection from the truth led
to a complete mangling of the most affecting perhaps of
St. Paul's utterances. I refer to the famous words oAA'
ovSez/os Xoyov Tioiov^ai, ow6e H\<a rrjv ^rv^jiv JJ.QV riju.un> e/xauro),
a>s TeAeia>o-ai TOV bpo^ov /xov /iera \apas : excellently, because
idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of 16 n, 'But
none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear
unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.'

For ovbfL'os AoTON, (the accusative after TTOIOU/XCU), some
one having substituted ovbevbs AoTOT, a reading which
survives to this hour in B and C 4 , it became necessary to
find something else for the verb to govern. TT)V -^v^v was
at hand, but oi8e IXCD stood in the way. Ou5e ex^ must
therefore go 5 ; and go it did, as B, C, and tf remain to

1 The Revision Revised, p. 53-4. a Jbid. p. 54-6. 3 Ibid. p. 177-8.

4 Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A.D. 458 see Cramer's Cat. p. 334-5,
last line, \6yov is read besides in the cursives Act. 36, 96, 105.

5 I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in 1875
1 The real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T. R. is, that if the
words ouSt x w nad once formed a part of the original text, there is no possibility

PURE ACCIDENT. 29

attest. TijAiav should have gone also, if the sentence was
to be made translatable ; but rt/xtay was left behind l . The
authors of ancient embroilments of the text were sad
bunglers. In the meantime, Cod. N inadvertently retained
St. Luke's word, AOFON ; and because tf here follows B in
every other respect, it exhibits a text which is simply
unintelligible 2 .

Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words
ov8e e^co rr\v \j/v\^v [JLOV n^iav e/xanrw, may on no account be
surrendered. It is indeed beyond the reach of suspicion,
being found in Codd. A, D, E, H, L, P, 13, 31, in fact in
every known copy of the Acts, except the discordant NBC.
The clause in question is further witnessed to by the
Vulgate 3 , by the Harkleian 4 , by Basil 5 , by Chrysos-
tom 6 , by Cyril 7 , by Euthalius 8 , and by the interpolator

of accounting for the subsequent omission of them.' The same remark, but con-
siderably toned down, is found in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. iii, p. 84.

1 B and C read d\\' ovtitvos \6jov iroiovfj.at TTJV ^/v\^v ri/tiav 4/iaura) : which
is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents, ' sed pro nihilo aestimo animam
meant caram esse mihi' (Galland. vi. 241).

a N reads a\\' ovSevbs \6-yov iroiovfMi rfjv ifivxrjv n^iav e/Jtavry us rtXfiwffoj
rov Kp6[J.ov HQV.

3 ' Sed nihil horum [rovrcav is found in many Greek Codd.] vereor, nee facto
animam meam pretiosiorem qtiam me! So, the Cod. Amiat. It is evident
then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes ' nee f ado animam meam cariorem
mihi,' he is quoting the latter of these two clauses. Augustine (iii 1 . 516), when
he cites the place thus, ' Non enim facto animam meatn preliosiorem quant me' ;
and elsewheie (iv. 268) 'pretiosam mihi' ; also Origen (interp. iv. 628 c), ' sed
ego non facia cariorem animam meam mihi' ; and even the Coptic, ' sed anima
mea, dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo ' : these evidently summarize
the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the second clause. The
Latin of D exhibits ' Sed nihil horum cura est mihi : neque habeo ipsam animam
caram mihi'

* Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized d\\' ovSeva Ko^ov TTOIOV/MU,
ov8% \f\6yiarai pot ^fx 1 ? M 01 ^ ri Tifttor.

5 ii. 296 e, exactly as the T. R.

6 Exactly as the T. R., except that he writes r^v ^vx^v without pov (ix. 332).
So again, further on (334 b), ov e^'" Tiptav rty IHOMTOV tf/vxrif. This latter
place is quoted in Cramer's Cat. 334.

7 Ap. Mai ii. 336 5t KOI rfjs C'"'? 5 Karatppovtiv virtp TOV Te\eiuffat rov
Sponov, ovSe rf)v ^vx^v ftprj iroifTo6ai Tipiav tavrif.

8 \6yov (x<, oiiSJ noiovpai r^v ^vxqv Tipiav ffiavTw, wffrf K.T.\. (ap.
Galland. x. 222).

30 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

of Ignatius *. What are we to think of our guides (Tischen-
dorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who
have nevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and
presented us instead with what Dr. Field, who is indeed
a Master in Israel, describes as the impossible aAA' ovbei-os
\6yov TTOLovfj.aL TTJV ^rvx^v ripiav e/xaurw 2 ?

The words of the last-named eminent scholar on the
reading just cited are so valuable in themselves, and are
observed to be so often in point, that they shall find place
here: 'Modern Critics,' he says, 'in deference to the
authority of the older MSS., and to certain critical canons
which prescribe that preference should be given to the
shorter and more difficult reading over the longer and
easier one, have decided that the T. R. in this passage
is to be replaced by that which is contained in those
older MSS.

1 In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term
seems hardly applicable to the present case. A difficult
reading is one which presents something apparently incon-
gruous in the sense, or anomalous in the construction, which
an ignorant or half-learned copyist would endeavour, by
the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, to remove ;
but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation,
and a comparison of similar cases, to defend against all
such fancied improvements. In the reading before us, dAX'
ovbevbs Ao'you Troiov^ai TTJV ^fv^iji' Tipiav e/xaurw, it is the con-
struction, and not the sense, which is in question ; and this
is not simply difficult, but impossible. There is really no
way of getting over it ; it baffles novices and experts alike V
When will men believe that a reading vouched for by only

d\\' ouSti/fo \6yov trotoC/xcu rwv Sfivwv, ovSl ?x<w TTJV tyvxqv -eipiav efiavrw.
Epist. ad Tars. c. i (Dressel, p. 255).

2 The whole of Dr. Field's learned annotation deserves to be carefully read
and pondered. I speak of it especially in the shape in which it originally
appeared, viz. in 1875.

* Ibid. p. 2 and 3.

ST. LUKE II. 14. 31

Btf C is safe to be a fabrication l ? But at least when Copies
and Fathers combine, as here they do, against those three
copies, what can justify critics in upholding a text which
carries on its face its own condemnation ?

We now come to the inattention of those long-since-
forgotten 1st or Ilnd century scribes who, beguiled by the
similarity of the letters N and AN (in the expression N AN-
0/>MTTot? evSoKta, St. Luke ii. 14), left out the preposition.
An unintelligible clause was the consequence, as has been
explained above (p. zi): which some one next sought to
remedy by adding to evSo/cux the sign of the genitive (C).
Thus the Old Latin translations were made.

That this is the true history of a blunder which the latest
Editors of the New Testament have mistaken for genuine
Gospel, is I submit certain 2 . Most Latin copies (except 14 3 )
exhibit ' pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,' as well as many
Latin Fathers 4 . On the other hand, the preposition GN is

1 Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at the hands
of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words troiov p.a.1 and ex 10 have
been made to change places. The latter Codex introduces //ot after ex 01 , for
efjiavTy writes tfiavrov, and exhibits TOV Tf\ttuJaai without cuy. C writes us TO
re\eiu>aai. SB alone of Codexes present us with Te\etwffca for reteiuxrai, and
are followed by Westcott and Hort alone of Editors. The Peshitto (' sed mihi
nihili aestimatur anima mea '), the Sahidic (' sed non facio animam meant in
ulld re '), and the Aethiopic (' sed non reputo animam meam nihil quidquam '),
get rid of npiav as well as of ovSe t'x. 0} - So much diversity of text, and in
such primitive witnesses, while it points to a remote period as the date of the
blunder to which attention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utter
perplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first.

2 Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of N by
the first syllable of AN^P^wots) is to be seen in Acts iv. 12, where however
the error has led to no mischievous results.

:l For those which insert in (14), and those which reject it (25), see Words-
worth's edition of the Vulgate on this passage.

4 Of Fathers: Ambrose i. 1298 Hieronymus i. 448', 693, 876: ii. 213:
iv. 34, 92 : v. 147 : vi. 638 : vii. 241, 281, 283, Augustine 34 times, Optatus
(Galland. v. 472, 487), Gaudentius Brix. (ap. Sabat.), Chromatius Ag. (Gall.
viii. 337), Orosius (ib. ix. 134), Marius M. (ib. viii. 672), Maximus Taur. (ib.
ix. 355), Sedulius (ib. 575), Leo M. (ap. Sabat.), Mamertus Claudianus

32 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

retained in every known Greek copy of St. Luke without
exception, while the reading evSoKtas is absolutely limited
to the four uncials ABtfD. The witness of antiquity on
this head is thus overwhelming and decisive.

In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,
is discoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) cer-
tainly wrote Zva Seoyuoy, ONTT6P TJTOVVTO, the scribe of A,
who evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in
uncial letters is found to have divided the Evangelist's
syllables wrongly, and to exhibit in this place ON . TT-
PHTOUNTO. The consequence might have been predicted.
NAB transform this into ON FTAPHTOYNTO: which ac-
cordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by
Westcott and Hort.

Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can
possibly be mistaken for the first syllable of the next, or
vice versa, it is safe sooner or later to have misled some-
body. Thus, we are not at all surprised to find St. Mark's
a 7rape'Aa/3oi; (vii. 4) transformed into cure/) lAa/3oy, but
only by B.

[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is
supplied by the substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of Trjs
Ovyarpos avrov c Hpw8ta5o? for r?)? Ovyarpos avTrjs T% 'HpcoSta-
809. Here a first copyist left out rrjs as being a repetition
of the last syllable of avrrjs, and afterwards a second at-
tempted to improve the Greek by putting the masculine
pronoun for the feminine (AYTOY for AYTHC). The con-
sequence was hardly to have been foreseen.]

Strange to say it results in the following monstrous
figment : that the fruit of Herod's incestuous connexion
with Herodias had been a daughter, who was also named

(Gall. x. 431), Vigilius Taps. (ap. Sabat.), Zacchaeus (Gall. ix. 241),
Caesarius Arel. (ib. xi. n), ps.-Ambros. ii. 394, 396, Hormisdas P. (Cone.
iv. 1494, 1496), 52 Bps. at 8th Council of Toledo (Cone. vi. 395), &c., &c.

PURE ACCIDENT. 33

Herodias ; and that she, the King's own daughter, was
the immodest one l who came in and danced before him,
' his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee/ as
they sat at the birthday banquet. Probability, natural
feeling, the obvious requirements of the narrative, History
itself , for Josephus expressly informs us that * Salome,'
not ' Herodias,' was the name of Herodias' daughter 2 , all
reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the truth. But
what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settles the
question, is the testimony of the MSS., of which only
seven (KBDLA with two cursive copies) can be found to
exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading
AYTOY is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles,
Tischendorf and Alford. It has nevertheless found favour
with Dr. Hort ; and it has even been thrust into the margin
of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, as a reading
having some probability.

This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of
accidental errors another proof that NBDL cannot be
trusted.

Sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present
erroneous reading was brought to perfection. The im-
mediate proximity in MSS. of the selfsame combination
of letters is observed invariably to result in a various
reading. AYTHCTHC was safe to part with its second
THC on the first opportunity, and the definitive article
(njs) once lost, the substitution of AYTOY for AYTHC
is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directed in-
telligence would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing
sufficient attention on the subject to be aware that the
person spoken of in verses ao and 31 is Herod the King.

[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near
together was a frequent source of error. Copying has

1 See Wetstein on this place. a Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4.

II. D

34 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

always a tendency to become mechanical : and when the
mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his monotonous toil,
as well as if it became too active, the sacred Text suffered
more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the
seed of serious depravation.]

Another interesting and instructive instance of error
originating in sheer accident, is supplied by the reading
in certain MSS. of St. Mark viii. i. That the Evangelist
wrote Tra/rTTo'AAou o^Xov 'the multitude being very great,'
is certain. This is the reading of all the uncials but eight,
of all the cursives but fifteen. But instead of this, it has
been proposed that we should read, 'when there was
again a great multitude,' the plain fact being that some
ancient scribe mistook, as he easily might, the less usual
compound word for what was to himself a far more
familiar expression : i. e. he mistook IIAMnOAAOT for
IIAAIN nOAAOT.

This blunder must date from the second century, for
' iterum ' is met with in the Old Latin as well as in the
Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic, and some other versions.
On the other hand, it is against ' every true principle of
Textual Criticism ' (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that the
more difficult expression should be abandoned for the
easier, when forty-nine out of every fifty MSS. are ob-
served to uphold it ; when the oldest version of all, the
Syriac, is on the same side ; when the source of the mistake
is patent ; and when the rarer word is observed to be in
St. Mark's peculiar manner. There could be in fact no
hesitation on this subject, if the opposition had not been
headed by those notorious false witnesses NBDL, which
it is just now the fashion to uphold at all hazards. They
happen to be supported on this occasion by GMNA and

PURE ACCIDENT. 35

fifteen cursives : while two other cursives look both ways
and exhibit "naXiv Tra/^TroAAou.

In St. Mark vii. 14, iidXiv was similarly misread by some
copyists for Tiavra, and has been preserved by NBDLA
(flAAIN for nANTA) against thirteen uncials, all the
cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian.

So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads bvvaarai JMH by
an evident slip of the pen for Svra/utat croi. And in xix. 31
/xeyaAH H H/x,epa has become /xeydArj r/jue'pa in NAEF and
some cursive copies.

D 2

CHAPTER III.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
II. HOMOEOTELEUTON.

No one who finds the syllable OI recurring six times
over in about as many words, e. g. /ecu eyeWro, <y? cnrfjXOov
. . . OI ayyeAOI, /cat OI avOpuvOl OI TrOI/xe^es eiTrov, is
surprised to learn that MSS. of a certain type exhibit
serious perturbation in that place. Accordingly, BLE
leave out the words /cat ot avOpanroi ; and in that mutilated
form the modern critical editors are contented to exhibit
St. Luke ii. 15. One would have supposed that Tischen-
dorf s eyes would have been opened when he noticed that
in his own Codex (N) one word more (ot) is dropped,
whereby nonsense is made of the passage (viz. ol ayyeAot
Trotjue'yes). Self-evident it is that a line with a * like ending '
has been omitted by the copyist of some very early codex
of St. Luke's Gospel ; which either read,

01 ArreAoi

[KAI 01 ANOI 01]
nOIMNC

or else

[KAI OI ANOI]
OI TTOIMNC

Another such place is found in St. John vi. n. The

HOMOEOTELEUTON. 37

Evangelist certainly described the act of our SAVIOUR on a
famous occasion in the well-known words, KOL fv\ap 10-77/0-0 s

rot?

01 Se

rots] avaK.eip.vois.

The one sufficient proof that St. John did so write, being
the testimony of the MSS. Moreover, we are expressly
assured by St. Matthew (xiv. 19), St. Mark (vi. 41), and
St. Luke (ix. 16), that our SAVIOUR'S act was performed
in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has
suffered his eye to wander from rot? in 1. 2 to rots in 1. 4,
whereby St. John is made to say that our SAVIOUR himself
distributed to the 5000. The blunder is a very ancient
one ; for it has crept into the Syriac, Bohairic, and Gothic
versions, besides many copies of the Old Latin ; and has
established itself in the Vulgate. Moreover some good
Fathers (beginning with Origen) so quote the place. But
such evidence is unavailing to support NABLII, the early
reading of N being also contradicted by the fourth hand in
the seventh century against the great cloud of witnesses,
beginning with D and including twelve other uncials, beside
the body of the cursives, the Ethiopic and two copies of
the Old Latin, as well as Cyril Alex.

Indeed, there does not exist a source of error which has
proved more fatal to the transcribers of MSS. than the
proximity of identical, or nearly identical, combinations
of letters. And because these are generally met with
in the final syllables of words, the error referred to is
familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes ' like-
ness of ending' (Homoeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe
on reverting from his copy to the original before him is
of necessity apt sometimes to alight on the same word,
or what looks like the same word, a little lower down.

38 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

The consequence is obvious. All that should have come
in between gets omitted, or sometimes duplicated.

It is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to
find oneself in this way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, per-
haps thirty words, no very serious consequence for the most
part ensues. Nevertheless, the result is often sheer non-
sense. When this is the case, it is loyally admitted by all.
A single example may stand for a hundred. [In St. John vi.
55, that most careless of careless transcripts, the Sinaitic K,
omits on a most sacred subject seven words, and the
result hardly admits of being characterized. Let the
reader judge for himself. The passage stands thus :
77 yap <rap pov a\ridu>s for: /3pw(ris, /ecu TO at/xa fj.ov a\t]6S>s eari
77o'o-is. The transcriber of tf by a very easy mistake let
his eye pass from one akr]d&s to another, and character-
istically enough the various correctors allowed the error
to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, though
the error issued in nothing less than. ' My Flesh is drink
indeed.' Could that MS. have undergone the test of fre-
quent use ?]

But it requires very little familiarity with the subject
to be aware that occasions must inevitably be even of
frequent occurrence when the result is calamitous, and even
perplexing, in the extreme. The writings of Apostles
and Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine LORD Him-
self, abound in short formulae ; and the intervening matter
on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence, which
occasionally may be discovered from its context without
evident injury to the general meaning of the place. Thus
[ver. 14 in St. Matt, xxiii. was omitted in an early age,
owing to the recurrence of oval vfj.lv at the beginning, by
some copyists, and the error was repeated in the Old
Latin versions. It passed to Egypt, as some of the
Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origen testify. The
Vulgate is not quite consistent : and of course tf BDLZ,

HOMOEOTELEUTON. 39

a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew,
follow suit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and
five or more cursives, enough to make the more emphatic
the condemnation by the main body of them. Besides the
verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (as against five)
including <E> and 2, the Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic,
Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen (iii. 838
(only in Lat.)) ; Chrysostom (vii. 707 (bis] ; ix. 755) ; Opus
Imperf. 185 (bis)', 186 (bis) ; John Damascene (ii. 517);
Theophylact (i. 124) ; Hilary (89 ; 725) ; Jerome (iv. 276 ;
v. 52 ; vi. 138 ; vii. 185)].

Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen
that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote
period ; (for there have been careless scribes in every
age :) and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have
propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist (suppose)
in several of the known copies ; and if, as very often is
the case, it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old
uncials,' all hope of its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead
of being loyally recognized as a blunder, which it clearly
is, it is forthwith charged upon the Apostle or Evangelist
as the case may be. In other words, it is taken for granted
that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the
sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an un-
authorized accretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth
becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a
hundred which contain the missing words. I proceed to
give an instance of my meaning.

Our SAVIOUR, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that
whosoever putteth away his wife d JAT) t-nl -jropvcia, nal
-yap.r](rri aXXrjv, p.oi\a.TaL', adds KOL 6 a.TTo\\v^vr]v ya^cras
/zoix&Tai. Those five words are not found in Codd. KDLS,
nor in several copies of the Old Latin nor in some copies
of the Bohairic, and the Sahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles
accordingly reject them.

40 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are
genuine. Those thirty-one letters probably formed three
lines in the oldest copies of all. Hence they are observed to
exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleian and Jerusalem), the
Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and
the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including
B^>S), and the vast majority of the cursives. So that there
can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.

A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from
precisely the same cause meets us a little further on in
the same Gospel. The threefold recurrence of TU>V in the
expression T(I)N \/axuoz/ ICON TriTrroVT CO N (St. Luke xvi.
21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the dropping of the
words \l/ix^ v T & v out of some copies. Unhappily the sense
is not destroyed by the omission. We are not surprised
therefore to discover that the words are wanting in
NBL : or to find that KBL are supported here by
copies of the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian
versions, nor by Clemens Alex. 1 and the author of the
Dialogus 2 . Jerome, on the other hand, condemns the Latin
reading, and the Syriac Versions are observed to approve
of Jerome's verdict, as well as the Gothic. But what
settles the question is the fact that every known Greek
MS., except those three, witnesses against the omission :
besides Ambrose 3 , Jerome 4 , Eusebius 5 Alex., Gregory G
Naz., Asterius 7 , Basil 8 , Ephraim 9 Syr., Chrysostom 10 , and
Cyril 11 of Alexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding
to discover, and distressing to have to record, that all the
recent Editors of the Gospels are more or less agreed in

I P. 23 2 - 2 Ap. Orig. i. 827.

3 Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491 ; places which shew how insecure would be
an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.

4 Hieron. v. 966 ; vi. 969. 5 Ap. Mai ii. 516, 520. 6 i. 370.
7 P. 12- ii. 169. ii. 142.
10 i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (bis\ 764 ; vii. 779.

II v 2 . 149 (luc. text, 524).

HOMOEOTELEUTON. 41

abolishing ' the crumbs which fell from the rich man's
table.'

[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence
of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age
of the Text of the Gospels. Before the sense of the exact
expressions of the Written Word was impressed upon the
mind of the Church, when the Canon was not definitely
acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet
gathered round writings which had been recently com-
posed, severe accuracy was not to be expected. Errors
would be sure to arise, especially from accident, and early
ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny ;
besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations
would give rise in the course of natural development to
serious and perplexing corruptions.

In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will
come under consideration.]

CHAPTER IV.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

III. FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS.

I-

CORRUPT readings have occasionally resulted from the
ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character,
without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the
text. Especially are they found in places where there
is something unusual in the structure of the sentence.

St. John iv. 35~6 (AevKcu eiVt Trpbs 6fpt.crp.bv 17817) has
suffered in this way, owing to the unusual position
of 7/877. Certain of the scribes who imagined that 7/8rj
might belong to ver. 36, rejected the K<H' as superfluous ;
though no Father is known to have been guilty of such
a solecism. Others, aware that 7/877 can only belong to
ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at the
beginning of ver. 36. A few, considering both words of
doubtful authority, retained neither 1 . In this way it has
come to pass that there are four ways of exhibiting this
place : (a) Trpos dfpLo-fjiov 77877. Kal 6 depifav : (b) Trpos
depLcrfjiov. v H8rj 6 6. : (c] Trpos 0pL(rp.bv 77877. 'O 6epiu>v :
(d) Trpbs Oepicrfjiov. 'O dfpifav, K.r.A..

1 It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of 778;; in
ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have begun ver. 36
as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i. 1398 : ii. 233), and Hilary (78.
443. 941. 1041).

FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 43

The only point of importance however is the position
of 77877 : which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of
the copies : as well as by Origen 1 , Eusebius 2 , Chrysostom 3 ,
Cyril 4 , the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac.
The Italic copies are hopelessly divided here 5 : and Codd.
NBMII do not help us. But 7/877 is claimed for ver. 36
by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis ( = KOL
7)817 o Oepifav) : while Codex A is singular in beginning ver.
36, 77817 Kai, which shews that some early copyist, with
the correct text before him, adopted a vicious punctuation.
For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly
received text and the usual punctuation is the true one:
as, on a careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced
reader will allow. But recent critics are for leaving out KCU
(with NBCDL) : while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tre-
gelles (marg,\ are for putting the full stop after Trpbs depia-^ov
and (with ACDL) making 7/8/7 begin the next sentence,
which (as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible^

Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers
propose in the parable of the prodigal son, ' And I perish
here with hunger ! ' But why ' here ? ' Because I answer,
whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood
thus, r(x)AAIMGJAnOAAYMAI, some careless scribe
after writing rOJA, reduplicated the three last letters
(Cx)A): he mistook them for an independent word.

1 i. 219 : iii. 158 : iv. 248, 250 bis, 251 bis, 252, 253, 255 bis, 256, 257. Also
iv. 440 note, which = cat 01 iv. 21.

2 dem. 440. But not in es. 426 : theoph. 262, 275-

3 vii. 488, 662 : ix. 32.

* i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611 : iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, troi/xos 77877 nyxk

TO TTtffTtVtlV.

5 Ambrose, ii. 279, has 'Et qui metit? Iren. lnt substitutes ' nam ' for ' ef,' and
omits 'jam. 1 Jerome 9 times introduces 'jam' before ' albae sitnt.' So Aug.
(iii. 2 417) : but elsewhere (iv. 639 : v. 531) he omits the word altogether.

44 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

Accordingly in the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten
cursives, we encounter eyo> be o>8e. The inventive faculty
having thus done its work it remained to superadd ' trans-
position,' as was done by NBL. From eyo> Se o>8e Ai/xco, the
sentence has now developed into eyco 8e At/^co <o8e : which
approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to Lachmann and
Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alford and Westcott and Hort,
and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, eyw
8e c58e is : for it is found in the Latin l and the Syriac
translations. It must therefore date from the second
century. But it is a blunder notwithstanding : a blunder
against which 16 uncials and the whole body of the
cursives bear emphatic witness 2 . Having detected its
origin, we have next to trace its progress.

The inventors of <58e or other scribes quickly saw that
this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the
sentence. Accordingly, the same primitive authorities
which advocate ' here,' are observed also to advocate, above,
' in my Father's house.' No extant Greek copy is known
to contain the bracketed words in the sentence [ev TU> oi/cw]
TOU itarpos fxou : but such copies must have existed in the
second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis
recognize the three words in question ; as well as copies of
the Latin with which Jerome 3 , Augustine 4 and Cassian 5
were acquainted. The phrase ' in domo patris mei ' has
accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely
we of the Church of England who have been hitherto
spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end
of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step.
Our LORD intended no contrast whatever between two

1 ' Hie ' is not recognized in Ambrose. Append, ii. 367.

2 The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34 :
x. 838) has 70; 5t SiSf : once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is
without the ui5(.

3 i. 76 : vi. 16 (not vi. 484). * iii.a 259 (not v. 511).

4 P- 45-

FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 45

localities but between two parties. The comfortable
estate of the hired servants He set against the abject
misery of the Son : not the house wherein the servants
dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing
when he came to a better mind. These are many words ;
but I know not how to be briefer. And, what is worthy
of discussion, if not the utterances of 'the Word made
flesh ? '

If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in
any quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the
context in NBL. What else but the instinct of a trained
understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place
like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in ver. 16,
for ye/xiVat TTJI> KoiAiay OVTOV diro, NBDLR present us with
Xoprao-^Tji/ai ex : and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly
the same authority (NBDUX), is made to say to his
father, IIoiTjow /ue o>? fva r<3z> fjuaOiaiv vov :

Which certainly he did not say *. Moreover, NBLX and
the Old Latin are for thrusting in raxy (D raxeoos) after
ffcveyKaTc. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated
readings ? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning
critic to improve upon the inspired original ?

From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were
in the oldest MSS. written thus, MONO Y0YOY (i.e. povov
0eoC ov), the middle word (Oeov) got omitted from some
very early copies ; whereby the sentence is made to run
thus in English, ' And seek not the honour which cometh
from the only One.' It is so that Origen 2 , Eusebius 3 ,
Didymus 4 , besides the two best copies of the Old Latin,
exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives
only in B at the present day, the preserver of an
Alexandrian error.

1 [The prodigal was prepared to say this ; but his father's kindness stopped
him : a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore.]
a iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes Oeov.
s Ap. Mai vii. 135. * Praep. xiii. 6, povov rov kvos (vol. ii. 294).

46 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

St. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the 'typhonic
wind called Euroclydon ' which caused the ship in which
St. Paul and he sailed past Crete to incur the harm and
loss ' so graphically described in the last chapter but one
of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this
one place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible ;
being compounded of Evpos, the 'south-east wind,' and
KAvStoy, ' a tempest : ' a compound which happily survives
intact in the Peshitto version. The Syriac translator, not
knowing what the word meant, copied what he saw, ' the
blast ' (he says) ' of the tempest l , which [blast] is called
Tophonikos Euroklldon.' Not so the licentious scribes
of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the
actual ' Euroclydon,' the imaginary name ' Euro-aquilo/
which accordingly stands to this day in the Vulgate. (Not
that Jerome himself so read the name of the wind, or he
would hardly have explained ' Eurielion ' or ' Enriclion '
to mean ' commiscens, sive deorsum ducens 2 .') Of this
feat of theirs, Codexes N and A (in which EYPOKAYAWN
has been perverted into EYPAKYACON) are at this day
the sole surviving Greek witnesses. Well may the evidence
for ' Euro-aquilo ' be scanty ! The fabricated word col-
lapses the instant it is examined. Nautical men point
out that it is 'inconsistent in its construction with the
principles on which the names of the intermediate or
compound winds are framed : '

' E iironotus is so called as intervening immediately be-
tween Eurus and Notus, and as partaking, as was thought,
of the qualities of both. The same holds true of Libono tus,
as being interposed between Libs and Notus. Both these
compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of
the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and

1 Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37. 2 iii. 101.

FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 47

no other wind intervenes. But Eurus and Aquilo are at
90 distance from one another; or according to some
writers, at 105 ; the former lying in the south-east quarter,
and the latter in the north-east : and two winds, one of
which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and
SubsolanusV

Further, why should the wind be designated by an im-
possible Latin name ? The ship was ' a ship of Alexandria'
(ver. 6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has
' Aquilo' here? Next, if the wind did bear the name
of ' Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way
(avffjios TV(j)u>viK.6s, 6 naXovfjitvos) as if it were a kind of
curiosity ? Such a name would utterly miss the point,
which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term
Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote EYPAK-,
how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has
written EYPOK-? The testimony of B is memorable.
The original scribe wrote EYPAKYACJN 2 : the secunda
manus has corrected this into EYPYKAYACON, which is
also the reading of Euthalius 3 . The essential circumstance
is, that not YACON but YACON has all along been the last
half of the word in Codex B 4 .

1 Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.

2 Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B : ' Antequam
manum de tabula amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano
inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrima
sua editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii. 14, codici
Vaticano tribuisse a prima manu cvp<McA.vSan ; nos vero (vpcucvSaiv ; atque sub-
jungit, "utrumqtie, ut videtur, male." At, quidquid "videri" possit, certum
nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse fvpaKvSwv, prout
expressum fuit turn in tabella qua Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, turn in
altera qua nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.' Prsefatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of
the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. vi. [Any one may now see this in
the photographed copy.]

8 Ap. Galland. x. 225.

4 Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the
copyist knowing more of Latin than of Greek.

True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. That is the
SE S SE S

48 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of KB, Tischendorf
adopts bifpxea-0ai (in place of the uncompounded verb), as-
signing as his reason, that ' If St. John had written epxeo-0at,
no one would ever have substituted 6tepxeo-0cu for it.' But
to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations,
is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have
referred the learned Critic to plenty of places where the
thing he speaks of as incredible has been done. The
proof that St. John used the uncompounded verb is the
fact that it is found in all the copies except our two
untrustworthy friends. The explanation of Alep^co/iat is
sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable (AE) of fj.rjb4
which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the
same excuse,

St. Mark x. 16 euAoyet has become KareuXoyet (NBC).
,, xii. 1 7 Oavnaa-av efeflaupiacray (KB).

xiv. 40 /3e/3ap7jju,eyoi Kara/Se^ap^/zeroi (ANB).

It is impossible to doubt that mi (in modern critical
editions of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence
to the same cause. In the phrase e/cet a-vvaxOrja-ovTai ol aerot
it might have been predicted that the last syllable of eject
would some day be mistaken for the conjunction. And so

reason -why the Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered it
Euroaquilo : instead of writing Euraquilo.

I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief.
Like the man who wrote tir' avry ra> <j>6py for en' avTO<f>wpa>.

Readings of Euroclydon

6YPAKYACON B (sic)
6YPAKYACJN NA
CYPAKHAGON
6YTPAKHACON
6YPAKAHACJN Peshitto.
6YPAKYKACON

Euroaquilo Vulg.

6YPOKAYAGJN HLP
EYPAKAYAOJN Syr. Harkl.

YPYKAYAO)N B

FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 49

it has actually come to pass. K A I ot aerot is met with in many
ancient authorities. But NLB also transposed the clauses,
and substituted eTrLa-vva-^Orja-ovTai for avva^O^a-ovTai. The
self-same casualty, viz. nai elicited out of the insertion of
et and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable
among the Cursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28, the parallel
place : where by the way the old uncials distinguish them-
selves by yet graver eccentricities 1 . How can we as
judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of
Scripture on evidence so precarious as this?

It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt,
xxii. 23 as follows : ' On that day there came to Him
Sadducees saying that there is no Resurrection.' A new
incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel
narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage.
Instead of ot Aeyovres, we are invited to read Aeyovres, on
the authority of NBDMSZP and several of the Cursives,
besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respect-
able array. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of
numbers in favour of the usual reading, which is also found
in the Old Latin copies and in the Vulgate. But surely
the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it is

otrtves \fyova- iv avaaraa-iv pir) fivai (St. Mark xii. 1 8) and
ot avTiXtyovres avaa-Taviv pr) elvai (St. Luke xx. 27)

may be considered as decisive in a case like the present.
Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has
paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists.
Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the
words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial
copy:

CAAAOYKAIOIOIAETONTES

and really nothing more requires to be said. The second
01 was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like

1 Oirov (ov N) yap ( yap NBDL) fav (av D) ro VTU(M (acufM N).
II. E

50 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

that. It might also have been anticipated, that there
would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent
KAI. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian
render the place ' et dicentes ; ' shewing that they mistook
KAI Ol AETONTES for a separate phrase.

The termination TO (in certain tenses of the verb), when
followed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion ;
sometimes to uncertainty. In St. John v. 4 for instance,
where we read in our copies KO! erapao-o-e TO vSaip, but so
many MSS. read erapcio-a-ero, that it becomes a perplexing
question which reading to follow. The sense in either
case is excellent: the only difference being whether the
Evangelist actually says that the Angel ' troubled ' the
water, or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance
that after the Angel had descended, straightway the water
4 was troubled.'

The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in
St. Luke vii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions
c%api<raTo /3A.e7rety (which is the reading of N*ABDEG and
ii other uncials) and fxapCa-aro TO fiXt-ntiv which is only
supported by N b ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faith-
fully maintain the former reading, and merge the article in
the verb.

Akin to the foregoing are all those instances, and they
are literally without number , where the proximity of
a like ending has been the fruitful cause of error. Let me
explain : for this is a matter which cannot be too thoroughly
apprehended.

Such a collection of words as the following two instances
exhibit will shew my meaning.

In the expression ecr^jjra Xa^-npav av^ir^-^^v (St. Luke
xxiii. ii), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of

FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 51

the verb (av) absorbed by the last syllable of the im-
mediately preceding Aa/xTrpdV. Accordingly, NLR supported
by one copy of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS.
concur in displaying eTre^ev in this place.

The letters NAIKCONAIKAI in the expression (St. Luke
xxiii. 27) yvvaiK&v a\ KO.L were safe to produce confusion.
The first of these three words could of course take care of
itself. (Though D, with some of the Versions, make it
into yvvaiKfs.) Not so however what follows. ABCDLX
and the Old Latin (except c) drop the /cat : N and C drop
the ai. The truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials
and with the cursives.

Thus also the reading ey oArj rr; raA.tA.cua (B) in St. Matt,
iv. 23, (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers,) is due simply
to the reduplication on the part of some inattentive scribe
of the last two letters of the immediately preceding word,
irepi-qyev. The received reading of the place is the correct
one, KOL irepirjyev o\rjv Trjv FaAiAaiay 6 'IrjcroCj, because
the first five words are so exhibited in all the Copies
except BNC ; and those three MSS. are observed to
differ as usual from one another, which ought to be
deemed fatal to their evidence. Thus,

B reads /cat TrtpLTJyev fv oA?j rrj FaAiAata.
K Kai irepirjyev 6 is fv rrj FaAiAaia.
C ,, K.CU Trepifjytv 6 Is fv oAr; Trj raAiAai'a.
But (I shall be asked) what about the position of the
Sacred Name ? How comes it to pass that 6 'Irjo-oSs, which
comes after FaAtAatay in almost every other known copy,
should come after Treptrjyey in three of these venerable
authorities (in D as well as in tf and C), and in the Latin,
Peshitto, Lewis, and Harkleian ? Tischendorf, Alford, West-
cott and Hort and the Revisers at all events (who simply
follow B in leaving out 6 'Irjo-oCs altogether) will not ask
me this question : but a thoughtful inquirer is sure to ask it.

E 2

52 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

The phrase (I reply) is derived by NCD from the twin
place in St. Matthew (ix. 35) which in all the MSS. begins
Kal Kfpirjyev 6 Is. So familiar had this order of the words
become, that the scribe of tf , (a circumstance by the way of
which Tischendorf takes no notice,) has even introduced
the expression into St. Mark vi. 6, the parallel place in
the second Gospel, where 6 is clearly has no business.
I enter into these minute details because only in this way
is the subject before us to be thoroughly understood. This
is another instance where 'the Old Uncials' shew their
text to be corrupt ; so for assurance in respect of accuracy
of detail we must resort to the Cursive Copies.

The introduction of CLTTO in the place of ayioi made by
the 'Revisers' into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21,
derives its origin from the same prolific source, [i] some
very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of ayioi for
OTTO. It was but the mistaking of ATI for ATTO. At the
end of J 700 years, the only Copies which witness to this de-
formity are BP with four cursives, in opposition to KAKL
and the whole body of the cursives, the Vulgate l and
the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of it 2 . Obvious
it was, next, for some one in perplexity, [2] to introduce
both readings (fao and ayioi) into the text. Accordingly
OTTO 0eou ayioi is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus 3 .
Then, [3], another variant crops up, (viz. VTTO for 0.7:6 but
only because VTTO went immediately before) ; of which fresh
blunder (VTTO &fov ayioi) Theophylact is the sole patron 4 .
The consequence of all this might have been foreseen :
[4] it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both OTTO and
ayiot were left out, which accounts for the reading of

1 Sancti Dei homines. 2 Ap. Galland. x. 236 a.

3 Triii. 234. * iii. 389.

FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 53

certain copies of the Old Latin x . Unaware how the blunder
began, Tischendorf and his followers claim ' [2],' ' [3],' and
' [4],' as proofs that ' [i] ' is the right reading : and, by
consequence, instead of ' holy men of GOD spake,' require
us to read ' men spake from GOD,' which is wooden and
vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP
and four cursive copies must stand self-condemned ?

Another excellent specimen of this class of error is
furnished by Heb. vii. i. Instead of 'O <rvvavTri<ras 'A/3paa/x
said of Melchizedek, KABD exhibit OC. The whole
body of the copies, headed by CLP, are against them 2 ,
besides Chrysostom 3 , Theodoret 4 , Damascene 5 . It is
needless to do more than state how this reading arose.
The initial letter of o-wazmjo-as has been reduplicated
through careless transcription : C C Y N instead of O C Y N .
That is all. But the instructive feature of the case is that
it is in the four oldest of the uncials that this palpable
blunder is found.

I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second
to none in suggestiveness. ' Whom will ye that I release
unto you ? ' asked Pilate on a memorable occasion 6 : and
we all remember how his enquiry proceeds. But the
discovery is made that, in an early age there existed
copies of the Gospel which proceeded thus, 'Jesus [who
is called 7 ] Barabbas, or JESUS who is called CHRIST?'

1 ' Locnti sunt homines Dei.'

2 Their only supporters seem to be K [i.e. Paul 117 (Matthaei's )], 17, 59
[published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Why does
Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but a copy of D
of Paul?

3 Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a. 4 Theodoret, iii. 584.
5 J. Damascene, ii. 240 c. 6 St. Matt, xxvii. 17.
7 Cf. 6 \tyoiJ.fvos BapaPfias. St. Mark xv. 7.

54 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

Origen so quotes the place, but ' In many copies,' he proceeds,
' mention is not made that Barabbas was also called Jesus :
and those copies may perhaps be right, else would the
name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked, of which no
instance occurs in any part of the Bible : nor is it fitting
that the name of Jesus should like Judas have been borne
by saint and sinner alike. I think,' Origen adds, ' some-
thing of this sort must have been an interpolation of the
heretics V From this we are clearly intended to infer that
' Jesus Barabbas ' was the prevailing reading of St. Matt,
xxvii. 17 in the time of Origen, a circumstance which
besides that a multitude of copies existed as well as those
of Origen for the best of reasons, we take leave to
pronounce incredible 2 .

The sum of the matter is probably this: Some in-
attentive second century copyist [probably a Western
Translator into Syriac who was an indifferent Greek scholar]
mistook the final syllable of 'unto you" 1 (YMIN) for the
word 'Jesus' (IN): in other words, carelessly reduplicated
the last two letters of YMIN, from which, strange to say,
results the form of inquiry noticed at the outset. Origen
caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it though
he fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500

1 Int. iii. 918 c d.

2 On the two other occasions when Origen quotes St. Matt, xxvii. 17 (i. 316 a
and ii. 245 a) nothing is said about ' Jesus Barabbas.' Alluding to the place,
he elsewhere (iii. 853 d) merely says that ' Secundum quosdam Barabbas dice-
batur et Jesus ^ The author of a well-known scholion, ascribed to Anastasius,
Bp. of Antioch, but query, for see Migne, vol. Ixxxix. p. 1352 b c (= Galland.
xii. 253 c), and 1604 a, declares that he had found the same statement ' in very
early copies.' The scholion in question is first cited by Birch (Varr. Lectt.
p. no) from the following MSS. : S, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 146, 181, 186,
195, 197, 199 or 200, 209, 210, 221, 222 : to which Scholz adds 41, 237, 238,
2 53 2 59 2 99 : Tischendorf adds i, 1 18. ID Gallandius (Bibl. P. P. xiv. 81 d e,
Append.}, the scholion may be seen more fully given than by Birch, from
whom Tregelles and Tischendorf copy it. Theophylact (p. 156 a) must have
seen the place as quoted by Gallandius. The only evidence, so far as
I can find, for reading 'Jesus Barabbas' (in St. Matt, xxvii. 16, 17) are five
disreputable Evangelia i, 118, 209, 241, 299, the Armenian Version, the
Jerusalem Syriac, [and the Sinai Syriac]; (see Adler, pp. 172-3).

FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 55

years. Then about just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann,
Tischendorf and Tregelles began to construct that ' fabric
of Textual Criticism ' which has been the cause of the
present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt
the suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is
supported by no surviving uncial, and in fact advocates the
veiy origin of the mischief which has been just described].
But, as every one must see, such things as these are not
' readings ' at all, nor even the work of ' the heretics ; '
but simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, ad-
mitting the blunder, yet pleads that ' this remarkable
reading is attractive by the new and interesting fact which
it seems to attest, and by the antithetic force which it
seems to add to the question in ver. 17,' [is more than
we can understand. To us the expression seems most
repulsive. No ' antithetic force ' can outweigh our dislike
to the idea that Barabbas was our SAVIOUR'S namesake !
We prefer Origen's account, though he mistook the cause,
to that of the modern critic.]

CHAPTER V.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.
IV. ITACISM.

[IT has been already shewn in the First Volume that the
Art of Transcription on vellum did not reach perfection
till after the lapse of many centuries in the life of the
Church. Even in the minute elements of writing much
uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successive
ages. It by no means followed that, if a scribe possessed
a correct auricular knowledge of the Text, he would there-
fore exhibit it correctly on parchment. Copies were largely
disfigured with misspelt words. And vowels especially
were interchanged; accordingly, such change became in
many instances the cause of corruption, and is known in
Textual Criticism under the name ' Itacism.']

It may seem to a casual reader that in what follows
undue attention is being paid to minute particulars. But
it constantly happens, and this is a sufficient answer to
the supposed objection, that, from exceedingly minute
and seemingly trivial mistakes, there result sometimes
considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of the
SPIRIT'S meaning. New incidents: unheard-of state-
ments : facts as yet unknown to readers of Scripture :

ITACISM. 57

perversions of our LORD'S Divine sayings : such phenomena
are observed to follow upon the omission of the article,
the insertion of an expletive, the change of a single letter.
Thus naXiv, thrust in where it has no business, makes it
appear that our SAVIOUR promised to return the ass on
which He rode in triumph into Jerusalem 1 . By writing
a) for o, many critics have transferred some words from the
lips of CHRIST to those of His Evangelist, and made Him
say what He never could have dreamed of saying 2 . By
subjoining s to a word in a place which it has no right
to fill, the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marred
effectually, and a sentence produced which defies trans-
lation 3 . By omitting T<|> and Kv/Ke,the repenting malefactor
is made to say, ' Jesus ! remember me, when Thou comest
in Thy kingdom 4 .'

Speaking of our SAVIOUR'S triumphal entry into Jerusa-
lem, which took place ' the day after ' ' they made Him
a supper/ and Lazarus 'which had been dead, whom He
raised from the dead,' ' sat at the table with Him * (St. John
xii. i, 2), St. John says that ' the multitude which had been
with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb and
raised Him from the dead bare testimony ' (St. John xii.
17). The meaning of this is best understood by a reference
to St. Luke xix. 37, 38, where it is explained that it was
the sight of so many acts of Divine Power, the chiefest
of all being the raising of Lazarus, which moved the crowds
to yield the memorable testimony recorded by St. Luke in
ver. 38, by St. John in ver. i3 5 . But Tischendorf and
Lachmann, who on the authority of D and four later uncials
read <m instead of ore, import into the Gospel quite another
meaning. According to their way of exhibiting the text,

1 St. Mark xi. 4. See Revision Revised, pp. 57-58.

2 St. Mark vii. 19, KaOapifav for KaOdpifrv. See below, pp. 61-3.

3 St. Luke ii. 14. * St. Luke xxiii. 42.

4 St. Matt. xxi. 9. See also St. Mark xi. 9, 10.

58 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

St. John is made to say that ' the multitude which was with
JESUS, testified that He called Lazarus out of the tomb
and raised him from the dead ' : which is not only an
entirely different statement, but also the introduction of
a highly improbable circumstance. That many copies
of the Old Latin (not of the Vulgate) recognize on, besides
the Peshitto and the two Egyptian versions, is not denied.
This is in fact only one more proof of the insufficiency of
such collective testimony. NAB with the rest of the uncials
and, what is of more importance, the whole body of ttie
cursives, exhibit ore, which, as every one must see, is
certainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf 's
assertion that the prolixity of the expression e^co^o-ey e*c
roD fj.viifj.fiov K.a.1 fjyeipev avrbv e* vfxp&v is inconsistent with
ore 1 , may surprise, but will never convince any one who
is even moderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar
manner.

The same mistake of on for ore is met with at ver. 41
of the same chapter. ' These things said Isaiah because he
saw His glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not ' when
he saw His glory ' ? which is what the Evangelist wrote
according to the strongest attestation. True, that eleven
manuscripts (beginning with NABL) and the Egyptian
versions exhibit 6'n : also Nonnus, who lived in the Thebaid
(A.D.4io) : but all other MSS., the Latin, Peshitto, Gothic,
Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version: Origen 2 ,
Eusebius in four places 3 , Basil 4 , Gregory of Nyssa twice 5 ,
Didymus three times 6 , Chrysostom twice 7 , Severianus
of Gabala 8 ; these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute
a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril

I ' Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si ore legendum
esset.'

II iv. 577: 'quando.' 3 Dem. Ev. 310, 312, 454 bis.

4 i. 301- * ii. 488, and ap. Gall. vi. 580.

6 Trin. 59, 99, 242.

7 viii. 406, 407. Also ps.-Chrysost. v. 613. Note, that 'Apolinarius ' in
Cramer's Cat. 332 is Chrys. viii. 407. 8 Ap. Chrys. vi. 453.

ITACISM. 59

three times reads on l , three times ore 2 , and once TJVIKO. 3 ,
which proves at least how he understood the place.

[A suggestive example 4 of the corruption introduced by
a petty Itacism may be found in Rev. i. 5, where the
beautiful expression which has found its way into so many
tender passages relating to Christian devotion, ' Who hath
washed* 1 us from our sins in His own blood' (A.V.), is
replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, ' Who hath
loosed* us from our sins by His blood.' In early times
a purist scribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured
of provincial retention of Aeolian or Dorian pronunciations,
wrote from unconscious bias v for ou, transcribing Xva-avn
for Xovo-avTi. (unless he were not Greek scholar enough to
understand the difference) : and he was followed by others,
especially such as, whether from their own prejudices or
owing to sympathy with the scruples of other people, but
at all events under the influence of a slavish literalism,
hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise to
the spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed
therein. Accordingly the three uncials, which of those that
give the Apocalypse date nearest to the period of cor-
ruption, adopt v, followed by nine cursives, the Harkleian
Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the other side,
two uncials viz. B 2 of the eighth century and P of

1 iv. 505, 709, and ap. Mai iii. 85.

3 ii. 102 : iv. 709, and ap. Mai iii. 118. 3 v 1 . 642.

4 Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists of instances of Itacism, he
worked out none, except the substitution of tv for iv in St. Mark iv. 8, which
as it is not strictly on all fours with the rest I have reserved till last. He
mentioned all that I have introduced (besides a few others), on detached
papers, some of them more than once, and \ovaavn and KaOaptfav even more
than the others. In the brief discussion of each instance which I have supplied,
I have endeavoured whenever it was practicable to include any slight expres-
sions of the Dean's that I could find, and to develop all surviving hints.

5 \ovcra.VTi. 6 \vaavTi.

60 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

the ninth the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopia, write
XovvavTi.; and what is most important all the other
cursives except the handful just mentioned, so far as ex-
amination has yet gone, form a barrier which forbids
intrusion.

An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept
into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke xvi. 25.
Some scribes needlessly changed <58e into o8e, misinter-
preting the letter which served often for both the long and
the short o, and thereby cast out some illustrative meaning,
since Abraham meant to lay stress upon the enjoyment
' in his bosom ' of comfort by Lazarus. The unanimity of
the uncials, a majority of the cursives, the witness of the
versions, that of the Fathers quote the place being uncertain,
are sufficient to prove that w8e is the genuine word.

Again, in St. John xiii. 25, ovrcoy has dropped out of
many copies and so out of the Received Text because by
an Itacism it was written OVTOS in many manuscripts.
Therefore e/ceu>os OVTOS was thought to be a clear mistake,
and the weaker word was accordingly omitted. No doubt
Latins and others who did not understand Greek well con-
sidered also that OVTUS was redundant, and this was the
cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really oi'rws,
being sufficiently authenticated 1 , is exactly in consonance
with Greek usage and St. John's style 2 , and adds consider-
ably to the graphic character of the sacred narrative.
St. John was reclining (dyajce/!/xevos) on his left arm over the
bosom of the robe (<tv r<3 KoXiro)) of the SAVIOUR. When
St. Peter beckoned to him he turned his head for the
moment and sank (fm-neacov, not ava-nea-^v which has the
testimony only of B and about twenty-five uncials, tf and C

1 ovrois. BCEFGHLMXA. Most cursives. Goth.
OVTOS. KSUFA. Ten cursives.

Omit NADU. Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop. Armen. Georg. Slavon.
Bohair. Pers.
* E.g. Thuc. vii. 15, St. John iv. 6.

ITACISM. 6l

being divided against themselves) on the breast of the
Lord, being still in the general posture in which he was
(otfrcM 1 ), and asked Him in a whisper 'LORD, who is it?'

Another case of confusion between o> and o may be seen
in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where curoAeoAws has gained so strong
a hold that it is found in the Received Text for aTroAcoAo'?,
which last being the better attested appears to be the right
reading 2 . But the instance which requires the most atten-
tion is KaOapifyv in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more
because in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the
alteration into Kadaptfav is advocated as being ' no part of
the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment
on the SAVIOUR'S words 3 .' Such a question must be decided
strictly by the testimony, not upon internal evidence
which in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way,
for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by
KaOapifav, and KaOdpi&v bears a very intelligible meaning.
When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there
being eight against the change (3>2KMUVTII), and
eleven for it (KABEFGHLSXA) ; that not much is
advanced by the versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis

1 See St. John iv. 6 : Acts xx. u, xxvii. 17. The beloved Apostle was there-
fore called o (maTrjdios. See Suicer. s. v. Westcott on St. John xiii. 25.

2 24. diro\cu\ws. K a ABD &c.
avo\w\6s. N*GKMRSXrn*. Most curs.
32. <i7roAcuA.ws. N*ABD &c.

diro\u\6s. N'KMRSXm*. Most curs.

8 Pp. 179, 1 80. Since the Dean has not adopted icadapi^cuv into his corrected
text, and on account of other indications which caused me to doubt whether he
retained the opinion of his earlier years, I applied to the Rev. W. F. Rose, who
answered as follows : ' I am thankful to say that I can resolve all doubt as to
my uncle's later views of St. Mark vii. 19. In his annotated copy of the Twelve
Verses he deletes the words in his note p. 179, "This appears to be the true
reading," and writes in the margin, " The old reading is doubtless the true one,"
and in the margin of the paragraph referring to mAapfw on p. 180 he writes,
" Alter the wording of this." This entirely agrees with my own recollection of
many conversations with him on the subject. I think he felt that the weight of
the cursive testimony to the old reading was conclusive, at least that he was not
justified in changing the text in spite of it.' These last words of Mr. Rose
express exactly the inference that I had drawn.

62 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

Codex, the Harkleian (?), the Gothic, the Old Latin 1 ,
the Vulgate, favour K.aQapiov ; nor by the Fathers : since
Aphraates 2 , Augustine (?) 3 , and Novatian 4 are contradicted
by Origen 5 , Theophylact 6 , and Gregory Thaumaturgus 7 ,
we discover that we have not so far made much way
towards a satisfactory conclusion. The only decided
element of judgement, so far as present enquiries have
reached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction
of KAB, is supplied by the cursives which with a large
majority witness to the received reading. It is not there-
fore safe to alter it till a much larger examination of existing
evidence is made than is now possible. If difficulty is felt
in the meaning given by Kaddpi&v, and that there is such
difficulty cannot candidly be denied, this is balanced by
the grammatical difficulty introduced by KaQapifav, which
would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb
separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including
two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people
who form their judgement from the Revised Version should
bear in mind that the Revisers, in order to make intelligible
sense, were obliged to introduce three fresh English words
that have nothing to correspond to them in the Greek;
being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would
hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this
leave out the words in italics and try the effect for himself.

1 ' The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have " in secessum uadit (or exiit)
purgans omnes escas " ; i (Vindobonensis) and r (Usserianus) have " et purgat "
for " purgans" : and a has a conflation " in secessum exit purgans omnes escas
et exit in rivum " so they all point the same way.' (Kindly communicated
by Mr. H. J. White.)

2 Dem. xv. (Graffin) ' Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in
secessum emittitnr.' (Lat.)

iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'
Galland. iii. 319. ' Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali
lege purgari.'

iii. 494. X7 ravra o ~S,onrip, KaOapifav Ttavra TO.

i. 206. (KteiOapifav itavTa TOL (Spd/para.

Galland. iii. 400. d\Xa KUI a 'Scarrjp, iravra KaQapifav TO.

ITACISM. 63

The fact is that to make this reading satisfactory, another
alteration is required. KaOapifav Trdvra ra /3pw/xara ought
either to be transferred to the 2oth verse or to the beginning
of the 1 8th. Then all would be clear enough, though desti-
tute of a balance of authority : as it is now proposed to read,
the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple
and transparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore
be guided by the balance of evidence, and that is turned by
the cursive testimony.]

Another minute but interesting indication of the accuracy
and fidelity with which the cursive copies were made, is
supplied by the constancy with which they witness to the
preposition tv (not the numeral ez>) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our
LORD says that the seed which ' fell into the good ground '
' yielded by (ev) thirty, and by (kv) sixty, and by (>) an
hundred.' Tischendorf notes that besides all the uncials
which are furnished with accents and breathings (viz.
EFGHKMUVTI) 'nearly 100 cursives ' exhibit h here and
in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case. All the
cursives may be declared to exhibit tv, e.g. all Matthaei's
and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object ex-
amined a large number of Evangelia, and found Iv in all.
The Basle MS. from which Erasmus derived his text 1
exhibits tv, though he printed Hv out of respect for the
Vulgate. The Complutensian having ev, the reading of the
Textus Receptus follows in consequence : but the Tra-
ditional reading has been shewn to be ev, which is
doubtless intended by N in Cod. A.

Codd. NCA (two ever licentious and A similarly so
throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition tv the
preposition ets, (a sufficient proof to me that they under-
stand N to represent ev, not Zv): and are followed by
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As for the char-
1 Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4.

64 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

tered libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the first
tv (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the
preposition I C : while, in ver. 20, it retains the first tv, but
omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is
followed by Westcott and Hort l .

1 [The following specimens taken from the first hand of B may illustrate
the kakigraphy, if I may use the expression, which is characteristic of that MS.
and also of N. The list might be easily increased.
I. Proper Names.

Itaavrjs, generally: Iaavvr]s, Luke i. 13*, 60, 63; Acts iii. 4; iv. 6, 13,

19; xii. 25; xiii. 5, 25; xv. 37; Rev. i. i, 4, 9 ; xxii. 8.
Btf{t&ov\, Matt. x. 25 ; xii. 24, 27 ; Mark iii. 22 ; Luke xi. 15, 18, 19.
NaCaper, Matt. ii. 23 ; Luke i. 26 ; John i. 46, 47. Nafcpa, Matt. iv. 13.

Naap0, Matt. xxi. n ; Luke ii. 51 ; iv. 16.

Mapia for Mapia/i, Matt. i. 20 ; Luke ii. 19. Mopta/* for Mapta, Matt.
xxvii. 6 1 ; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42 ; xi. 32 ; John xi. 2 ; xii. 3 ;
xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86.
Kovp, Mark v. 41. To\yoO, Luke xix. 17.

i, Iapa.T]\fiTai, Iffparj\iTCU.

Mcacrrjs, MCDVO^S.

Aa\/j.avowOa, Mark viii. IO.

loxr?? (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. Ica<rr)<f>, Matt, xxvii. 57, 59 ;

Mark xv. 42 ; Luke xxiii. 50 ; John xix. 38.
II. Mis-spelling of ordinary -words.

Ka0' i8iav, Matt. xvii. i, 19; xxiv. 3 ; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31, &c. KO.T iSiai/,
Matt. xiv. 13, 23 ; Mark vi. 32 ; vii. 33, &c.

, Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25 ; Luke xxii. 18. yewrjiw., Matt.
iii. 7 ; xii. 34 ; xxiii. 33 ; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known

A similar confusion between "ffvtais and ytvvrjffis, Matt, i, and between
(ytvriQrjv and (^(vvr}9rjv, and ytytvTjfjat and yeyti'i'Tjfiai. See Kuenen
and Cobet N. T. ad fid. Cod. Vatican! Ixxvii.

III. Itacisms.

Kptivta, John xii. 48 (K/>JI/?). Kpivca, Matt. vii. i ; xix. 28 ; Luke vi. 37 ;

vii. 43 ; xii. 57, &c.

T/Mt>, Ti/iw, Matt. xv. 4, 5, 8 ; xix. 19 ; xxvii. 9 ; Mark vii. 6, 10, &c.
(Vf^pfi^riOrj (Matt. ix. 30) for kvt^pi^aaro. dvaK\tiOr)vai (Mark vi. 39)

for avaieXivai. a tiros for afros (Mark iv. 28).

IV. Bad Grammar.

rS> oiKoStairoTri fireKaKtaav for rov olKoSfffir6TTjv laX. (Matt. x. 25).
KaraTraTTjaovfftv for -atuaiv (Matt. vii. 6). S av airier era* (Matt.
xiv. 7). OTO.V 5i dieoveTf (Mark xiii. 7).

V. Impossible words.

(fj.vj]ffT(Vfi(vr]v (Luke i. 27). ovpavov for ovpavlov (ii. 13). avri^rfrow
(Luke ii. 44). Komovmv (Matt. vi. 38). -iip&row (Matt. xv. 23).
(Mark iv. 32). j^ffs for v/*y. v/wfs for J^ts.]

ITACISM. 65

St. Paul l in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young
women shall be ' keepers at home,' olitovpovs. So, (with five
exceptions,) every known Codex 2 , including the corrected
tf and D, HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens
Alex. 3 (A.D. 1 80), Theodore of Mopsuestia 4 , Basil 5 ,
Chrysostom 6 , Theodoret 7 , Damascene 8 . So again the
Old Latin (domum custodientes^\ the Vulgate (domus
curam habentes 10 ), and Jerome (habentes domns dili-
gentiam} : and so the Peshitto and the Harkleian versions,
besides the Bohairic. There evidently can be no doubt
whatever about such a reading so supported. To be olnovpos
was held to be a woman's chiefest praise 12 : KaAA-tcrroy Zpyov
olKovpos, writes Clemens Alex. 13 ; assigning to the wife
as her proper province 14 . On the contrary, ' gadding
about from house to house ' is what the Apostle, writing to
Timothy 15 , expressly condemns. But of course the decisive
consideration is not the support derived from internal
evidence ; but the plain fact that antiquity, variety, respect-
ability, numbers, continuity of attestation, are all in favour
of the Traditional reading.

1 This paper on Titus ii. 5 was marked by the Dean as being ' ready for
press.' It was evidently one of his later essays, and was left in one of his later
portfolios.

2 All Matthaei's 16, all Rinck's 7, all Reiche's 6, all Scrivener's 13, &c.,
&c. 3 622.

4 Ed. Swete, ii. 247 (domos suas bene regentes) ; 248 (domus proprias optime
regant).

5 ii. (Elk.} 291 a, 309 b.

6 xi. 750 a, 751 be d ij otKovptis at olKovofuxri. 7 iii. 704.
8 ii. 271. ' Cod. Clarom.

10 Cod. Amiat., and August, iii'. 804.

11 vii. 716 c, 718 b (Bene domum regere, 718 c).

12 KOT-' OIKOV olnovpovaiv uffre -napfftvoi (Soph. Oed. Col. 343). 'Olxovpos est
quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: o'movpyos est scribarum commentum,'
as Matthnei, whose note is worth reading, truly states. Wetstein's collections
here should by all means be consulted. See also Field's delightful Otium Norv.,

PP- I35- 6 -

13 P. 293, lin. 4 (see lin. 2). 14 P. 288, lin. 20. 15 i Tim. v. 13.

II. F

66 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort, because they find olKovpyovs in
tf*ACD*F-G, are for thrusting that ' barbarous and scarcely
intelligible ' word, if it be not even a non-existent *, into
Titus ii. 5. The Revised Version in consequence exhibits
' workers at home,' which Dr. Field may well call an
'unnecessary and most tasteless innovation.' But it is
insufficiently attested as well, besides being a plain perver-
sion of the Apostle's teaching. [And the error must have
arisen from carelessness and ignorance, probably in the
West where Greek was not properly understood.]

So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, ri rjfj.lv KOI <roi,
'Irjo-oC, me TOV eov ; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name 'Irjo-oS is
omitted by Btf.

The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is in-
spected : K A ICO I rmETOYGY : the recurrence of the
same letters caused too great a strain to scribes, and the
omission of two of them was the result of ordinary human
infirmity.

Indeed, to this same source are to be attributed an extra-
ordinary number of so-called 'various readings' ; but which
in reality, as has already been shewn, are nothing else
but a collection of mistakes, the surviving tokens that
anciently, as now, copying clerks left out words ; whether
misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending, or by the
speedy recurrence of the like letters, or by some other
phenomenon with which most men's acquaintance with
books have long since made them familiar.

1 oiKovpjftv which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c. i) is probably due
to the scribe.

CHAPTER VI.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

V. LITURGICAL INFLUENCE.

THERE is one distinct class of evidence provided by
Almighty GOD for the conservation of the deposit in its
integrity 1 , which calls for special notice in this place. The
Lectionaries of the ancient Church have not yet nearly
enjoyed the attention they deserve, or the laborious study
which in order to render them practically available they
absolutely require. Scarcely any persons, in fact, except
professed critics, are at all acquainted with the contents of
the very curious documents alluded to : while collations
of any of them which have been hitherto effected are few
indeed. I speak chiefly of the Books called Evangelistaria
(or Evangeliaria), in other words, the proper lessons
collected out of the Gospels, and transcribed into a separate
volume. Let me freely admit that I subjoin a few ob-
servations on this subject with unfeigned diffidence ; having
had to teach myself throughout the little I know; and
discovering in the end how very insufficient for my purpose
that little is. Properly handled, an adequate study of the
Lectionaries of the ancient Church would become the labour

1 [I have retained this passage notwithstanding the objections made in some
quarters against similar passages in the companion volume, because I think
them neither valid, nor creditable to high intelligence, or to due reverence.]

F 2

68 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

of a life. We require exact collations of at least 100 of
them. From such a practical acquaintance with about
a tenth of the extant copies some very interesting results
would infallibly be obtained 1 .

As for the external appearance of these documents, it
may be enough to say that they range, like the mass of
uncial and cursive copies, over a space of about 700
years, the oldest extant being of about the eighth century,
and the latest dating in the fifteenth. Rarely are any so
old as the former date, or so recent as the last named.
When they began to be executed is not known ; but much
older copies than any which at present exist must have
perished through constant use: [for they are in perfect order
when we first become acquainted with them, and as a whole
they are remarkably consistent with one another]. They
are almost invariably written in double columns, and not
unfrequently are splendidly executed. The use of Uncial
letters is observed to have been retained in documents of
this class to a later period than in the case of the Evangelia,
viz. down to the eleventh century. For the most part they
are furnished with a kind of musical notation executed in
vermilion ; evidently intended to guide the reader in that
peculiar recitative which is still customary in the oriental
Church.

In these books the Gospels always stand in the following
order: St. John : St. Matthew : St. Luke : St. Mark. The
lessons are brief, resembling the Epistles and Gospels in
our Book of Common Prayer.

They seem to me to fall into two classes : (a) Those
which contain a lesson for every day in the year : (b] Those
which only contain [lessons for fixed Festivals and] the
Saturday-Sunday lessons (<ra/3/3aTo/<uptaKat). We are re-

1 [The Textual student will remember that besides the Lectionaries of the
Gospels mentioned here, of which about 1000 are known, there are some 300
more of the Acts and Epistles, called by the name Apostolos.]

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 69

minded by this peculiarity that it was not till a very late
period in her history that the Eastern Church was able to
shake herself clear of the shadow of the old Jewish Sabbath l .
[To these Lectionaries Tables of the Lessons were often
added, of a similar character to those which we have in our
Prayer-books. The Table of daily Lessons went under
the title of Synaxarion (or Eclogadion) ; and the Table of the
Lessons of immovable Festivals and Saints' days was styled
Menologion 2 .]

Liturgical use has proved a fruitful source of textual
perturbation. Nothing less was to have been expected,
as every one must admit who has examined ancient Evan-
gelia with any degree of attention. For a period before
the custom arose of writing out the Ecclesiastical Lections
in the ' Evangelistaries,' and ' Apostolos/ it may be re-
garded as certain that the practice generally prevailed of
accommodating an ordinary copy, whether of the Gospels
or of the Epistles, to the requirements of the Church. This
continued to the last to be a favourite method with the
ancients 3 . Not only was it the invariable liturgical practice
to introduce an ecclesiastical lection with an ever-varying
formula, by which means the holy Name is often found in
MSS. where it has no proper place, but notes of time, &c.,
[' like the unique and indubitably genuine word Seure/aoTr/owTw 4 ,'
are omitted as carrying no moral lesson, as well as longer
passages like the case of the two verses recounting the
ministering Angel with the Agony and the Bloody Sweat 5 .

1 ['It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday
succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation ; so that the week
takes its name not from the Sunday with which it commences, but from the
Saturday-and-Sunday with which it concludes.' Twelve Verses, p. 194, where
more particulars are given.]

2 [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th
edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.]

3 See Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 56-65.

4 Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence.
s St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.

yo ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

That Lessons from the New Testament were probably
read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite
scheme, and on an established system, at least as early as
the fourth century, has been shewn to follow from plain
historical fact in the tenth chapter of the Twelve Last
Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, to which the reader is referred
for more detailed information. Cyril, at Jerusalem, and
by implication, his namesake at Alexandria, Chrysostom,
at Antioch and at Constantinople, Augustine, in Africa,
all four expressly witness to the circumstance. In other
words, there is found to have been at least at that time
fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom
a Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and
the same in the West and in the East. That it must have
been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferred from
several considerations l . For example, Marcion, in A. D. 140,
would hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and
Apostolicon of his own, as we learn from Epiphanius 2 , if he
had not been induced by the Lectionary System prevailing
around him to form a counterplan of teaching upon the
same model.]

Indeed, the high antiquity of the Church's Lectionary
System is inferred with certainty from many a textual
phenomenon with which students of Textual Science are
familiar.

It may be helpful to a beginner if I introduce to his
notice the class of readings to be discussed in the present
chapter, by inviting his attention to the first words of the
Gospel for St. Philip and St. James' Day in our own English
Book of Common Prayer, 'And JESUS said unto His

1 In the absence of materials supplied by the Dean upon what was his own
special subject, I have thought best to extract the above sentences from the
Twelve Last Verses, p. 207. The next illustration is his own, though in my

words.

i. 311.

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 71

disciples.' Those words he sees at a glance are undeniably
nothing else but an Ecclesiastical accretion to the Gospel,
words which breed offence in no quarter, and occasion error
to none. They have nevertheless stood prefixed to St. John
xiv. i from an exceedingly remote period ; for, besides
establishing themselves in every Lectionary of the ancient
Church 1 , they are found in Cod. D 2 , in copies of the Old
Latin 3 as the Vercellensis, Corbeiensis, Aureus, Bezae,
and in copies of the Vulgate. They may be of the second
or third, they must be as old as the fourth century. It
is evident that it wants but a very little for those words
to have established their claim to a permanent place in
the Text. Readings just as slenderly supported have been
actually adopted before now 4 .

I proceed to cite another instance ; and here the success
of an ordinary case of Lectionary licence will be perceived
to have been complete : for besides recommending itself to
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort,
the blunder in question has established itself in the pages
of the Revised Version. Reference is made to an alteration
of the Text occurring in certain copies of Acts iii. i, which
will be further discussed below 5 . When it has been stated
that these copies are NABCG, the Vulgate, the two
Egyptian versions, besides the Armenian, and the
Ethiopic, it will be admitted that the Ecclesiastical prac-
tice which has resulted in so widespread a reading, must
be primitive indeed. To some persons such a formidable

1 fltrev o Kvptos rofs eavrov fj.adrjrdis' /J.T) rapacrafffOoj.

2 mu emfv rots fM0r]Tais avrov. The same Codex (D) also prefixes to
St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula enrtv Se Kai trepav irapafi o\r)v.

3 ' Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur!

4 E.g. the words teal \eyei auTofr (iprjvr) V/MV have been omitted by Tisch.
and rejected by W.-Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 on the sole authority of D and
five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on the same sorry evidence, the words
irpoaKwrjaavTts avrov have been omitted or rejected by the same critics from
St. Luke xxiv. 52. In both instances the expressions are also branded with
doubt in the R. V.

5 Pp. 78-80.

72 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

array of evidence may seem conclusive in favour of any
reading : but it can only seem so to those who do not
realize the weight of counter-testimony.

But by far the most considerable injury which has
resulted to the Gospel from this cause is the suspicion
which has alighted in certain quarters on the last twelve
verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark. [Those verses
made up by themselves a complete Lection. The preceding
Lection, which was used on the Second Sunday after
Easter, was closed with the Liturgical note ' The End,' or
TO TEAOC, occurring after the eighth verse. What more
probable, nay, more certain result could there be. than that
some scribe should mistake the end of the Lection for the
end of St. Mark's Gospel, if the last leaf should chance to
have been torn off, and should then transcribe no more l ?
How natural that St. Mark should express himself in a more
condensed and abrupt style than usual. This of course is
only put forward as an explanation, which leaves the
notion of another writer and a later date unnecessary. If
it can be improved upon, so much the better. Candid
critics ought to study Dean Burgon's elaborate chapter
already referred to before rejecting it.]

And there probably does not exist, in the whole compass
of the Gospel, a more interesting instance of this than is
furnished by the words cure Se 6 Kv/atos, in St. Luke vii. 31.
This is certainly derived from the Lectionaries ; being
nothing else but the formula with which it was customary
to introduce the lection that begins at this place. Ac-
cordingly, only one out of forty copies which have been
consulted for the purpose contains them. But the circum-
stance of interest remains to be stated. When these four

1 See Traditional Text, Appendix VII.

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 73

unauthorized words have been thus got rid of, the important
discovery is made that the two preceding verses (verses 28
and 29) must needs form a part of our LORD'S discourse,
which it is perceived flows on unbroken from v. 24 to v. 35.
This has been seen already by some 1 , though denied by
others. But the fact does not admit of rational doubt ;
though it is certainly not as yet generally known. It is
not generally known. I mean, that the Church has recovered
a piece of knowledge with which she was once familiar 2 ,
but which for many centuries she has forgotten, viz. that
thirty-two words which she supposed to be those of the
Evangelist are in reality those of her LORD.

Indeed, when the expressions are considered, it is per-
ceived that this account of them must needs be the true
one. Thus, we learn from the 24th verse that our
SAVIOUR was at this time addressing 'the crowds' or
' multitudes/ But the four classes specified in verses 29, 30,
cannot reasonably be thought to be the Evangelist's analysis
of those crowds. In fact what is said of ' the Pharisees and
Lawyers ' in ver. 30 is clearly not a remark made by the
Evangelist on the reception which our SAVIOUR'S words
were receiving at the hands of his auditory ; but our
SAVIOUR'S own statement of the reception which His
Forerunner's preaching had met with at the hands of the
common people and the publicans on the one hand, the
Pharisees and the Scribes on the other. Hence the in-
ferential particle olv in the 3ist verse; and the use in
ver. 35 of the same verb (eSiKcucoflj]) which the Divine
Speaker had employed in ver. 29 : whereby He takes up
His previous statement while He applies and enforces it.

Another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating
in the same way is found a little farther on. In St. Luke

1 Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Westcott and Hort, doubt it.

2 Thus Codex H actually interpolates at this place the words ovKtn f/c<Voiy

, dAAd rots (ia9r)Tats. Tisch. ad loc.

74 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

ix. i ('And having called together His twelve Disciples '), the
words paOrjTas avrov are confessedly spurious : being con-
demned by nearly every known cursive and uncial. Their
presence in the meantime is fully accounted for by the
adjacent rubrical direction how the lesson is to be intro-
duced : viz. 'At that time JESUS having called together
His twelve Disciples.' Accordingly we are not surprised to
find the words 6 'Irjcrovs also thrust into a few of the MSS. :
though we are hardly prepared to discover that the words of
the Peshitto, besides the Latin and Cureton's Syriac, are
disfigured in the same way. The admirers of ' the old
uncials' will learn with interest that, instead of /xatfrjra?
O.VTOV, NC with LXAH and a choice assortment of cursives
exhibit d-n-ooroAoi;?, being supported in this manifestly
spurious reading by the best copies of the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, Bohairic, and a few other
translations.

Indeed, it is surprising what a fertile source of corruption
Liturgical usage has proved. Every careful student of the
Gospels remembers that St. Matthew describes our LORD'S
first and second missionary journey in very nearly the same
words. The former place (iv. 23) ending KCII -naa-av /^iaAa/aai;
(v rai Aaw used to conclude the lesson for the second Sunday
after Pentecost, the latter (ix. 35) ending Kal -rraa-av fj.a\aKiav
occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventh
Sunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers
the matter, that cv rw Aaw has in consequence not only
found its way into ix. 35, but has established itself there
very firmly : and that from a very early time. The spurious
words are first met with in the Codex Sinaiticus l .

But sometimes corruptions of this class are really per-
plexing. Thus N testifies to the existence of a short
additional clause (KOI. -rroAAoi rjKoXovOrjvav O.VTU) at the end,

1 Cyril Alex, (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and a few other
copies, even append the same familiar words to at iraaav naXaxlav in St. Matt. x. i.

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 75

as some critics say, of the same 35th verse. Are we not
rather to regard the words as the beginning of ver. 36, and
as being nothing else but the liturgical introduction to the
lection for the Twelve Apostles, which follows (ix. 36-x. 8),
and whose Festival falls on the 3Oth June? Whatever its
origin, this confessedly spurious accretion to the Text,
which exists besides only in L and six cursive copies, must
needs be of extraordinary antiquity, being found in the two
oldest copies of the Old Latin : a sufficient indication, by
the way, of the utter insufficiency of such an amount of
evidence for the genuineness of any reading.

This is the reason why, in certain of the oldest documents
accessible, such a strange amount of discrepancy is dis-
coverable in the text of the first words of St. Luke x. 25
(KOI Ibov vojJLiKos TIS dWoTT}, e/c7reipacoz; avrov, /cat A.eya)i>).
Many of the Latin copies preface this with et haec eo dicente.
Now, the established formula of the lectionaries here is,
1'op.iKos TIS TTpoa-rj\dev r<5 T., which explains why the Cure-
tonian, the Lewis, with 33, ' the queen of the cursives,' as
their usual leader in aberrant readings is absurdly styled, so
read the place : while D, with one copy of the Old Latin,
stands alone in exhibiting, dveWrj 8e TIS VO/XIKO'S. Four
Codexes (NBLH) with the Curetonian omit the second KCU
which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place in its
purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy.

Take another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been
hitherto read in all Churches as follows : ' And the Scrip-
ture was fulfilled, which saith, " And He was numbered
with the transgressors."' In these last days however the
discovery is announced that every word of this is an un-
authorized addition to the inspired text. Griesbach indeed
only marks the verse as probably spurious ; while Tregelles
is content to enclose it in brackets. But Alford, Tischen-

76 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

dorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers eject the
words KCti t-TrArjpw^Tj ?/ ypct^rj 17 Ae'youcra, KOI piera avo^^v
eAoyiVtfrj from the text altogether. What can be the reason
for so extraordinary a proceeding?

Let us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach's latest editor)
that ' the quotation is not in Mark's manner ; that the
formula which introduces it is John's : and that it seems to
be a gloss taken from Luke xxii. 37.' This is not criticism
but dictation, imagination, not argument. Men who so
write forget that they are assuming the very point which
they are called upon to prove.

Now it happens that all the L T ncials but six and an
immense majority of the Cursive copies contain the words
before us : that besides these, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the
Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur
in exhibiting them : that the same words are expressly
recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius ; having

a section ( i. e. -g-) to themselves which is the weightiest

sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words of
Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac

sectional system ( - g - ), which is diverse from that of Eusebius

and independent of it. What then is to be set against such
a weight of ancient evidence? The fact that the follow-
ing six Codexes are without this 28th verse, tfABCDX,
together with the Sahidic and Lewis. The notorious
Codex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony
producible ; to which Tischendorf adds ' about forty-five
cursive copies.' Will it be seriously pretended that this
evidence for omitting ver. 28 from St. Mark's Gospel can
compete with the evidence for retaining it?

Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers
before antiquity. Codex D is of the sixth century ; Cod. X
not older than the ninth : and not one of the four Codexes
which remain is so old, within perhaps two centuries, as

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 77

either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We have
Eusebius and Jerome's Vulgate as witnesses on the same
side, besides the Gothic version, which represents a Codex
probably as old as either. To these witnesses must be
added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St. Mark's
Gospel before either A or C were written 1 .

It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have
learned to regard whatever is found in B or tf as oracular,
' But is it credible that on a point like this such authorities
as NABCD should all be in error? '

It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of
which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it
ceases to be even a matter of surprise. On the other hand,
what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like
this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic) should
have conspired to mislead mankind ? And further, on what
intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials,
and the whole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this
verse of Scripture be indeed spurious ?

I know that the rejoinder will be as follows : ' Yes, but
if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired
verity, how is their absence from the earliest Codexes to be
accounted for ? ' Now it happens that for once I am able
to assign the reason. But I do so under protest, for I insist
that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest
Codexes is no part of a critic's business. It would not only
prove an endless, but also a hopeless task. This time,
however, I am able to explain.

If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the
Bibliotheque at Paris for a Greek Codex numbered ' 71,' an
Evangelium will be put into his hands which differs from
any that I ever met with in giving singularly minute and
full rubrical directions. At the end of St. Mark xv. 27, he
will read as follows : ' When thou readest the sixth Gospel

1 Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348.

78 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

of the Passion, also when thou readest the second Gospel
of the Vigil of Good Friday, stop here : skip verse 28 :
then go on at verse 29.' The inference from this is so
obvious, that it would be to abuse the reader's patience if
I were to enlarge upon it, or even to draw it out in detail.
Very ancient indeed must the Lectionary practice in this
particular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of
its operation in our four oldest Codexes : but it has left it 1 .
The explanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine,
and the Codexes which leave it out are corrupt.

One word about the evidence of the cursive copies on
this occasion. Tischendorf says that ' about forty-five ' of
them are without this precious verse of Scripture. I venture
to say that the learned critic would be puzzled to produce
forty-five copies of the Gospels in which this verse has no
place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. that about
half of these are Lectionaries), satisfactorily explains the
matter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world,
for the reason already assigned, these words are away ; as
well as in every MS. which, like B and K, has been depraved
by the influence of the Lectionary practice.

And now I venture to ask, What is to be thought of
that Revision of our Authorized Version which omits
ver. 28 altogether ; with a marginal intimation that ' many
ancient authorities insert it ' ? Would it not have been the
course of ordinary reverence, I was going to say of truth
and fairness, to leave the text unmolested : with a mar-
ginal memorandum that just 'a very few ancient authorities
leave it out ' ?

A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this
cause, which nevertheless has imposed on several critics,

1 It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in the last year of
his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See his Comment. Crit.
Part ii. p. 190. ' Nee ulla . . . debuerint.'

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 79

as has been already said, is furnished by the first words of
Acts iii. The most ancient witness accessible, namely the
Peshitto, confirms the usual reading of the place, which is
also the text of the cursives : viz. 'Eui TO O.VTO 5e IleVpos /cat
'Iwavvris K.T.A.. So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E.

The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire
however in representing the words which immediately
precede in the following unintelligible fashion : 6 Se Kvptos
7rpo<ren'0e6 rovs <ru>^ofj,fvovs KaO' fffidpav tirl TO O.VTO. Tltrpos of
K.T.A. How is it to be thought that this strange and vapid
presentment of the passage had its beginning ? It results,
I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice of beginning
a fresh lection at the name of Peter/ prefaced by the usual
formula ' In those days.' It is accordingly usual to find
the liturgical word a.pxn indicative of the beginning of
a lection, thrust in between cm TO aiiTo be and ITeYpos. At
a yet earlier period I suppose some more effectual severance
of the text was made in that place, which unhappily misled
some early scribe l . And so it came to pass that in the first
instance the place stood thus : 6 8e Kvpios -n-poo-en'flei TOVS
trwofi4vov? K0.0' rjfjLfpav Tr\ e/cKA.7)cria eirl TO CIVTO, which was
plainly intolerable.

What I am saying will commend itself to any unpreju-
diced reader when it has been stated that Cod. D in this
place actually reads as follows : Ka.6rjiJ.epav tirl TO O.VTO kv ry
KK\r](r(.q. 'Ey 8e rais ^le'pais Tcurrcus Ilerpo? /c.rA. : the scribe
with simplicity both giving us the liturgical formula with
which it was usual to introduce the Gospel for the Friday
after Easter, and permitting us to witness the perplexity
with which the evident surplusage of 777 KK\r]crtq eTri TO OVTO'
occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and
thrusts in a preposition. How obvious it now was to solve
the difficulty by getting rid of TJ)

rovs ff<ao/jitvovs KaOrjutpav tv rr) (KKXrjaia. eirl TO avro 8% [TH "5" THC
Tlerpos KOI 'lajdvvrjs, K.T.\. Addit. 16,184, fol. 152 6.

8o ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

It does not help the adverse case to shew that the
Vulgate as well as the copy of Cyril of Alexandria are
disfigured with the same corrupt reading as KABC. It
does but prove how early and how widespread is this
depravation of the Text. But the indirect proof thus
afforded that the actual Lectionary System must needs
date from a period long anterior to our oldest Codexes is
a far more important as well as a more interesting inference.
In the meantime I suspect that it was in Western Christen-
dom that this corruption of the text had its beginning : for
proof is not wanting that the expression f TTI TO avro seemed
hard to the Latins l .

Hence too the omission of 7roA.ii; from NBD (St. Matt.
xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex 2 will
explain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of
writing :

O/iOta (TTIV K.T.A.

The word -naXiv, because it stands between the end (reAos)
of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning
(apxn) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out
[though every one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows
that dpxr? and re'Aos were often inserted in the text]. The
second of these two lessons begins with ojuoia [because
TraAu; at the beginning of a lesson is not wanted]. Here
then is a singular token of the antiquity of the Lectionary
System in the Churches of the East : as well as a proof of
the untrustworthy character of Codd. NBD. The discovery
that they are supported this time by copies of the Old
Latin (ace ff 1>2 g 1 ' 2 k 1), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic,
Ethiopic, does but further shew that such an amount of

1 Bede, Retr. in. D (add. of tv r. fKK\.}. Brit. Mus. Addit. 16, 184. fol.
152 b. Vulgate.

8 So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed in a
smaller type, for distinction.

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 8l

evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine
the text of Scripture.

When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately
preceding verse (xiii. 43) on the sole authority of KB and
a few Latin copies, omitting the word aitoveiv, and again
in the present verse on very similar authority (viz. ND,
Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic,
together with five cursives of aberrant character) trans-
posing the order of the words TTCLVTU o<ra ex TrwAei, I can
but reflect on the utterly insecure basis on which the
Revisers and the school which they follow would remodel
the inspired Text.

It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason,
that the clause KOL eAu7rrj0rj<raj; a-<f>6bpa (St. Matt. xvii. 23)
comes to be omitted in K and several other copies. The
previous lesson ends at ey'e/>0?/o-eTai, the next lesson begins
at Tipo<ri}XQov.

Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently
exercised a corrupting influence on the text of Scripture.
Having elsewhere considered St. Luke's version of the
LORD'S Prayer 1 , 1 will in this place discuss the genuineness
of the doxology with which the LORD'S Prayer concludes
in St. Matt. vi. 13 2 , on aov (cmv r/ /SacrtAeta KCU rj bvvafjiis
Kal 1} 6o'a ds TOVS aiaiyas. d/u^y, words which for 360 years
have been rejected by critical writers as spurious, notwith-
standing St. Paul's unmistakable recognition of them in
2 Tim. iv. 18, which alone, one would have thought,
should have sufficed to preserve them from molestation.

The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events
these fifteen words enjoy in perfection, being met with in
all copies of the Peshitto : and this is a far weightier
consideration than the fact that they are absent from most
of the Latin copies. Even of these however four (kfg x q)

1 The Revision Revised, 34-6. " See The Traditional Text, p. 104.

II. G

82 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

recognize the doxology, which is also found in Cureton's
Syriac and the Sahidic version ; the Gothic, the Ethiopic,
Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian,
Erpenius' Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos ; as well as in
the AiSaxJ? (with variations); Apostolical Constitutions
(iii. i8-vii. 25 with variations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr.
vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i. 29). Chrysostom comments
on the words without suspicion, and often quotes them
(In Orat. Dom., also see Horn, in Matt. xiv. 13): as does
Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24). See also Opus Imper-
fectum (Horn, in Matt, xiv), Theophylact on this place,
and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt. vi. 13 and C. Massal.
Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be accepted as
inspired is of course based on the consideration that they
are found in ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek
copies, including < and 2 of the end of the fifth and begin-
ning of the sixth centuries. What then is the nature of
the adverse evidence with which they have to contend and
which is supposed to be fatal to their claims ?

Four uncial MSS. (NBDZ), supported by five cursives of
bad character (i, 17 which gives a\*.-f\v, 118, 130, 209), and,
as we have seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these
words ; which, it is accordingly assumed, must have found
their way surreptitiously into the text of all the other
copies in existence. But let me ask, Is it at all likely, or
rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this,
all the MSS. in the world but nine should have become
corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for one
more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a muti-
lated text in every page. But how will men pretend to
explain an interpolation universal as the present ; which
may be traced as far back as the second century ; which has
established itself without appreciable variety of reading in
all the MSS. ; which has therefore found its way from the
earliest time into every part of Christendom ; is met with

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 83

in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek Liturgies ; and
has so effectually won the Church's confidence that to this
hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of
the faithful all over the world ?

One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry
ever since the days of Erasmus. A note in the Complu-
tensian Polyglott (1514) expresses it with sufficient accu-
racy. ' In the Greek copies, after And deliver us from evil,
follows For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, for ever. But it is to be noted that in the Greek
liturgy, after the choir has said And deliver us from evil, it
is the Priest who responds as above : and those words,
according to the Greeks, the priest alone may pronounce.
This makes it probable that the words in question are no
integral part of the LORD'S Prayer : but that certain
copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use
in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.' In other
words, they represent that men's ears had grown so fatally
familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the
liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel of
the LORD'S Prayer. The same statement has been repeated
ad nauseam by ten generations of critics for 360 years.
The words with which our SAVIOUR closed His pattern
prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting
from the liturgical practice of the primitive Church. And
this slipshod account of the matter is universally ac-
quiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the
present day.

From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental
liturgies, it is found then that though the utmost variety
prevails among them, yet that not one of them exhibits the
evangelical formula as it stands in St. Matt.vi. 13 ; while in
some instances the divergences of expression are even extra-
ordinary. Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the
typical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which

G 2

84 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

passes as Chrysostom's. Precisely the same form recurs in
the office which is called after the name of Basil : and it is
essentially reproduced by Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of
Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius ; while something very
like it is found to have been in use in more of the Churches
of the East.

' For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and always and for ever
and ever. Amen'

But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the
foregoing, with its ever-varying terminology of praise, its
constant reference to the blessed Trinity, its habitual vvv
KCU aet, and its invariable ei? row? al&vas rSv alu>vo>v, (which
must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned
by Irenaeus 1 , and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself;)
the doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church's
liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by
possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found
in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13, 'For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.'

On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey
of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal
prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the
LORD'S Prayer ; the general prefix ' for thine ' ; the pre-
vailing mention therein of ' the kingdom and the power
and the glory ' ; the invariable reference to Eternity : all
this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness
of the form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of
faith in the Trinity, and otherwise amplified as piety or
zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula
of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in
St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other
hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the

(lAXd itai 77^as tirt T^S 'Ev^apiffrias Xt'-yoiras, ' is roiis aluvas ruy cuwvcur'
*.T.X. Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3.

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 85

practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is
simply impossible.

What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's
peculiar method of reciting the LORD'S Prayer in the public
liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and suf-
ficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case ?
It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the
Choir to break off at the words ' But deliver us from evil.'
They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology
must for that reason have been omitted by the critical
owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which
nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version
originally derived their text. This is the sum of the
matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged
difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize
no more of the LORD'S Prayer than they found in their
Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would
have been if they did.

Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the
Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they
wrote expressly on the LORD'S Prayer ; as Origen, Gregory
of Nyssa *, Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have
attended most to such subjects will however bear me most
ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of
the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What
if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly
a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however
their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain
that the reason of it is not because their copies of St.
Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any
one seriously imagine that in A. D. 650, when Maximus
wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state
from what they are at present ?

1 But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener, Introduc-
tion, ii. p. 325, note i.

86 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly
stated : The textual perturbation observable at St. Matt.
vi. 13 is indeed due to a liturgical cause, as the critics
suppose. But then it is found that not the great bulk of
the Evangelia, but only Codd. NBDZ, I, 17, 118, 130, 209,
have been victims of the corrupting influence. As usual,
I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been
led astray. Let the doxology at the end of the LORD'S
Prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text
without further molestation. Let no profane hands be any
more laid on these fifteen precious words of the LORD JESUS
CHRIST.

There yet remains something to be said on the same
subject for the edification of studious readers ; to whom
the succeeding words are specially commended. They are
requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have
read what immediately follows.

The history of the rejection of these words is in a high
degree instructive. It dates from 1514, when the Com-
plutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were
found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text
solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal
annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology
is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible,
seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom ?
' We presume,' they say, ' that this corruption of the
original text must date from an antecedent period.' The
same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis,
was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds ;
but in his edition of the N.T. he suffered the doxology to
stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZtf
have successively come to light, critics have waxed
bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius,
Hammond, Walton ; then Mill and Grabe ; next Bengel,
Wetstein, Griesbach ; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf,

LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 87

Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have
denounced the precious words as spurious.

But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened
the case against the doxology ? Since 1514, scholars have
become acquainted with the Peshitto version ; which by its
emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne
by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The AiSax*? of the
first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third
century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the same
side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom,
Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that
Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton's Syriac. The Harkleian,
Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom
(2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius
(2), bring up the rear 1 . Does any one really suppose
that two Codexes of the fourth century (Btf), which
are even notorious for their many omissions and general
accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount
of ancient evidence ? L and 33, generally the firm allies
of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St. Matt. vi. 13 :
and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and
Z, which are also balanced by <l> and 2. But at this
juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down :
and when it is discovered that every other uncial and
every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its
support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to
be a myth, what must be the verdict of an impartial mind
on a survey of the entire evidence ?

The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus :
Liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation
of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13 ; but it proves on inquiry to
be the very few MSS., not the very many, which have
been depraved.

1 See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I have
increased the Dean's list with a few additional authorities.

88 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier
period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence ;
and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest
may have been the same with that which is found in the
ordinary text of St. Matthew's Gospel. This may have
been the case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis,
which fell to the ground when the statement on which it
rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on
a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be ascertained,
and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is
possible, I should regard it only as confirmatory of the
genuineness of the doxology. For why should the litur-
gical employment of the last fifteen words of the LORD'S
Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness ?
In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an indefinitely
remote period the LORD'S Prayer was not publicly recited
by the people further than ' But deliver us from evil,'
a doxology of some sort being invariably added, but pro-
nounced by the priest alone, this clearly ascertained fact
is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary
[found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say
nothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not
to require particular explanation, viz. the omission of the
last half of St. Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes tfBDZ.

CHAPTER VII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

I. HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE.

[IT must not be imagined that all the causes of the
depravation of the text of Holy Scripture were instinctive,
and that mistakes arose solely because scribes were
overcome by personal infirmity, or were unconsciously the
victims of surrounding circumstances. There was often
more design and method in their error. They, or those who
directed them, wished sometimes to correct and improve
the copy or copies before them. And indeed occasionally
they desired to make the Holy Scriptures witness to their
own peculiar belief. Or they had their ideas of taste, and
did not scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied
was their enlightened judgement.

Thus we can trace a tendency to bring the Four Records
into one harmonious narrative, or at least to excise or vary
statements in one Gospel which appeared to conflict with
parallel statements in another. Or else, some Evangelical
Diatessaron, or Harmony, or combined narrative now
forgotten, exercised an influence over them, and whether
consciously or not, since it is difficult always to keep
designed and unintentional mistakes apart, and we must
not be supposed to aim at scientific exactness in the
arrangement adopted in this analysis, induced them to
adopt alterations of the pure Text.

90 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

We now advance to some instances which will severally
and conjointly explain themselves.]

Nothing can be more exquisitely precise than St.
John's way of describing an incident to which St. Mark
(xvi. 9) only refers ; viz. our LORD'S appearance to Mary
Magdalene, the first of His appearances after His Resur-
rection. The reason is discoverable for every word the
Evangelist uses : its form and collocation. Both St. Luke
(xxiv. 3) and previously St. Mark (xvi. 5) expressly stated
that the women who visited the Sepulchre on the first
Easter morning, ' after they had entered in ' (eiVc AfloCo-cu),
saw the Angels. St John explains that at that time Mary
was not with them. She had separated herself from their
company ; had gone in quest of Simon Peter and ' the
other disciple.' When the women, their visit ended, had
in turn departed from the Sepulchre, she was left in the
garden alone. ' Mary was standing [with her face] towards
the sepulchre weeping, outside V

All this, singular to relate s was completely misunder-
stood by the critics of the two first centuries. Not only
did they identify the incident recorded in St. John xx. n,
12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St. Luke xxiv. 3, 4, from
which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelist is careful
to distinguish it ; not only did they further identify both
places with St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3 2 , from which they are

1 Mapia Si tiarqKfi -a pus TO p.vrjp.(iov tcKaiovaa. efo> (St. John xx. n). Comp.
the expression irpos TO <pws in St. Luke xxii. 56. Note, that the above is not
offered as a revised translation; but only to shew unlearned readers what the
words of the original exactly mean.

a Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius according to the Greek, the
following places are brought together :

(St. Matt, xxviii) (St. Mark xvi) (St. Luke xxiv) (St. John xx)
1-4- 2-5. 1-4. i, ii, 12.

According to the Syriac :
3,4- 5- 3, 4. (*) IT > I2 -

HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 91

clearly separate ; but they considered themselves at liberty
to tamper with the inspired text in order to bring it into
harmony with their own convictions. Some of them
accordingly altered irpos TO ^vrj^lov into vpos TW ^vrj^Cta
(which is just as ambiguous in Greek as ' at the sepulchre '
in English x ), and efco they boldly erased. It is thus that
Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact this depravation
must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed
to an extraordinary extent : for it disfigures the best copies
of the Old Latin, (the Syriac being doubtful) : a memorable
circumstance truly, and in a high degree suggestive. Codex
B, to be sure, reads elorTj/cei Ttpos TO> /wTj/xetw, ea> K\aiovaa,
merely transposing (with many other authorities) the last
two words. But then Codex B substitutes e\0ov(rai for
da-f\6ova-aL in St. Mark xvi. 5, in order that the second
Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt, xxviii.
a, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the
Angelic appearance was outside the sepulchre 2 . Codex tf,
on the contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting
lfo>, (as in the next verse it leaves out bvo, in order to
prevent St. John xx. 12 from seeming to contradict St.
Matt, xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark xvi. 5), it stands alone in
reading 'EN TW /uz^/zei'o). (C and D are lost here.) When
will men learn that these ' old uncials ' are ignes fatui,
not beacon lights ; and admit that the texts which they
exhibit are not only inconsistent but corrupt ?

There is no reason for distrusting the received reading of
the present place in any particular. True, that most of the
uncials and many of the cursives read 717)6? TW ^Tj/xeio) : but
so did neither Chrysostom 3 nor Cyril * read the place.
And if the Evangelist himself had so written, is it credible

1 Consider o 5e Tlfrpos (larri/cu irp&s ry Ovpa lw (St. John xviii. 16). Has not
this place, by the way, exerted an assimilating influence over St. John xx. n ?

a Hesychius, qu. 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43), explains St. Mark's
phrase kv rois 5eiofy as follows : Srj\ovoTi rov fgairepov arrr]\cuov,

3 viii. 513. * iv. 1079.

92 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

that a majority of the copies would have forsaken the
easier and more obvious, in order to exhibit the less usual
and even slightly difficult expression ? Many, by writing
TTpbs TO> /xmj/xeui), betray themselves ; for they retain a sure
token that the accusative ought to end the sentence, I am
not concerned however just now to discuss these matters
of detail. I am only bent on illustrating how fatal to the
purity of the Text of the Gospels has been the desire of
critics, who did not understand those divine compositions,
to bring them into enforced agreement with one another.
The sectional system of Eusebius, I suspect, is not so much
the cause as the consequence of the ancient and inveterate
misapprehensions which prevailed in respect of the history
of the Resurrection. It is time however to proceed.

Those writers who overlook the corruptions which the
text has actually experienced through a mistaken solicitude
on the part of ancient critics to reconcile what seemed to
them the conflicting statements of different Evangelists,
are frequently observed to attribute to this kind of officious-
ness expressions which are unquestionably portions of the
genuine text. Thus, there is a general consensus amongst
critics of the destructive school to omit the words KO.L rives
o-vv ai/rcus from St. Luke xxiv. i. Their only plea is the
testimony of NBCL and certain of the Latin copies,
a conjunction of authorities which, when they stand alone,
we have already observed to bear invariably false witness.
Indeed, before we proceed to examine the evidence, we
discover that those four words of St. Luke are even required
in this place. For St. Matthew (xxvii. 61), and St. Mark
after him (xv. 47), had distinctly specified two women as
witnesses of how and where our LORD'S body was laid.
Now they were the same women apparently who prepared
the spices and ointment and hastened therewith at break of

HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 93

day to the sepulchre. Had we therefore only St. Matthew's
Gospel we should have assumed that ' the ointment-bearers,'
for so the ancients called them, were but two (St. Matt,
xxviii. i). That they were at least three, even St. Mark
shews by adding to their number Salome (xvi. i). But in
fact their company consisted of more than four ; as St. Luke
explains when he states that it was the same little band
of holy women who had accompanied our SAVIOUR out
of Galilee (xxiii. 55, cf. viii. 2). In anticipation therefore of
what he will have to relate in ver. 10, he says in ver. i,
' and certain with them.'

But how, I shall be asked, would you explain the omis-
sion of these words which to yourself seem necessary?
And after insisting that one is never bound to explain how
the text of any particular passage came to be corrupted,
I answer, that these words were originally ejected from the
text in order to bring St. Luke's statement into harmony
with that of the first Evangelist, who mentions none but
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses.
The proof is that four of the same Latin copies which are
for the omission of nai nyes <rvv avrals are observed to begin
St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows, KaraKoXouflijo-ao-ai Se ATO
ywaijce?. The same fabricated reading is found in D. It
exists also in the Codex which Eusebius employed when he
wrote his Demonstratio Evangelica. Instead therefore of
wearying the reader with the evidence, which is simply
overwhelming, for letting the text alone, I shall content
myself with inviting him to notice that the tables have
been unexpectedly turned on our opponents. There is
indeed found to have been a corruption of the text here-
abouts, and of the words just now under discussion ; but it
belongs to an exceedingly remote age ; and happily the
record of it survives at this day only in NBCDL and certain
of the Old Latin copies. Calamitous however it is, that
what the Church has long since deliberately refused to part

94 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

with should, at the end of so many centuries, by Lachmann
and Tregelles and Tischendorf, by Alford and Westcott
and Hort, be resolutely thrust out of place; and indeed
excluded from the Sacred Text by a majority of the
Revisers.

[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic In-
fluence may be found in the substitution of ' wine ' (olvov]
for vinegar (oo>), respecting which the details are given in
the second Appendix to the Traditional Text.]

[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propen-
sities in the Ancient Church.]

In St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of
the Old Latin versions (bcfgMq) besides Ambrose (Com.
St. Luke, 1340), are observed to transpose the second and
third temptations ; introducing verses 9-12 between verses
4 and 5 ; in order to make the history of the Temptation
as given by St. Luke correspond with the account given by
St. Matthew.

The scribe of the Vercelli Codex (a) was about to do the
same thing ; but he checked himself when he had got as far
as ' the pinnacle of the temple,' which he seems to have
thought as good a scene for the third temptation as ' a high
mountain,' and so left it.

A favourite, and certainly a plausible, method of account-
ing for the presence of unauthorized matter in MSS. is to
suggest that, in the first instance, it probably existed only
in the shape of a marginal gloss, which through the inad-
vertence of the scribes, in process of time, found its way
into the sacred text. That in this way some depravations
of Scripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I pre-
sume be doubted. But I suspect that the hypothesis is
generally a wholly mistaken one; having been imported
into this subject-matter (like many other notions which are

HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 95

quite out of place here), from the region of the Classics,
where (as we know) the phenomenon is even common.
Especially is this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order
to explain those instances of assimilation which are so
frequently to be met with in Codd. B and tf.

Another favourite way of accounting for instances of
assimilation, is by taking for granted that the scribe was
thinking of the parallel or the cognate place. And cer-
tainly (as before) there is no denying that just as the familiar
language of a parallel place in another Gospel presents
itself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have
struck a copyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade
him to write, not the words which he saw before him, but
the words which he remembered. All this is certainly
possible.

But I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by
any means the right way to explain the phenomena under
discussion. I am of opinion that such depravations of the
text were in the first instance intentional. I do not mean
that they were introduced with any sinister motive. My
meaning is that [there was a desire to remove obscurities,
or to reconcile incongruous passages, or generally to
improve the style of the authors, and thus to add to the
merits of the sacred writings, instead of detracting from
them. Such a mode of dealing with the holy deposit
evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted
it to understand the nature of the trust committed to the
Church, just as similar action at the present day does in
the case of such as load the New Testament with ' various
readings/ and illustrate it as they imagine with what are
really insinuations of doubt, in the way that they prepare
an edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and
sharpening the minds of youthful students. There was
intention, and the intention was good : but it was none the
less productive of corruption.]

96 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

I suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of
those connected Gospel narratives called Diatessarons,
which are known to have existed anciently in the Church,
we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem which at
present is shrouded in obscurity, and concerning the
solution of which, with such instruments of criticism as we
at present possess, we can do little else but conjecture.
I allude to those many occasions on which the oldest docu-
ments extant, in narrating some incident which really
presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge into
hopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing
referred to will best explain my meaning. Take then the
incident of our LORD'S paying tribute, set down in St.
Matt. xvii. 25, 26.

The received text exhibits, ' And when he [Peter] had
entered (ore dvTJXOfv) into the house, JESUS was beforehand
with him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon ? Of whom
do earthly kings take toll or tribute ? of their sons or of
strangers ? ' Here, for ore da-rjXOev, Codex B (but no other
uncial) substitutes kKBovra : Codex K (but no other) eureA-
OOVTO. : Codex D (but no other) ereA0oVri : Codex C (but
no other) ore rjk6ov : while a fifth lost copy certainly con-
tained ela\66vT(v ; and a sixth, eXdovrwv avr&v. A very
fair specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the con-
cordia discors which prevails in the most ancient uncial
copies l . How is all this discrepancy to be accounted for ?

The Evangelist proceeds, ' Peter saith unto Him (Ae'yet
avrw 6 Ile'rpos), Of strangers.' These four words C retains,
but continues 'Now when he had said, Of strangers'
(EITTOVTOS 8e avrov, ano T>V dAAor/nW) ; which unauthorized
clause, all but the word avrov, is found also in 8, but in no
other uncial. On the other hand, for Ae'yei avrw 6 ITe'rpos,
tf (alone of uncials) substitutes 'O 8e e$7) : and B (also alone

1 Traditional Text, pp. 81-8.

HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 97

of uncials) substitutes EuroWos 8e, and then proceeds ex-
actly like the received text : while D merely omits 6 ITerpo?.
Again I ask, How is all this discrepancy to be explained l ?
As already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in
the first instance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel
narratives. In no more loyal way can I account for the
perplexing phenomenon already described, which is of
perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes END,
Cureton's Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version. It
is well known that at a very remote period some eminent
persons occupied themselves in constructing such exhi-
bitions of the Evangelical history : and further, that these
productions enjoyed great favour, and were in general use.
As for their contents, the notion we form to ourselves of
a Diatessaron, is that it aspired to be a weaving of the
fourfold Gospel into one continuous narrative : and we
suspect that in accomplishing this object, the writer was by
no means scrupulous about retaining the precise words of
the inspired original. He held himself at liberty, on the
contrary, (a) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous
clauses : (b] to introduce new incidents : (c] to supply pic-
turesque details : (d) to give a new turn to the expression :
(e) to vary the construction at pleasure : (/) even slightly
to paraphrase. Compiled after some such fashion as I have
been describing, at a time too when the preciousness of the
inspired documents seems to have been but imperfectly
apprehended, the works I speak of, recommended by
their graphic interest, and sanctioned by a mighty name,
must have imposed upon ordinary readers. Incautious

1 I am tempted to inquire, By virtue of what verifying faculty do Lachmann
and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of N ; Tischendorf,
Alford, W. and Hort, the reading of B ? On the second occasion, I venture to
ask, What enabled the Revisers, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, West-
cott and Hort, to recognize in a reading, which is the peculiar property of B,
the genuine language of the HOLY GHOST ? Is not a superstitious reverence for
B and N betraying for ever people into error ?
II. H

98 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

owners of Codexes must have transferred without scruple
certain unauthorized readings to the margins of their own
copies. A calamitous partiality for the fabricated document
may have prevailed with some for whom copies were
executed. Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious
and rash Editors of Scripture, among whom Origen may
be regarded as a prime offender, must have deliberately
introduced into their recensions many an unauthorized
gloss, and so given it an extended circulation.

Not that we would imply that permanent mischief has
resulted to the Deposit from the vagaries of individuals in
the earliest age. The Divine Author of Scripture hath
abundantly provided for the safety of His Word written.
In the multitude of copies, in Lectionaries, in Versions,
in citations by the Fathers, a sufficient safeguard against
error hath been erected. But then, of these multitudinous
sources of protection we must not be slow to avail ourselves
impartially. The prejudice which would erect Codexes B
and N into an authority for the text of the New Testament
from which there shall be no appeal : the superstitious
reverence which has grown up for one little cluster of
authorities, to the disparagement of all other evidence
wheresoever found ; this, which is for ever landing critics in
results which are simply irrational and untenable, must
be unconditionally abandoned, if any real progress is to be
made in this department of inquiry. But when this has
been done, men will begin to open their eyes to the fact
that the little handful of documents recently so much in
favour, are, on the contrary, the only surviving witnesses to
corruptions of the Text which the Church in her corporate
capacity has long since deliberately rejected. But to
proceed.

[From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to
harmonize the Gospels, corruption of a serious nature has
ensued in some well-known places, such as the transference

HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 99

of the piercing of the LORD'S side from St. John xix. 34 to
St. Matt, xxvii. 49 1 , and the omission of the words ' and of
an honeycomb' (/cat OTTO TOV jueXto-crtou KTjptou 2 ).]

Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac 3 , the patch-work supple-
ment to St. Matt. xxi. 9 : viz. : TroAXol 8e (St. Mark xi. 8)
ets inrdvTria-iv avrov. KCU (St. John xii. 13) i]pavTo . . .
alvftv TOV Qeov . . . trepl TTCKT&V &v etSov (St. Luke
xix. 37). This self-evident fabrication, ' if it be not a part
of the original Aramaic of St. Matthew,' remarks Dr. Cure-
ton, ' would appear to have been supplied from the parallel
passages of Luke and John conjointly.' How is it that
even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent
scholar from hazarding the conjecture, that such a self-
evident deflection of his corrupt Syriac Codex from the
course all but universally pursued is a recovery of one more
genuine utterance of the HOLY GHOST ?

1 Revision Revised, p. 33.

2 Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252.

3 The Lewis MS. is defective here.

II 2

CHAPTER VIII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

II. ASSIMILATION.

THERE results inevitably from the fourfold structure of
the Gospel, from the very fact that the story of Redemp-
tion is set forth in four narratives, three of which often ran
parallel. this practical inconvenience : namely, that some-
times the expressions of one Evangelist get improperly
transferred to another. This is a large and important
subject which calls for great attention, and requires to be
separately handled. The phenomena alluded to, which are
similar to some of those which have been treated in the
last chapter, may be comprised under the special head of
Assimilation.

It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion
if we determine to consider separately those instances of
Assimilation which may rather be regarded as deliberate
attempts to reconcile one Gospel with another : indications
of a fixed determination to establish harmony between place
and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of
Assimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary
instances where per fas et nefas an enforced Harmony has
been established, which abound indeed, but are by no
means common, I am disposed to draw a line.

This whole province is beset with difficulties : and the

ASSIMILATION. IOI

matter is in itself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose,
in the absence of any evidence direct or indirect on the
subject, at all events I am not aware that at any time
has there been one definite authoritative attempt made by
the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to remodel
or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of
the phenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that
the several corruptions of the text were effected at different
times, and took their beginning in widely different ways.
I suspect that Accident was the parent of many ; and well
meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for the Truth is
accountable for not a few depravations : and the Church's
Liturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have
produced others. Systematic villainy I am persuaded has
had no part or lot in the matter. The decrees of such
an one as Origen, if there ever was another like him, will
account for a strange number of aberrations from the
Truth : and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered 1 ,
I suspect that we should behold there the germs at least
of as many more. But, I repeat my conviction that, how-
ever they may have originated, the causes [are not to be
found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or influences
which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of
understanding as to what is the Church's duty in the
transmission from generation to generation of the sacred
deposit committed to her enlightened care.]

i. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that
a writer while engaged in transcribing one Gospel was so
completely beguiled and overmastered by his recollections
of the parallel place in another Gospel, that, forsaking
the expressions proper to the passage before him, he uncon-

1 This paper bears the date 1877 : but I have thought best to keep the words
with this caution to the reader.

102 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

sciously adopted the language which properly belongs to
a different Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this
may have occasionally taken place, I am not concerned to
deny : but it would argue incredible inattention to what
he was professing to copy, on the one hand, astonishing
familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the
other, that a scribe should have been capable of offending
largely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance
with the subject is enough to convince any thoughtful
person that the corruptions in MSS. which have resulted
from accidental Assimilation must needs be inconsiderable
in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the
phenomenon referred to, when we speak of ' Assimilation,'
is not to be so accounted for : it must needs be explained
in some entirely different way. Let me make my meaning
plain :

(a) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of
Cod. N, in place of fiacravicrai ^juas (in St. Matt. viii. 29),
writes j/juas aTroAeVai. it may have been his memory which
misled him. He may have been merely thinking of St.
Mark i. 24, or of St. Luke iv. 34.

(d) Again, when in Codd. NB we find rao-o-o'/iews thrust
without warrant into St. Matt. viii. 9, we see that the word
has lost its way from St. Luke vii. 8 ; and we are prone to
suspect that only by accident has it crept into the parallel
narrative of the earlier Evangelist.

(c) In the same way I make no doubt that TTOTO/XO) (St.
Matt. iii. 6) is indebted for its place in NBC, &c., to the
influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel (i. 5) ;
and I am only astonished that critics should have been
beguiled into adopting so clear a corruption of the text as
part of the genuine Gospel.

(d) To be brief: the insertion by tf of afeXQt (in St.
Matt. vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel passage
in St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to

ASSIMILATION. 103

have written TO> <W/xo> instead of rot? aue'/xot? in St. Matt,
viii. 26, only because he was so familiar with TW avipy in
St. Luke viii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39. The author of
the prototype of tfBD (with whom by the way are some
of the Latin versions) may have written ^ere in St. Matt.
xvi. 8, only because he was thinking of the parallel place in
St. Mark viii 17. "H0arro ayavaKTelv (St. Matt. XX. 24)
can only have been introduced into tf from the parallel place
in St. Mark x. 41, and may have been supplied memoriter.
St. Luke xix. 21 is clearly not parallel to St. Matt. xxv. 24 ;
yet it evidently furnished the scribe of tf with the epithet
in place of a/cAr/po?. The substitution by N of ov
St. Matt, xxvii. 15 for ov tfOeXov may seem to be
the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place
in St. Mark xv. 6 ; where, as has been shewn l , instead of
ovTTtp PTOVVTO, tf AB viciously exhibit ov TrapTjrowro, which
Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the
genuine Gospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when
NL exhibit in St. Matt. xix. 16, instead of the words
7701770-00 ira \<t> fayv alwviov, the formula which is found in
the parallel place of St. Luke xviii. 18, viz. TrotTjo-as farjv
altoviov KXripovofjiricra), those unauthorized words must have
been derived from this latter place? Every ordinary
reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe who
first inserted them into St. Matthew's Gospel did so because,
for whatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter
formula than with the former.

(e) But I should have been willing to go further. I might
have been disposed to admit that when NDL introduce
into St. Matt. x. 12 the clause Xeyovres, dp-r\vr\ ro> ot/co) rovrw
(which last four words confessedly belong exclusively to
St. Luke x. 5), the author of the depraved original from
which NDL were derived may have been only yielding to
the suggestions of an inconveniently good memory : may

1 Above, p. 32.

104 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows
in verse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, 'Peace
be to this house ; ' though he found no such words in
St. Matthew's text. And so, with the best intentions, he
may most probably have inserted them.

(/) Again. When tf and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt,
ix. 24 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the
clause elboTfs OTL cnrfOavev, it is of course conceivable that
the authors of those copies were merely the victims of
excessive familiarity with the third Gospel. But then,
although we are ready to make every allowance that we
possibly can for memories so singularly constituted, and to
imagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to
recollect or imagine instead of copying, and possessed of an
inconvenient familiarity with one particular Gospel, it is
clear that our complaisance must stop somewhere. Instances
of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion. Systematic
' assimilation ' cannot be the effect of accident. Consider-
able interpolations must of course be intentional. The
discovery that Cod. D, for example, introduces at the end
of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two words from St. Mark's Gospel
(i. 45 ii. I, 6 5e tgf\da>v down to Ka^a/avaov/x), opens our
eyes. This wholesale importation suggests the inquiry,
How did it come about ? We look further, and we find
that Cod. D abounds in instances of ' Assimilation ' so
unmistakably intentional, that this speedily becomes the
only question, How may all these depravations of the
sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted for ? [And
the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme
licentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex
D, being the product of ignorance and carelessness com-
bined with such looseness of principle, as permitted the
exercise of direct attempts to improve the sacred Text by
the introduction of passages from the three remaining
Gospels and by other alterations.]

ASSIMILATION. 105

Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself,
as may be seen in the next example.

The little handful of well-known authorities (NBDL,
with a few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian
Versions 1 ), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the
clause on eyw vTrayco -npos TOV Ylarepa : for which reason
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit
those six words, and Lachmann puts them into brackets.
And yet, let the context be considered. Our SAVIOUR had
said (ver. 16), 'A little while, and ye shall not see Me:
and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go
to the FATHER.' It follows (ver. 17), 'Then said some of
His disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith
unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again,
a little while, and ye shall see Me : and, Because I go to the
FATHER? ' Now, the context here, the general sequence
of words and ideas in and by itself, creates a high degree
of probability that the clause is genuine. It must at all
events be permitted to retain its place in the Gospel, unless
there is found to exist an overwhelming amount of authority
for its exclusion. What then are the facts ? All the other
uncials, headed by A and I b (both of the fourth century),
every known Cursive all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac,
Gothic, Coptic, &c.) are for retaining the clause. Add,
that Nonnus 2 (A. D. 400) recognizes it : that the texts of
Chrysostom 3 and of Cyril 4 do the same; and that both
those Fathers (to say nothing of Euthymius and Theophy-
lact) in their Commentaries expressly bear witness to its
genuineness : and, With what shew of reason can it any

1 The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is nil; the sum of it being that
he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between oif/ea6f pe (in ver. 16),
and TOVTO ri tariv (in ver. 18).

2 Nonnus, to/xat tls ytvvrjT^pa. 3 viii. 465 a and c.
* iv. 932 and 933 c.

106 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

longer be pretended that some Critics, including the
Revisers, are warranted in leaving out the words ? ... It
were to trifle with the reader to pursue this subject further.
But how did the words ever come to be omitted? Some
early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the exquisite
proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable to
bring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our LORD
seems at first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all !

Let it be observed and then I will dismiss the matter
that the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse
but one (ver. 18), as Tischendorf candidly acknowledges.
The TOVTO ri eortz; of the Evangelist has been tastelessly
assimilated by BDLY to the rt eoriy TOVTO which went
immediately before.

Were I invited to point to a beautifully described
incident in the Gospel, I should find it difficult to lay my
finger on anything more apt for my purpose than the
transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25. It belongs
to the closing scene of our SAVIOUR'S Ministry. ' Verily,
verily, I say unto you,' (the words were spoken at the Last
Supper), ' one of you will betray Me. The disciples there-
fore looked one at another, wondering of whom He spake.
Now there was reclining in the bosom of JESUS (rjv be
ava.Kfiij.fvos ev TW Ko'Airo) TOV 'I.) one of His disciples whom
JESUS loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motioneth to
inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh.
He then, just sinking on the breast of Jesus (eTriTreo-cby be
fKflvos ovTcas ITU ro OT7/00S TOV '[.) [i. c. otherwise keeping his
position, see above, p. 60], saith unto Him, LORD, who
is it?'

The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been
simply ' reclining (cW/cei/xe^os) in the bosom ' of his Divine
Master : that is, his place at the Supper is the next adjoin-

ASSIMILATION. 107

ing His, for the phrase really means little more. But the
proximity is of course excessive, as the sequel shews.
Understanding from St. Peter's gesture what is required of
him, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his
head fall (fTmtecruiv) on (or close to) His Master's chest (f-nl
TO (TTrj9os), he says softly, ' LORD, who is it ? ' . . . The
moment is perhaps the most memorable in the Evangelist's
life: the position, one of unutterable privilege. Time,
place, posture, action, all settle so deep into his soul, that
when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he describes
himself as 'the disciple whom JESUS loved; who also at
the Supper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay (aveTteo-ev l ) on
JESUS' breast,' (literally, ' upon His chest/ em TO rrTrj6os
avTov), and said, 'LORD, who is it that is to betray Thee?'
(ch. xxi. 20). . . . Yes, and the Church was not slow to
take the beautiful hint. His language so kindled her
imagination that the early Fathers learned to speak of
St. John the Divine, as 6 eTito-r^to?, ' the (recliner) on
the chest 2 .'

Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime
picture is faithfully retained throughout by the cursive
copies in the proportion of about eighty to one. The
great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and cursive alike,
establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is here
the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS.,
with tf AD at their head, read (mirea-aw in St. John xiii. 25.
Chrysostom 3 and probably Cyril 4 confirm the same reading.

1 = ava-Keipevos + 'an-Tttawv . [Used not to suggest over-familiarity (?).]

2 Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A. D. 270 (ap. Galland. iii. 548). Cf.
Routh, Rell. i. 42.

3 OVK avaKfirai povov, a\\a xal rw arrjOei fTrnriirrfi (Opp. viii. 423 a).
T/ 5 icai (imriiTTei TW arrjGei (ibid. d). Note that the passage ascribed to
'Apolinarius' in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which includes the second of these two
references) is in reality part of Chrysostom's Commentary on St. John (ubi
supra, c d).

4 Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the Keipevov (or text) that the verb is
found, Opp. iv. 735.

108 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

So also Nonnus *. Not so B and C with four other uncials
and about twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at
their head), besides Origen 2 in two places and apparently
Theodorus of Mopsuestia 3 . These by mischievously
assimilating the place in ch. xiii to the later place in ch. xxi
in which such affecting reference is made to it, hopelessly
obscure the Evangelist's meaning. For they substitute
avaiifo-tov ovv fKflvos K.T.A. It is exactly as when children,
by way of improving the sketch of a great Master,
go over his matchless outlines with a clumsy pencil of
their own.

That this is the true history of the substitution of
avairf(ru>v in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious t-nntevvv is
certain. Origen, who was probably the author of all the
mischief, twice sets the two places side by side and
elaborately compares them ; in the course of which opera-
tion, by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the text
which he himself employed. But what further helps to
explain how easily ava^ea-^v might usurp the place of
677i7reo-<oz> 4 , is the discovery just noticed, that the ancients
from the earliest period were in the habit of identifying
St. John, as St. John had identified himself, by calling him
' the one that lay (6 a.va.TTe<ra>v) upon the LORD'S chest' The
expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is employed by
Irenaeus 5 (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates 6 (Bp. of Ephesus
A. D. 196); by Origen 7 and by Ephraim Syrus 8 : by

1 6 Se Opaoiis oti iraX/io) | arr]0(aiv axpavrotat irtaoJv ire^iX^eVoy avT)p.
9 iv. 437 c : 440 d.

3 Ibid. p. 342.

4 Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is observed twice
to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. viii. 423, line 13 from the bottom,
and p. 424, line 18 from the top.

5 o inl TO arrjOos avrov dvavtawv (iii. I, l).

6 & em To 1 arrjOos TOV Kvpiov dvatrtauv (ap. Euseb. iii. 31).

7 T 8? ire pi TOV dvaireaovros im ^i> arfjOos \eyfiv TOV 'Irjaov (ibid. vi. 25.
Opp. iv. 95).

8 o tnl TO) OTTjOti TOV <t>\oyfa avairfffuv (Opp. ii. 49 a. Cf. 133 c).

ASSIMILATION. 109

Epiphanius l and by Palladius 2 : by Gregory of Nazianzus 3
and by his namesake of Nyssa 4 : by pseudo-Eusebius 5 ,
by pseudo-Caesarius 6 , and by pseudo-Chrysostom 7 . The
only wonder is, that in spite of such influences all the
MSS. in the world except about twenty-six have retained
the true reading.

Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which
this word has experienced at the hands of some Critics.
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and
Hort, have all in turn bowed to the authority of Cod. B
and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates 8 and contends
on the same side. Alford informs us that (inTreo-wv has
surreptitiously crept in ' from St. Luke xv. 20 ' : (why
should it ? how could it ?) ' avcnrf(ra>v not seeming ap-
propriate/ Whereas, on the contrary, ava-nta-vv is the
invariable and obvious expression, (irnrea-dv the unusual,
and, till it has been explained, the unintelligible word.
Tischendorf, who had read eTrnreo-ftw in 1848 and avairea-utv
in 1859, in 1869 reverts to his first opinion; advocating
with parental partiality what he had since met with in
Cod. K. Is then the truth of Scripture aptly represented

1 (As quoted by Polycrates) : Opp. i. 1062 : ii. 8.

2 TOV (Is TO TJJS ffcxpias arrjOos TTHTTUJS t-navatrtaovTos (ap. Chrys, xiii. 55).

3 o tm TO ffT7j(?os TOV 'Ir)<jov avairavtrat (Opp. i. 591).

4 (As quoted by Polycrates) : Opp. i. 488.

5 Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the Syriac, p. 3.
8 (Fourth or fifth century) ap. Galland. vi. 132.

7 Ap. Chrys. viii. 296.

8 On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73. ' 'Apairnrreiv, (which occurs eleven times in
the N. T.\ when said of guests (avaicd^tvoi) at a repast, denotes nothing what-
ever but the preliminary act of each in taking his place at the table ; being the
Greek equivalent for our " silting down " to dinner. So far only does it signify
" change of posture." The notion of "falling backward" quite disappears in the
notion of " reclining" or "lying down."' In St. John xxi. 20, the language of
the Evangelist is the very mirror of his thought ; which evidently passed directly
from the moment when he assumed his place at the table (aviireafv), to that
later moment when (tvl TO aTTJOos CLVTOV) he interrogated his Divine Master
concerning Judas. It is a general description of an incident, for the details of
which we have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which
went before.

112 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

to Tischendorf) by nearly twenty-five cursives; besides
the following ancient writers : Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry,
Titus, Basil, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severianus, Victor,
Eusebius, Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine. I proceed to
shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading
tv T(3 'Hrrai'a ra Trpo(f)i]Tr] instead of fv rols Trpo^Tjreus in
St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every
recent editor and critic 1 , has been either overestimated
or else misunderstood.

1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention
is paid to their contents, is discovered to be of inferior
moment in minuter matters of this nature. Thus, copies
of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah's name into St. Matt,
i. 22, and Zechariah's name into xxi. 4 : as well as thrust
out Jeremiah's name from xxvii. 9 : the first, with Cure-
tonian, Lewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D, the second,
with Chrysostom and Hilary, the third, with the Peshitto.
The Latin and the Syriac further substitute roO Trpo^rov
for T&V Trpo(f)riTu>v in St. Matt. ii. 23, through misappre-
hension of the Evangelist's meaning. What is to be
thought of Cod. tf for introducing the name of * Isaiah '
into St. Matt. xiii. 35, where it clearly cannot stand, the
quotation being confessedly from Ps. Ixxviii. 2 ; but where
nevertheless Porphyry 2 , Eusebius 3 , and pseudo-Jerome 4
certainly found it in many ancient copies ?

2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes
NBDLA : If any one will be at the pains to tabulate
the 900 5 new ' readings ' adopted by Tischendorf in editing
St. Mark's Gospel, he will discover that for 450, or just
half of them, all the 450, as I believe, being corruptions
of the text, NBL are responsible : and further, that their

1 Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Words-
worth, Green, Scrivener, M c Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers.
3 In pseudo- Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.
3 Mont. i. 462. 4 Ubi supra.

5 Omitting trifling variants.

ASSIMILATION. 113

responsibility is shared on about 200 occasions by D : on
about 265 by C : on about 350 by A 1 . At some very
remote period therefore there must have grown up a
vicious general reading of this Gospel which remains in
the few bad copies : but of which the largest traces (and
very discreditable traces they are) at present survive in
NBCDLA. After this discovery the avowal will not be
thought extraordinary that I regard with unmingled sus-
picion readings which are exclusively vouched for by five
of the same Codexes : e. g. by NBDLA.

3. The cursive copies which exhibit ' Isaiah ' in place
of ' the prophet,' reckoned by Tischendorf at ' nearly
twenty-five/ are probably less than fifteen 2 , and those,
almost all of suspicious character. High time it is that
the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence
were better understood.

4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious
deductions have to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of
Antioch are clearly with the Textus Receptus. Serapion,
Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen ; and, with his
argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2.
The last-named Father however saves his reputation by
leaving out the quotation from Malachi ; so, passing
directly from the mention of Isaiah to the actual words
of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one
occasion 3 ) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augus-
tine, being Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version
(' sicut scriptum est in Isaia propheta '), which is without
variety of reading. There remain Origen (the faulty
character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon

1 NBL are exclusively responsible on 45 occasions : + C (i. e. NBCL), on 27 :
+ D, on 35: + A, on 73: + CD, on 19: +CA, on 118 : +DA (i.e. NBDLA),
on 42 : + CDA, on 66.

2 In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is not found: 205, 206 are
duplicates of 209 : and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain I, 22, 33,
61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391 : of which the six at
Rome require to be re-examined. 3 v. 10.

II. I

114 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

already), Porphyry 1 the heretic (who wrote a book to
convict the Evangelists of mis-statements 2 , and who is
therefore scarcely a trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome
and Severianus. Of these, Eusebius 3 and Jerome 4 deliver
it as their opinion that the name of ' Isaiah ' had obtained
admission into the text through the inadvertency of
copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of
evidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah
words confessedly written by Malachi ? ' The fact,' writes
a recent editor in the true spirit of modern criticism,
'will not fail to be observed by the careful and honest
student of the Gospels.' But what if ' the fact ' should
prove to be ' a fiction ' only ? And (I venture to ask)
would not ' carefulness ' be better employed in scrutinizing
the adverse testimony? 'honesty' in admitting that on
grounds precarious as the present no indictment against
an Evangelist can be seriously maintained ? This proposal
to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate
capacity has from the first refused to sanction (for the
Evangelistaria know nothing of it) carries in fact on its front
its own sufficient condemnation. Why, in the face of all
the copies in the world (except a little handful of suspicious
character), will men insist on imputing to an inspired
writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting
that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little
handful of copies through the officiousness of incompetent
criticism ?

And do any inquire, How then did this perversion
of the truth arise ? In the easiest way possible, I answer.

1 Ap. Hieron. vii. 17.

8 ' Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.'
Hieron. i. 311.

* fpa<t>tais Toivvv larl a<p6.\/jta. Quoted (from the lost work of Eusebius ad
Marinum) in Victor of Ant.'s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267. (See Simon, iii. 89 ;
Mai, iv. 299 ; Matthaei's N. T. ii. 20, &c.)

* ' Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus additum Scriptorum mtio, quod et in
aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from Eusebius).

ASSIMILATION. 115

Refer to the Eusebian tables, and note that the foremost
of his sectional parallels is as follows :

St. Matt. St. Mark. St. Luke. St. John.

if (i. e. iii. 3). ft' (i. e. i. 3). f (i- e. iii. 3-6). i (i. e. i. 23) \

Now, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the
third and the fourth of these places in connexion with
the quotation from Is. xl. 3, what more obvious than that
some critic with harmonistic proclivities should have
insisted on supplying the second also. i. e. the parallel
place in St. Mark's Gospel, with the name of the evan-
gelical prophet, elsewhere so familiarly connected with the
passage quoted ? This is nothing else in short but an
ordinary instance of Assimilation, so unskilfully effected
however as to betray itself. It might have been passed
by with fewer words, for the fraud is indeed transparent,
but that it has so largely imposed upon learned men,
and established itself so firmly in books. Let me hope
that we shall not hear it advocated any more.

Regarded as an instrument of criticism. Assimilation
requires to be very delicately as well as very skilfully
handled. If it is to be applied to determining the text
of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave to say,
in a very different spirit from what is met with in
Dr. Tischendorfs notes, or it will only mislead. Is
a word a clause a sentence omitted by his favourite
authorities NBDL? It is enough if that learned critic
finds nearly the same word, a very similar clause,
a sentence of the same general import, in an account
of the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him
straightway to insist that the sentence, the clause, the
word, has been imported into the commonly received
Text from such parallel place ; and to reject it accordingly.

1 See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections and
Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St. Luke
iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form.

I 2

Il6 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allow-
able, except under peculiar circumstances. For first,
whatever a priori improbability might be supposed to
attach to the existence of identical expressions in two
Evangelical records of the same transaction, is effectually
disposed of by the discovery that very often identity of
expression actually does occur. And (2), the only con-
dition which could warrant the belief that there has been
assimilation, is observed to be invariably away from
Dr. Tischendorf s instances. viz. a sufficient number of
respectable attesting witnesses : it being a fundamental
principle in the law of Evidence, that the very few are
rather to be suspected than the many. But further (3), if
there be some marked diversity of expression discover-
able in the two parallel places ; and if that diversity has
been carefully maintained all down the ages in either
place ; then it may be regarded as certain, on the
contrary, that there has not been assimilation ; but that
this is only one more instance of two Evangelists saying
similar things or the same thing in slightly different
language. Take for example the following case :
Whereas St. Matt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of 'the abomination
of desolation TO pi\Q\v A1A AcunrjA. TOU irpo^Tyrov, standing
(fo-Tw?) in the holy place ' ; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it
as ' TO prjdev TI1O AaiuTjA, TOV Trpo^rov standing (eoro's)
where it ought not.' Now, because NBDL with copies
of the Italic, the Vulgate, and the Egyptian versions omit
from St. Mark's Gospel the six words written above in
Greek, Tischendorf and his school are for expunging those
six words from St. Mark's text, on the plea that they are
probably an importation from St. Matthew. But the little
note of variety which the HOLY SPIRIT has set on the
place in the second Gospel (indicated above in capital
letters) suggests that these learned men are mistaken.
Accordingly, the other fourteen uncials and all the

ASSIMILATION. 117

cursives, besides the Peshitto, Harkleian, and copies of the
Old Latin a much more weighty body of evidence are
certainly right in retaining the words in St. Mark xiii. 14.

Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of
Assimilation.

St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place
of his Gospel (xiv. 3), describe our LORD as asking, ' Is
it lawful to heal on the sabbath day ? ' Tischendorf
finding that his favourite authorities in this latter place
continue the sentence with the words 'or not?' assumes
that those two words must have fallen out of the great
bulk of the copies of St. Luke, which, according to him,
have here assimilated their phraseology to that of St.
Matthew. But the hypothesis is clearly inadmissible,
though it is admitted by most modern critics. Do not
these learned persons see that the supposition is just as
lawful, and the probability infinitely greater, that it is
on the contrary the few copies which have here under-
gone the process of assimilation ; and that the type to
which they have been conformed, is to be found in
St. Matt. xxii. 17 ; St. Mark xii. 14 ; St. Luke xx. 22?

It is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of
Scripture has exerted this kind of assimilating influence
over a little handful of copies. Thus, some critics are
happily agreed in rejecting the proposal of NBDLR,
(backed scantily by their usual retinue of evidence) to
substitute for ye/^io-ai TTJV KoiAiaz; avrov a-no, in St. Luke xv. 16,
the words xP Ta(r ^ vai * K - But editors have omitted to
point out that the words firf9vp.fi xP ra(r ^ 2;at > introduced
in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of
Lazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither
out of the parable of the prodigal son.

The reader has now been presented with several examples
of Assimilation. Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks
the phenomenon where it seems to be sufficiently con-

Il8 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

spicuous, is observed constantly to discover cases of
Assimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual
way of accounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. tf .
And because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation,
it becomes the more necessary to set the reader on his
guard against receiving such statements without a thorough
examination of the evidence on which they rest.

The value may I not say. the use ? of these delicate
differences of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuine-
ness of the text is called in question. Take an example.
The following fifteen words are deliberately excluded from
St. Mark's Gospel (vi. n) by some critics on the authority
of NBCDLA, a most suspicious company, and three
cursives ; besides a few copies of the Old Latin, including
the Vulgate : d/i?/y Aeyco vij.lv, aveKTorepov eorai 2o8oVot? T)
Fo/xoppois fv ^juepa Kpurecos, r) rfj Tro'Aet eKeiin;. It is pretended
that this is nothing else but an importation from the
parallel place of St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15). But that
is impossible : for, as the reader sees at a glance, a delicate
but decisive note of discrimination has been set on the two
places. St. Mark writes, SoBojxOIS *H Fop-oppOIS : St.
Matthew, TH 2o8o>ilN KAl Fo/xoppON. And this threefold,
or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has existed from
the beginning ; for it has been faithfully retained all down
the ages : it exists to this hour in every known copy of
the Gospel, except of course those nine which omit the
sentence altogether. There can be therefore no doubt about
its genuineness. The critics of the modern school (Lach-
mann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort)
seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting
those fifteen words. The two places are clearly inde-
pendent of each other.

ASSIMILATION. 119

It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of
these fifteen words from the text of St. Mark, has merely
resulted from the influence of the parallel place in St.
Luke's Gospel (ix. 5), where nothing whatever is found 1
corresponding with St. Matt. x. 5 St. Mark vi. u. The
process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at
work here, although not in the way which some critics
suppose. It has resulted, not in the insertion of the words
in dispute in the case of the very many copies ; but on the
contrary in their omission from the very few. And thus,
one more brand is set on NBCDLA and their Latin allies,
which will be found never to conspire together exclusively
except to mislead.

Because a certain clause (e.g. /ecu ?/ XaXia o-ou 6/xota^ei in
St. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. KBCDL, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely
eject these five precious words from St. Mark's Gospel,
Griesbach having already voted them ' probably spurious.'
When it has been added that many copies of the Old Latin
also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian versions,
besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer
scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the
words are perfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is
certain however, and the Revisers are to blame for having
surrendered five precious words of genuine Scripture, as
I am going to shew.

i . Now, even if the whole of the case were already before
the reader, although to some there might seem to exist
a prima facie probability that the clause is spurious, yet
even so, it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful
man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For let the

1 Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.

120 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side

by side :

St. Matt. xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70.

(l) 'AXrjd&s KOI (rv (i) 'A\T70<2<?

(a) ef O.VT&V (*' (l) e O.VT&V et'

(3) KOI yap (3) Kal yap TaXiXalos e?,

(4) ?/ AoAid (rov bfj\6v <re (4) /cat fj AaAid <TQV o

What more clear than that the later Evangelist is
explaining what his predecessor meant by ' thy speech
bewrayeth thee ' [or else is giving an independent account of
the same transaction derived from the common source] ?
To St. Matthew, a Jew addressing Jews, it seemed super-
fluous to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee
which betrayed Simon Peter. To St. Mark, or rather
to the readers whom St. Mark specially addressed, the
point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he
paraphrases, ' for thou art a Galilean and thy speech
correspondeth.' Let me be shewn that all down the ages,
in ninety-nine copies out of every hundred, this peculiar
diversity of expression has been faithfully retained, and
instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St. Mark's
(fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb o/xotd^ei,
I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent
inquiry, What is the state of the text hereabouts ? What,
in fact, the context? This at least is not a matter of
opinion, but a matter of fact.

i. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with
several copies of the Old Latin (abcrPhq, &c.), only
removes clause (4) from its proper place in St. Mark's
Gospel, in order to thrust it into the parallel place in
St. Matthew, where it supplants the 77 XaXid <rov brj\6v an
iroLfl of the earlier Evangelist ; and where it clearly has no
business to be.

ASSIMILATION. 121

Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimi-
late St. Matthew's Gospel to St. Mark, for D also omits
/cat <TV in clause (i).

2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimi-
lating St. Mark to St. Matthew, for it transfers the same
clause (4) as it stands in St. Matthew's Gospel (<al TJ AaAid
<rov bij\6v o-e Troiei) to St. Mark.

3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of
a type like B, has been styled [with grim irony] * the Queen
of the Cursives ') is more brilliant here than usual ; exhibit-
ing St. Mark's clause (4) thus, /cai yap 77 XaXtd arov bfj\6v ere
6/xotdfet.

4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation
is as conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is
imported bodily into St. Matthew's Gospel. C further
omits from St. Mark clause (4).

5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse
process is conspicuous. St. Mark's Gospel has been assimi-
lated to St. Matthew's by the unauthorized insertion into
clause (i) of KCU a~6 (which by the way is also found in M),
and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann. 73, 131, 142*)
by the entire suppression of clause (3).

6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of
omission], it further obliterates as well from St. Matthew's
Gospel as from St. Mark's all trace of clause (4).

7. tf and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with
the Vulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate
the final clause (4) of St. Mark's Gospel. But note, lastly,
that

8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic,
and the whole body of the cursives, recognizes none of these
irregularities : but exhibits the commonly received text
with entire fidelity.

On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person

122 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

seriously contend that /cat fj A.aA.ia crov o/Aoia^iet is no part of
the genuine text of St. Mark xiv. 70 ? The words are found
in what are virtually the most ancient authorities extant :
the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic and Cod. A), the
Old Latin (besides Cod. D) retain them ; those in their
usual place, these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in
the face of such evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot
have written the words in question 1 . It is too late to insist
that a man cannot have lost his watch when his watch is
proved to have been in his own pocket at eight in the
morning, and is found in another man's pocket at nine.
As for C and L, their handling of the Text hereabouts
clearly disqualifies them from being cited in evidence.
They are condemned under the note of Context. Adverse
testimony is borne by B and tf : and by them only. They
omit the words in dispute, the ordinary habit of theirs,
and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual
insertion of the words in every other known copy to be
explained? In the meantime, it remains to be stated,
and with this I shall take leave of the discussion, that
hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clear
marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried
out in Cod. tf, and only partially in Cod. B and some of its
compeers ; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative
of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to
suppress the fact, vouched for by St. Mark only, that the
cock crowed twice 2 .' That incident shall be treated of
separately. Can those principles stand, which in the face
of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded
it, justify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70 ?

[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of
the text of the New Testament.]

1 Schulz, 'et \a\ia et opoiafa aliena a Marco.' Tischendorf 'omnino
e Matthaeo fluxit : ipsum o/tota^et glossatoris est.' This is foolishness, not
criticism.

2 Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p. xlvii.

CHAPTER IX.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

III. ATTRACTION.

THERE exist not a few corrupt Readings, and they have
imposed largely on many critics, which, strange to relate,
have arisen from nothing else but the proneness of words
standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into
a likeness of ending, whether in respect of grammatical
form or of sound ; whereby sometimes the sense is made to
suffer grievously, sometimes entirely to disappear. Let
this be called the error of ATTRACTION. The phenomena
of ' Assimilation ' are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross
instance, which however has imposed on learned critics, is
furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St. John
vi. 71 and xiii. 26.

'Judas Iscarict ' is a combination of appellatives with
which every Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The
expression 'lovSas 'lo-Kaptwrrjs is found in St. Matt. x. 4
and xxvi. 14 : in St. Mark iii. 19 and xiv. 10 : in St. Luke
vi. 1 6, and in xxii. 31 with the express statement added
that Judas was so 'surnamed.' So far happily we are all
agreed. St. John's invariable practice -is to designate the
traitor, whom he names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot,
the son of Simon ; ' jealous doubtless for the honour of his

124 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

brother Apostle, ' Jude ('lovbas) the brother of James l ' :
and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the
traitor's identity. Who does not at once recall the Evan-
gelist's striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22, 'Judas (not
Iscariot) ' ? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers
present us with ' Judas Iscariot, Simon's son ' : and even
in St. John xii. 4 they are content to read ' Judas Iscariot.'
But in the two places of St. John's Gospel which remain
to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of 'Judas
Iscariot the son of Simon,' the Revisers require us hence-
forth to read, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.' And
why ? Only, I answer, because in place of 'lovbav SI/AOWO?
'lo-KaptwTHN (in vi. 71) and 'Iov'8a Sipavos 'I<rKapiwTH (in
xiii. 26) a little handful of copies substitute on both
occasions 'lo-KaptcoTOT. Need I goon? Nothing else has
evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of
some very early scribe, the 'Icnca/HwTHN, 'lo-KapiwTH, have
been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding
genitive SI^uoNOC ... So transparent a blunder would have
scarcely deserved a passing remark at our hands had it
been suffered to remain, where such betises are the rule
and not the exception, viz. in the columns of Codexes B
and tf. But strange to say, not only have the Revisers
adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages already
mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall
that any alteration whatsoever has been made by them in
the inspired Text.

Another and a far graver case of ' Attraction ' is found
in Acts xx. 24. St. Paul, in his address to the elders of
Ephesus, refers to the discouragements he has had to en-
counter. ' But none of these things move me,' he grandly
exclaims, ' neither count I my life dear unto myself, so

1 St. Luke vi. 16 ; Acts i. 13 ; St. Jude i.

ATTRACTION. 125

that I might finish my course with joy.' The Greek for
this begins dAA' oiibevbs \6yov iroiou/zai : where some second
or third century copyist (misled by the preceding genitive)
in place of Ao'yoN writes Ao'yoT ; with what calamitous con-
sequence, has been found largely explained elsewhere 1 .
Happily, the error survives only in Codd. B and C : and
their character is already known by the readers of this
book and the Companion Volume. So much has been
elsewhere offered on this subject that I shall say no more
about it here : but proceed to present my reader with
another and more famous instance of attraction.

St. Paul in a certain place (2 Cor. iii. 3) tells the Corin-
thians, in allusion to the language of Exodus xxxi. 12,
xxxiv. i, that they are an epistle not written on 'stony
tables (fv Ti\al Xidtvais),' but on 'fleshy tables of the heart
(fV7r\ai napbias <rapKLvai.s).' The one proper proof that this
is what St. Paul actually wrote, is not only (i) That the
Copies largely preponderate in favour of so exhibiting
the place : but (2) That the Versions, with the single excep-
tion of ' that abject slave of manuscripts the Philoxenian
[or Harkleian] Syriac,' are all on the same side : and lastly
(3) That the Fathers are as nearly as possible unanimous.
Let the evidence for KapbCas (unknown to Tischendorf and
the rest) be produced in detail :

In the second century, Irenaeus 2 , the Old Latin, the
Peshitto.

In the third century, Origen seven times 3 , the Coptic
version.

In the fourth century, the Dialogus 4 , Didymus 5 ,
Basil 6 , Gregory Nyss. 7 , Marcus the Monk 8 , Chry-

1 Above, pp. 28-31. * 753 int.

3 ii. 843 e. Also int. ii. 96, 303 ; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.

* Ap. Orig. i. 866 a, interesting and emphatic testimony.

5 Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272. 6 i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.

7 i. 682 (OVK ev ii\al \i6ivcus . . . dAA' Iv Tcj> Tijs KapS'tas 7rvi<v).

8 Galland. viii. 40 b.

126 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

sostom in two places 1 , Nilus 2 , the Vulgate, and the
Gothic versions.

In the fifth century, Cyril 3 , Isidorus 4 , Theodoret 5 ,
the Armenian and the Ethiopia versions.

In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage ad-
dressing Theodorus P. 6

In the eighth century, J. Damascene 7 . . . Besides, of the
Latins, Hilary 8 , Ambrose 9 , Optatus 10 , Jerome 11 ,
Tichonius 12 , Augustine thirteen times 13 , Fulgentius u ,
and others 15 . . . If this be not overwhelming evidence, may
I be told what is 16 ?

But then it so happens that attracted by the two
datives between which /capSias stands, and tempted by the
consequent jingle, a surprising number of copies are found
to exhibit the ' perfectly absurd ' and ' wholly unnatural
reading 17 / TrXa^l /capSiAIC o-ap/ayAIC. And because (as
might have been expected from their character) A 18 BNCD 19

1 vii. 2 : x. 475. 2 i. 29.

3 i. 8 : ii. 504: v 2 . 65. (Aubert prints tcapSias aapKivrjs. The published
Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits tcapoias aapKtvais. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS.
dAA' j/ 7rXai KapSiais \i0ivats (sic], prints Kapdicus aapKivais.*) Ap. Mai, iii.
89, 90.

4 299. 5 iii. 302. 6 Concil. vi. 154.

7 ii. 129. 8 344. 9 i. 762 : ii. 668, 1380.

10 Galland. v. 505. n vi. 609. 12 Galland. viii. 742 dis.

13 i. 672: ii. 49: iii 1 . 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311: x. 98, 101,
104, 107, no.

14 Galland. xi. 248. 15 Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.

16 Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and
Theodoret for KapSiais, on the ground that in the course of their expository
remarks they contrast KapSiai aapitivai (or \oymai) with irhdxfs \tOtvai : as if it
were not the word TrAaf i which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf
enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten that E
is ' nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D (Claromontanus), made by some
ignorant person'? that 'the Greek is manifestly worthless, and that it should
long since have been removed from the list of authorities '? [Scrivener's Introd.,
4th edit., i. 177. See also Traditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is
frequently inaccurate in his references to the Fathers.]

17 Scrivener's Introd. ii. 254.

18 A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.

19 Besides GLP and the following cursives, 29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55,
74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 262, 277.

ATTRACTION. 127

are all five of the number, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt
and advocate the awkward blunder 1 . Kapbiais is also
adopted by the Revisers of 1881 without so much as a
hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelm-
ingly against themselves and in favour of the traditional
Text of the Authorized Version 2 .

1 That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the other
side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence (besides the
testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian version : the doubtful testimony of
Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads KapSias, the MSS. largely preponderate
which read KapSiais in H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. 6. See Burton's ed. p. 637) :
Cyril in one place, as explained above : and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom
on the Maccabees, given in Cramer's Catena, vii. 595 (kv irXafi xapStcus aapKivais},
which reappears at the end of eight lines without the word 7rAoj.

2 [The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the Dean in the
same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had lived to
complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials
under that head were scanty. For 2 Cor. iii. 3, see also a note of my own to
p. 65 of The Traditional Text.]

CHAPTER X.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

IV. OMISSION.

[WE have now to consider the largest of all classes of
corrupt variations from the genuine Text 1 , the omission
of words and clauses and sentences, a truly fertile province
of inquiry. Omissions are much in favour with a particular
school of critics ; though a habit of admitting them whether
in ancient or modern times cannot but be symptomatic of
a tendency to scepticism.]

Omissions are often treated as ' Various Readings.' Yet
only by an Hibernian licence can words omitted be so
reckoned : for in truth the very essence of the matter is
that on such occasions nothing is read. It is to the case of
words omitted however that this chapter is to be exclusively
devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now
of those words alone where the words are observed to exist
in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred, so to speak ; being
away only from that hundredth copy.

Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been
called to the circumstance, that such a phenomenon
requires separate treatment. Words so omitted labour
prima facie under a disadvantage which is all their own.

1 It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical, classes. Omissions
are found in many of the rest.

OMISSION. 129

My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to
adduce and briefly discuss a few examples. And I will
begin with a crucial case ; the most conspicuous doubtless
within the whole compass of the New Testament. I mean
the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel ; which verses
are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the
rest of the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and
others.

The warrant of those critics for dealing thus uncere-
moniously with a portion of the sacred deposit is the fact
that whereas Eusebius, for the statement rests solely with
him, declares that anciently many copies were without the
verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire in
omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does
not conduct to the inference that those verses are spurious.
It only proves that the statement of Eusebius was correct.
The Father cited did not, as is evident from his words 1 ,
himself doubt the genuineness of the verses in question ;
but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two opinions ;
the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuine-
ness, and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers
the better of the two, since he rests upon the latter and
casts a slur upon the former as being an off-hand expe-
dient ; besides that he quotes several words out of the
twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second
hypothesis.

On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the
two MSS. witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its
error by leaving a vacant space where the omitted verses
should have come in ; whilst the other was apparently
copied from an exemplar containing the verses 2 . And all
the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives

1 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, chapter v. and Appendix B.
* See Dr. Gwynn's remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text,
pp. 298-301.

II. K

130 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

which propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the
verses, together with all the versions, except one Old
Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two Armenian MSS. and an
Arabic Lectionary, besides more than ninety testimonies in
their favour from more than ' forty-four ' ancient witnesses l ;
such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting
testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this,
the cause of the error is patent. Some scribe mistook the
Te'Aos occurring at the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at
the close of chapter xvi. 8 for the ' End ' of St. Mark's
Gospel 2 .

That is the simple truth : and the question will now be
asked by an intelligent reader, ' If such is the balance of
evidence, how is it that learned critics still doubt the
genuineness of those verses ? '

To this question there can be but one answer, viz.
' Because those critics are blinded by invincible prejudice
in favour of two unsafe guides, and on behalf of Omission.'

We have already seen enough of the character of those
guides, and are now anxious to learn what there can be in
omissions which render them so acceptable to minds of
the present day. And we can imagine nothing except the
halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious
passages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed
detection of passages which in fact are not spurious. Some
people appear to feel delight if they can prove any charge
against people who claim to be orthodox ; others without
any such feeling delight in superior criticism ; and the
flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste
of many. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of

1 The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424 : Traditional Text, p. 109, where
thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A.D.

2 The expression of Jerome, that almost all the Greek MSS. omit this
passage, is only a translation of Eusebius. It cannot express his own opinion,
for he admitted the twelve verses into the Vulgate, and quoted parts of them
twice, i.e. ver. 9, ii. 744-5, ver. 14, i. 327 c.

OMISSION. 131

passages which they style ' interpolations/ offer temptingly
spacious hunting-fields.

Yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that
Omission is the besetting fault of transcribers. It is so
easy under the influence of the desire of accomplishing
a task, or at least of anxiety for making progress, to pass
over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As has
been explained before, the eye readily moves from one
ending to a similar ending with a surprising tendency to
pursue the course which would lighten labour instead of
increasing it. The cumulative result of such abridgement
by omission on the part of successive scribes may be easily
imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B 1 .
Besides these considerations, the passages which are omitted,
and which we claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the
character belonging to the rest of the Gospels, indeed in
Dr. Hort's expressive phrase 'have the true ring of
genuineness.' They are not like some which some critics
of the same school would fain force upon us 2 . But beyond
all, and this is the real source and ground of attestation,
they enjoy superior evidence from copies, generally
beyond comparison with the opposing testimony, from
Versions, and from Fathers.]

The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much
larger amount of proof than usual is required at the hands
of those who would persuade us to cancel words which have

1 Dr. Dobbin has calculated 330 omissions in St. Matthew, 365 in St. Mark,
439 in St Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the Epistles
2,556 in all as far as Heb. ix. 14, where it terminates. Dublin University
Magazine, 1859, P- 620.

* Such as in Cod. D after St. Luke vi. 4. ' On the same day He beheld
a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, " Man, blessed art
thou if thou knowest what thou doest ; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed
and a transgressor of the law " ' (Scrivener's translation, Introduction, p. 8). So
also a longer interpolation from the Curetonian after St. Matt. xx. 28. These
are condemned by internal evidence as well as external.

K 2,

132 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

been hitherto by all persons, in all ages, in all countries,
regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (i) to account
for the fact of those words' existence : and next (2), to
demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the
sacred page. The discovery that from a few copies they
are away, clearly has very little to do with the question.
We may be able to account for the omission from those
few copies : and the instant we have done this, the negative
evidence the argument e silentio has been effectually
disposed of. A very different task a far graver respon-
sibility is imposed upon the adverse party, as may be
easily shewn. [They must establish many modes of ac-
counting for many classes and groups of evidence. Broad
and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden
of proof lies with them.]

The force of what I am saying will be best understood
if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced, and
individually considered. And first, let us take the case of
an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. i 8eurepo7rpajT<j> is omitted
from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers
accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows :
'Eye'yero 8e tv o-a/3/3aT&> StaTropeiWflai avrbv 8ia crTrop^woy.

Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so
very difficult and peculiar a word as this, for indeed the
expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,
should have found its way into every known Evangel ium
except NBL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it
came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough.

/ \n- u i. ,.*u r j < TO N CABBATO)

(a) One has but to glance at the Cod. tf, AeY TPOnP WTO)

in order to see that the like ending (TGJ) in the superior
line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line.
() A proper lesson begins at this place ; which by itself
would explain the phenomenon, (c) Words which the

OMISSION. 133

copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed
to be dropped : and there is no harder word in the Gospels
than bevTepoirpMTos. But I repeat, will you tell us how
it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and
known to be a crux to commentators and others, should
have crept into all the copies except a small handful ?]

In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really
I must yield to what is after all the weight of external
evidence : that Codd. NBL are not ordinary MSS. but
first-class authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh
any number of the later cursive MSS.

My rejoinder is plain : Not only am I of course
willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely
'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining
Seure/ooTrpcoro) OTTO ^eArcriou Krjptou apas TOV uravpov KCU
av(f)epfTo ets roy ovpavov orav ejcAiTTTjre the 1 4th verse of
St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter and the last twelve verses
of St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny
the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already
established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be
the daysman between us? We are driven back on first
principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to
meet on some common ground, and by the application of
ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view.
[As to these we must refer the reader to the first
volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been
just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere.
Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this
large class of corruptions at the length which it would
otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required,
in order that the reader may see in this connexion that
many passages at least which the opposing school designate
as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students
may be placed upon their guard against the source of
error that we are discussing.]

134 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.

The 44th verse of St. Matt, xxi, consisting of the fifteen
words printed at foot l , is marked as doubtful by Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers : by Tischendorf it
is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary,
it is indubitably genuine ; reasoning from the antiquity, the
variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the
general unanimity of its attestation.

For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vul-
gate, in the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,
besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions.
It is found also in Origen 2 , ps.-Tatian 3 Aphraates 4 ,
Chrysostom 5 , Cyril Alex. 6 , the Opus Imperfectum 7 ,
Jerome 8 , Augustine 9 : in Codexes BNC3>ZXZAIIEFG
HKLMSUV, in short, it is attested by every known
Codex except two of bad character, viz. D, 33 ; together
with five copies of the Old Latin, viz. a b e ff l ff 2 . There
have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at
least five witnesses of the second or third century :
at least eight of the fourth : at least seven if not eight
of the fifth : after which date the testimony in favour of

1 teal o vfaaiv iirl TOV \iOov TOVTOV ffw6\aa&rjffTcu' (<(>' ov 5' &v vtffri,
ai/rcv.

2 iv. 25 d, 343d. What proves these two quotations to be from St. Matt.
xxi. 44, and not from St. Luke xx. 18, is, that they alike exhibit expressions
which are peculiar to the earlier Gospel. The first is introduced by the formula
oii5jroT dveyvure (ver. 42 : comp. Orig. ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expres-
sion ?ri TOV KiOov TOVTOV (ver. 44), not iir' tictivov TOV \i6ov. Vainly is it urged
on the opposite side, that was 6 -ntawv belongs to St. Luke, whereas ical
6 vfffuv is the phrase found in St. Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672)
writes war 6 mirTcuv while professing to quote from St. Matthew ; and the author
of Cureton's Syriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same.

3 P- 193- 4 P. ii.

* vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas, p. 669]
xii. 27 d.

Ap. Mai, ii. 401 dis. T Ap. Chrys. vi. 171 c. 8 vii. 171 d.
9 ill*. 86, 245 : v. 500 e, 598 d.

OMISSION. 135

this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in
opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary
evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I.
c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and
a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even
although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band ?]

But, says Tischendorf, the verse is omitted by Origen
and by Eusebius, by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,
as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. I answer, this most
insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text
is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion. The critic
refers to the fact that Irenaeus 1 , Origen 2 , Eusebius 3 and
Cyril 4 having quoted ' the parable of the wicked husband-
men ' in extenso (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43). leave off at
verse 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable
leaves off? Why should they quote any further ? Verse
44 is nothing to their purpose. And since the Gospel for
Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every
known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,
why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse ?
But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we
have seen, the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote
the verse in dispute. And how can Tischendorf maintain
that Lucifer yields adverse testimony 5 ? That Father
quotes nothing but verse 43, which is all he requires for
his purpose 6 . Why should he have also quoted verse 44,
which he does not require? As well might it be main-
tained that Macarius Egyptius 7 and Philo of Carpasus 8
omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote
verse 43.

I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned
the omission of St. Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western

i 682-3 (Massuet 277). 2 iii. 786.

3 Theoph. 235-6 ( = Mai, iv. 122). * ii. 660 a, b, c.

5 'Praeterit et Lucifer.' 6 Ap. Galland. vi. 191 d.

7 Ibid. vii. 20 c. 8 Ibid. ix. 768 a.

136 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

copies of the Gospels 1 . Tischendorfs opinion that this
verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in
St. Luke's Gospel 2 (xx. 18) is clearly untenable. Either
place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained
all down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44
in the Peshitto version has a sectional number to itself 3 is
far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than
suspicion. If a verse so elaborately attested as the present
be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever attaining
to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture.

In the meantime there emerges from the treatment
which St. Matt. xxi. 44 has experienced at the hands
of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the estimation of
Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importance
as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other
copies of all ages and countries in Christendom.]

I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of
St. Matt. xv. 8, by the choice deliberately made of that
place by Dr. Tregelles in order to establish the peculiar
theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so
strenuously ; and which, ever since the days of Gries-
bach, has it must be confessed enjoyed the absolute
confidence of most of the illustrious editors of the New

1 [I am unable to find any place in the Dean's writings where he has made
this explanation. The following note, however, is appended here] :

With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43)
comes to an end.

Verse 44 has a number all to itself (in other words, is sect. 265) in the fifth
of the Syrian Canons, which contains whatever is found exclusively in
St. Matthew and St. Luke.

2 ' Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.'

3 The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265, in St. Luke, 274 : both being
referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke are exclusively com-
pared.

OMISSION. 137

Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on
Tregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point
out that that learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his
readers by not setting before them in full the problem
which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly to understand
this matter, the student should be reminded that there is
found in St. Matt. xv. 8, and parallel to it in St. Mark
vii. 6,

ST. MATT. ST. MARK.

' Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah ' Well did Isaiah prophesy of
prophesy of you saying, " This you, hypocrites, as it is written,
people draweth nigh unto Me " This people honoureth Me
with their mouth and honoureth with their lips (OVTOS 6 \abs rots
me with their lips (cyyi&t poi x t<Afort ' p.t TI/JLO), but their heart

6 Xaor OVTOS rw (rrd^art UUT>V, neat is far from Me." '

rots xe/'Xeo-t fie TifjLa-), but their
heart is far from Me." '

The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads
as follows in the ordinary editions of the LXX : KOI ei^e
Kvpios, eyyt^et juot 6 Xabs OVTOS kv ra> oro/zan O.VTOV, KOL cv Tols

\L\(TLV ailT&V Tl/^WCTl JU.6.

Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no
question is raised. Neither is there any various reading
worth speaking of in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred
in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when reference
is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and N, we
are presented with what, but for the parallel place in
St. Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbrevi-
ated reading. Both MSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt,
xv. 8, as follows : 6 Xabs OVTOS rois xeiXea-i jue rt/ia. So that
six words (eyyi'^a //ot and rw oro'/nari OVT&V, KOI) are not
recognized by them : in which peculiarity they are coun-
tenanced by DLT, two cursive copies, and the follow-
ing versions : Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian,
Lewis, Peshitto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and
Gothic versions, being imperfect here.) To this evidence,

138 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

Tischendorf adds a phalanx of Fathers : Clemens Romanus
(A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A. D. 150), Clemens
Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210),
Eusebius (A. D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysos-
tom : and Alford supplies also Justin Martyr (A. D. 150).
The testimony of Didymus (A. D. 350), which has been
hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary,
are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a weight
of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles
with an exceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he
declares ' that this one passage might be relied upon as an
important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many
which accord with ancient testimony.' Availing himself
of Dr. Scrivener's admission of ' the possibility that the
disputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted
from the Septuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13 V Dr. Tregelles
insists ' that on every true principle of textual criticism, the
words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from
the Prophet. This naturally explains their introduction,'
(he adds) ; ' and when once they had gained a footing in
the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by
copyists, who almost always preferred to make passages
as full and complete as possible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles
therefore relies upon this one passage, not so much as
a ' proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which
accord with ancient testimony ' ; for one instance cannot
possibly prove that ; and that is after all beside the real
question ; but, as a proof that we are to regard the text
of Codd. BN in this place as genuine, and the text of all the
other Codexes in the world as corrupt.

The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by
which from the days of Griesbach it has been proposed
to account for the discrepancy between ' the few copies ' on

1 Vol. i. 13.

OMISSION. 139

the one hand, and the whole torrent of manuscript evidence
on the other.

Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual
Criticism, I must be allowed to set my reader on his guard
against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding, though
enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly
respected name. I venture to think that the exact reverse
will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth : viz. that
undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one
time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in
MSS., and to some extent may be observed even to have
propagated themselves, are yet discovered to die out
speedily ; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number
of descendants. There has always in fact been a process
of elimination going on, as well as of self-propagation :
a corrective force at work, as well as one of deterioration.
How else are we to account for the utter disappearance
of the many monstra potitts quam variae lectiones which
the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their
times? It is enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome,
in illustration of what I have been saying 1 . To return
however from this digression.

We are invited then to believe, for it is well to know
at the outset exactly what is required of us, that from the
fifth century downwards every extant copy of the Gospels
except five (DLT C , 33, 124) exhibits a text arbitrarily inter-
polated in order to bring it into conformity with the Greek
version of Isa. xxix. 13. On this wild hypothesis I have
the following observations to make :

i. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true
account of the matter, how it has come to pass that in
no single MS. in the world, so far as I am aware, has this
conformity been successfully achieved : for whereas the

1 Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28.

140 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

Septuagintal reading is eyyifei P.OL 6 Xaos OVTOS EN r<3
orofwm ATTOT, xai EN TOIS xt\e<rii; ATTON TIM 221 /ue
the Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no
less than six particulars.

2. Further, If there really did exist this strange deter-
mination on the part of the ancients in general to assimilate
the text of St. Matthew to the text of Isaiah, how does
it happen that not one of them ever conceived the like
design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark ?

3. It naturally follows to inquire, Why are we to suspect
the mass of MSS. of having experienced such wholesale
depravation in respect of the text of St. Matthew in this
place, while yet we recognize in them such a marked
constancy to their own peculiar type ; which however, as
already explained, is not the text of Isaiah ?

4. Further, I discover in this place a minute illustration
of the general fidelity of the ancient copyists : for whereas
in St. Matthew it is invariably 6 Aaos OVTOS, I observe that
in the copies of St. Mark, except to be sure in (a) Codd.
B and D, (b) copies of the Old Latin, (c] the Vulgate, and
(d) the Peshitto (all of which are confessedly corrupt in
this particular,) it is invariably OVTOS 6 \ao$. But now,
Is it reasonable that the very copies which have been in
this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St. Mark
vii. 6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great
heap of copies in respect of their exhibition of St. Matt.
xv. 8?

And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and N and
the great bulk of the copies in this place did not originate
in the way insisted on by the critics, how is it to be
accounted for? Now, on ordinary occasions, we do not
feel ourselves called upon to institute any such inquiry,
as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do.
Unbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness,
arbitrary interpolations, omissions without number, disfigure

OMISSION. 141

those two ancient MSS. in every page. We seldom trouble
ourselves to inquire into the history of their obliquities.
But the case is of course materially changed when so
many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldest
Versions seem to be at one with Codexes B and N. Let
then the student favour me with his undivided attention
for a few moments, and I will explain to him how the
misapprehension of Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles and
the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. and the Versions
these critics are sufficiently accurate : but they have fatally
misapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence ; as
I proceed to explain.

The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13
in the Apostolic age proves to have been this, 'Eyytei /xoi
6 Aaos OVTOS rols xfiXetnv avr&v TL^Sxri /u,e: the words fv rw
o-ro'/xari avT&v, nal fv being omitted. This is certain.
Justin Martyr 1 and Cyril of Alexandria in two places 2
so quote the passage. Procopius Gazaeus in his Com-
mentary on Origen's Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that
the six words in question were introduced into the text of
the Septuagint by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
Accordingly they are often observed to be absent from
MSS. 3 They are not found, for example, in the Codex
Alexandrinus.

But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of
these words was felt to be intolerable. In fact, without
a colon point between OVTOS and rots, the result is without
meaning. When once the complementary words have
been withdrawn, eyytC" M<H at the beginning of the
sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatally encumbers
the sense. To drop those two words, after the example
of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, became thus

1 Dial. 78, ad fin. (p. 272).

" Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c.

* See Holmes and Parsons' ed. of the LXX, vol. iv. in kc.

142 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

an obvious proceeding. Accordingly the author of the
(so-called) second Epistle of Clemens Romanus ( 3),
professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah,
exhibits it thus, 'O Aaos OVTOS rot? \fi\f ai /ie rtfia. Clemens
Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two
occasions l . So does Chrysostom 2 . So does Theodoret 3 .

Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the
aspect of the problem : the first, (a) That the words ev TU>
aro'ju,cm avr&v, KOI (v were anciently absent from the Septua-
gintal rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13: the second, (b) that
the place of Isaiah was freely quoted by the ancients
without the initial words eyyt't fxot.

And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as
to deny that on the contrary it must needs be Codexes
B and N*, and not the great bulk of the MSS., which
exhibit a text corrupted by the influence of the Septuagint
rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent to which
the assimilating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's
Gospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to
determine. The essential point is that the omission from
St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words Tw oro'/icm O.VT&V, /ecu, is
certainly due in the first instance to the ascertained
Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah xxix. 13.

But that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an
assimilating influence on the quotation from Isaiah is
demonstrable. For there can be no doubt that Isaiah's
phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is 6 Aaos OVTOS, St. Mark's
OVTOS 6 Aao'y. And yet, when Clemens Romanus quotes Isaiah,
he begins OVTOS 6 Aao's 4 ; and so twice does Theodoret 5 .

The reader is now in a position to judge how much

1 Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only.

* Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b. 3 Opp. ii. 1345 : iii. 763-4.

* xv : on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently remarks,
' Hunc locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo laudatum, S. Marc,
vii. 6, si pro airtanv dedisset dire'x.'

5 Opp. i. 1502 : iii. 1114.

OMISSION. 143

attention is due to Dr. Tregelles' dictum 'that this one
passage may be relied upon' in support of the peculiar
views he advocates : as well as to his confident claim that
the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. out of
a hundred ' must be regarded as an amplification borrowed
from the prophet.' It has been shewn in answer to the
learned critic that in the ancient Greek text of the prophet
the 'amplification' he speaks of did not exist: it was the
abbreviated text which was found there. So that the very
converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place.
Freely accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process
of assimilation, occasioned by the Septuagintal text of
Isaiah, we differ from him only as to the direction in
which that process has manifested itself. He assumes
that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the
generally received reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has
been shewn that, on the contrary, it is the two oldest MSS.
which have experienced assimilation. Their prototypes were
depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote period.

To state this matter somewhat differently. In all the
extant uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive
copy of the Gospels, the words TW oro'/^cm CLVT&V, KCU are
found to belong to St. Matt. xv. 8. How is the presence of
those words to be accounted for ? The reply is obvious :
By the fact that they must have existed in the original
autograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the
reply of Griesbach and his followers. They insist that
beyond all doubt those words must have been imported
into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn that
this is impossible ; because, at the time spoken of, the
words in question had no place in the Greek text of the
prophet. And this discovery exactly reverses the problem,
and brings out the directly opposite result. For now we
discover that we have rather to inquire how is the absence
of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the

144 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

mass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are
convicted of exhibiting a text which has been corrupted
by the influence of the oldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah
xxix. 13.

I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that
five ancient Versions, and all the following early writers,
Ptolemaeus 1 , Clemens Alexandrinus 2 , Origen 3 , Didymus 4 ,
Cyril 5 , Chrysostom 6 , and possibly three others of like
antiquity 7 , should all quote St. Matthew in this place
from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how
extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun.
It probably dates from the first century. Especially does
it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest
authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with
the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed
no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here,
such as are not commonly encountered.

What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place
in our LORD'S Sermon on the Mount : viz. St. Matt. v. 44 ;
which in almost every MS. in existence stands as follows :

(1) ayaTrare TOVS f^Opovs VJJL&V,

(2) evAoyctre TOVS Karapco/xeVous ijuas,

(3) KaAws Troteire rois ^icrova-iv 8 Vfjias,

(4) KOI TTpO(TfV\(r9 VTTfp T&V fTTf]pfa^6vT(aV V/iS?,

(5) KCU blU>K.OVT<i)V VfJLO.S 9 .

1 Ap. Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d. a OpP- P- 461.

3 Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place) : ii. 723 : iv. 121.
* De Trinitate, p. 242.

5 Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to Alexandria.]

6 Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain.

7 It is uncertain whether Eusebius and Basil quote St. Matthew or Isaiah :
but a contemporary of Chrysostom certainly quotes the Gospel, Chrys. Opp.
vi. 425 d (cf. p. 417, line lo).

8 But Eus. Es * TOW /.

9 I have numbered the clauses for convenience. It will perhaps facilitate the

OMISSION. 145

On the other hand, it is not to be denied that there
exists an appreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the
passage in a shorter form. The fact that Origen six times l
reads the place thus :

TOVS \6povs fytwy,

inrfp TU>V 8ia>KoWa>z> v/>ta?.
(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and
fourth clauses ;) and that he is supported therein by Btf ,
(besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old
Latin MSS., and the Bohairic 2 , seems to critics of a certain
school a circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses.
They are aware that Cyprian 3 , and they are welcome to
the information that Tertullian 4 once and Theodoret once 5
[besides Irenaeus 6 , Eusebius 7 , and Gregory of Nyssa 8 ]
exhibit the place in the same way. So does the author of
the Dialogus contra Marcionitas 9 , whom however I take
to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was
for obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tre-
gelles, Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely.
I am persuaded that they are grievously mistaken in
so doing, and that the received text represents what
St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the
uncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven ; and
this alone ought to be decisive. But it is besides the

study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I subjoin a representation of
the same words in Latin :

(1) Diligite inimicos vestros,

(2) benedicite maledicentes vos,

(3) benefacite odientibus vos,

(4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos,

(5) et perseqnentibus vos.

1 Opp. iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106.

2 ' A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the margin.'
Traditional Text, p. 149.

3 Opp. p. 79, cf. 146. * Scap. c. i.

5 Opp. iv. 946. 6 Haer. III. xviii. 5.

7 Dem. Evan. xiii. 7. 8 In Bapt. Christ.

* Orig. Opp. i. 812.

II. L

146 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

reading of the Peshitto, the Harkleian, and the Gothic ;
as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.

Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence
of Versions and Fathers on this subject ; remembering
that the point in dispute is nothing else but the genuine-
ness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at starting, we make
the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was
relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth
clauses, himself twice l quotes the first clause in connexion
with the fourth : while Theodoret, on two occasions 2 , con-
nects with clause i what he evidently means for clause 2 ;
and Tertullian once if not twice connects closely clauses
i, 2; and once, clauses i, 2, 5 3 . From which it is plain
that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all Tertullian,
can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They
recognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal
circumstance, and effectively disposes of their supposed
hostile evidence.

But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering
testimony. Besides the three copies of the Old Latin
which exhibit all the five clauses, the Vulgate retains the
first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine 4 quotes consecu-
tively clauses i, 3, 5 : Ambrose 5 clauses i, 3, 4, 5 i, 4, 5:
Hilary 6 , clauses i, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5 : Lucifer 7 ,
clauses i, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius 8 con-
nects clauses i, 3, i, 3, 5: and Pacian 9 , clauses 5, 2.
Next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the
Greek Fathers.

And first we turn to Chrysostom 10 who (besides quoting

1 Opp. i. 768 : iv. 353. 2 Opp. i. 827 : ii. 399.

8 Spect. c. 1 6 : (Anim. c. 35) : Pat. c. 6.

* [In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract, ix. 3 (i, 3 (ver. 45 &c.)) ; In Ps. cxxxviii. 27 (i, 3) ;
Serm. XV. 8 (i, 3, 5) ; Serm. LXII. in lac. (i, 3, 4, 5).]

5 In Ps. xxxviii. 2. 6 Opp. pp. 303, 297.

7 Pro S. Athanas. ii. 8 Ps. cxviii. 10. 16 ; 9. 9. * Ep. ii.

10 Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436: ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654: ii. 258: iii.
41 : iv. 267 : xii. 425.

OMISSION. 147

the fourth clause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five
times) quotes consecutively clauses i, 3 iii. 167; i, 4
iv. 619 ; 2, 4 v. 436 ; 4, 3 ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654 ; 4, 5
ii. 258, iii. 341 ; i, 2, 4 iv. 267 ; i, 3, 4, 5 xii. 425 ; thus
recognizing them all.

Gregory Nyss. 1 quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.

Eusebius 2 , clauses 4, 52, 4, 5 i, 3, 4, 5.

The Apostolic Constitutions 3 (third century), clauses i,
3, 4, 5 (having immediately before quoted clause 2,) also
clauses 2, 4, i.

Clemens Alex. 4 (A.D. 192), clauses i, 2, 4.

Athenagoras 5 (A.D. 177), clauses i, 2, 5.

Theophilus 6 (A.D. 168), clauses i, 4.

While Justin M. 7 (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause i,
connects therewith clauses 2 and 4.

And Polycarp 8 (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses
4 and 5.

Didache 9 (A.D. ico?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines i and 3
(PP- 5> 6).

In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed
will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the
generally received reading in St. Matt. v. 44. All must
see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately
after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt
thing which the critics imagine, viz.

TOVS txdpovs vpStv,

crdf. inrep rG>v biMKovrav vp.as,

by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to
St. Matt. v. 44 have freely mentioned ' blessing those who
curse, doing good to those who hate, and praying for
those who despitefully use.' Since there are but two

1 Opp. iii. 379. a Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589.

3 Pp. 3, 198. * Op?- P- 605 and 307.

5 Leg. pro Christian, ii. 6 Ad Autolycum, iii. 14.

7 Opp. i. 40. 8 Ad Philipp. c. 12. i.

L 2

148 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

alternative readings of the passage, one longer, one
briefer, every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed
clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all
the rest.

This result of ' comparative criticism ' is therefore respect-
fully recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be
not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of
primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials
and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no
Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must
be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing
deserving of the name of ' proof will ever be attainable in
this department of investigation.

But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of
St. Matt. v. 44 has been clearly established, then let the
legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally
recognized. The unique value of Manuscripts in declaring
the exact text of Scripture the conspicuous inadequacy
of Patristic evidence by themselves, have been made
apparent : and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quota-
tions are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,
which is. to enable us to decide between conflicting readings.
One more indication has been obtained of the corruptness
of the text which Origen employed, concerning which he
is so strangely communicative, and of which Btf are the
chief surviving examples ; and the probability has been
strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the
principal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading
will prove to be corrupt.

Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds
favour with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that
these three clauses have been imported hither from
St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is mere un-
supported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the
order of the second and third clauses in St. Matthew's

OMISSION. 149

Gospel is the reverse of the order in St. Luke's? No.
I believe that there has been excision here: for I hold
with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of
accident l .

1 Theodore! once (iv. 946) gives the verse as Tischendorf gives it : bat on
two other occasions (i. 827 : ii. 399) the same Theodoret exhibits the second
member of the sentence thus, euAo-ytrre TOVS SI&KOVTO.S v/j.ds (so pseud.-Athan.
ii. 95 ), which shews how little stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-
named place furnishes.

Origen also (iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place as Tischendorf
gives it but on one occasion, which it will be observed is fatal to his evidence
(i. 768 \ he gives the second member thus, iv. 353 :

teal iTpoaevx f vQ f vntp ruiv eirrjpea.^tiVTaii' V/J.CLS. .. i. 4.

Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place :

dyairdre TOVS ex^povs vfjioiv, fv^offirt TOVS icarapoififvovs vfMS, ical irpoa(vx fo '9 f
virep TWV fTrrjpea^ovTcav vjuv, /cat TO, ofwta. .'. I, 2, 4. 3, ^.

Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding
licence), yet is observed to recognize in part both the clauses which labour
under suspicion: .*. i, 2, 4. 3, 5.

fvxto-0 vntp TWV ex^puiv vfuav aat aya.irS.Te TOVS fuffovvTas vftds, which roughly
represents xal evXoyttTt TOVS KaTapoi^tvovs v^uv at tvxeaOe iiirlp TUV ti
^OVTOJV vfj.ds.

The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards TOVJ
i/nds. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i. 521), who (loosely
enough) quotes the place thus,

Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt.

:. i (made up of 3, 4). 2, 5.

And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who writes :
ad Philipp. c. 12 :

Orate pro perseqtientibus et odientibus vos. .: 4, 5. 1,2,3.

I have examined [Didache] Justin, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Cyril Al.,
Greg. Naz., Basil, Athan., Didymus, Cyril Hier., Chrys., Greg. Nyss., Epiph.,
Theod., Clemens.

And the following are the results :

Didache. Ev\oyttrt roiis Karaptufitvovs vfuv, KOI irpoatvxfO'Of vvtp TWV
Vfuav, vrjffTfVfTt 6e inrep TWV SicaKovTOiv vfias . . . vfitis Se dyairdrt TOVS
VIMS. .'. 2, 3, 4, 5.

Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs : Diligite inimicos vestros,
benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt et persequuntur.

Eusebius Prae 654. .-. 2, 4, 5, omitting i, 3.
Ps 699. .'. 4, 5, omitting i, 2, 3.
Es 589. .'. i, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.

Clemens Al. 605. .-. i. 2, 4, omitting 3, 5.

Greg. Nyss. iii. 379. .'. 3, 4, 5, omitting i, 2.

Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro
persequentibus et calumniantibus vos. .-. I, 3, 5, 4, omitting 2.

150 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the
Guardian newspaper, who thought that he had reduced
the authorities quoted from before A. D. 400 on page 103
of The Traditional Text to two on our side against
seven, or rather six *, on the other. Let me first say that
on this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged
to re-judge or withdraw some authorities. I admit that in
the middle of a long catena of passages. I did not lay

Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibns

vos ac persequentibus vos. .". 2, 4, 5, omitting \!f^ first and third.

Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac

persequentibus vos. /. 1,4, 5, omitting the second and third. Cf. 128.

Cyprian, 79 v cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui vos

persequuntur. .-. I, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.

Tertullian. Diligite ' v enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et orate pro maledi-

centibus vos which apparently is meant for a quotation of i, 2.

.-. I, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5.

Tertullian. Diligite enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et maledicentibus bene-
dicite, et orate pro persecutoribus vestris which is a quotation of i, a, 5.

.-. i, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4.
Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qni vos perseqnuntur.

.-. 1,5, omitting 2, 3, 4.

Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedict .'. i, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5.
Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite Us qui oderunt vos : orate
pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos. .. i, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.

Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibns et perse-
quentibus vos. .. I, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3.
Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt : et orate
pro eis qni vos perseqnuntur. .-. I, 3, 5, omitting a, 4.
' Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac perse-
quentibus vos.' Hilary, 297.

Cyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus,
ev voitiTf TOVS f \0povs vfjsvr.
/tat vpofftvxfaOf inrtp ranr tnjpta6irrcjy VIMS.
Chrys. (iii. 355) says

avriy yap elvtv, fv\(o8( iiwtp rwv t\6pan' [yfuav^
and repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453.

So Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et persccutoribus nostris
bone precari. .-. 1,5.

If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should probably find
dyavarf roin txOpovs vpajv,
not i!poofv\fo6t vf\p riav fjuaovvrtuv vftds:
and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c, 12),

wpofftvxrOt vf\p raiv SKUKOVTOJV KOI fuaovvr<av vftas.

1 Dialogue Adamantii is not adducible within my limits, because 'it is
in all probability the production of a later age.' My number was eight.

OMISSION. 151

sufficient stress, as I now find, upon the parallel passage
in St. Luke vi. 27, 28. After fresh examination, I withdraw
entirely Clemens Alex., Paed. i. 8, Philo of Carpasus,
I. 7, Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. cxviii. 12. 51,
and the two referred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote
Origen, Cels. viii. 41, Eusebius in Ps. iii., Apost. Const,
vii. 4, Greg. Nyss., In S. Stephanum, because they may
be regarded as doubtful, although for reasons which I pro-
ceed to give they appear to witness in favour of our
contention. It is necessary to add some remarks before
dealing with the rest of the passages.

i. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question
both negative and positive : negative on the side of
our opponents, with all the difficulties involved in estab-
lishing a negative conclusion as to the non-existence in
St. Matthew's Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5, and positive
for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of
the genuine text in the passage which we are considering.
If we can so establish the clauses, or indeed any one of
them, the case against us fails : but unless we can establish
all, we have not proved everything that we seek to demon-
strate. Our first object is to make the adverse position
untenable : when we have done that, we fortify our own.
Therefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention
to the fact that our authorities are summoned as witnesses
to the early existence in each case of ' some of the clauses,'
if they do not depose to all of them. We are quite aware
of the reply : but we have with us the advantage of
positive as against negative evidence. This advantage
especially rules in such an instance as the present, because
alien circumstances govern the quotation, and regulate
particularly the length of it. Such quotation is always
liable to shortening, whether by leaving out intermediate
clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the
passage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses,

152 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

being undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable
than omission arising from what cause soever.

2. The reviewer says that ' all four clauses are read by
both texts,' i. e. in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears
to have been unaware as regards the present purpose of
the existence of the fifth clause, or half-clause, in St.
Matthew. Yet the words v-ntp . . . T&V Sico/coVrcoy v/xas
are a very label, telling incontestibly the origin of many
of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St.
Matthew's label cannot have come from St Luke's Gospel.
The reviewer has often gone wrong here. The virep
instead of the Tre/n after NBLE in St. Luke should be to
our opponents a sign betraying the origin, though when it
stands by itself as in Eusebius, In Ps. iii. I do not press
the passage.

3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the
effects of the context in shewing to which source a quota-
tion is to be referred. It is a common custom for Fathers
to quote v. 45 in St. Matthew, which is hardly conceivable
if they had St. Luke vi. 27, 28 before them, or even if they
were quoting from memory. Other points in the context
of greater or less importance are often found in the sentence
or sentences preceding or following the words quoted, and
are decisive of the reference.

The references as corrected are given in the note l . It

1 Observe that 5 = vntp . . . rwv SiouKuvrcav.

For

Didache ( i), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5. Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii.

Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5. 14), i, 4 (4), virtp and ver. 46.

Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), Clemens Alex. (Strom, iv. 14), i, 2

4 (4), 5? iiirtp TWV txOpwv ( = 8to>- (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom, vii.

K&VT(av ?), but the passage more like 14), favours St. Matt.

St. Luke, the context more like St. Origen (De Orat. i), i, 4 (4), virep and

Matt., ver. 45. in the middle of two quotations

Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian, n), from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45),

!, 2 (3), 5. ver. 45. 1,4 (4), virep and all ver. 45.

Tertullian (De Patient, vi), i, 2 (3), Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xiii. 7), 2 (3),

5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol. c. 31. 1,5. 4 (4), 5, all ver. 45 ; (Comment, in

OMISSION. 153

will be seen by any one who compares the verifications
with the reviewer's list, how his failure to observe the
points just explained has led him astray. The effect
upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be
that before the era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testi-
monies are given in favour of the Traditional Text of
St. Matt. v. 44, and adding Tertullian from the Dean nine
against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will
be 522 and 171 respectively.]

Especially have we need to be on our guard against
conniving at the ejection of short clauses consisting of
from twelve to fourteen letters, which proves to have
been the exact length of a line in the earliest copies.
When such omissions leave the sense manifestly imperfect,
no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take no
notice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing
that the omission has been the result of accident. In
this way, [ot Trarepfs OVT&V, though it is omitted by
Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, is retained by all the Editors :
and the strange reading of Cod. tf in St. John vi. 55,
omitting two lines, was corrected on the manuscript in

Is. 66), i, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, also ver. Hilary (Tract, in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9), 2

45; (In Ps. cviii), 4, 5. (3), 4 (4), 5 ; (ibid. 10. 16), i, 4

Apost. Const, (i. 2), i, 3 (2), 4 (4), (4), 5. (The reviewer omits 'ac

5, vwfp and ver. 45. persequentibus vos ' in both cases.)

Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 Ambrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), i, 3, 4, 5;

(4), 5, vnfpft/xfffOat. (In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1,4 (4), 5.

Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), Aphraates (Dem. ii), i, 2 (3), 4 (4),

4 (4), 5> v*tp> ver. 45. 5, eOviicoi.

Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles

but quotes ver. 44 ... end of chap- (p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45.

ter. Number = 25.
Pacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5.

154 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern
times].

HPAP

CAPZMOYAAH0COC
[eCTIBPCOCICKAl
TOAIMAMOYAAH0COC]
eCTITTOCIC

But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three
words, the sense of the context remains unimpaired, the
clause being of independent signification, then great
danger arises lest an attempt should be made through the
officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of
a part of her inheritance. Thus [KCU 01 <rvv O.VT> (St. Luke
viii. 45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in
the margin by the Revisers and included in brackets by
Tregelles as if the words were of doubtful authority, solely
because some scribe omitted a line and was followed by B,
a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, and Jerusalem
Versions].

When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly
remote period ; took place, I mean, in the third, or more
likely still in the second century ; then the fate of such
omitted words may be predicted with certainty. Their
doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective
original of necessity reproduced the defects of its proto-
type : and if (as often happens) some of those copies have
descended to our times, they become quoted henceforward
as if they were independent witnesses 1 . Nor is this all.
Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies
of the Old Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with
formidable because very venerable foes. And according
to the recently approved method of editing the New
Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is de-

1 See Traditional Text, p. 55.

OMISSION. 155

clared without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to
the Text. Take, as an instance of this, the following
passage in St. Luke xii. 39. ' If (says our LORD) ' the
master of the house had known in what hour

OKA6TTTHC

PXTAi [erpHrop

HCCNKAlJ OYKANA

<t>HKN

his house to be broken through.' Here, the clause within
brackets, which has fallen out for an obvious reason, does
not appear in Codd. tf and D. But the omission did not
begin with tf. Two copies of the Old Latin are also
without the words ey/srjyopTjo-ey /ecu, which are wanting
besides in Cureton's Syriac. Tischendorf accordingly
omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount
of evidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the
ejection of the clause as spurious ? What is the ' Science '
worth which cannot preserve to the body a healthy limb
like this ?

[The instances of omission which have now been examined
at some length must by no means be regarded as the only
specimens of this class of corrupt passages l . Many more
will occur to the minds of the readers of the present
volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact,
omissions are much more common than Additions, or
Transpositions, or Substitutions : and this fact, that omis-
sions, or what seem to be omissions, are apparently so
common, to say nothing of the very strong evidence where-
with they are attested when taken in conjunction with the
natural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages,
cannot but confirm the general soundness of the position.

1 For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament, viz.
the Pericope de Adultera, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II.

156 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

How indeed can it possibly be more true to the infirmities
of copyists, to the verdict of evidence on the several
passages, and to the origin of the New Testament in the
infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were
not literary, to suppose that a terse production was first
produced and afterwards was amplified in a later age with
a view to 'lucidity and completeness 1 ,' rather than that
words and clauses and sentences were omitted upon
definitely understood principles in a small class of docu-
ments by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The
reply to this question must now be left for candid and
thoughtful students to determine].

1 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134.

CHAPTER XI.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

V. TRANSPOSITION, VI. SUBSTITUTION,
AND VII. ADDITION.

ONE of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings,
is TRANSPOSITION, or the arbitrary inversion of the order
of the sacred words, generally in the subordinate clauses
of a sentence. The extent to which ' this prevails in
Codexes of the type of BKCD passes belief. It is not
merely the occasional writing of ravra -navTa for -navra
raCra, or 6 Xaos OVTOS for OVTOS 6 Xaos, to which allusion
is now made : for if that were all, the phenomenon would
admit of loyal explanation and excuse. But what I speak
of is a systematic putting to wrong of the inspired words
throughout the entire Codex ; an operation which was
evidently regarded in certain quarters as a lawful exercise
of critical ingenuity, perhaps was looked upon as an
elegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style
of the original without materially interfering with the
sense.

Let me before going further lay before the reader a few
specimens of Transposition.

Take for example St. Mark i. 5> * a t e/Jaimfouro
is unreasonably turned into Ttavrts KCU
whereby the meaning of the Evangelical record becomes

158 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

changed, for Traire? is now made to agree with '
JUTCU, and the Evangelist is represented as making the
very strong assertion that all the people of Jerusalem
came to St. John and were baptized. This is the private
property of BDLA.

And sometimes I find short clauses added which I prefer
to ascribe to the misplaced critical assiduity of ancient
Critics. Confessedly spurious, these accretions to the
genuine text often bear traces of pious intelligence, and
occasionally of considerable ability. I do not suppose
that they ' crept in ' from the margin : but that they
were inserted by men who entirely failed to realize the
wrongness of what they did, the mischievous conse-
quences which might possibly ensue from their well-meant
endeavours to improve the work of the HOLY GHOST.

[Take again St. Mark ii. 3, in which the order in Trpos
avrov TrapaXvTLKov (frfpovres, is changed by KBL into
(ptpovres 77730? avrov TrapaXvTiKov. A few words are needed
to explain to those who have not carefully examined
the passage the effect of this apparently slight alteration.
Our Lord was in a house at Capernaum with a thick
crowd of people around Him : there was no room even
at the door. Whilst He was there teaching, a company
of people come to Him (Ip^ovrat Trpbs avrov], four of the
party carrying a paralytic on a bed. When they arrive
at the house, a few of the company, enough to represent
the whole, force their way in and reach Him : but on
looking back they see that the rest are unable to bring
the paralytic near to Him (Trpoo-e'yyto-at avrw 1 ). Upon
which they all go out and uncover the roof, take up the
sick man on his bed, and the rest of the familiar story
unfolds itself. Some officious scribe wished to remove
all antiquity arising from the separation of

ai is transitive here, like ("TY'fr i n Gen. xlviii. 10, 13: 2 Kings
iv. 6 : Isaiah xlvi. 1 3.

TRANSPOSITION. 159

from alpofjifvov which agrees with it, and transposed
(frfpovTes to the verb it is attached to, thus clumsily
excluding the exquisite hint, clear enough to those who
can read between the lines, that in the ineffectual attempt
to bring in the paralytic only some of the company
reached our Lord's Presence. Of course the scribe in
question found followers in NBL.]

It will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition
are of a kind which is without excuse and inadmissible.
Such transposition consists in drawing back a word which
occurs further on, but is thus introduced into a new
context, and gives a new sense. It seems to be assumed
that since the words are all there, so long as they be
preserved, their exact collocation is of no moment. Trans-
positions of that kind, to speak plainly, are important only
as affording conclusive proof that such copies as END
preserve a text which has undergone a sort of critical
treatment which is so obviously indefensible that the
Codexes themselves, however interesting as monuments
of a primitive age, however valuable commercially and
to be prized by learned and unlearned alike for their
unique importance, are yet to be prized chiefly as
beacon-lights preserved by a watchful Providence to warn
every voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore
already strewn with wrecks l .

Transposition may sometimes be as conveniently illus-
trated in English as in Greek. St. Luke relates (Acts ii.
45, 46) that the first believers sold their goods ' and parted
them to all men, as every man had need. And they,
continuing daily/ &c. For this, Cod. D reads, ' and parted
them daily to all men as every man had need. And they
continued in the temple.'

1 The following are the numbers of Transpositions supplied by B, X, and D
in the Gospels: 13, 2,098: N, 2,299: D, 3,471. See Revision Revised,
PP- 12, 13.

160 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

It is difficult to divine for what possible reason most
of these transpositions were made. On countless occasions
they do not in the least affect the sense. Often, they are
incapable of being idiomatically represented, in English.
Generally speaking, they are of no manner of import-
ance, except as tokens of the licence which was claimed
by disciples, as I suspect, of the Alexandrian school
[or exercised unintentionally by careless or ignorant
Western copyists]. But there arise occasions when we
cannot afford to be so trifled with. An important change
in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected by
transposing its clauses ; and on one occasion, as I venture
to think, the prophetic intention of the Speaker is obscured
in consequence. I allude to St. Luke xiii. 9, where under
the figure of a barren fig-tree, our LORD hints at what
is to befall the Jewish people, because in the fourth year
of His Ministry it remained unfruitful. ' Lo, these three
years,' (saith He to the dresser of His Vineyard), ' come
I seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none ; cut it down ;
why cumbereth it the ground ? ' ' Spare it for this year
also,' (is the rejoinder), ' and if it bear fruit, well : but if
not, next year thou shalt cut it down.' But on the
strength of KBLT W , some recent Critics would have us
read, ' And if it bear fruit next year, well : but if not,
thou shalt cut it down ' : which clearly would add a year
to the season of the probation of the Jewish race. The
limit assigned in the genuine text is the fourth year: in
the corrupt text of NBLT W , two bad Cursives, and the two
chief Egyptian versions, this period becomes extended to
the fifth.

To reason about such transpositions of words, a weari-
some proceeding at best, soon degenerates into the veriest
trifling. Sometimes, the order of the words is really

TRANSPOSITION. l6l

immaterial to the sense. Even when a different shade
of meaning is the result of a different collocation, that
will seem the better order to one man which seems not
to be so to another. The best order of course is that
which most accurately exhibits the Author's precise shade
of meaning : but of this the Author is probably the only
competent judge. On our side, an appeal to actual
evidence is obviously the only resource : since in no
other way can we reasonably expect to ascertain what
was the order of the words in the original document.
And surely such an appeal can be attended with only
one result : viz. the unconditional rejection of the peculiar
and often varying order advocated by the very few
Codexes, a cordial acceptance of the order exhibited by
every document in the world besides.

I will content myself with inviting attention to one or
two samples of my meaning. It has been made a question
whether St. Luke (xxiv. 7) wrote, Xeyav, "On 8i Toy vlov
TOV avOpu>TTov Trapaoodrjvai, as all the MSS. in the world
but four, all the Versions, and all the available Fathers' J
evidence from A. D. 150 downwards attest: or whether
he wrote, Aeyo)!/ TOV vlov TOV av6pu>^ov on Set TrapaboOrjvai,
as tfBCL, and those four documents only would have
us believe ? [The point which first strikes a scholar is that
there is in this reading a familiar classicism which is alien
to the style of the Gospels, and which may be a symptom
of an attempt on the part of some early critic who was
seeking to bring them into agreement with ancient Greek
models.] But surely also it is even obvious that the corre-
spondence of those four Codexes in such a particular as
this must needs be the result of their having derived the
reading from one and the same original. On the contrary,

1 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i. 348) :
Cyril (Mai, ii. 438) : John Thess. (Gall. xiii. 188).

II. M

162 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

the agreement of all the rest in a trifling matter of
detail like the present can be accounted for in only one
way, viz., by presuming that they also have all been
derived through various lines of descent from a single
document : but that document the autograph of the
Evangelist. [For the great number and variety of them
necessitates their having been derived through various lines
of descent. Indeed, they must have the notes of number,
variety, as well as continuity, and weight also.]

On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult
perhaps impossible to determine, apart from external
evidence, which collocation of two or more words is the
true one, whether e. g. lx et C^v f r instance or farjv <?xei *,
riytpQT] evfe'co? or v0e'o>? r\yipQr\ 2 , xu>\ovs, rv^Xovs or
rv(f)Xovs, xcoAcw 3 , shall be preferred. The burden of proof
rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use.

Obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man
sits down before the Gospel with the deliberate intention
of improving the style of the Evangelists by transposing
their words on an average of seven (B), eight (N), or
twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe to convict
himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he has
reached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of
K, in place of e^ovaiav !8<oKez> avrw Koi Kpiaiv iroielv 4 ,
presents us with KCU Kplcriv eSooKej; avrw f^ova-iav Troielv, we
hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense 5 . And
when BD instead of a<n ru'es T&V w5e IOTTJKO'TCOI; exhibit
fieri rives <35e TU>V eo-TrjKOTuv, we cannot but conclude that

1 St. John v. 26, in N. * St. Mark ii. 12, in D.

3 St. Lnke xiv. 13, in KB. 4 St. John v. 27.

5 'Nee aliter' (says Tischendorf) 'Tertull.' (Prax. 21), ' et judidum dedit
illifacere in potestate! But this (begging the learned critic's pardon) is quite
a different thing.

TRANSPOSITION. 163

the credit of those two MSS. must be so far lowered in the
eyes of every one who with true appreciation of the niceties
of Greek scholarship observes what has been done.

[This characteristic of the old uncials is now commended
to the attention of students, who will find in the folios
of those documents plenty of instances for examination.
Most of the cases of Transposition are petty enough, whilst
some, as the specimens already presented to the reader
indicate, constitute blots not favourable to the general
reputation of the copies on which they are found. Indeed,
they are so frequent that they have grown to be a very
habit, and must have propagated themselves. For it is
in this secondary character rather than in any first inten-
tion, so to speak, that Transpositions, together with
Omissions and Substitutions and Additions, have become
to some extent independent causes of corruption. Origin-
ally produced by other forces, they have acquired a power
of extension in themselves.

It is hoped that the passages already quoted may be
found sufficient to exhibit the character of the large class
of instances in which the pure Text of the original
Autographs has been corrupted by Transposition. That
it has been so corrupted, is proved by the evidence
which is generally overpowering in each case. There
has clearly been much intentional perversion : careless-
ness also and ignorance of Greek combined with inveterate
inaccuracy, characteristics especially of Western corruption
as may be seen in Codex D and the Old Latin versions,
must have had their due share in the evil work. The
result has been found in constant slurs upon the sacred
pages, lessening the beauty and often perverting the sense,
a source of sorrow to the keen scholar and reverent
Christian, and reiterated indignity done in wantonness or
heedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the Holy Books.]

M 2

CHAPTER XI (continued}.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

VI. SUBSTITUTION.

[ALL the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed
under four heads, viz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution,
and Addition. We are entirely aware that, in the arrange-
ment adopted in this Volume for purposes of convenience,
Scientific Method has been neglected. The inevitable
result must be that passages are capable of being classed
under more heads than one. But Logical exactness is
of less practical value than a complete and suitable
treatment of the corrupted passages that actually occur
in the four Gospels.

It seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulous-
ness that might bore our readers a disquisition upon
Substitution which has not forced itself into a place
amongst Dean Burgon's papers, although it is found in
a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted
forms or words or phrases, such as OC (os) for 0C (Oeo's) 1
TjTro'pei for eTTotei (St. Mark vi. 20), or OVK ot8are boKifj-d^eiv
for So/a/xa^ere (St. Luke xii. 56), have their own special
causes of substitution, and are naturally and best con-
sidered under the cause which in each case gave them
birth.

1 See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in The Re-
vision Revised, pp. 424-501.

SUBSTITUTION. 165

Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifica-
tions, as they well may be, are added to it l . It will be
readily concluded that some substitutions are serious, some
of less importance, and many trivial. Of the more important
class, the reading of a/xaprrjju.aros for Kpurecos (St. Mark iii. 29)
which the Revisers have adopted in compliance with tf BLA
and three Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads
a/iaprta? supported by the first corrector of C, and three
of the Ferrar group (13, 69, 346): and that the change
adopted is supported by the Old Latin versions except
f, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian, Gothic, Lewis, and
Saxon. But the opposition which favours Kpurecu? is made
up of A, C under the first reading and the second correction,
4>2 and eleven other Uncials, the great bulk of the Cursives,
f, Peshitto, and Harkleian, and is superior in strength.
The internal evidence is also in favour of the Traditional
reading, both as regards the usage of evokes, and the natural
meaning given by /cpurea)?. 'A/zapr?^xaro9 has clearly crept
in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be
found in the well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 (TOV fjXiov
fK\movTos), St. Matt. xi. 27 (/3ovA.Tjrai d-TroKaAityai), St. Matt,
xxvii. 34 (olvov for oos], St. Mark i. 2 ('Ho-cua for TOIS npocpri-
TCUS), St. John i. 1 8 (6 Movoyevris eo's being a substitution
made by heretics for 6 Movoytvrjs Tlo's), St. Mark vii. 31 (8ia
I,Lb>vos for /cat 2t8<2z>os). These instances may perhaps
suffice : many more may suggest themselves to intelligent
readers. Though most are trivial, their cumulative force
is extremely formidable. Many of these changes arose
from various causes which are described in many other
places in this book.]

1 The numbers are :

B, substitutions, 935 ; modifications, 1,132 ; total, 2,067.

x, 1,114; *. 26 5; 2 .379-

D, 2,121; 1,772; 3,893.

Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13.

CHAPTER XI (continued).

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

VII. ADDITION.

[TiiE smallest of the four Classes, which upon a pure
survey of the outward form divide among themselves
the surface of the entire field of Corruption, is that of
Additions l . And the reason of their smallness of number
is discoverable at once. Whilst it is but too easy for
scribes or those who have a love of criticism to omit
words and passages under all circumstances, or even to
vary the order, or to use another word or form instead
of the right one, to insert anything into the sacred Text
which does not proclaim too glaringly its own unfitness
in a word, to invent happily is plainly a matter of much
greater difficulty. Therefore to increase the Class of
Insertions or Additions or Interpolations, so that it should
exceed the Class of Omissions, is to go counter to the
natural action of human forces. There is no difficulty in
leaving out large numbers of the Sacred Words : but there
is much difficulty in placing in the midst of them human
words, possessed of such a character and clothed in such
an uniform, as not to betray to keen observation their
earthly origin.

1 B has 536 words added in the Gospels: X, 839: D, 2,213. Revision
Revised, pp. 12, 13. The interpolations of D are notorious.

ADDITION. 167

A few examples will set this truth in clearer light. It
is remarkable that efforts at interpolation occur most
copiously amongst the books of those who are least fitted
to make them. We naturally look amongst the repre-
sentatives of the Western school where Greek was less
understood than in the East where Greek acumen was
imperfectly represented by Latin activity, and where
translation into Latin and retranslation into Greek was
a prolific cause of corruption. Take then the following
passage from the Codex D (St. Luke vi. 4) :

' On the same day He beheld a certain man working
on the sabbath, and said to him, " Man, blessed art thou
if thou knowest what thou doest ; but if thou knowest
not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law." '

And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. xx.
28), which occurs under a worse form in D.

' But seek ye from little to become greater, and not
from greater to become less. When ye are invited to
supper in a house, sit not down in the best place, lest
some one come who is more honourable than thou, and
the lord of the supper say to thee, " Go down below,"
and thou be ashamed in the presence of them that have
sat down. But if thou sit down in the lower place, and
one who is inferior to thee come in, the lord also of the
supper will say to thee, " Come near, and come up, and
sit down," and thou shalt have greater honour in the
presence of them that have sat down.'

Who does not see that there is in these two passages no
real ' ring of genuineness ' ?

Take next some instances of lesser insertions.]

Conspicuous beyond all things in the Centurion of
Capernaum (St. Matt. viii. 13) was his faith. It occasioned
wonder even in the Son of Man. Do we not, in the

168 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

significant statement, that when they who had been sent
returned to the house, ' they found the servant whole
that had been sick 1 ,' recognize by implication the assur-
ance that the Centurion, because he needed no such
confirmation of his belief, went not with them ; but enjoyed
the twofold blessedness of remaining with CHRIST, and
of believing without seeing ? I think so. Be this however
as it may, NCEMUX besides about fifty cursives, append
to St, Matt. viii. 13 the clearly apocryphal statement,
' And the Centurion returning to his house in that same
hour found the servant whole.' It does not improve the
matter to find that Eusebius -, besides the Harkleian and
the Ethiopic versions, recognize the same appendix. We
are thankful, that no one yet has been found to advocate
the adoption of this patent accretion to the inspired text.
Its origin is not far to seek. I presume it was inserted
in order to give a kind of finish to the story 3 .

1 St. Luke vii. 10. 2 Theoph. p. 212.

3 An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause in the same
narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead of ouS lv
ry 'lffparj\ Toaavrrjv iriffTiv evpov (St. Matt. viii. TO), we are invited hence-
forth to read nap' ovStvi TO<ravTr]v irianv fv TW 'Iffpaf]\ tvpov ; a tame and
tasteless gloss, witnessed to by only B, and five cursives, but having no other
effect, if it should chance to be inserted, than to mar and obscure the Divine
utterance.

For when our SAVIOUR declares ' Not even in Israel have I found so great
faith,' He is clearly contrasting this proficiency of an earnest Gentile against
whatever of a like nature He had experienced in His dealing with the Jewish
people ; and declaring the result. He is contrasting Jacob's descendants, the
heirs of so many lofty privileges, with this Gentile soldier : their spiritual
attainments with his ; and assigning the palm to him. Substitute ' With no
one in Israel have I found so great faith,' and the contrast disappears. Nothing
else is predicated but a greater measure of faith in one man than in any other.
The author of this feeble attempt to improve upon St. Matthew's Gospel is
found to have also tried his hand on the parallel place in St. Luke, but with
even inferior success : for there his misdirected efforts survive only in certain
copies of the Old Latin. Ambrose notices his officiousness, remarking that it
yields an intelligible sense; but that, 'juxta Graecos,' the place is to be read
differently l .

1 i- 1376-

ADDITION. 169

[Another and that a most remarkable Addition may
be found in St. Matt. xxiv. 36, into which the words
ovbe 6 Tlo's, ' neither the Son ' have been transferred from
St. Mark xiii. 32 in compliance with a wholly insufficient
body of authorities l . Lachmann was the leader in this
proceeding, and he has been followed by Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers. The latter body
add in their margin, ' Many authorities, some ancient, omit
neither the Son.' How inadequate to the facts of the case
this description is, will be seen when the authorities are
enumerated. But first of those who have been regarded
by the majority of the Revisers as the disposers of their
decision, according to the information supplied by Tischen-
dorf.

They are (a) of Uncials tf (in the first reading and as
re-corrected in the seventh century) BD ; (b) five Cursives
(for a present of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf) ;
(c) ten Old Latin copies also the Aureus (Words.), some
of the Vulgate (four according to Wordsworth), the Pales-
tinian, Ethiopic, Armenian ; (d) Origen (Lat. iii. 874),
Hilary (733"), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca,
481), Ambrose (i. I478 f ). But Irenaeus (Lat. i. 386), Cyril
(Zach. 800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from
St. Mark. So too, as Tischendorf admits, Amphilo-
chius.

On the other hand we have, (a) the chief corrector of
K (c a ) <t>2 with thirteen other Uncials and the Greek MSS.

It is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin 1 and the Egyptian versions
exhibit the same depravation. Cyril habitually employed an Evangelium which
was disfigured in the same way 2 . But are we out of such materials as these to
set about reconstructing the text of Scripture ?

1 This disquisition is made up in part from the Dean's materials.

1 Augustine once (iv. 322), though he quotes the place nearly twenty times
in the usual way.

2 iii. 833, also Opp. v. 544, ed. Pusey.

170 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome l ; (b) all
the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed) ;
(c] the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkleian, Lewis,
Bohairic, and the Sahidic ; (d] Jerome (in the place just now
quoted), St. Basil who contrasts the text of St. Matthew
with that of St. Mark, Didymus, who is also express in
declaring that the three words in dispute are not found
in St. Matthew (Trin. 195), St. John Damascene (ii. 346),
Apollonius Philosophus (Galland. ix. 247), Euthymius
Zigabenus (in loc.), Paulinus (iii. 12), St. Ambrose (ii. 656 a ),
and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne, Ixxxix. 941).

Theophylact (i. 133), Hesychius Presb. (Migne, Ixiii. 142)
Eusebius (Galland, ix. 580), Facundus Herm. (Galland. xi.
782), Athanasius (ii. 660), quote the words as from the
Gospel without reference, and may therefore refer to
St. Mark. Phoebadius (Galland. v. 251), though quoted
against the Addition by Tischendorf, is doubtful.

On which side the balance of evidence inclines, our
readers will judge. But at least they cannot surely justify
the assertion made by the majority of the Revisers, that
the Addition is opposed only by ' many authorities, some
ancient,' or at any rate that this is a fair and adequate
description of the evidence opposed to their decision.

An instance occurs in St. Mark iii. 16 which illustrates
the carelessness and tastelessness of the handful of authorities
to which it pleases many critics to attribute ruling authority.
In the fourteenth verse, it had been already stated that our
Lord 'ordained twelve, 1 /cat eTroujtre ScodeKa ; but because
NBA and C (which was corrected in the ninth century with
a MS. of the Ethiopic) reiterate these words two verses

1 ' In quibusclam Latinis codicibus additum est, neque Filius : quum in Graecis,
et maxima Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum.
Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur.' Hier. vii. 199 a. 'Gaudet
Anus et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri gloria discipulorum sit, et
dicunt : " Non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui ignorat." ' Ibid. 6.

In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark.

ADDITION. 171

further on, Tischendorf with Westcott and Hort assume
that it is necessary to repeat what has been so recently
told. Meanwhile eighteen other uncials (including A<&2
and the third hand of C) ; nearly all the Cursives ; the
Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Lewis, Harkleian, Gothic,
Armenian, and the other MSS. of the Ethiopic omit them.
It is plainly unnecessary to strengthen such an opposition
by researches in the pages of the Fathers.

Explanation has been already given, how the introductions
to Lections, and other Liturgical formulae, have been
added by insertion to the Text in various places. Thus
6 'lr,crovs has often been inserted, and in some places
remains wrongly (in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in the
pages of the Received Text. The three most important
additions to the Received Text occur, as Dean Burgon
thought, in St. Matt. vi. 18, where Iv rw (fxivepu has crept
in from v. 6 against the testimony of a large majority both
of Uncial and of Cursive MSS, : in St. Matt. xxv. 13, where
the clause (v fj 6 vibs row avdpairov epx trat seemed to him to
be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in
St. Matt, xxvii. 35, where the quotation (iva irX-qp^efi . . .
cfidXov K\rjpov) must be taken for similar reasons to have
been originallv a gloss.]

CHAPTER XII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

VIII. GLOSSES.

( GLOSSES,' properly so called, though they enjoy a con-
spicuous place in every enumeration like the present, are
probably by no means so numerous as is commonly
supposed. For certainly every unauthorized accretion to
the text of Scripture is not a ' gloss ' : but only those
explanatory words or clauses which have surreptitiously
insinuated themselves into the text, and of which no more
reasonable account can be rendered than that they were
probably in the first instance proposed by some ancient
Critic in the way of useful comment, or necessary expla-
nation, or lawful expansion, or reasonable limitation of
the actual utterance of the SPIRIT. Thus I do not call the
clause veKpovs eyetpere in St. Matt. x. 8 'a gloss.' It is
a gratuitous and unwarrantable interpolation, nothing else
but a clumsy encumbrance of the text l .

[Glosses, or scholia, or comments, or interpretations, are
of various kinds, but are generally confined to Additions
or Substitutions, since of course we do not omit in order
to explain, and transposition of words already placed in
lucid order, such as the sacred Text may be reasonably
supposed to have observed, would confuse rather than
illustrate the meaning. A clause, added in Hebrew
fashion 2 , which may perhaps appear to modern taste to

1 See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.

2 St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.

GLOSSES. 173

be hardly wanted, must not therefore be taken to be
a gloss.]

Sometimes a 'various reading' is nothing else but
a gratuitous gloss ; the unauthorized substitution of a
common for an uncommon word. This phenomenon is of
frequent occurrence, but only in Codexes of a remarkable
type like Btf CD. A few instances follow :

i. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 36),
requested our LORD to 'explain' to them (4>PACON ^juu>,
'they said ') the parable of the tares. So every known copy,
except two : so, all the Fathers who quote the place,
viz. Origen, five times l , Basil 2 , J. Damascene 3 . And
so all the Versions 4 . But because B-K, instead of (j>pdo-ov,
exhibit AIACA(|>HCON ('make clear to us'), which is also
once the reading of Origen 5 , who was but too well
acquainted with Codexes of the same depraved character
as the archetype of B and tf, Lachmann, Tregelles (not
Tischendorf), Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers of
1 88 1, assume that biao-d^crov (a palpable gloss) stood in
the inspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore
thrust out (j)pd<rov and thrust in biao-dtyrjaov. I am wholly
unable to discern any connexion between the premisses
of these critics and their conclusions 6 .

1 iii. 3 e : 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the fifjais in which the first
three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from
a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. i). A large
portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to ' I. Geometra
in Proverbia ' in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217.

3 ii. 345. 3 ii. 242.

4 The Latin is edissere or dissere, enarra or narra, both here and in xv. 15.

iv. 254 a.

6 In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has .^ ^j> ' declare to us '
and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there being no various
reading in either of these two passages.

The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place,
especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii.
36, v. 1., Siaaafytiv occurs, viz. St. Matt, xviii. 31, they render Sifad^rjffav by
O_VO( = they made known.

Since (ppafav only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize

174 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

a. Take another instance. Hvyfj-fj, the obscure expres-
sion (A leaves it out) which St. Mark employs in vii. 3
to denote the strenuous frequency of the Pharisees' cere-
monial washings, is exchanged by Cod. N, but by no other
known copy of the Gospels, for irvKva, which last word is
of course nothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf
degrades Trw/p-p and promotes vvKvd to honour, happily
standing alone in his infatuation. Strange, that the most
industrious of modern accumulators of evidence should not
have been aware that by such extravagances he marred his
pretension to critical discernment ! Origen and Epiphanius
the only Fathers who quote the place both read TruyjurJ.
It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere
waste of time that we should argue out a point like this 1 .

A gloss little suspected, which not without a pang of
regret I proceed to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the
expression ' daily' (/ca0' yufpav) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found
in the Peshitto and in Cureton's Syriac, but only in some
Copies of the Harkleian version 2 : found in most Copies

about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, >a*> is used as the
rendering of other Greek words besides fypafav, e. g.
of tiriXvtiv, St. Mark iv. 34 ;
of Sitpnr]vvt iv, St. Luke xxiv. 27;
of Stavoiytii', St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.

On the whole I have no doubt (though it is not susceptible of proof} that
the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, typaaov.

N.B. The Cureton and Lewis have, in St. Matt. xiii. 36, flu.3 ) _ _ ,

in xv. 15, \
in ,, xviii. 31, for the 8i(aa(pr]ffav, ocu,

The Cureton (Lewis defective) has a word often used in Syriac for ' shew,'
' declare.' [Rev. G. H. Gwilliam.]

1 In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto render whatever Greek
they had before them by ^]iZ^, which means ' eagerly,' 'sedulously'; cf.
use of the word for airovtiaiais, St. Luke vii. 4 ; (mpe^us, St. Luke xv. 8.

The Root means ' to cease ' ; thence ' to have leisure for a thing ' : it has
nothing to do with ' Fist.' [Rev. G. H. Gwilliam.]
a Harkl. Marg. in loc., and Adler, p. 115.

GLOSSES. 175

of the Vulgate, but largely disallowed by copies of the
Old Latin l : found also in Ephraem Syrus 2 , but clearly
not recognized by Origen 3 : found again in tf AB and six
other uncials, but not found in CDE and ten others : the
expression referred to cannot, at all events, plead for its
own retention in the text higher antiquity than can be
pleaded for its exclusion. Cyril, (if in such a matter the
Syriac translation of his Commentary on St. Luke may
be trusted.) is clearly an authority for reading *a0' r)p.<lpav
in St. Luke ix. 23 4 ; but then he elsewhere twice quotes
St. Luke ix. 23 in Greek without it 5 . Timotheus of
Antioch, of the fifth century, omits the phrase 6 . Jerome
again, although he suffered ' quotidie* to stand in the Vul-
gate, yet, when for his own purposes he quotes the place in
St. Luke 7 , ignores the word. All this is calculated to
inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, Ka6' rj^pav
enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions. of the
Gothic, of the Armenian, of the Ethiopic. And this, in

1 Viz. a h c e ff 2 1 q.

2 'OcpeiXd $v\ri, Iv T> \6ycv TOV Kvpiov KaraKoXovOovcra, TOV aravpov avrov
KaO' T|[Afpav ai'pfiv, ojs ytypcnrrai' TOVT' effriv, eToifioas t\ovaa VTroptveiv Sia
XpiaTov iraacLv 0\iif/iv ai -neipaa^ov, K.T.\. (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit,
further on, he exhorts to constancy and patience, TOV eirl TOV Kvpiov 9a.vo.rov
(v tiriOvfua vavTOTt irpo o^>6a\uMiv exovTfs, ical (KO.OWS fipTjrai VTTO TOV Kvpiov)
KaO' Tjtxcpav TOV o-ravpov aipovrS, o !<m Oavaros (ii. 332 e). It is fair to assume
that Ephraem's reference is to St. Luke ix. 23, seeing that he wrote not in Greek
but in Syriac, and that in the Peshitto the clause is found only in that place.

3 'A/coue Aowca \tyovTos, i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.
* Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.

5 ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.) the proof that these quotations are from St. Luke ;
that Cyril exhibits apvrjaaaOca instead of dirapv. (see Tischendorf's note on
St. Luke ix. 23). The quotation in i. 40 (Glaph.) may be from St. Matt,
xvi. 24.

6 Migne, vol. Ixxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.

7 After quoting St. Mark viii. 34, 'ant juxta Lucam, dicebat ad cunctos: Si
quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum ; et tollat crucem suatn, et sequetiir
me.' i. 852 c.

This is found in his solution of XI Qtiaestiones, 'ad Algasiam,' free
translations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines lower
down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), Jerome proceeds :
' Quotidie credens in Christum tollit crucem suam, et negat seipsum.'

176 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

the present state of our knowledge, must be allowed to
be a weighty piece of evidence in its favour.

But the case assumes an entirely different aspect the
instant it is discovered that out of the cursive copies
only eight are found to contain nad' rj^pav in St. Luke
ix. 23 1 . How is it to be explained that nine manuscripts
out of every ten in existence should have forgotten how to
transmit such a remarkable message, had it ever been
really so committed to writing by the Evangelist? The
omission (says Tischendorf) is explained by the parallel
places 2 . Utterly incredible, I reply ; as no one ought to
have known better than Tischendorf himself. We now
scrutinize the problem more closely ; and discover that
the very lociis of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty.
Cyril once makes it part of St. Matt. x. 38 3 . Chrysostom
twice connects it with St. Matt. xvi. 24*. Jerome,
evidently regarding the phrase as a curiosity, informs
us that 'juxta antiqua exemplaria ' it was met with in
St. Luke xiv. 27 5 . All this is in a high degree unsatis-
factory. We suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slight

1 This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346
(Ferrar's four) ; and survives in certain other Evangelia which enjoy a similar
repute, as i, 33, 72 (with a marginal note of distrust), 131.

2 They are St. Matt. xvi. 24 : St. Mark viii. 34.

s i. 597 c (Adorat.) elsewhere (viz. i. 21 d : 528 c: 580 b: iv. 1058 a:
v 2 . 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that the quotation found in
Mai, iii. 126, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Ep. ad Hebr., is nothing else but an
excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. i. 528 c.

4 In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24 : Ata iravrus rov fiiov TOVTO 8ef
noitiv. AtrjvfKws "yap, <f>r)ffi, Trfpitytpf roy Qavarov TOVTOV, Kal /ca6' f/ntpav eroifios
ffo irpos cHfxLffiv (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. xix. 21, Af npo-
rjyovufvois a.Ko\ov9tiv rta Kpiarca' rovrian, -navra ra trnp' avrov Kf\fv6/j.fva irottiV,
irpos crc/xrydy (Tvai (Toifiov, ical Odvarov Ka0rjfj.fpivi,v (p. 629 e) : words which
Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a).

5 i. 949 b, ' Quotidie (inquit Apostolus) manor propter vestra/n salutem.
Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, Nisi quis tulerit crucem steam quotidie,
et scquutusfuerit me, nonpoiest meusesse discipulus ' Commenting on St. Matt.
x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome remarks, 'in alio Evangelic scribitur, Qui
non accipit crucem suam quotidie* : but the corresponding place to St. Matt.
x. 38, in the sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke
xiv. 27.

GLOSSES. 177

familiarity with the 'antiqua exemplaria ' referred to by
the Critic ; and we freely avow that we have learned to
reckon them among the least reputable of our acquaintance.
Are they not represented by those Evangelia, of which
several copies are extant, that profess to have been
' transcribed from, and collated with, ancient copies at
Jerusalem ' ? These uniformly exhibit nad' fmepav in
St. Luke ix. 23 l . But then, if the phrase be a gloss,
it is obvious to inquire, how is its existence in so many
quarters to be accounted for ?

Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain
place, after quoting our LORD'S saying about taking up
the cross and following Him, remarks that the words
' do not mean that we are actually to bear the wood
upon our shoulders, but to keep the prospect of death
steadily before us, and like St. Paul to " die daily " V The
same Father, in the two other places already quoted from
his writings, is observed similarly to connect the SAVIOUR'S
mention of ' bearing the Cross ' with the Apostle's announce-
ment 'I die daily.' Add, that Ephraem Syrus 3 , and
Jerome quoted already, persistently connect the same two
places together ; the last named Father even citing them in
immediate succession ; and the inference is unavoidable.
The phrase in St. Luke ix. 23 must needs be a very ancient
as well as very interesting expository gloss, imported into
the Gospel from i Cor. xv. 31, as Mill 4 and Matthaei 5
long since suggested.

Sincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an
expression with which one has been so long familiar, we
cannot suffer the sentimental plea to weigh with us when
the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. Certain it is that
but for Erasmus, we should never have known the regret :
for it was he that introduced /ca#' f]fj.epav into the Received

1 Viz. Evan. 473 (2P). 2 ii. 66 c, d.

1 See above, p. 175, note 2. * Proleg. p. cxlvi. 5 N. T. (1803), L 368.

II. N

178 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

Text. The MS. from which he printed is without the
expression : which is also not found in the Complutensian.
It is certainly a spurious accretion to the inspired Text.

[The attention of the reader is particularly invited to
this last paragraph. The learned Dean has been sneered
at for a supposed sentimental and effeminate attachment
to the Textus Receptus. He was always ready to reject
words and phrases, which have not adequate support ; but
he denied the validity of the evidence brought against
many texts by the school of Westcott and Hort, and
therefore he refused to follow them in their surrender of
the passages.]

Indeed, a great many ' various readings,' so called, are
nothing else but very ancient interpretations, fabricated
readings therefore, of which the value may be estimated
by the fact that almost every trace of them has long since
disappeared. Such is the substitution of <evyei for avtyu>-
prjo-fv in St. John vi. 15 ; which, by the way, Tischendorf
thrusts into his text on the sole authority of tf, some Latin
copies including the Vulgate, and Cureton's Syriac l : though
Tregelles ignores its very existence. That our LORD'S
' withdrawal ' to the mountain on that occasion was of the
nature of 'flight,' or 'retreat' is obvious. Hence Chry-
sostom and Cyril remark that He 'fled to the mountain.'
And yet both Fathers (like Origen and Epiphanius before
them) are found to have read dvexwprjo-ez;.

Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse
might Tischendorf (with N) have substituted a
for iva Trou/o-axny avrov, on the plea that Cyril 2 says,
avrov dm5eicu KCU /SacriAe'a. We may on no account suffer
ourselves to be imposed upon by such shallow pretences
for tampering with the text of Scripture : or the deposit

1 Lewis here agrees with Peshitto. a iv. 745.

GLOSSES. 179

will never be safe. A patent gloss, rather an interpreta-
tion, acquires no claim to be regarded as the genuine
utterance of the HOLY SPIRIT by being merely found in
two or three ancient documents. It is the little handful
of documents which loses in reputation, not the reading
which gains in authority on such occasions.

In this way we are sometimes presented with what in
effect are new incidents. These are not unfrequently
discovered to be introduced in defiance of the reason of
the case ; as where (St. John xiii. 24) Simon Peter is
represented (in the Vulgate) as actually saying to St. John,
'Who is it concerning whom He speaks?' Other copies
of the Latin exhibit, ' Ask Him who it is,' &c. : while NBC
(for on such occasions we are treated to any amount of
apocryphal matter) would persuade us that St. Peter only
required that the information should be furnished him by
St. John : ' Say who it is of whom He speaks.' Some-
times a very little licence is sufficient to convert the oratio
obliqtia into the recta. Thus, by the change of a single
letter (in NBX) Mary Magdalene is made to say to the
disciples ' / have seen the LORD ' (St. John xx. \ 8). But
then, as might have been anticipated, the new does not
altogether agree with the old. Accordingly D and others
paraphrase the remainder of the sentence thus, ' and she
signified to them what He had said unto her.' How
obvious is it to foresee that on such occasions the spirit
of officiousness will never know when to stop ! In the
Vulgate and Sahidic versions the sentence proceeds, ' and
He told these things unto me.'

Take another example. The Hebraism juera a-aX-niyyos
(jxavfis jueyaArjs (St. Matt. xxiv. 31) presents an uncongenial
ambiguity to Western readers, as our own incorrect A. V.
sufficiently shews. Two methods of escape from the
difficulty suggested themselves to the ancients : (a) Since
' a trumpet of great sound ' means nothing else but ' a loud

N 2

180 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

trumpet/ and since this can be as well expressed by
o-aATTtyyo? /xeyaArj?, the scribes at a very remote period
are found to have omitted the word ^toz^s. The Peshitto
and Lewis (interpreting rather than translating) so deal
with the text. Accordingly, (frcavijs is not found in NLA
and five cursives. Eusebius 1 , Cyril Jerus. 2 , Chrysostom 3 ,
Theodoret 4 , and even Cyprian 5 are also without the word.
(b) A less violent expedient was to interpolate KOI before
<o)2n/9. This is accordingly the reading of the best Italic
copies, of the Vulgate, and of D. So Hilary 6 and Jerome 7 .
Severianus 8 , Asterius 9 , ps.-Caesarius 10 , Damascene n and
at least eleven cursive copies, so read the place. There
can be no doubt at all that the commonly received text
is right. It is found in thirteen uncials with B at their
head : in Cosmas 12 , Hesychius 13 , Theophylact u . But the
decisive consideration is that the great body of the cursives
have faithfully retained the uncongenial Hebraism, and
accordingly imply the transmission of it all down the
ages : a phenomenon which will not escape the unpre-
judiced reader. Neither will he overlook the fact that
the three 'old uncials' (for A and C are not available
here) advocate as many different readings : the two wrong
readings being respectively countenanced by our two
most ancient authorities, viz. the Peshitto version and
the Italic. It only remains to point out that Tischendorf
blinded by his partiality for tf contends here for the
mutilated text, and Westcott and Hort are disposed to
do the same.

Recent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read
in St. John xviii. 14 aTiodave.lv instead of cbroAeo-tfai : 'Now

I In Ps. 501. 4 229 and 236. * vii. 736: xi. 478.
4 ii. 1209. 5 269. ' 577. 7 i. 88r.

8 Ap. Chrys. vi. 460. 9 Ap. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258. 10 Galland. vi. 53.

II ii. 346. " ii. 261, 324. " Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 429. " i. 132.

GLOSSES. l8l

Caiaphas was he who counselled the Jews that it was
expedient that one man should die ' (instead of ' perish ')
' for the people.' There is certainly a considerable amount
of ancient testimony in favour of this reading : for besides
tf BC, it is found in the Old Latin copies, the Egyptian, and
Peshitto versions, besides the Lewis MS., the Chronicon,
Cyril, Nonnus, Chrysostom. Yet may it be regarded as
certain that St. John wrote d-n-oAeVflai in this place. The
proper proof of the statement is the consentient voice of all
the copies, except about nineteen of loose character:
we know their vagaries but too well, and decline to let
them impose upon us. In real fact, nothing else is airoOavelv
but a critical assimilation of St. John xviii. 14 to xi. 50,
somewhat as ' die ' in our A. V. has been retained by
King James' translators, though they certainly had O.TTO-
\ea-6ai before them.

Many of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such
is the substitution (St. Mark vi. u) of 6? &v TOTTOS /urj 8e'r/T<u
v/xa? by KBLA for oo-ot av yir] Se'a>z;rai vp.as, which latter
is the reading of the Old Latin and Peshitto, as well as
of the whole body of uncials and cursives alike. Some
Critic evidently considered that the words which follow,
' when you go out thencel imply that place, not persons,
should have gone before. Accordingly, he substituted
' whatsoever place ' for ' whosoever * ' : another has be-
queathed to us in four uncial MSS. a lasting record of
his rashness and incompetency. Since however he left
behind the words jurjSe aKova-iacnv vp.&v, which immediately
follow, who sees not that the fabricator has betrayed him-
self? I am astonished that so patent a fraud should have
imposed upon Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Lachmann,
and Alford, and Westcott and Hort. But in fact it does
not stand alone. From the same copies NBLA (with two

1 The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest how grace-
fully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this difficulty.

182 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

others, CD) we find the woe denounced in the same verse
on the unbelieving city erased (d/uTji> Ae'yto V/JLLV, dpeKToYepoy
lorcu 2o8o^oi? T; Topoppoi.? tv rifJ-epa K/atVecos, 77 rr/ Tro'Aet
(Kfivp). Quite idle is it to pretend (with Tischendorf)
that these words are an importation from the parallel
place in St. Matthew. A memorable note of diversity
has been set on the two places, which in all the copies
is religiously maintained, viz. SoSo'/xois ^ Fojuoppot?, in
St. Mark : yr\ 2o5o'/Koi> KCU Fo/xoppow, in St. Matt. It is
simply incredible that this could have been done if the
received text in this place had been of spurious origin.

The word dWxei in St. Mark xiv. 41 has proved
a stumbling-block. The most obvious explanation is
probably the truest. After a brief pause 1 , during which
the SAVIOUR has been content to survey in silence His
sleeping disciples ; or perhaps, after telling them that
they will have time and opportunity enough for sleep
and rest when He shall have been taken from them ;
He announces the arrival of 'the hour,' by exclaiming,
'ATre'x* i, ' It is enough ; ' or, ' It is sufficient ; ' i. e. The
season for repose is over.

But the ' Revisers ' of the second century did not perceive
that arre'xei is here used impersonally 2 . They understood

1 Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark's
narrative shews that after the words of ' Sleep on now and take your rest,'
our LORD must have been silent for a brief space in order to allow His
disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already
permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to say, ' It is enough '(that
is, ' Ye have now slept and rested enough ') ; and adds, ' The hour is come.
Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.' ' Sed quia com-
memorata non est ipsa interpositio silentii Domini, propterea coartat intel-
lectum, ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur.' iii 2 . 106 a, b. The
passage in question runs thus : KaOtiidtre ri \otvov KCLI avairavtaOf. a7re'xr
?fKd(v -fj (iipa m iSov, K.T.\.

'* Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion (Anon.

GLOSSES. 183

the word to mean ' is fully come ' ; and supplied the
supposed nominative, viz. TO re'Aos 1 . Other critics who
rightly understood oTre'xei to signify ' sufficit,' still subjoined
' finis.' The Old Latin and the Syriac versions must have
been executed from Greek copies which exhibited,
aTre'xei TO Te'Ao?. This is abundantly proved by the
renderings adest finis (f), consummatus est finis (a) ; from
which the change to dWxei TO Te'Aos KAI T\ &pa (the
reading of D) was obvious : sufficit finis et hora (d q) ;
adest enim consummatio ; et (ff 2 venit) hora (c) ; or, (as the
Peshitto more fully gives it), appropinquavit finis, et venit
kora z . Jerome put this matter straight by simply writing
sttfficit. But it is a suggestive circumstance, and an
interesting proof how largely the reading aTre'xei TO rtXos
must once have prevailed, that it is frequently met with
in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour 3 . Happily
it is an ' old reading ' which finds no favour at the present
day. It need not therefore occupy us any longer.

As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help
out the sense, the reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly
Iva fdv Tts avrov o^oXo-yrjcrrj Xpio-ToV. So all the MSS. but one,
and so the Old Latin. So indeed all the ancient versions
except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds eu'cu: but tlvai
must once have been a familiar gloss : for Jerome retains

Vat.) in Possinns, p. 321 : a7r'x, rovrtan, irfn\r]paJTai, rXos x TO /car* /te.
Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.

1 I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former work (Last
Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who seldom indeed
misleads, the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (in loco).

2 So Peshitto. Lewis, venit hora, appropinquat finis. Harkleian, adest
consummatio, venit hora.

3 enrex. Vg. sufficit. + ro reAoy, 13, 69, 124, 2P e , c ser , 47, 54, 56, 6l,
184, 346, 348, 439. d, q, sufficit finis et hora. f, adest finis, venit hora.
c, ff 2 , a Jest enim consummatio, et (ff 2 venit) hora. a, consummatus est finis,
advenit hora. It is certain that one formidable source of danger to the sacred
text has been its occasional obscurity. This has resulted, (i) sometimes in the
omission of words : Aevrfpoirpcurov. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as Trvypfj.
(3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, rb r^Aoy, as
above.

184 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

it in the Vulgate : and indeed Cyril, whenever he quotes
the place 1 , exhibits rbv Xpio-rbv flvat. Not so however
Chrysostom 2 and Gregory of Nyssa 3 .

There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents
immediately preceding our SAVIOUR'S Passion, one more
affecting or more exquisite than the anointing of His
feet at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, which
received its unexpected interpretation from the lips of
CHRIST Himself. ' Let her alone. Against the day
of My embalming hath she kept it.' (St. John xii. 7.)
He assigns to her act a mysterious meaning of which
the holy woman little dreamt. She had treasured up
that precious unguent against the day, (with the pre-
sentiment of true Love, she knew that it could not be
very far distant), when His dead limbs would require
embalming. But lo, she beholds Him reclining at supper
in her sister's house : and yielding to a Divine impulse she
brings forth her reserved costly offering and bestows it
on Him at once. Ah, she little knew, -she could not in
fact have known, that it was the only anointing those
sacred feet were destined ever to enjoy! .... In the mean-
time through a desire, as I suspect, to bring this incident
into an impossible harmony with what is recorded in
St. Mark xvi. i, with which obviously it has no manner
of connexion, a scribe is found at some exceedingly remote
period to have improved our LORD'S expression into this :
' Let her alone in order that against the day of My embalm-
ing she may keep it.' Such an exhibition of the Sacred
Text is its own sufficient condemnation. What that critic
exactly meant, I fail to discover : but I am sure he has
spoilt what he did not understand : and though it is quite

1 iii. 105 : iv. 913. So also iv. 614. 2 vi. 283. 3 i. 307.

GLOSSES. 185

true that NBD with five other Uncial MSS. and Nonnus,
besides the Latin and Bohairic, Jerusalem, Armenian,
and Ethiopia versions, besides four errant cursives so
exhibit the place, this instead of commending the reading
to our favour, only proves damaging to the witnesses
by which it is upheld. We learn that no reliance is to
be placed even in such a combination of authorities. This
is one of the places which the Fathers pass by almost
in silence. Chrysostom * however, and evidently Cyril
Alex. 2 , as well as Ammonius 3 convey though roughly
a better sense by quoting the verse with eTroujo-e for
TerTjprjKev. Antiochus 4 is express. [A and eleven other
uncials, and the cursives (with the petty exception already
noted), together with the Peshitto, Harkleian (which only
notes the other reading in the margin), Lewis, Sahidic,
and Gothic versions, form a body of authority against the
palpable emasculation of the passage, which for number,
variety, weight, and internal evidence is greatly superior
to the opposing body. Also, with reference to continuity
and antiquity it preponderates plainly, if not so decisively ;
and the context of D is full of blunders, besides that it
omits the next verse, and B and tf are also inaccurate
hereabouts 5 . So that the Traditional text enjoys in this
passage the support of all the Notes of Truth.]

In accordance with what has been said above, for "A$es
ami]v' eis TTJV f]fj.epav TOV eira<iacrjuou pov rerriprjKev avro
(St. John xii. 7), the copies which it has recently become
the fashion to adore, read a$es avrr]i> Iva . . . rr/p^o-rj avro.
This startling innovation, which destroys the sense of our

1 viii. 392. 2 iv. 696. 3 Cramer's Cat. in loc. 4 1063.

5 E.g. ver. i. All the three officiously insert 6 'Irjaovs, in order to prevent
people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead ; ver. 4,
D gives the gloss, euro Kapviarov for 'Icrtcapi<aTT]s ; ver. 13, spells thus, uaaava ;
besides constant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. N omits nineteen
words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter, besides adding eight and
making other alterations. B is far from being accurate.

186 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

SAVIOUR'S words, and furnishes a sorry substitute which
no one is able to explain *, is accepted by recent Editors
and some Critics : yet is it clearly nothing else but
a stupid correction of the text, introduced by some one
who did not understand the intention of the Divine
Speaker. Our SAVIOUR is here discovering to us an
exquisite circumstance, revealing what until now had
been a profound and tender secret : viz. that Mary, con-
vinced by many a sad token that the Day of His departure
could not be very far distant, had some time before pro-
vided herself with this costly ointment, and ' kept it ' by
her, intending to reserve it against the dark day when
it would be needed for the ' embalming ' of the lifeless
body of her LORD. And now it wants only a week to
Easter. She beholds Him (with Lazarus at His side)
reclining in her sister's house at supper, amid circumstances
of mystery which fill her soul with awful anticipation. She
divines, with love's true instinct, that this may prove her
only opportunity. Accordingly, she ' anticipates to anoint '
(-/3oe'A.a/3e pvpia-ai, St. Mark xiv. 8) His Body : and, yield-
ing to an overwhelming impulse, bestows upon Him all
her costly offering at once ! . . . How does it happen that
some professed critics have overlooked all this ? Any one
who has really studied the subject ought to know, from
a mere survey of the evidence, on which side the truth
in respect of the text of this passage must needs lie.

Our LORD, in His great Eucharistic address to the
eternal FATHER, thus speaks : ' I have glorified Thee
on the earth. I have perfected the work which Thou

1 ' Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burying ' (Alford).
But how could she keep it after she had poured it all out? 'Suffer her to have
kept it against the day of My preparation unto burial ' (M c Clellan). But Ivo.
TTjprjari could hardly mean that : and the day of His fVTa<t>iafffj.6s had not yet
arrived.

GLOSSES. 187

gavest Me to do' (St. John xvii. 4). Two things are
stated : first, that the result of His Ministry had been
the exhibition upon earth of the FATHER'S ' glory l ' : next,
that the work which the FATHER had given the SON to
do 2 was at last finished 3 . And that this is what St. John
actually wrote is certain : not only because it is found in
all the copies, except twelve of suspicious character (headed
by N ABCL) ; but because it is vouched for by the Peshitto 4
and the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions 5 :
besides a whole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus 6 ,
Didymus 7 , Eusebius 8 , Athanasius 9 , Basil 10 , Chrysostom ll ,
Cyril 12 , ps.-Polycarp 13 , the interpolator of Ignatius 14 , and
the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions 15 : together with
the following among the Latins: Cyprian 16 , Ambrose 17 ,
Hilary 18 , Zeno 19 , Cassian 20 , Novatian 21 , certain Arians 22 ,
Augustine 23 .

But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth
Gospel) proving uncongenial to certain of old time, D
inserted /cat. A more popular device was to substitute
the participle (reXetwo-as) for ereAeiWa : whereby our LORD
is made to say that He had glorified His FATHER'S Name
' by perfecting ' or ' completing ' ' in that He had finished '

I Consider ii. u and xi. 40 : St. Luke xiii. 17 : Heb. i. 3.
a Consider v. 36 and iv. 34.

3 Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37.

* Lewis, ' and the work I have perfected ' : Harkleian, ' because the work,'
&c., ' because ' being obelized.

5 The Bohairic and Ethiopia are hostile.

6 i. 245 ( = Constt. App. viii. i ; ap. Galland. iii. 199). 7 P. 419.
8 M p. 157. 9 i. 534. lu ii. I9 6 2 3 8 = 39-

II v. 256 : viii. 475 bis.

ia iii. 542 : iv. 954 : v 1 . 599, 601, 614 : v 2 . 152. In the following places Cyril
shews himself acquainted with the other reading, iv. 879: v 1 . 167, 366:
vi. 124.

13 Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson). " Ps.-Ignat. 328.

15 Ap. Gall. iii. 215. 16 P. 285. 17 ii. 545-

18 Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But opere consummate, pp. 812, 815. Jerome also
once (iv. 563) has opere complete.

19 Ap. Gall. v. 135. 20 P. 367. 21 Ap. Gall. iii. 308.
22 Ap. Aug. viii. 622. * 3 i" 2 . 7 6r : - 6 4-

l88 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

the work which the FATHER had given Him to do ;
which damages the sense by limiting it, and indeed
introduces a new idea. A more patent gloss it would
be hard to find. Yet has it been adopted as the genuine
text by all the Editors and all the Critics. So general
is the delusion in favour of any reading supported by the
combined evidence of NABCL, that the Revisers here
translate ' I glorified Thee on the earth, having accom-
plished (reAetwcras') the work which Thou hast given Me
to do : ' without so much as vouchsafing a hint to the
English reader that they have altered the text.

When some came with the message ' Thy daughter is
dead : why troublest thou the Master further ? ' the
Evangelist relates that JESUS 'as soon as He heard
(ei/0e'oo? ciKovo-as) what was being spoken, said to the ruler
of the synagogue, Fear not : only believe.' (St. Mark
v. 36.) For this, NBLA substitute ' disregarding (Tiapa-
Kovaas) what was being spoken ' : which is nothing else
but a sorry gloss, disowned by every other copy, including
ACD, and all the versions. Yet does TrapaKovaas find
favour with Tischendorf, Tregelles, and others.

In this way it happened that in the earliest age the
construction of St. Luke i. 66 became misapprehended.
Some Western scribe evidently imagined that the popular
saying concerning John Baptist, n apa TO TTO.IOLOV TOVTO
(tirai, extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's
record, KCU \flp Kvpiov r/v /xer' avrov. To support this
strange view, KOI was altered into KOI yap, and e<m was
substituted for r\v. It is thus that the place stands in
the Verona copy of the Old Latin (b). In other quarters
the verb was omitted altogether: and that is how D,
Evan. 59 with the Vercelli (a) and two other copies of the

GLOSSES. 189

Old Latin exhibit the place. Augustine l is found to have
read indifferently ' manus enim Domini cum illo,' and
' cum illo est ' : but he insists that the combined clauses
represent the popular utterance concerning the Baptist 2 .
Unhappily, there survives a notable trace of the same
misapprehension in N-BCL which, alone of MSS., read
KOI yap . . . ?ji> 3 . The consequence might have been
anticipated. All recent Editors adopt this reading, which
however is clearly inadmissible. The received text, wit-
nessed to by the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian
versions, is obviously correct. Accordingly, A and all
the uncials not already named, together with the whole
body of the cursives, so read the place. With fatal in-
felicity the Revisers exhibit ' For indeed the hand of
the LORD was with him.' They clearly are to blame :
for indeed the MS. evidence admits of no uncertainty. It
is much to be regretted that not a single very ancient
Greek Father (so far as I can discover) quotes the place.

It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with
the first miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke's
statement (v. 7) that the ships were so full that ' they
were sinking' (coo-re J3v0if<r6cu avrd) requires some quali-
fication. Accordingly C inserts ?/8?/ (were ' just' sinking) ;
and D, -napa TI (' within a little ') : while the Peshitto the
Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of the Old
Latin, exhibit ' ita ut pene' These attempts to improve
upon Scripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable
zeal for the truthfulness of the Evangelist ; but they betray
an utterly mistaken view of the critic's office. The truth
is, fivdifco-dai, as the Bohairic translators perceived and

1 v. 1166. * Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a.

* Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are disfigured
in the same way, and the Lewis reads ' is.'

190 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

as most of us are aware, means ' were beginning to sink.'
There is no need of further qualifying the expression
by the insertion with Eusebius l of any additional word.

I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of
' Pyrrhus '" into Acts xx. 4 as the patronymic of ' Sopater
of Beraea/ is to be accounted for in this way. A very
early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in the Old
Latin : yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the
Harkleian rejects it from the text, though not from the
margin. Origen and the Bohairic recognize it, but not
Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect that some foolish
critic of the primitive age invented Ylvpov (or Ylvppov) out
of Bepoicuos (or BeppotaTos) which follows. The Latin form of
this was ' Pyrus V ' Pyrrhus,' or ' Pirrus 3 .' In the Sahidic
version he is called the ' son of Berus ' (vibs Bepou), which
confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with
some Beraean that the gloss originated, and what more
likely? it becomes an interesting circumstance that the
inhabitants of that part of Macedonia are known to have
confused the p and b sounds 4 . . . . This entire matter is
unimportant in itself, but the letter of Scripture cannot
be too carefully guarded : and let me invite the reader
to consider, If St. Luke actually wrote ScoTrarpos Ylvppov
Bepotatos, why at the present day should five copies out
of six record nothing of that second word ?

1 Theoph. 216 note : us KivSwfvtiv avra @v9ia6fjvai.

3 Cod. Amiat. 3 g, at Stockholm.

4 Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. IBtpoia.

CHAPTER XIII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

IX. CORRUPTION BY HERETICS.

THE Corruptions of the Sacred Text which we have
been hitherto considering, however diverse the causes
from which they may have resulted, have yet all agreed
in this : viz. that they have all been of a lawful nature.
My meaning is, that apparently, at no stage of the
business has there been mala fides in any quarter. We
are prepared to make the utmost allowance for careless,
even for licentious transcription ; and we can invent
excuses for the mistaken zeal, the officiousness if men
prefer to call it so, which has occasionally not scrupled
to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. To be
brief, so long as an honest reason is discoverable for
a corrupt reading, we gladly adopt the plea. It has
been shewn with sufficient clearness, I trust, in the course
of the foregoing chapters, that the number of distinct
causes to which various readings may reasonably be
attributed is even extraordinary.

But there remains after all an alarmingly large assort-
ment of textual perturbations which absolutely refuse to
fall under any of the heads of classification already
enumerated. They are not to be accounted for on any
ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is,

192 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

which occasions our present embarrassment. They are
in truth so exceedingly numerous ; they are often so
very considerable ; they are, as a rule, so very licentious ;
they transgress to such an extent all regulations ; they
usurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness,
that we really know not what to think about them.
Sometimes we are presented with gross interpolations,
apocryphal stories : more often with systematic lacera-
tions of the text, or transformations as from an angel of
light.

We are constrained to inquire, How all this can possibly
have come about? Have there even been persons who
made it their business of set purpose to corrupt the [sacred
deposit of Holy Scripture entrusted to the Church for the
perpetual illumination of all ages till the Lord should
come ?]

At this stage of the inquiry, we are reminded that it
is even notorious that in the earliest age of all, the New
Testament Scriptures were subjected to such influences.
In the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic
there were heretical teachers not a few, who finding their
tenets refuted by the plain Word of GOD bent themselves
against the written Word with all their power. From
seeking to evacuate its teaching, it was but a single step
to seeking to falsify its testimony. Profane literature has
never been exposed to such hostility. I make the remark
in order also to remind the reader of one more point of
[dissimilarity between the two classes of writings. The
inestimable value of the New Testament entailed greater
dangers, as well as secured superior safeguards. Strange,
that a later age should try to discard the latter].

It is found therefore that Satan could not even wait
for the grave to close over St. John. 'Many' there were
already who taught that CHRIST had not come in the
flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Paul

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 193

denounces it by name 1 , and significantly condemns the
wild fancies of its professors, their dangerous speculations
as well as their absurd figments. Thus he predicts and
condemns 2 their pestilential teaching in respect of meats
and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle to
Timothy 3 he relates that Hymeneus and Philetus taught
that the Resurrection was past already. What wonder
if a flood of impious teaching 4 broke loose on the Church
when the last of the Apostles had been gathered in, and
another generation of men had arisen, and the age of
Miracles was found to be departing if it had not already
departed 5 , and the loftiest boast which any could make
was that they had known those who had [seen and heard
the Apostles of the Lord].

The ' grievous wolves ' whose assaults St. Paul predicted
as imminent, and against which he warned the heads of the
Ephesian Church 6 , did not long ' spare the flock.' Already,
while St. John was yet alive, had the Nicolaitans developed
their teaching at Ephesus 7 and in the neighbouring Church
of Pergamos 8 . Our risen LORD in glory announced to His
servant John that in the latter city Satan had established
his dwelling-place 9 . Nay, while those awful words were
being spoken to the Seer of Patmos, the men were already
born who first dared to lay their impious hands on the
Gospel of CHRIST.

No sooner do we find ourselves out of Apostolic lines
and among monuments of the primitive age than we are
made aware that the sacred text must have been exposed
at that very early period to disturbing influences which, on
no ordinary principles, can be explained. Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, among the

1 \f>fvScovvfj,ov -yvufftcos i Tim. vi. 20. 2 I Tim. iv. 1-3. 3 ii- !?

* -yti/eaXo-y/tu i Tim. i. 4 : Titus iii. 9. Dangerous speculation (a /*TJ lupaictv
(fjt^arevojv Col. ii. 18). ' Old wives' fables' (i Tim. i. 4 : iv. 7. Tit. i. 14).

5 See the fragment of Irenaeus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 7.

6 Acts xx. 29. 7 Rev. ii. 6. " Rev. ii. 15. ' Rev. ii. 13.

II. O

194 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

Fathers : some Old Latin MSS. 1 , the Bohairic and Sahidic,
and coming later on, the Curetonian and Lewis, among the
Versions : of the copies Codd. B and tf : and above all,
coming later down still, Cod. D : these venerable monu-
ments of a primitive age occasionally present us with
deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate,
quite impossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes,
tasteless and stupid amplifications, plain perversions of
the meaning of the Evangelists, wholly gratuitous assimi-
lations of one Gospel to another, the unprovoked omission
of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of
high doctrinal import : How are such phenomena as
these to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we
light upon a systematic mutilation of the text so extra-
ordinary that it is as if some one had amused himself by
running his pen through every clause which was not
absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what re-
mained. In another quarter we encounter the thrusting
in of fabulous stories and apocryphal sayings which
disfigure as well as encumber the text How will any
one explain all this ?

Let me however at the risk of repeating what has been
already said dispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which
is pretty sure to suggest itself to a person of intelligence
after reading what goes before. If the most primitive
witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear false
witness to the text of Scripture, whither are we to betake
ourselves for the Truth ? And what security can we hope
ever to enjoy that any given exhibition of the text of
Scripture is the true one ? Are we then to be told that
in this subject-matter the maxim ' id verius quod prius '
does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer
as we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows
more and more corrupt ?

1 Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. chap. vii. p. 137.

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 195

Nothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the
case. Our appeal is always made to antiquity ; and it is
nothing else but a truism to assert that the oldest reading
is also the best. A very few words will make this matter
clear ; because a very few words will suffice to explain
a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to
keep always before the eyes of the reader.

The characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature,
of all the monstrous and palpable perversions of the text
of Scripture just now under consideration is this : that
they are never vouched for by the oldest documents
generally, but only by a few of them, two, three, or more
of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield
conflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in
fact contradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly
always refute one another, and indeed dispose of one
another's evidence almost as often as that evidence is
untrustworthy. And now I may resume and proceed.

I say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly
satisfactory explanation of the greater part of those gross
depravations of Scripture which admit of no legitimate
excuse, to attribute them, however remotely, to those
licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared by
their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, inter-
polated, and in whatever other way to have corrupted
the Gospel ; whose blasphemous productions of necessity
must once have obtained a very wide circulation : and
indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold
them. What with those who like Basilides and his
followers invented a Gospel of their own : what with
those who with the Ebionites and the Valentinians inter-
polated and otherwise perverted one of the four Gospels
until it suited their own purposes : what with those
who like Marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the
inspired text : there must have been a large mass of cor-

O 2

196 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

ruption festering in the Church throughout the immediate
post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There
were those who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or
attempts to weave the fourfold narrative into one, ' Lives
of CHRIST,' so to speak ; and productions of this class
were multiplied to an extraordinary extent, and as we
certainly know, not only found their way into the
remotest corners of the Church, but established them-
selves there. And will any one affect surprise if occasion-
ally a curious scholar of those days was imposed upon
by the confident assurance that by no means were those
many sources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but
that there must be some truth in what they advanced ?
In a singularly uncritical age, the seductive simplicity
of one reading, the interesting fullness of another, the
plausibility of a third, was quite sure to recommend its
acceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which
were constructed by long since forgotten Critics, from
which the most depraved and worthless of our existing
texts and versions have been derived. Emphatically
condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly
outvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried
under fifteen centuries, the corruptions I speak of survive
at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies
which, calamitous to relate, the school of Lachmann and
Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular : and in
conformity with which many scholars are for refashion-
ing the Evangelical text under the mistaken title of ' Old
Readings.' And now to proceed with my argument.

Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three
centuries of the Christian era, they almost all agreed in
this ; that they involved a denial of the eternal Godhead

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 197

of the SON of Man : denied that He is essentially very
and eternal GOD. This fundamental heresy found itself
hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel,
which nevertheless it assailed with restless ingenuity : and
many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice
which have survived to our own times. It is a memorable
circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which
relate either to the eternal generation of the SON, to
His Incarnation, or to the circumstances of His Nativity,
which have suffered most severely, and retain to this
hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with.
I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here.
I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much
to blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at
least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with
the Deposit. They did but imitate the example set them
by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitous con-
sequence of extravagances in one direction that they are
observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter.
Accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think
it wrong to fortify the Truth by the insertion, suppression,
or substitution of a few words in any place from which
danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded,
many an unwarrantable ' reading ' is to be explained. I do
not mean that ' marginal glosses have frequently found
their way into the text ' : that points to a wholly im-
probable account of the matter. I mean, that expressions
which seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least
which had been made a bad use of by evil men, were
deliberately falsified. But I must not further anticipate
the substance of the next chapter.

The men who first systematically depraved the text
of Scripture, were as we now must know the heresiarchs
Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl. 140), and Marcion (fl.
150) : three names which Origen is observed almost

198 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

invariably to enumerate together. Basilides 1 and Valen-
tinus 2 are even said to have written Gospels of their
own. Such a statement is not to be severely pressed:
but the general fact is established by the notices, and
those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against
Heresies have cited and left on record. All that is
intended by such statements is that these old heretics
retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased
of the fourfold Gospel : and further, that they imported
whatever additional matter they saw fit : not that they
rejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted some-
thing of their own invention in its place 3 . And though, in
the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently
with reason, that he probably did not individually go to
the same length as Basilides, who, as well in respect of
St. Paul's Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently
a grievous offender 4 , yet, since it is clear that his principal
followers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth
a composition which they were pleased to style the ' Gospel
of Truth 5 ,' it is idle to dispute as to the limit of the

1 ' Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare.'
Orig. Opp. iii. 933 c : Iren. i. 23 : Clem. Al. 409, 426, 506, 509, 540, 545 :
Tertull. c. 46 : Epiph. 24 : Theodor. i. 4.

" 'Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra' (De Praescript., ad
calcem).

3 Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) says, ravra 8 f'pijrai irp$s
TOIS dirb Ova\tVTivov } teal Jlaffi\i8ov, KOI rovs dirb MapKicavos. f\ovat "yap icai
avrol ras At'is \v T> Ka6' tavrovs evaffe\i<v. Opp. iii. 981 A.

* ' Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem
loquor et Basilidem et omnes Haereticos qui vetus laniant Testamentum : lamen
eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si saltern in novo continerent manus suas ; et non
auderent Christi (nt ipsi iactitant) boni Dei Filii, vel Evangelistas violare, vel
Apostolos. Nunc vero, quum et Evangelia eius dissipaverint ; et Apostolorum
epistolas, non Apostolorum Christi fecerunt esse, sed proprias ; miror quomodo
sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de caeteris Epistolis
taceam, (de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant, evaserunt, non-
nullas integras repudiandas crediderunt) ; ad Timotheum videlicet utramque,
ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere.' Hieron. Praef. ad
Titum.

4 'Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas
conscriptiones praeferentes, plnra habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa Evangelia.

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 199

rashness and impiety of the individual author of the heresy.
Let it be further stated, as no slight confirmation of the
view already hazarded as to the probable contents of
the (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that
one particular Gospel is related to have been preferred
before the rest and specially adopted by certain schools
of ancient Heretics. Thus, a strangely mutilated and de-
praved text of St. Matthew's Gospel is related to have
found especial favour with the Ebionites 1 , with whom the
Corinthians are associated by Epiphanius : though Irenaeus
seems to say that it was St. Mark's Gospel which was
adopted by the heretical followers of Cerinthus. Marcion's
deliberate choice of St. Luke's Gospel is sufficiently well
known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselves
St. John 2 . Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of
this school, is deliberately censured by Origen for having
corrupted the text of the fourth Evangelist in many
places 3 . A considerable portion of his Commentary on
St. John has been preserved to us : and a very strange
production it is found to have been.

Siquidem in tantum processeruiit audaciae, nti quod ab his non olim conscriptum
est, Veritatis Evangelinm titulent.' Iren. iii. xi. 9.

1 See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. xiii ; also c. iii.

2 'Tanta est circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium
reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens tmusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare
doctrinam. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod est secundum MATTHAEUM,
solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte praesumentes de Domino.
Marcion autem id quod est secundum LUCAM circumcidens, ex his quae adhuc
servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur. Qui
autem lesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum
vero lesum dicnnt, id quod secundum MARCUM est praeferentes Evangelium;
cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino
sunt, eo quod est secundum JOANNEM plenissime utentes,' &c. Iren. iii. xi. 7.

3 'HpaK^faiv, 6 TTJS Ova\evrivov crxoX^s So/a^araTos. Clem. Al. p. 595- Of
Heracleon it is expressly related by Origen that he depraved the text of the
Gospel. Origen says (iv. 66) that Heracleon (regardless of the warning in
Prov. xxx. 6) added to the text of St. John i. 3 (viz. after the words t^ivtro
ov5e V) the words ruiv iv -ra> Koffpy, KO.I TIJ xrifffi. Heracleon clearly read
S ytfovtv kv avry 0$ Tjv. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for kv rpiai, he
wrote iv Tpirrj. He also read (St. John iv. 18) (for Wire), l dvSpas <TX.

200 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

Concerning Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous
personage, it will be necessary to speak more particularly.
He has left a mark on the text of Scripture of which traces
are distinctly recognizable at the present day l . A great
deal more is known about him than about any other
individual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote
against him : besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian in the West 2 , and Epiphanius in the East, elabor-
ately refuted his teaching, and give us large information as
to his method of handling Scripture.

Another writer of this remote time who, as I am prone
to think, must have exercised sensible influence on the text
of Scripture was Ammonius of Alexandria.

But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity
[appears to me to have caused alterations in the Sacred
Text.]

It is obviously no answer to anything that has gone
before to insist that the Evangelium of Marcion (for
instance), so far as it is recognizable by the notices of
it given by Epiphanius, can very rarely indeed be shewn
to have resembled any extant MS. of the Gospels. Let it
be even freely granted that many of the charges brought
against it by Epiphanius with so much warmth, collapse
when closely examined and severely sifted. It is to be
remembered that Marcion's Gospel was known to be an
heretical production : one of the many creations of the
Gnostic age, it must have been universally execrated
and abhorred by faithful men. Besides this lacerated text
of St. Luke's Gospel, there was an Ebionite recension of

1 Celsns having objected that believers had again and again falsified the
text of the Gospel, refashioning it, in order to meet the objections of assailants,
Origen replies : M(TaxapaavTas Sf TO (vay~f(\iov d\\ovs OVK olSa, ff rovs aito
Mapicioavos, KCU TOVS dirb Ova\evTivov, ol/jiai 5t HO! TOVS airo A.OVKO.VOV. TOVTO 5t
\tyopfvov oil TOV \6yov earlv (-fK\rj(M., dAAti TUIV TO\f*TjaavT<uv paStovp-fijcrai rd.
(vayyt\ta. Opp. i. 41 1 B.

2 De Praesc. Haer. c. 51.

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 2OI

St. Matthew : a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark : a
Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but in-
sisting that the effect of so many corruptions of the Truth,
industriously propagated within far less than 100 years of
the date of the inspired verities themselves, must needs
have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notorious fact,
that in the second and third centuries after the Christian
era the text of the Gospels is found to have been grossly
corrupted even in orthodox quarters, and that traces of
these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles
to the present hour, and it seems impossible not to
connect the two phenomena together. The wonder rather
is that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able
distinctly to recognize any evidence whatever.

The proneness of these early Heretics severally to adopt
one of the four Gospels for their own, explains why there
is no consistency observable in the corruptions they intro-
duced into the text. It also explains the bringing into one
Gospel of things which of right clearly belong to another
as in St. Mark iii. 14 ovs /cat aTrooroAous tovofj-acrev.

I do not propose (as will presently appear) in this
way to explain any considerable number of the actual cor-
ruptions of the text : but in no other way is it possible
to account for such systematic mutilations as are found
in Cod. B, such monstrous additions as are found in
Cod. D, such gross perturbations as are continually met
with in one or more, but never in all, of the earliest
Codexes extant, as well as in the oldest Versions and
Fathers.

The plan of Tatian's Diatessaron will account for a great
deal. He indulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine
at the feast of Cana in Galilee he reads that the servants
knew ' because they had drawn the water ' ; or in taste-
less and stupid amplifications, as in the going back of the
Centurion to his house. I suspect that the ri fie e/xoras

202 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

nfpl TOV aya6ov, ' Why do you ask me about that which is
good ? ' is to be referred to some of these tamperers with
the Divine Word.

These professors of ' Gnosticism ' held no consistent
theory. The two leading problems on which they exercised
their perverse ingenuity are found to have been (i) the
origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil.

(i) They taught that the world's artificer (' the Word ')
was Himself a creature of 'the Father 1 .' Encountered on
the threshold of the Gospel by the plain declaration that,
' In the beginning was the WORD : and the WORD was
with GOD : and the WORD was GOD ' : and presently, ' All
things were made by Him'; they were much exercised.
The expedients to which they had recourse were certainly
extraordinary. That ' Beginning ' (said Valentinus) was
the first thing which ' the FATHER ' created : which He
called ' Only begotten SON,' and also ' GOD ' : and in
whom he implanted the germ of all things. Seminally,
that is, whatsoever subsequently came into being was in
Him. 'The Word' (he said) was a product of this first-
created thing. And 'All things were made by Him,'
because in ' the Word ' was the entire essence of all the
subsequent worlds (Aeons), to which he assigned forms 2 .
From which it is plain that, according to Valentinus, ' the

1 OVTOS 5e Srj/Aiovpyos ical irotrjTrjs rovSe rov iravrus K6ff/*ov Kal rwv ev avrw . . .
tffrai fj.iv KaraSeearfpos rov re\flov eov . . . are 67) teal ytvi'rjros &v, Kal OVK
aytvvrjTos. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. p. 217. Heracleon saw in the nobleman
of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who, Paffi\inbs wvoitaaOrj oiovel /juupos
ris Paai\evs, viro KaOoXiKOv @aat\{a}s rtray^ivos liri fuftpas @affi\tias, p. 373.

2 'O 'Ico&ifVTjs . . . @ov\6/jievos eliretv TTJV TWV o\ojv fivtaiv, na.0' ^v ra iravra
irpo@a\tv 6 IlaTijp, apxrjv TWO. inrorldtTai, r6 irpSnov ffwrjOtv virb TOV 0sou, ov
Sri /cat vlov M.ovo-f(i>f) xal Qtov KfK\rjxev, tv y rcL iravra o Ilar^p irpOf0a\e
airep/MTiKais. "firo 5% TOVTOV (prjcrl ruv \6yov irpof:i({i\.i)<rOat, Kal fv aura) TT)V
o\r)v rSiv fduv<uv ovaiav, fy avrtis vffrfpov Ipoptpaatv 6 A.6yos. . . . H&VTO. Si
O.VTOV tyfVfTo, Kal X W P' S O.VTOV t-ytvtro ovSl tv' irdffi yap rots per' avrov Aluiat

KOI yfvtaeais ainos 6 \6yos IffvtTO.

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 203

WORD ' was distinct from ' the SON ' ; who was not the
world's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged
to be ' GOD : ' : but only, as we have seen already, using
the term in an inferior sense.

Heracleon, commenting on St. John i. 3, insists that
' all things ' can but signify this perishable world and the
things that are therein : not essences of a loftier nature.
Accordingly, after the words ' and without Him was not
anything made,' he ventures to interpolate this clause, ' of
the things that are in the world and in the creation 2 .'
True, that the Evangelist had declared with unmistakable
emphasis, ' and without Him was not anything ' (literally,
' was not even one thing ') ' made that was made.'
But instead of 'not even one thing,' the Valentinian
Gnostics appear to have written ' nothing 3 ' ; and the
concluding clause ' that was made,' because he found it
simply unmanageable, Valentinus boldly severed from its
context, making it the beginning of a fresh sentence.
With the Gnostics, ver. 4 is found to have begun thus,
' What was made in Him was life.'

Of the change of ovbe ev into ovSe'y 4 traces survive in many
of the Fathers 5 : but N and Dare the only Uncial MSS. which
are known to retain that corrupt reading. The uncouth
sentence which follows (6 ytyovev ev euro) 0077 r/v), singular

1 'Ev r> Tlarpl ical fie TOV Tla-rpus j) apxn> /ta ' * K T V y "PX^ S " Aayos. KaXws
ovv tlirtv ev dpxy yv 6 Ao-yor fy fap tv ry Tlw. Kai 6 \6yos ?\v irpos TOV
@fuv Kal yap 17 'ApxlJ' *at <^ ^ o Acfyos, aKO\ov6cas. Td ycip fie Qeov ftwrjOiv
toy taTiv. Ibid. p. 102. Compare the Excerpt. Theod. ap. Clem. Al. c. vi.
p. 968.

2 Ap. Orig. 938. 9.

3 So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (ap. Epiph. i. 317), and so
Heracleon (ap. Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian (ap. Epiph.
i. 882).

4 See The Traditional Text, p. 113.

5 Clem. Al. always has ou5e tv (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273, 769, 787, 803, 812,
815, 820) : but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838) he has ovttv. Cyril,
while writing his treatise De Trinitate, read ovSev in his copy. Eusebius,
for example, has ovS* tv, fifteen times; ovStv only twice, viz. Praep. 322:
Esai. 529.

204 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in
many quarters, and meets us still at every step. It was
evidently put forward so perseveringly by the Gnostics,
with whom it was a kind of article of the faith, that the
orthodox at last became too familiar with it. Epiphanius,
though he condemns it, once employs it l . Occurring first
in a fragment of Valentinus 2 : next, in the Commentary
of Heracleon 3 : after that, in the pages of Theodotus the
Gnostic (A.D. 192)*: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus
of the tenets of the Naaseni 5 , (a subsection of the same
school) ; the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable.
But inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal
interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3
was endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens
Alex, is observed thrice to adopt it 6 : Origen 7 and Euse-
bius 8 fall into it repeatedly. It is found in Codd. NCD :
apparently in Cod. A, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril
comments largely on it 9 . But as fresh heresies arose
which the depraved text seemed to favour, the Church
bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians
and the Macedonians 10 , who insisted that the HOLY GHOST

1 Opp. ii. 74. 2 Ap. Iren. 102. 3 Ibid. 940.

* Ap. Clem. Al. 968, 973.

5 Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the Peratae :
ovSt tv, & yfyovev. iv avrw <ar] kariv. tv avrai ot, (prjaiv, fj Eva yfymw, ij Eua
0^7. Ibid. p. 134.

6 Opp. 114, 218, 1009.

7 Cels. vi. 5 : Princip. II. ix. 4: IV. i. 30 : In Joh. i. 22, 34: ii. 6, 10, 12, 13
bis: In Rom. iii. 10, 15 : Haer. v. 151.

8 Psalm. 146, 235, 245 : Marcell. 237. Not so in Eel. 100 : Praep. 322,

54- }

9 'AvayKaicas (prjaiv, " & ytyovev, (V avr$ car) T/v." ov povov (prjot, " 8t' avrov
TO. irdvra (ytvtro" d\\a teal ei TI ytyovti' fjv tv avrSi f) fonj. TOUT' eariv, 6
fwvoffvtjs TOV Qeov \6yos, 7) iravrcav o.pxh> Ka ' ffvaraais oparOav re KCLI doparaiv
. . . CLVT&S fcLp vitap\<uv Kara <pvatv <ar], T& elvai KOI fjv Kal KivtlaOai iro\v-
Tpoirws rots ovai \apifftrai. Opp. iv. 49 e.

He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the A.6yos, that, iravra
Sj' avrov (ytvtro, nal r]v (V rofy yero/xtVois ws curj. Ibid. 60 c.

10 OuTOi Bt fiov\ovrai avro dvai Kriff[ia KrifffMTOS. <f>aal "yap, on iravra Si'
avrov yfyovt, KOI xw^'J avrov Ifivtro ov5 tv. dpa, <paai, Kal TO Ilvfvfjia tit rSiv

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 205

is a creature. The former were refuted by Epjphanius,
who points out that the sense is not complete until you
have read the words o ytyovev. A fresh sentence (he says)
begins at 'Ey OVTW 077 ty 1. Chrysostom deals with the
latter. ' Let us beware of putting the full stop ' (he says)
' at the words oiSe Zv, as do the heretics. In order to
make out that the SPIRIT is a creature, they read o yiyovtv
ev airy O>T) r\v : by which means the Evangelist's meaning
becomes unintelligible V

But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was
followed by Theodotus and by at least two of the Gnostic
sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further.
The better to conceal St. John's purpose, the heresiarch
falsified the inspired text. In the place of, ' What was
made in Him, was life,' he substituted ' What was made
in Him, is life.' Origen had seen copies so depraved, and
judged the reading not altogether improbable. Clement,
on a single occasion, even adopted it. It was the approved
reading of the Old Latin versions, a memorable indication,
by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived
their texts, which explains why it is found in Cyprian,
Hilary, and Augustine ; and why Ambrose has so elabor-
ately vindicated its sufficiency. It also appears in the
Sahidic and in Cureton's Syriac ; but not in the Peshitto,
nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic.] In the mean-
time, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular
trace of the Gnostic period at the present day, are Codexes
K and D.

[We may now take some more instances to shew the
effects of the operations of Heretics.]

iroirmarcav virapxei, ljre8r) iravra 8t' avrov ytyovt. Opp. i. 74 1 - Which is the
teaching of Eusebins, Marcell. 333-4. The Macedonians were an offshoot of
the Arians.
1 i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80. * Opp. viii. 40.

206 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

The good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15)
says concerning Himself ' I know My sheep and am known
of Mine, even as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the
FATHER ' : by which words He hints at a mysterious
knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that
are His. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He
describes the knowledge which subsists between the FATHER
and the SON in language which implies that it is strictly
identical on either side, He is careful to distinguish
between the knowledge which subsists between the creature
and the CREATOR by slightly varying the expression,
thus leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed
can be, on either side the same. GOD knoweth us with
a perfect knowledge. Our so-called ' knowledge ' of GOD
is a thing different not only in degree, but in kind 1 .
Hence the peculiar form which the sentence assumes 2 :
yivaxTKca ra fp,d, KCU yiz>a><r/co/zai virb T&V t/^wy. And this
delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained all
down the ages, being witnessed to at this hour by every
MS. in existence except four now well known to us : viz.
NBDL. The Syriac also retains it, as does Macarius 3 ,
Gregory Naz. 4 , Chrysostom 5 , Cyril 6 ,Theodoret 7 , Maximus 8 .
It is a point which really admits of no rational doubt : for
does any one suppose that if St. John had written ' Mine
own know Me,' 996 MSS. out of 1000 at the end of 1,800
years would exhibit, ' I am known of Mine ' ?

But in fact it is discovered that these words of our LORD
experienced depravation at the hands of the Manichaean

1 Consider I John ii. 3, 4: and read Basil ii. 188 b, c. See p. 207, note 4.
Consider also Gal. iv. 9. So Cyril Al. [iv. 655 a], *ai vpotyvca y^aAAov rj

irap f/fuat'.

Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this : tva ^ rfjs yvu<Tus laov rov
jiafis, atcovaov mDy SiopOovrai avrb ry timycayTJ' yivuaKOJ T& kpa.,
<pT)<ri, Kal "fivdiffKo/Mi into TWV tfuiiv. a\\' OIIK iffrj 77 yvuais, K.T.\. viii. 352 d.
8 P. 38. (Gall. vii. 26.) * i. 298, 613.

8 viii. 351, 352 d and e. 6 iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.

7 i. 748 : iv. 274, 550. 8 In Dionys. Ar. ii. 192.

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 207

heretics. Besides inverting the clauses, (and so making it
appear that such knowledge begins on the side of Man.)
Manes (A.D. 261) obliterated the peculiarity above indicated.
Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us
with the form in which these words were exhibited in that
mischievous production : viz. yivwo-Kei /xe TO f^d, KOL yip&>o-/co>
TO. e/xd. This we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil l .
Cyril, in a paper where he makes clear reference to the
same heretical Gospel, insists that the order of knowledge
must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended 2 .

But then, it is found that certain of the orthodox con-
tented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and
so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed

regardless of the exquisite refinement of expression to
which attention was called at the outset. Copies must
once have abounded which represented our LORD as say-
ing, ' I know My own and My own know Me, even as the
FATHER knoweth Me and I know the FATHER ' ; for it is
the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic,
Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of the
Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius 3 , Nonnus,
and even Basil 4 so read the place. But no token of this
clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of the

S( 6 avros Mavrjs . . . rcL l/ia Trpo&ara yivuaKft fie, KCU ytvuaic<u -rcL l/zd
irpo&ara. (Epiphan. i. 697.) Again, rjpirafftv 6 alpertKos irpfc r^f iSiav icara-
OKtvrjV rTJs P\aff<prjnias. ISov, <prjaiv, t'prjrai- on yivuoicovai (lower down,
fivwffKfi) fj,e ra tfjui, teal yivwffKca TO. (pa. (Basil ii. 1 88 a, b.)

2 'Ev rati TTI oiKfia Kal irpfirwStffrarri rwv wpa-yfiaTcuv txaffra riOtls. ov yap
ffprj, fivuiaKti fit rci tfta, Kal ~fivwOK<o ra ffta, dAA.' iavrov eyvoiKora rrpcirtpov
fla<p(pti TO. iSia irpo&ara, tl&' ovrus yveaa9rifffaOat <prjffi -nap avrwv . . . ov\ 5?M
avTov fircYvuKafj.rv irpuroi, tirefv<o 8 17^0? irptarov avros . . . o\>x r)P& T/pfd^eSa
TOV -npayiMTos, d\X' 6 IK &fov @tos /j.ovoyfvf]s. iv. 654 d, 655 a. (Note, that
this passage appears in a mutilated form, viz. 121 words are omitted, in the
Catena of Corderius, p. 267, where it is wrongly assigned to Chrysostom :
an instructive instance.)

3 In Ps. 489 : in Es. 509 : Theoph. 185, 258, 260.

4 ii. 188 a : which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds ex-
quisitely to shew (1886) that man's ' knowledge ' of GOD consists in his
keeping of GOD'S Commandments, (i John ii. 3, 4.) See p. 206, note i.

208 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

Gospels, except NBDL. Will it be believed that never-
theless all the recent Editors of Scripture since Lachmann
insist on obliterating this refinement of language, and going
back to the reading which the Church has long since
deliberately rejected, to the manifest injury of the de-
posit ? ' Many words about a trifle,' some will be found
to say. Yes, to deny GOD'S truth is a very facile pro-
ceeding. Its rehabilitation always requires many words.
I request only that the affinity between NBDL and the
Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement l ,
may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading
receives no notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers 2 .]

DOCTRINAL.

The question of Matrimony was one of those on which
the early heretics freely dogmatized. Saturninus 3 (A. D. 1 20)
and his followers taught that marriage was a production of
Hell.

We are not surprised after this to find that those places
in the Gospel which bear on the relation between man and
wife exhibit traces of perturbation. I am not asserting
that the heretics themselves depraved the text. I do but
state two plain facts: viz. (i) That whereas in the second
century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage
prevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those
who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for
their proofs : (2) It is accordingly found that not only does
the phenomenon of 'various readings' prevail in those

1 So Jerome, iv. 484 : vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor
Augustine should quote the place.

2 See Revision Revised, p. 220.

3 Or Saturnilus T& 5J ^ap.dv not ftwav avb TOV Sarara (f>r}ffiv tlvai. p. 245,
1. 38. So Marcion, 253.

CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 209

places of the Gospel which bear most nearly on the
disputed points, but the ' readings ' are exactly of that
suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tamper-
ing with the text by men who had to maintain, or else to
combat, opinions of a certain class. I proceed to establish
what I have been saying by some actual examples 1 .

St. Matt. xix. 29. St. Mark x. 29. St. Luke xviii. 29.

t] yvvaLKa, rj yiwaiKO, t] ywaixa,

BD abc Orig. NBDA abc, &c. all allow it.

orav 8e ^eyrj* on " TTO.S oorts a^/ce ywat/ca," ov TOVTO <})r)(riv,
UXTTC a7rA<3? biacnraa-daL TOVS ya.fj.ovs, K.T.\. Chrys. vii. 636 E.

riapaSeiy/xario-ai (in St. Matt. i. 19) is another of the
expressions which have been disturbed by the same con-
troversy. I suspect that Origen is the author (see the
heading of the Scholion in Cramer's Catenae) of a certain
uncritical note which Eusebius reproduces in his 'quaes-
tiones ad Stephanum 2 ' on the difference between 8eiyj*anVai
and TrapaSety/zarurcu ; and that with him originated the sub-
stitution of the uncompounded for the compounded verb
in this place. Be that as it may, Eusebius certainly read
TrapaSeiy/xauVat (Dem. 320), with all the uncials but two
(BZ): all the cursives but one (i). Will it be believed
that Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott
and Hort, on such slender evidence as that are prepared to
reconstruct the text of St. Matthew's Gospel ?

It sounds so like trifling with a reader's patience to
invite his attention to an elaborate discussion of most of
the changes introduced into the text by Tischendorf and
his colleagues, that I knowingly pass over many hundreds
of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly well aware

1 [The MS. breaks off here, with references to St. Mark x. 7, Eph. v. 31-2
(on which the Dean had accumulated a large array of references), St. Mark x.
29-30, with a few references, but no more. I have not had yet time or
strength to work out the subject.]

2 Mai, iv. 221.

II. P

210 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

of my own strength, my opponent's weakness. Such
discussions in fact become unbearable when the points in
dispute are confessedly trivial. No one however will deny
that when three consecutive words of our LORD are
challenged they are worth contending for. We are invited
then to believe (St. Luke xxii. 67-8) that He did not utter
the bracketed words in the following sentence, ' If I tell you,
ye will not believe ; and if I ask you, ye will not answer (Me,
nor let Me go).' Now, I invite the reader to inquire for the
grounds of this assertion. Fifteen of the uncials (includ-
ing AD), and every known cursive, besides all the Latin
and all the Syriac copies recognize the bracketed words.
They are only missing in KELT and their ally the Bohairic.
Are we nevertheless to be assured that the words are to be
regarded as spurious? Let the reader then be informed
that Marcion left out seven words more (viz. all from, 'And
if I ask you ' to the end), and will he doubt either that the
words are genuine or that their disappearance from four
copies of bad character, as proved by their constant evidence,
and from one version is sufficiently explained ?

CHAPTER XIV.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

X. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX.

I-

ANOTHER cause why, in very early times, the Text of
the Gospels underwent serious depravation, was mistaken
solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the
purity of the Catholic faith. These persons, like certain
of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did not think
it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any
expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency,
they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily
from the sacred page. About the uncritical nature of
what they did, they entertained no suspicion : about the
immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not
trouble themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the
motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient
excuse for any amount of licence. The copies which had
undergone this process of castigation were even styled
'corrected,' and doubtless were popularly looked upon
as ' the correct copies ' [like our ' critical texts ']. An
illustration of this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned
by Epiphanius.

P 2

212 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for
the LORD'S Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the
record that our SAVIOUR 'wept.' We will not pause to
inquire what this statement may be worth. But when the
same Father adds, ' In the uncorrected copies (h rot?
abtopdvTois avTiypd^ois) is found " He wept," ' Epiphanius is
instructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is
genuine, he goes on to state that ' Irenaeus quoted it in
his work against Heresies, when he had to confute the
error of the Docetae V ' Nevertheless,' Epiphanius adds,
' the orthodox through fear erased the record.'

So then, the process of 'correction ' was a critical process
conducted on utterly erroneous principles by men who
knew nothing whatever about Textual Criticism. Such
recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to the Deposit.
To ' correct ' was in this and such like cases simply to
'corrupt.'

Codexes END may be regarded as specimens of Codexes
which have once and again passed through the -hands of
such a corrector or Sioptfoor?/?.

St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant SAVIOUR
that ' the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit.' By
repeating the selfsame expression which already, viz. in
chap. i. 80, had been applied to the Childhood of the
Forerunner 2 , it was clearly the design of the Author of
Scripture to teach that THE WORD ' made flesh ' submitted
to the same laws of growth and increase as every other
Son of Adam. The body 'grew,' the spiritual part
' waxed strong.' This statement was nevertheless laid hold
of by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pre-
tended (they asked) that He was 'perfect GOD' (re'Aetos
0eos-), of whom it is related in respect of His spirit that

1 Upos TOVS Soicfjoti rov Xpiffr&v TTt^rfvivai \(^ovras.
a Td Si TtaiSiov Tjvavf, KOI fKparaiovro -avtv^an.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 213

he ' waxed strong l ' ? The consequence might have been
foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were ill-advised enough
to erase the word Ttveupari from the copies of St. Luke
il 40; and lo, at the end of 1.500 years, four 'corrected'
copies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear
witness to the ancient fraud. No need to inquire which,
what, and who these be.

But because it is NBDL, Origen 2 , and the Latin, the
Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word Trve^/nan,
Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump
to the conclusion that -nvevp-aTi is a spurious accretion to
the Text. They ought to reverse their proceeding; and
recognize in the evidence one more indication of the un-
trustworthiness of the witnesses. For, how then is it
supposed that the word (Trvev^ari) ever obtained its footing
in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has
been imported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin,
How does the existence of the phrase e/cparaiouro Tirev/xaTi
in i. 80 explain its existence in ii. 40, in every known
copy of the Gospels except four, if in these 996 places,
suppose, it be an interpolation? This is what has to be
explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials,
and every known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries,
should have been corrupted in this way : and that the truth
should survive exclusively at this time only in the re-
maining four; viz. in B-tf, the sixth century Cod. D,
and the eighth century Cod. L ?

When then, and where did the work of depravation take
place ? It must have been before the sixth century, because
Leontius of Cyprus 3 quotes it three times and discusses
the expression at length : before the fifth, because, besides

1 It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first Dialogus of
pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).

2 Opp. iii. 953, 954, with suspicious emphasis.

3 Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).

214 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

Cod. A, Cyril \ Theodoret 2 and ps.-Caesarius 3 recognize the
word : before the fourth, because Epiphanius 4 , Theodore
of Mopsuestia 5 , and the Gothic version have it : before the
third, before nearly all of the second century, because it
is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we
have before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of
the orthodox ? one more sample of the infelicity of modern
criticism ?

Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part
of St. John viii. 40, when they pretended to shew from
Scripture that CHRIST is mere Man 6 . I am persuaded
that the reading ' of My Father 7 ,' with which Origen 8 ,
Epiphanius 9 , Athanasius 10 , Chrysostom n , Cyril Alex. 12 ,

1 When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568), " Tb 5e iratSiov rjv^afe
KO.I fKparaiovro IINETMATI, irKypovutvov 2O3-IA /cot XAPITI." Kairoi Kara
<f>vaiv iravTt\(ios tariv ws &tos ical l iSt'oti TT\I]P<JU/MITOS Siavfpti rots dyiois rd.
FINETMATIKA, /cat auros ianv $ 2O*IA, /cat rfjs XAPITO2 6 5ori]p, it is clear
that irvfvftari must have stood in Cyril's text. The same is the reading of
Cyril's Treatise, De Incamatione (Mai, ii. 57) : and of his Commentary on
St. Luke (ibid. p. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorfs perverse inference
concerning the last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of
ver. 40 in exact conformity -with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the
close of some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer's Catena), Cyril
proceeds as follows, according to the latter : 6 Evayyf\iffTT)s (<prj " i)vave Kai
(KparatovTo" KAI TA EEH2. Surely this constitutes no ground for supposing
that he did not recognize the word irvfvfiaTi, but rather that he did. On the
other hand, it is undeniable that in V. P. ii. 138 and 139 ( = Concilia iii. 241 d,
244 a), from Pusey's account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. i. 277-8),
the word irvtiifjuiTi must be suspected of being an unauthorized addition to the
text of Cyril's treatise, De Recta fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam.

1 ii. 152: iv. 112 : v. 120, 121 (four times).

3 Et rt\fi6s tan 0oy 6 Xpiaros, irus 6 tvafftXiartis ^(Jtt, TO 5 iraibiov
'Irjffovs rjvfave ical i/tparaiovTo irvfv/^aTi ; S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24
(ap. Galland. vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30.

4 ii. 36 d.

6 Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53. The only other Greek Fathers who
quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.

6 *Hv ffKovaa. irapa rov Vtov. Epiph. i. 463. 7 Instead of irapa TOV Qtov.

8 i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.

i. 260, 463 : ii. 49. lo i. 705. u viii. 365. * (Glaph.) i. 18.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 215

and Theodoret l prove to have been acquainted, was sub-
stituted by some of the orthodox in this place, with the
pious intention of providing a remedy for the heretical
teaching of their opponents. At the present day only six
cursive copies are known to retain this trace of a corruption
of Scripture which must date from the second century.

We now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be
remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise
to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the
eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that ' the Word was
made flesh,' &c. ; a statement which Valentinus was willing
to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch and his
followers denied that ' the Word ' is also ' the Son ' of GOD.
As if in order to bar the door against this pretence,
St. John announces (ver. 1 8) that ' the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him ' : thus establishing the identity of the Word and the
Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do
with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it? Ac-
cordingly, the very first time St. John i. 18 is quoted by
any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the statement
that the Valentinians in order to prove that the 'only
begotten ' is ' the Beginning,' and is ' GOD,' appeal to the
words, 'the only begotten GOD who is in the bosom of
the Father 2 ,' &c. Inasmuch, said they, as the Father
willed to become known to the worlds, the Spirit of Gnosis
produced the ' only begotten ' ' Gnosis,' and therefore gave
birth to 'Gnosis,' that is to 'the Son': in order that by
' the Son ' ' the Father ' might be made known. While
then that ' only begotten Son ' abode ' in the bosom of the

1 iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705 : iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv. 554 :
v. 758) quote the traditional reading ; and Cyril (iv. 549) distinctly says that
the latter is right, and irapa rov irarpos wrong.

2 Excerpt. Theod. 968. Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen with
this text. Valentinus (op. Iren. 100) says, tv 5^ tal vlbv movo^tvri ml

2l6 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

Father,' He caused that here upon earth should be seen,
alluding to ver. 14, one 'as the only begotten Son.' In
which, by the way, the reader is requested to note that
the author of the Excerpta Theodoti (a production of the
second century) reads St. John i. 18 as we do.

I have gone into all these strange details, derived, let it
be remembered, from documents which carry us back to
the former half of the second century, because in no other
way is the singular phenomenon which attends the text
of St. John i. 1 8 to be explained and accounted for.
Sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is, this
verse of Scripture is observed to exhibit perturbations
which are even extraordinary. Irenaeus once writes 6 [?]
fjiovoyevrjs vios : once, 6 [?] p.ovoyevr)s 0eo? : once, 6 /xovoyei/rjs
vios eoC 1 : Clemens Alex., 6 }j.ovoyfvr]S vibs 0e6? /uoVos 2 ;
which must be very nearly the reading of the Codex from
which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin was
derived 3 . Eusebius four times writes 6 novoytvys ulo's * :
twice, ij.ovoytvrji 0eo's 5 : and on one occasion gives his reader
the choice of either expression, explaining why both may
stand 6 . Gregory Nyss. 7 and Basil 8 , though they recognize
the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more
familiar with the reading 6 p.ovoyfVT)'} 0eo's 9 : for Basil

1 Pp. 627, 630, 4 66. 2 p. 95 6.

3 ' Deum nemo vidit umquam : nisi unicus filius solus, sinnm patris ipse
enarravit.' (Comp. Tertullian : ' Solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse
exposuit' (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21) : but he elsewhere (ibid. c. 15) exhibits the
passage in the usual way.) Clemens writes, rare tiroirrtvfffis rov KoKirov rov
Harpus, ov 6 fiovo^fv^ vios &os povos k^rjff^aaro (956), and in the Excerpt.
'1 heod. we find ovros rov K<J\ITOV rov Tlarpbs tgijyrjo'aro o ^carrjp (969). But
this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our LORD is often spoken
of by the Fathers as ij 5tia TOV tyiarov . . . no\iros dt rrjs 5ftds 6 Tlarrjp.
(Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)

* Ps. 440 ( <J) : Marcell. 165, 179, 273.

5 Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14. 6 Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.

7 Opp. ii. 466. Opp. iii. 23, 358.

' Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 (6tbs irdvrcus 6 novoyfvris, 6 iv rots KU\TTOIS
wv rov rjarpoy, OVTOJS (Iir6vros rov 'loaavvov). Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506 :
(always tv rots o\wos). Basil, Opp. iii. 12.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 217

adopts the expression thrice \ and Gregory nearly thirty-
three times as often 2 . This was also the reading of Cyril
Alex. 3 , whose usual phrase however is 6 juovoyei'?)? TOV eou
Ao'yos 4 . Didymus has only [? cp. context] 6 jLtoj/oye^s eo?,
for which he once writes 6 /xouoyeuTj? eos Ao'yos 5 . Cyril
of Jer. seems to have read 6 povoyfvr]* /*wov 6 .

[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in
the form in which the Dean left it. It evidently has not
the perfection that attends some of his papers, and would
have been amplified and improved if his life had been
spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited
to the ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the
companion volume 7 . The portentous number of mentions
by Gregory of Nyssa escaped me, though I knew that
there were several. Such repetitions of a phrase could
only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and
representative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on
our side less than the real number of such reiterations
occurring in one passage, because in course of repetition
they came to assume for such a purpose a parrot-like value.

But the most important part of the Dean's paper is
found in his account of the origin of the expression. This
inference is strongly confirmed by the employment of it

1 Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117 : and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).

2 Contra Eunom. I have noted ninety-eight places.

3 Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus: aurds yap 0os &v 6
Hovoytv/is, tv Ko\irois &v TOV Qeov xal itarpos, ravrrjv vpvs Jj^as tiroifjaaro rfjv
tfriyijatv. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John KO.I " novoytvrj Qtov "
diroKaXti TOV vlov, teal " tv KoKirois" (Ivai (prjal TOV iraTpos. But on p. 107
he speaks quite plainly: " <5 fiovoytvrjs," <prjai, " @(6s, 6 uv tls TUV KO\TTOV TOV
iraTpos, l/cefvos e^t]ff]aaTO." firtiSf) yap i<pr) " novoytvfj " Kal " Qfov," riOrjffiv
ev6vs, "o oiv tv TOIS n6\irots TOV Trarpoy." So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads
vlos in v. 365, 437 : vi. 90.

4 He uses it seventeen times in his Comm. on Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122, &c.),
and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. vi. 187). Theodoret
once adopts the phrase (Opp. v. 4).

5 De Trin. 76, 140, 372 : 27. ' P. 117.
7 Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.

2l8 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

in the Arian controversy. Arius reads eo's (ap. Epiph.
73 Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read Tio's. So
Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and
Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Can-
didus 1 . Also Athanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four
times each, and Ambrose eight (add Epp. I. xxii. 5). It
is curious that with this history admirers of B and tf
should extol their reading over the Traditional reading
on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retains
associations which cannot be ignored : in this instance some
of the orthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics 2 .
None may read Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes
them.]

All are familiar with the received text of i Cor. xv. 47 :
6 Tip&Tos av6pu>Tros (K yfjs ^ci/coV 6 bevrepos avBptoiros 6
Kvpios e ovpavov. That this place was so read in the first
age is certain : for so it stands in the Syriac. These early
heretics however of whom St. John speaks, who denied
that ' JESUS CHRIST had come in the flesh 3 ,' and who are
known to have freely f taken away from the words ' of
Scripture 4 , are found to have made themselves busy here.
If (they argued) ' the second man ' was indeed ' the Lord-
from-Heaven,' how can it be pretended that CHRIST took
upon Himself human flesh 5 ? And to bring out this
contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate
to remove as superfluous the word ' man ' in the second

1 Who quoted Arius' words : ' Subsistit ante tempora et aeones plenus Deus,
unigenilus, et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find Tischendorf s reference.

2 The reading Ttos is established by unanswerable evidence.

3 The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors of
Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic doctrine of the
Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at work when St. John
wrote his first (iv. I, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7) Epistles.

4 Rev. xxii. 19.

* 'ETmrrjoufftv f]niv ol alpfriKol \lfatTtf iSov OVK di/eXajSe frapxa o
Sfvr. -yap (frrjaiv Sv6p. 6 K. ovpavov. Chrys. iii. 114 b.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 219

clause of the sentence. There resulted, ' The first man
[was] of the earth, earthy : 6 bwrcpos Kvpios e ovpavov V
It is thus that Marcion 2 (A. D. 130) and his followers 3 read
the place. But in this subject-matter extravagance in one
direction is ever observed to beget extravagance in another.
I suspect that it was in order to counteract the ejec-
tion by the heretics of avOpairos in ver. 47, that, early in
the second century, the orthodox retaining avOpuiros,
judged it expedient to leave out the expression 6 Kvpios,
which had been so unfairly pressed against them ; and
were contented to read, 'the second man [was] from
heaven.' A calamitous exchange, truly. For first, (I),
The text thus maimed afforded countenance to another
form of misbelief. And next, (II), It necessitated a further
change in i Cor. xv. 47.

(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who main-
tained that CHRIST was ' Man ' before He came into the
World. This heresy came to a head in the persons of
Apolinarius 4 and Photinus ; in contending with whom,
Greg. Naz. 5 and Epiphanius 6 are observed to argue with
disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian 7 , and
Cyprian 8 after him, knew no other reading but ' secundus

1 TTJV 7<i/> Hard aapica ytwrjaiv rov Xpiffrov avtXtiv &ovX6[i(voi, lvr]\\aav TO,
o SevTfpos avOpaiiros' xal (Troirjaav, 6 SivTtpos Kvpios. Dial. [ap. Orig.] i. 868.
Marcion had in fact already substituted Kvpios for avOpoinos in ver. 45 : (' the
last Lord became a quickening spirit ' :) [Tertull. ii. 304] a fabricated reading
which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's followers : 6 ta\aros
Kvpios ds itv. fw. Dial, ubi supra. eSi yap avrovs, ti ft rei tvayyt\ia Iriiwv,
fj.fi itepiTip.vtiv ra tvayy(\ia, nf) fifpr] ru>v (vayye\icav fv((>t\eii', fifj (Ttpa
irpoaOfjvai, prjTf \6~yq> ; /iTyre ISia -yvw/iTj rcL tvay~ff\ia irpoaypajpftv. . . .
irpoaye-fpa<frf]Kao-i fovv off a /3el3ov\r)i'Tai, KO.I (vtpti\avTO oaa KKpt/eaa'i. Titus
of Bostra c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).

2 Tertull. ii. 304, (Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de
Caelo}.

3 Dial. [Orig. i.] 868, (6 Sfvrfpos Kvpios If ovpavov}.

* To Se ttavTcav \a\enuraTOV tv rais fKKXijaiaaTiicais avptyopais, rj TUJV 'Arro-
\ivapiarojv karl irapprjaia. Greg. Naz. ii. 167.

6 ii. 168, a very interesting place. See also p. 87.

6 i. 831. 7 " 443, S3 1 -

8 Pp. 1 80, 209, 260, 289, 307 (frtmus homo de terrae limo, Sec.).

220 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

homo de Caelo,' which is in fact the way this place stands
in the Old Latin. And thus, from the second century
downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text was
speedily forgotten) became current in the Church : (i)
The inspired language of the Apostle, cited at the outset,
which is retained by all the known copies, except nine ; and
is vouched for by Basil \ Chrysostom 2 , Theodotus 3 ,
Eutherius 4 , Theodorus Mops. 5 , Damascene 6 , Petrus
Siculus 7 , and Theophylact 8 : and (2) The corrected (i.e.
the maimed) text of the orthodox ; 6 Seurepos' avOponros
e ovpavov : with which, besides the two Gregories 9 ,
Photinus 10 and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted ;
but which at this day is only known to survive in
N*BCD*EFG and two cursive copies. Origen 11 , and
(long after him) Cyril, employed both readings 12 .

(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition
of the text was intolerable. The balance of the sentence had
been destroyed. Against 6 Trpwros ayfyxoTro?, St. Paul had
set 6 bevrepos av6pu>Tros : against e/c yrjs e ovpavov : against
Xoi'/co? 6 Kvpios. Remove o Kvpto?, and some substitute for it
must be invented as a counterpoise to X<HKO'S. Taking a hint
from what is found in ver. 48, some one (plausibly enough,)
suggested (irovpa.vi.os : and this gloss so effectually recom-

I HI. 40.

a iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has 6 SeuV. av6p.
ovpavios l ovpavov.

3 iv. 1051. * Ap. Thdt. v. 1135.

5 Ap. Galland. viii. 626, 627.

6 i. 222 (where for avOp. he reads 'A5a/t), 563. Also ii. 120, 346.

7 ' Adversus Manichaeos,' ap. Mai, iv. 68, 69.

* ii. 228 : oi>x on 6 avOpcairos, T\TOI TO dvOpuirivov irpoff^TjufM, If ovpavov qv,
us o a<ppa>v 'Airo\tvapios i\T)pft.

9 Naz. ii. 87 ( = Thdt. iv. 62), 168. Nyss. ii. n.

10 Ap. Epiphan. i. 830.

II 559 (with the Text Recept.) : iv. 302 not.

n Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. ed.
Fabr. ii. 30: ed. Lagarde, 138. 15 : ed. Galland. ii. 483.) Neither may the
expression rov Stvrtpov ( ovpavov avGpojirov in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell.
Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 221

mended itself to Western Christendom, that having been
adopted by Ambrose 1 , by Jerome 2 (and later by Augus-
tine 3 ,) it established itself in the Vulgate 4 , and is found
in all the later Latin writers 5 . Thus then, a third rival
reading enters the field, which because it has well-
nigh disappeared from Greek MSS., no longer finds an
advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two
former: viz. (a) the received, which is the only well-
attested reading of the place : and (b] the maimed text
of the Old Latin, which Jerome deliberately rejected (A. D.
380), and for which he substituted another even worse
attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabrica-
tions effectually dispose of one another.) It should be
added that Athanasius 6 lends his countenance to all the
three readings.

But now, let me ask, Will any one be disposed, after
a careful survey of the premisses, to accept the verdict of
Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, who are for bringing the
Church back to the maimed text of which I began by giving
the history and explaining the origin ? Let it be noted
that the one question is, shall 6 Kvpios be retained in the

1 Primus homo de terra, terrenus : secundus homo de caelo caelestis.i. 1168,
1363 : ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437.

2 ii. 298 : iv. 930 : vii. 296.

* The places are given by Sabatier in loc.

* Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this reading
appear in Orig. interp. ii. 84, 85 : iii. 951 : iv. 546.

* As Philastrius (ap. Galland. vii. 492, 516). Pacianus (ib. 275).
Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664). Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But see the end
of the next ensuing note.

6 Vol. i. p. 1275, o Sfvrepos av6p. o Kvptos If ovpavov ovpdvios : on which
he remarks, (if indeed it be he), ISov yap an<porepcaOev ovpavios avOpainos ovopa-
erat. And lower down, Kv/xos, 5td rrjv fuav vir6<JTaatv ofvr. piv avOp., Kara.
TT)I/ lvcau.tvr]v dvOpojiroTrjra. if ovpavov S(, Kara rty OeorrjTa. P. 448, 6 Sev-
rtpos avOp. If ovpavov t-rrovpavtos. Ap. Montf. ii. 13 (- Galland. v. 167), o
otvr. avOp. If ovpavov. Note that Maximinus, an Arian bishop, A.D. 427-8
(ap. Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have possessed a text identical with the
first of the preceding : ' Ait ipse Paulus, Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus,
secundus homo Dominus de Caelo caelestis advenit."

222 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty
years of the death of St. John : and there it stands, at the
end of eighteen centuries in every extant copy (including
AKLP) except nine. It has been excellently witnessed to
all down the ages, viz. By Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius,
Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodore
Mops., Damascene and others. On what principle would
you now reject it ? ... With critics who assume that a
reading found in NBCDEFG must needs be genuine, it
is vain to argue. And yet the most robust faith ought to
be effectually shaken by the discovery that four, if not five
(NACFG) of these same MSS., by reading ' we shall all
sleep ; but we shall not all be changed,' contradict St. Paul's
solemn announcement in ver. 51 : while a sixth (D) stands
alone in substituting ' we shall all rise ; but we shall not
all be changed.' In this very verse, C is for introducing
'Abdn into the first clause of the sentence : FG, for sub-
joining 6 ot/porio?. When will men believe that guides like
these are to be entertained with habitual distrust? to
be listened to with the greatest caution? to be followed,
for their own sakes, never ?

I have been the fuller on this place, because it affords
an instructive example of what has occasionally befallen
the words of Scripture. Very seldom indeed are we able to
handle a text in this way. Only when the heretics assailed,
did the orthodox defend : whereby it came to pass that
a record was preserved of how the text was read by the
ancient Father. The attentive reader will note (a) That
all the changes which we have been considering belong to
the earliest age of all : (b) That the corrupt reading is
retained by NBC and their following : the genuine text,
in the great bulk of the copies : (c] That the first mention
of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic :
(d) That [the orthodox introduced a change in the in-
terests, as they fancied, of truth, but from utter misap-

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 223

prehension of the nature and authority of the Word of
God: and (e) that under the Divine Providence that
change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive witness
is found on the other side].

Closely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred
to in connexion with it by those Fathers who undertook
to refute the heresy of Apolinarius, is our LORD'S declara-
tion to Nicodemus, ' No man hath ascended up to heaven,
but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man
which is in heaven' (St. John iii. 13). CHRIST 'came
down from heaven ' when He became incarnate : and
having become incarnate, is said to have ' ascended up to
Heaven,' and 'to be in Heaven,' because ' the Son of Man,'
who was not in heaven before, by virtue of the hypostatical
union was thenceforward evermore ' in heaven. 5 But the
Evangelist's language was very differently taken by those
heretics who systematically 'maimed and misinterpreted
that which belongeth to the human nature of CHRIST.'
Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found
to have read it without the final clause (6 a>v tv TO> ovpavu) ;
and certain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyssa,
Epiphanius, while contending with him,) shew them-
selves not unwilling to argue from the text so mutilated.
Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebius
twice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off
at the words ' even the Son of Man ' : from which it is
insecurely gathered that those Fathers disallowed the
clause which follows. On the other hand, thirty-eight
Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of the
words 6 &v fv TW ovpavy l . But the decisive circumstance
is that, besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which

1 See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5 : and The Traditional Text, p. 114.

224 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

all witness to the existence of the clause, the whole body
of the uncials, four only excepted (KBLT b ), and every
known cursive but one (33) are for retaining it.

No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the
foregoing without inferring from the facts which have
emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of
depravations of the inspired verity. For let me not be
supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was
the work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably
older by at least 150 years. Apolinarius, in whose person
the heresy which bears his name came to a head, did but
inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error ; and these
had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of
the deposit.

The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by
inviting the reader's attention to another famous place.
There is a singular consent among the Critics for eliminating
from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four words which embody
two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire
context is as follows : ' Lord, wilt thou that we command
fire to come down from heaven and consume them, (as
Elias did) ? But he turned, and rebuked them, (and said,
Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.) (For the
Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save
them.) And they went to another village.' The three
bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in
dispute.

The first of these clauses (s KOL 'HAtas e7roi?j<re), which
claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James,
Mill rejected as an obvious interpolation. ' Res ipsa clamat.

1 This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is
therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 225

Quis enim sanus tarn insignia deleverit 1 ?' Griesbach
retained it as probably genuine. The second clause (icol
etrep, Owe oZ&arc otov Trvtvparos lore vym?) he obelized as
probably not genuine : the third (6 yap vibs TOU av6p<*Ttov
OVK fj\d( ifaxas ar<?p*7<up chroAeVcu, aAAa <r&rcu) he rejected
entirely. Lachmann also retains the first clause, but
rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving,
does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any mis-
giving about the third clause, are 'morally certain' that
the first and second clauses are a Western interpolation.
Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They agree, and
the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the
three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.
Kvpte, dfXfts cfeco/ur vvp KdTafiijvai OTTO rou ovpavov, KOI
GU'oAwcrat avrovy ; orpcu^eiy 2e irerifZTj<ra> avroij. KOL evopev-
Oijcrav (Is fTfpav KW/ZTJZ-.

Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd.
tf BLE 1 g 1 Cyr 1 "* , two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the
Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only
authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text
[in all its bare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed
the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including
ACD ; every known lectionary ; all the Latin, the Syriac
(Cur. om. Clause i), and indeed every other known
version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning

1 Proleg. 418.

* The text of St. Lukeix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 353)
is the text of B and K, an important testimony to what I suppose may be
regarded as the Alexandrine Texlus Keceptus of this place in the fifth century.
But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings
of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse ; and discover
that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He
has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood
in the original text : ei&tvcu yap xf"l> Ti *" f jt ^ rtu "^ v * as Kflc P arr l lc ^ Tft
XapiTOS, dAX' Ti TTP rportpas ixo/icrot awrflfUK, TOVTO tlvov, irpos "HXiav
d4opivT -rfc rvpi KaT<vp\ffayra Sis roils wTi7*ora ai TOVS ^yow/iA-ovi
OV-TOTV. (Cramer's Cat ii. p. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei.
N. T. in loc., pp. 323-4.) Now the man who wrote that, must surely have
read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as we do.
II. Q

224 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

all witness to the existence of the clause, the whole body
of the uncials, four only excepted (NBLT b ), and every
known cursive but one (33) are for retaining it.

The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by
inviting the reader's attention to another famous place.
There is a singular consent among the Critics for eliminating
from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four words which embody
two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire
context is as follows :- ' Lord, wilt thou that we command
fire to come down from heaven and consume them, (as
Elias did)? But he turned, and rebuked them, (and said,
Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.) (For the
Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save
them.) And they went to another village.' The three
bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in
dispute.

The first of these clauses (ws xal 'HXias eiroiTjo-e), which
claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James,
Mill rejected as an obvious interpolation. ' Res ipsa clamat.

1 This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is
therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 225

Quis enim sanus tarn insignia deleverit 1 ?' Griesbach
retained it as probably genuine. The second clause (KCU
(iTtfv, OVK oiSare olov Trvev^aros core v^cis) he obelized as
probably not genuine : the third (6 yap vlbs TOV avdpuirov
OVK fade \l/v\as avdptoiraiv aTroAeVat, oAAa crcSo-ai) he rejected
entirely. Lachmann also retains the first clause, but
rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving,
does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any mis-
giving about the third clause, are 'morally certain' that
the first and second clauses are a Western interpolation.
Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They agree, and
the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the
three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.
Kvpie, fle'Aet? enroo^ey irSp Kara^vai euro roC ovpavov, KOL
avaXSxrai avrovs ; orpa</>eis 8e eTreri/irjo-ei' avrois. KOI eiropeu-
drjcrav fls erepaz; K(a^rjv.

Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd.
tfBLS 1 g 1 Cyr lac 2 , two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the
Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only
authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text
[in all its bare c rudeness]. Against them are arrayed
the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including
ACD ; every known lectionary ; all the Latin, the Syriac
(Cur. om. Clause i), and indeed every other known
version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning

1 Proleg. 418.

2 The text of St. Lukeix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 253)
is the text of B and N, an important testimony to what I suppose may be
regarded as the Alexandrine Textus Receptus of this place in the fifth century.
But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings
of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse ; and discover
that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He
has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood
in the original text : dStvai yap xfh> Tt &* /wjirw rfjs vlas KfitpanjieoTtt
XapiTOS, d\X' en TTJS TrpoTfpas exopfvoi avvtjOeias, rovro tTirov, irpos 'HXiav
acjjopuvres rbv irvpl Kara(p\t^avTa 5h rovs -ntv-rljicovTa Kal rovs fflovpivovs
avrojv. (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei.
N. T. in loc., pp. 223-4.) Now the man who wrote that, must surely have
read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as we do.

II. Q

226 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

with Clemens Alex. (A.D. 190), and five Latin Fathers
beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190): Cyprian's testi-
mony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of
Carthage, A.D. 253. If on a survey of this body of evidence
any one will gravely tell me that the preponderance of
authority still seems to him to be in favour of the shorter
reason, I can but suggest that the sooner he communicates
to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better.

(i) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider
the disputed clauses separately, because ancient authori-
ties, rivalling modern critics, are unable to agree as to
which they will reject, which they will retain. I begin with
the second. What persuades so many critics to omit the
precious words *cal elirfv, OVK olbare otou irvevp-aros core
T^eis. is the discovery that these words are absent from
many uncial MSS.,- KABC and nine others ; besides, as
might have been confidently anticipated from that fact,
also from a fair proportion of the cursive copies. It is
impossible to deny that prima facie such an amount of
evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedingly
weighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the
passage in the same curt way. Cyril, on the other hand,
seems to have read it differently.

And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed
the instant it is perceived that this disputed clause is recog-
nized by Clemens x (A.D. 190) ; as well as by the Old Latin,
by the Peshitto, and by the Curetonian Syriac : for the fact
is thus established that as well in Eastern as in Western
Christendom the words under discussion were actually
recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before
the oldest of the extant uncials came into existence.
When it is further found that (besides Ambrose, Jerome,
Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old Egyptian, the Harkleian

1 See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019 : also Galland. ii. 157.
First in Hippoljt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 227

Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the words in
question ; and especially that Chrysostom in four places,
Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides
Antiochus, familiarly quote them, it is evident that the
testimony of antiquity in their favour is even overwhelming.
Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginning with D) the
words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and
that they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive
copies, (only six out of the twenty which Scrivener has
collated being without them.) and it is plain that at least
five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied.

(2) The third clause (6 yap vlbs TOV avOpdnrov OVK fjA#e
\l/v\as avdp<i>iT(i)v diroAeo-ai, dX\a o-cocrai) rests on precisely the
same solid evidence as the second ; except that the testi-
mony of Clemens is no longer available, but only because
his quotation does not extend so far. Cod. D also omits
this third clause ; which on the other hand is upheld by
Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf suggests
that it has surreptitiously found its way into the text from
St. Luke xix. 10, or St. Matt, xviii. n. But this is impos-
sible ; simply because what is found in those two places is
essentially different : namely, ??A0 yap 6 vios TOV avdpvTTov
{rjrT/crai /cat l troocrai TO cbroAcoAo's.

(3 ) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt
an illustration is here afforded of the amount of consensus
which subsists between documents of the oldest class. This
divergence becomes most conspicuous when we direct our
attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost clause
of the three, ws KCU 'HAias firoirja-fv : for here we make the
notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty,
but also different. Codexes B and K are now forsaken by
all their former allies except LH and a single cursive copy.
True, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the
Vulgate and two copies of the Old Latin. But this time

1 In St. Matt, xviii. II, the words frrriaai KCU do not occur.
Q2

228 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

they find themselves confronted by Codexes ACD with
thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the cursives ;
the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions ; by
Clemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In
respect of antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, they
are therefore hopelessly outvoted.

Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and
depravation of Codexes NABC(D) come about ? I answer
as follows :

It was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that
the Law and the Gospel are at variance. In order to
establish this, Marcion (in a work called Antitheses) set
passages of the New Testament against passages of the
Old ; from the seeming disagreement between which his
followers were taught to infer that the Law and the Gospel
cannot have proceeded from one and the same author 1 .
Now here was a place exactly suited to his purpose. The
God of the Old Testament had twice sent down fire from
heaven to consume fifty men. But ' the Son of Man,' said
our Saviour, when invited to do the like, ' came not to
destroy men's lives but to save them.' Accordingly,
Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion, refuting
this teaching, acquaints us that one of Marcion's ' Con-
trasts' was Elijah's severity in calling down fire from
Heaven, and the gentleness of CHRIST. ' I acknowledge
the severity of the judge,' Tertullian replies ; ' but I recog-
nize the same severity on the part of CHRIST towards His
Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar
calamity on a Samaritan village V From all of which it

1 Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 468. ' Agnosco iudicis severitatero. E contrario
Christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipnlos super ilium viculum
Samaritarum.' Marc. iv. 23 (see ii. p. 221). He adds, 'Let Marcion also
confess that by the same terribly severe judge Christ's leniency was foretold ; '
and he cites in proof Is. xlii. 2 and i Kings xix. 1 2 (' sed in spiriiu miti ').

a Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And he
discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 1 39.

Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 229

is plain that within seventy years of the time when the
Gospel was published, the text of St. Luke ix. 54-6 stood
very much as at present.

But then it is further discovered that at the same remote
period (about A.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much
fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel. The Manichaean
heretics pressed believers with it l . The disciples' appeal
to the example of Elijah, and the reproof they incurred,
became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be
foreseen. With commendable solicitude for GOD'S honour,
but through mistaken piety, certain of the orthodox (with-
out suspicion of the evil they were committing) were so
ill-advised as to erase from their copies the twenty-four
words which had been turned to mischievous account as
well as to cause copies to be made of the books so
mutilated: and behold, at the end of 1,700 years, the
calamitous result !

Of these three clauses then, which are closely inter-
dependent, and as Tischendorf admits 2 must all three stand
or all three fall together, the first is found with ACD, the Old
Latin, Peshitto, Clement, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, not
with NB the Vulgate or Curetonian. The second and third
clauses are found with Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Hark-
leian,six Greek and five Latin Fathers, not with NABCD.

same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it, ' ubi de utroque Testamento
velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate, velut inde
ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero.' Cerdon
was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion
his pupil, then Apelles, and then Patricius.

1 Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (ap. Galland. v. 329 b), leaving others to
note the correspondences between the New and the Old Testament, proposes to
handle the ' Contrasts ' : uy>ds avray ras avTiOeads r!av \oyiaiv xvri ff0) P fv - At
PP- 339 e > 34 *, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of
fire from heaven.

2 Verba wy teat 'H. (iroirjaf cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolator!
debentur quae verba arp. Si fireri. aiirots excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod
testium additamentum 6 yap vlos, &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nee per
se solum pro spurio haberi potest ; cohaeret enim cum argumento turn auctori-
tate arctissime cum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544-)

230 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

While K and B are alone in refusing to recognize either
first, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of
that ' singular agreement ' which is sometimes said to
subsist between 'the lesser group of witnesses.' Is it not
plain on the contrary that at a very remote period there
existed a fierce conflict, and consequent hopeless divergence
of testimony about the present passage ; of which 1,700
years 1 have failed to obliterate the traces? Had NB been
our only ancient guides, it might of course have been con-
tended that there has been no act of spoliation committed :
but seeing that one half of the missing treasure is found
with their allies, ACD, Clement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril,
Jerome, the other half with their allies, Old Latin,
Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Didymus,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augus-
tine -, it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be
set up.

1 Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circumferri
consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)

3 The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or
strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the
last.

Jerome. Apostoli in Lege versati . . . ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, et imitari
Eliam, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum venerat, sed ad salvandum, &c.
. . . increpat eos quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae,
&c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)

Cyprian, Synodical Epistle. 'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum
perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. A.D. 253.

Tatian. Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Cam. c. 12 et 10: and
Anim. c. 13.)

Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the
words twice, x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.

Kcu 6 Ku/xos irpos rovs anoffTokovs dnovras \v irvpl itoKaaai roi/s fifj St^afjityovs
auTous Kara r6i> 'HAi'av OVK oiSarf <f>t]ffl iroiov Tn>(VfMT6s tare. (p. 1019.)

Theodoret, iii. 1119. (iroiov.)

Epiph. ii. 31. (oiou.)

Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.

Augustine. Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii
essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b. Cp. iii. (2),
I94b.

Cyril Al. M^TTOI TTJS vias KfKpaTrjKuTts xapiTos . . . rovro flirov, rov 'H\iav
d(j>i>pS>VTfs rov irvpl K.T.\. Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017.

CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 231

The endeavour to establish agreement among the wit-
nesses by a skilful distribution or rather dislocation of
their evidence, a favourite device with the Critics, involves
a fallacy which in any other subject would be denied a place.
I trust that henceforth St. Luke ix. 54-6 will be left in
undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text, to
which it has an undoubted right.

A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be
explained further how it has come to pass that the evidence
for omitting the first clause and the two last is so unequally
divided ? I answer, the disparity is due to the influence of
the Lectionaries.

Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical
Lection which used to begin either at St. Luke ix. 44, or
else at verse 49 and to extend down to the end of verse 56 l ,
ended thus, o>s nal 'HAi'as eTroiqo-e ; orpa^eis 8e eTren'/^crei'
avroi?. Kal fTtopfv6r]<Tav ets kr&pav K.u>p]v z . It was the Lection
for Thursday in the fifth week of the new year ; and as the
reader sees, it omitted the two last clauses exactly as
Codd. NABC do. Another Ecclesiastical Lection began
at verse 51 and extended down to verse 57, and is found to
have contained the two last clauses 3 . I wish therefore
to inquire .-May it not fairly be presumed that it is the
Lectionary practice of the primitive age which has led to
the irregularity in this perturbation of the sacred Text ?

By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew :
but this is enough to shew that he admits that some reproof finds record in the
Gospel.

Chrys. vii. 567 e : x. 305 d : vii. 346 a : ix. 677 c.

Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.

Didymus. OVK oiSarf oiov irvfVfjiaTos kanv o vlos rov dvOptuirov. De Trin.
p. 1 88.

1 Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c) : Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).

2 See Matthaei, N. T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.

3 [I have been unable to discover this Lection.]

APPENDIX I.

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA.

I HAVE purposely reserved for the last the most difficult
problem of all : viz. those twelve famous verses of
St. John's Gospel (chap. vii. 53 to viii. n) which contain
the history of ' the woman taken in adultery,' the pericope
de adnltera, as it is called. Altogether indispensable is it
that the reader should approach this portion of the Gospel
with the greatest amount of experience and the largest
preparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he
could further divest himself of prejudice ; but that is
perhaps impossible. Let him at least endeavour to weigh
the evidence which shall now be laid before him in
impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would
judge rightly : for the matter to be discussed is confessedly
very peculiar : in some respects, even unique. Let me
convince him at once of the truth of what has been so far
spoken.

It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen
centuries two instances, and but two, should exist of a con-
siderable portion of Scripture left to the mercy, so to
speak, of ' Textual Criticism.' Twelve consecutive Verses
in the second Gospel as many consecutive Verses in the
fourth are in this predicament. It is singular, I say,
that the Providence which has watched so marvellously
over the fortunes of the^ Deposit, the Divine Wisdom

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 233

which has made such ample provision for its security all
down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that
these two co-extensive problems have survived to our
times to be tests of human sagacity, trials of human
faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features
of correspondence, but far more of contrast, as will
presently appear. And yet the most important circum-
stance of all cannot be too soon mentioned : viz. that
both alike have experienced the same calamitous treatment
at the hands of some critics. By common consent the
most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can
have formed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the
hands of its inspired author. How mistaken is this
opinion of theirs in respect of the ' Last twelve verses
of the Gospel according to St. Mark,' has been already
demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content
in this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with
the hostile verdict qf many critics concerning St. John
vii. 53-viii. u. That I shall be able to satisfy those
persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was
offered concerning St. Mark's last twelve verses, I am not
so simple as to expect. But I trust that I shall have with
me all candid readers who are capable of weighing evidence
impartially, and understanding the nature of logical proof,
when it is fully drawn out before them, which indeed is
the very qualification that I require of them.

And first, the case of the pericope de adultera requires
to be placed before the reader in its true bearings. For
those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have
ignored certain preliminary considerations which, once
clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of the point at
issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the
way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred
narrative from the context in which it stands, which they
seem to have overlooked. I proceed to explain.

234 APPENDIX I.

Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the
fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof
rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness
of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question
before us is not by any means, Shall these Twelve Verses
be admitted or, Must they be refused admission into the
Sacred Text ? That point has been settled long, long ago.
St. John's Twelve verses are in possession. Let those
eject them who can. They are known to have occupied
their present position for full seventeen hundred years.
There never was a time as far as is known when they
were not where, and to all intents and purposes what
they now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary
method of proof, no merely common argument, will
avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?

' Twelve such Verses,' I say. For it is the extent of
the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable.
We have here to do with no dubious clause, concerning
which ancient testimony is divided ; no seeming gloss,
which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits,
and to have crept in as from the margin ; no importation
from another Gospel ; no verse of Scripture which has lost
its way ; no weak amplification of the Evangelical meaning ;
no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the narrative and
almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were
some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was
proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed
by a vast amount of ancient evidence, the proceeding
would be intelligible. But I take leave to point out that
a highly complex and very important incident as related
in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel cannot be so
dealt with. Squatters on the waste are liable at any
moment to be served with a notice of ejectment : but the
owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his
ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy,

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 235

may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary
process. This to speak without a figure is a connected
and very striking portion of the sacred narrative: the
description of a considerable incident, complete in itself, full
of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would have
ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it success-
fully must come forward with weapons of a very different
kind from those usually employed in textual warfare.

It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses
hold their actual place by a more extraordinary right of
tenure than any other twelve verses which can be named
in the Gospel : but it would be premature to enter upon
the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the
reader's attention, next to the actual texture of the pericope
de adidtera, by which name (as already explained) the
last verse of St. John vii. together with verses I-IT of ch.
viii. are familiarly designated. Although external testimony
supplies the sole proof of genuineness, it is nevertheless
reasonable to inquire what the verses in question may have
to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front the
tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so
confidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on
the contrary, unmistakably bear the impress of Truth?

The first thing which strikes me in them is that the
actual narrative concerning ' the woman taken in adultery '
is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses : being
preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different
character and complexion. Let these be first produced
and studied :

' and every man went to his own house : but JESUS went to the
Mount of Olives.' 'And again, very early in the morningj He
presented Himself in the Temple ; and all the people came unto
Him : and He sat down and taught them.'

Now as every one must see, the former of these two
paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end

236 APPENDIX I.

of a narrative. It purports to be the conclusion of some-
thing which went before, not to introduce something which
comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John's
account of what occurred at the close of the debate between
certain members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his
history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The
verse in question marks the conclusion of the Feast,
implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it,
and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and
all proceeds methodically ; while an affecting contrast is
established, which is recognized to be strictly in the
manner of Scripture l . Each one had gone to his home :
but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of Olives.
In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found
to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent nar-
rative : proves to be a fragment of what is universally
admitted to be genuine Scripture. By consequence, itself
must needs be genuine also 2 .

It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses
are in the same predicament as those which follow : are as
ill supported by MS. evidence as the other ten : and must
therefore share the same fate as the rest. The statement
is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be shewn.
But, what is even better deserving of attention, since con-
fessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to
fall together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever
begets a suspicion that certain of them, at all events, must

1 Compare I Sam. xxiv. 22 : ' And Saul went home : but David and his
men gat them up into the hold.' \ Kings xviii. 42 : ' So Ahab went up to eat
and to drink : and Elijah went up to the top of Car me I, and he cast himself
down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees. 1 Esther iii. 15 :
'And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was
perplexed.' Such are the idioms of the Bible.

a Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it, remarks that
our LORD'S words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a viaticum which all
might take home with them, at the close of this, ' the last, the great day of
the feast.'

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 237

needs be genuine, throws real doubt on the justice of the
sentence of condemnation which has been passed in a lump
upon all the rest.

I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient
circumstance which some Critics in their eagerness have
overlooked.

The reader will bear in mind that contending, as I do,
that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine
Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its
lawful context, I began by examining the upper ex-
tremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any
traces of being a fractured edge. The result is just what
might have been anticipated. The first two of the verses
which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found
to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine
Scripture. How then about the other extremity ?

Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and N immediate
transition is made from the words ' out of Galilee ariseth
no prophet,' in ch. vii. 52, to the words ' Again therefore
JESUS spake unto them, saying,' in ch. viii. 12. And we
are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe
that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the
Evangelist.

But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is
contained between ch. vii. 37 and 52, and note (a) That
two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42) :
(b] That some were for laying violent hands on our LORD
(ver. 44) : (c] That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in
debate, were reproaching their servants for not having
brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another 1
(ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,

1 So Eusebius : "Ore KO.TCL T& aM awa\OivTes ol ruiv 'lovSaicav tdvovs
dpxovTfs M rffs 'ItpovvaXrifJ., aweSpiov tnoirjaavro teal aictyii> oirais ainbv
auoKtauaiV iv < ol fj.1v Qa.vo.rov aiirov Karetfij^iffavTO' trtpoi 6^ dt>T(\tjov, tls
6 Ni/ro87/>s, IC.T.\. (in Psalmos, p. 230 a).

238 APPENDIX I.

' Again therefore JESUS spake unto them, saying, I am the
light of the world ' ? What is it supposed then that
St. John meant when he wrote such words ?

But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary
copy of the New Testament, and his meaning is perfectly
clear. The last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles is
ended. It is the morrow and 'very early in the morning.'
The Holy One has ' again presented Himself in the Temple '
where on the previous night He so narrowly escaped
violence at the hands of His enemies, and He teaches the
people. While thus engaged, the time, the place, His
own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness
and love, a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and
Pharisees, enter on the foulest of errands ; and we all
remember with how little success. Such an interruption
need not have occupied much time. The Woman's ac-
cusers having departed, our SAVIOUR resumes His discourse
which had been broken off. ' Again therefore ' it is said
in ver. 12, with clear and frequent reference to what had
preceded in ver. 2 ' JESUS spake unto them, saying, I am
the light of the world.' And had not that saying of His
reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness
which His words, a few moments before, had succeeded in
dispelling, as to the orb of glory which already flooded the
Temple Court with the effulgence of its rising, His own
visible emblem and image in the Heavens ? . . . I protest
that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery,'
so introduced, so dismissed, all is lucid and coherent :
without those connecting links, the story is scarcely in-
telligible. These twelve disputed verses, so far from
' fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel, if
retained in the text Y prove to be even necessary for the

1 Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text of the
New Testament, p. xxvii.

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 239

logical coherency of the entire context in which they
stand.

But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection,
the mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its
'edifying and eminently Christian' character, vindicates
for the Pericope de adultera a right to its place in the
Gospel. Let me endeavour to explain what seems to be
its spiritual significancy: in other words, to interpret the
transaction.

The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our SAVIOUR
on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an
extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments con-
cerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical
oblivion. On the present occasion our LORD is observed
to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto un-
heard of fashion. The trial by the bitter water, or water
of conviction \ was a species of ordeal, intended for the
vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But
according to the traditional belief the test proved in-
efficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the
crime whereof he accused his wife.

Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16
to 24, be now considered. The accused Woman having
been brought near, and set before the LORD, the priest
took ' holy water in an earthen vessel,' and put ' of the dust
of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.' Then, with
the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he
charged the woman by an oath. Next, he wrote the
curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter
water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that
causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell
under a terrible penalty, her body testifying visibly to
her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed.

1 So in the LXX. See Num. v. 11-31.

240 APPENDIX I.

And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with
His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused
parties? Into the presence of incarnate JEHOVAH verily
they had been brought : and perhaps when He stooped
down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence
against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We
have but to assume some connexion between the curse
which He thus traced ' in the dust of the floor of the
tabernacle ' and the words which He uttered with His lips,
and He may with truth be declared to have ' taken of the
dust and put in on the water,' and ' caused them to drink
of the bitter water which causeth the curse.' For when, by
His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh
addressed these adulterers, what did He but present them
with living water l ' in an earthen vessel 2 ' ? Did He not
further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, ' If ye
have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this
bitter water : but if ye be defiled ' On being presented
with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out
one by one? And what else was this but their own
acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation
they shewed themselves so impatient ? Surely it was ' the
water of conviction ' (TO vba>p TOV ekeyiJ.ov) as it is six times
called, which they had been compelled to drink ; where-
upon, ' convicted (eXeyxo'/xe^oi) by their own conscience/ as
St. John relates, they had pronounced the other's acquittal.
Finally, note that by Himself declining to ' condemn ' the
accused woman, our LORD also did in effect blot out those
curses which He had already written against her in the
dust, when He made the floor of the sanctuary His
1 book.'

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition
and I am not concerned to defend it in every detail, on

1 Ver. 17. So the LXX. * 2 Cor. iv. 7 : v. i.

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 24!

turning to the opposite contention, we are struck with the
slender amount of actual proof with which the assailants
of this passage seem to be furnished. Their evidence is
mostly negative a proceeding which is constantly observed
to attend a bad cause : and they are prone to make up for
the feebleness of their facts by the strength of their asser-
tions. But my experience, as one who has given a consider-
able amount of attention to such subjects, tells me that
the narrative before us carries on its front the impress of
Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for
itself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it
cannot be the work of a fabricator. The more I study
it, the more I am impressed with its Divinity. And in
what goes before I have been trying to make the reader
a partaker of my own conviction.

To come now to particulars, we may readily see from
its very texture that it must needs have been woven in
a heavenly loom. Only too obvious is the remark that
the very subject-matter of the chief transaction recorded
in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself
to preclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are
a spurious addition to the genuine Gospel. And then we
note how entirely in St. John's manner is the little ex-
planatory clause in ver. 6, ' This they said, tempting Him,
that they might have to accuse Him 1 .' We are struck
besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the
act of writing, allusions to which, are met with in every
work of the last Evangelist 2 . It does not of course escape
us how utterly beyond the reach of a Western interpolator
would have been the insertion of the article so faithfully

1 Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. n, 28:
xxi. 19.

2 Consider ch. xix. 19, 20, 21, 22: xx. 30, 31: xxi. 24, 25.! John i. 4:
ii. i, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13. 2 John c, 12. 3 John 9, 13. Rev.
passim, especially i. u, 19: ii. I, &c. : x. 4: xiv. 13: xvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12,
15 : xxi. 5, 27 : xxii. 18, 19.

II. R

242 APPENDIX I.

retained to this hour before \tOov in ver. 7. On complet-
ing our survey, as to the assertions that the pericope de
adultera 'has no right to a place in the text of the four
Gospels,' is 'clearly a Western interpolation, though not
Western of the earliest type Y (whatever that may mean),
and so forth, we can but suspect that the authors very
imperfectly realize the difficulty of the problem with which
they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures us that ' no
accompanying marks would prevent ' this portion of Scrip-
ture 'from fatally interrupting the course of St. John's
Gospel if retained in the text ' : and when they relegate
it accordingly to a blank page at the end of the Gospels
within 'double brackets,' in order 'to shew its inferior
authority ' ; we can but read and wonder at the want of
perception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display.
Qnonsqite tandem ?

But it is time to turn from such considerations as the
foregoing, and to inquire for the direct testimony, which is
assumed by recent Editors and Critics to be fatal to these
twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it ' absolutely certain
that this narrative was not written by St. John 2 .' One,
vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener) declares
that ' on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the
passage must needs be abandoned 3 .' Tregelles is 'fully
satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's
Gospel V Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles
puts it into his footnotes. W T estcott and Hort, harsher
than any of their predecessors, will not, as we have seen,
allow it to appear even at the foot of the page. To
reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of
this precious portion of GOD'S written Word would be a
joyless and an unprofitable task. According to Green, 'the

1 Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi.

3 Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829.

3 Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364. 4 Printed Texts, 1854, p. 241.

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 243

genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained V Ham-
mond is of opinion that ' it would be more satisfactory to
separate it from its present context, and place it by itself
as an appendix to the Gospel V A yet more recent critic
' sums up,' that ' the external evidence must be held fatal to
the genuineness of the passage 3 .' The opinions of Bishops
Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully
commented upon by-and-by. In the meantime, I venture
to join issue with every one of these learned persons. I con-
tend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism the
passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scrip-
ture ; and that without a particle of doubt. I cannot even
admit that ' it has been transmitted to us under circum-
stances widely different from those connected with any
other passage of Scripture whatever 4 .' I contend that it
has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the
rest of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes
of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same
Gospel which can be named : but like countless other
places it is found for whatever reason to have given
offence in certain quarters : and in consequence has experi-
enced very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of
the moderns also : but especially of the latter. In other
words, these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of
genuineness less conspicuously than any other twelve con-
secutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The
one only question to be decided is the following: On
a review of the whole of the evidence, is it more reason-
able to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accre-
tion to the Gospel ? Or to admit that they must needs be
accounted to be genuine ? . . . I shall shew that they are
at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which is

1 Developed Criticism, p. 82. * Outlines, &c., p. 103.

s Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141.
4 Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368.

R a

244 APPENDIX I.

absolutely overwhelming. I read with satisfaction that
my own convictions were shared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler,
Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the learned Ceriani on my
side. I should have been just as confident had I stood
alone : such is the imperative strength of the evidence.

To begin then. Tischendorf (who may be taken as
a fair sample of the assailants of this passage) com-
mences by stating roundly that the Pericope is omitted
by NABCLTXA, and about seventy cursives. I will say
at once, that no sincere inquirer after truth could so state
the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A and
C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore
is it to know with certainty what they either did, or did
not, contain. But this is not merely all. I proceed to offer
a few words concerning Cod. A.

Woide, the learned and accurate l editor of the Codex
Alexandrinus, remarked (in 1785) ' Historia adulterae
videtur in hoc codice defuisse.' But this modest inference
of his, subsequent Critics have represented as an ascertained
fact, Tischendorf announces it as ' certissimum.' Let me
be allowed to investigate the problem for myself. Woide's
calculation, (which has passed unchallenged for nearly
a hundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a-
days assumed that Cod. A must have exactly resembled
Codd. NB in omitting the pericope de adultera^) was far
too roughly made to be of any critical use 2 .

Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost : viz. from the
word KaTafiaLviav in vi. 50 to the word Ae'yeis in viii. 52 :
a lacuna (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of

1 I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, an in-
telligent young American, himself a very accurate observer and a competent
judge, collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, and assured me that
he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codex and Woide's reprint.
One instance of italicism was in fact all that had been overlooked in the course
of many pages.

3 It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes. Praefat.
p. xxx, 86.

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 245

the ordinary text) of as nearly as possible 8,805 letters,
allowing for contractions, and of course not reckoning
St. John vii. 53 to viii. n. Now, in order to estimate
fairly how many letters the two lost leaves actually con-
tained, I have inquired for the sums of the letters on the
leaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately
succeeding the hiatus ; and I find them to be respectively
4,337 and 4,33 : together, 8,640 letters. But this, it will
be seen, is insufficient by 165 letters, or eight lines, for the
assumed contents of these two missing leaves. Are we
then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere a blank
space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer.
There existed, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy
of matter in at least the second of those two lost leaves.
This is proved by the circumstance that the first column
on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the unique phenomenon
of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very long lines
(containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently
no room could be found on the page which immediately
preceded. But why should there have been any redundancy
of matter at all? Something extraordinary must have
produced it. What if the Pericope de adultera, without
being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A ?
What if the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word
of St. John viii. 3, and then had suddenly checked himself?
We cannot tell what appearance St. John vii. 53-viii. n
presented in Codex A, simply because the entire leaf which
should have contained it is lost. Enough however has
been said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair
to throw NAB into one and the same category, with
a ' certissimum,' as Tischendorf does.

As for L and A, they exhibit a vacant space after
St. John vii. 52, which testifies to the consciousness of
the copyists that they were leaving out something. These
are therefore witnesses for, not witnesses against, the

246 APPENDIX I.

passage under discussion. X being a Commentary on
the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the
passage out. The only uncial MSS. therefore which simply
leave out the pericope, are the three following NBT : and
the degree of attention to which such an amount of evidence
is entitled, has been already proved to be wondrous small.
We cannot forget moreover that the two former of these
copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing alone
on a memorable occasion : they alone exhibit St. Mark's
Gospel mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses.

But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of
later date are without the pericope de adultera : that the
first Greek Father who quotes the pericope is Euthymius
in the twelfth century : that Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom,
Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew nothing of it :
and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic,
or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which
statements I remark over again that no sincere lover of
Truth, supposing him to understand the matter about
which he is disputing, could so exhibit the evidence for
this particular problem. First, because so to state it is to
misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the
articles of indictment are only half true : in fact are tintme.
But chiefly, because in the foregoing enumeration certain
considerations are actually suppressed which, had they
been fairly stated, would have been found to reverse the
issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry
in my own way.

The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly
to understand what the problem before him actually is.
Twelve verses then, which, as a matter of fact, are found
dovetailed into a certain context of St. John's Gospel, the
Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the Critics
in question prove that they must ? For unless they do,
there is no help for it but the pericope de adultera must be

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 247

left where it is. I proceed to shew first, that it is im-
possible, on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve
verses from their actual context. Next, I shall point out
that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the
assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove the
point they are intended to prove ; but admit of a sufficient
and satisfactory explanation. Thirdly, it shall be shewn
that the said explanation carries with it, and implies, a
weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in
dispute, which is absolutely overwhelming. Lastly, the
positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall
be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence,
which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal.
To some people I may seem to express myself with too
much confidence. Let it then be said once for all, that
my confidence is inspired by the strength of the argu-
ments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author
of Holy Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions,
I cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in
them.

Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition
that,

(i) These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position
which they now occupy from the earliest period to which
evidence concerning the Gospels reaches.

And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently
established by reference to the ancient Latin version of
St. John's Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second
century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not
reach. The pericope is observed to stand in situ in
Codd. b c e ff 2 g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful
survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in
the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by
himself 1 in Palestine : while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes

1 ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9.

248 APPENDIX I.

it at least nine times l ; as well as Augustine in North
Africa (396) about twice as often a . It is quoted besides
by Pacian 3 , in the north of Spain (370), by Faustus 4 the
African (400), by Rufinus 5 at Aquileia (400), by Chry-
sologus 6 at Ravenna (433), by Sedulius 7 a Scot (434).
The unknown authors of two famous treatises 8 written at
the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative.
It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457), by
Vigilius of Tapsus 9 (484) in North Africa, by Gelasius 10 ,
bp. of Rome (492), by Cassiodorus u in Southern Italy,
by Gregory the Great 12 , and by other Fathers of the
Western Church.

To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all
wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence
is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek,
from which language no one doubts that they derived

1 i. 291, 692, 707, 1367 : ii. 668, 894, 1082 : Hi. 892-3, 896-7.

2 i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii 1 . 774: iii 2 . 158, 183, 531-2 (where he quotes
the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, 466 (largely quoted), 1120:
v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places) : vi. 407, 413 : viii. 377, 574.

3 Pacian (A.D. 372) refers the Novatians to the narrative as something
which all men knew. ' Nolite in Evangelic legere quod pepercerit Dominus
etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat ? ' Pacianus, Op. Epist. iii.
Contr. Novat. (A.D. 372). Ap. Galland. vii. 267.

4 Ap. Augustin. viii. 463.

5 In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53.

6 Chrysologns, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mystically
explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. 5.

7 Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a whole
chapter to it. Ap. Galland. ix. 553 and 590.

8 ' Promiss.' De Promissionibus dimid. temp. (saec. iv). Quotes viii. 4, 5,
9. P. 2, c. 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct., De Vocatione omnium Gentium
(circa, A.D. 440), ap. Opp. Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. p. 460-1: ' Adul-
teram ex legis constitutione lapidandam . . . liberavit . . . cum executores
praecepti de conscientiis territi, trementem ream sub illius iudicio reliquis-
sent. . . . Et inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus ..." digito scribebat in
terrain," ut legem mandatorum per gratiae decreta vacuaret,' &c.

' Wrongly ascribed to Idacins.

10 Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Cone. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, n.

11 Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. n. See ii. p. 96,
3, S-^o.

12 Dialogues, xiv. 15.

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 249

their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we
are not left to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight
copies of the Bohairic version the pericope de adultera is
read in fifteen, but in three forms which will be printed
in the Oxford edition. In the remaining twenty-three, it is
left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage is thus
found in nearly half the copies except on the hypothesis
that they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version ?
They might have been easily omitted : but how could they
have been inserted ?

Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century), the
Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century),
the Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century), to say
nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which
are of later date, all contain the portion of narrative in
dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century)
originally contained it ; though it survives at present in
only a few copies. Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it
will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this
portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times.

But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with
Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than
B and tf), expressly relates (380) that the pericope de
adultera ' is found in many copies both Greek and Latin 1 .'
He calls attention to the fact that what is rendered ' sine
peccato' is cbajuaprijToj in the Greek: and lets fall an
exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with
copies which exhibited (in ver. 8) cypafav evos eKaorou avrcav
ras a/xaprtav, a reading which survives to this day in one
uncial (U) and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth
Gospel 2 . Whence is it let me ask in passing that so

1 ii. 748 : In evangelic secundum loannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis
codicihus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum.

2 fvos tKCLffrov ainuiv ras apaprias. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64, 73, 100, 122, 127,
142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736.

250 APPENDIX I.

many Critics fail to see that positive testimony like the
foregoing far outweighs the adverse negative testimony of
NBT, aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on
this point ? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes,
tf and B, have obtained such a mastery rather exercise
such a tyranny over the imagination of many Critics as
quite to overpower their practical judgement? We have
at all events established our first proposition: viz. that
from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the
incident of ' the woman taken in adultery ' occupied its
present place in St. John's Gospel. The Critics eagerly
remind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the
verses in question are found tacked on to the end of
St. Luke xxi. But have they then forgotten that ' these
four Codexes are derived from a common archetype,' and
therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may
add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that
in the same four Codexes [commonly called the Ferrar
Group] ' the agony and bloody sweat ' (St. Luke xxii. 43,
44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel between
ch. xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of
a solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the
proper place of these or of those verses than the super-
fluous digits of a certain man of Gath avail to disturb the
induction that to either hand of a human being appertain
but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes.

It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony
reaches the passage under discussion stood where it now
stands in St. John's Gospel. And this is my first position.
But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one has seriously
called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except
Dr. Hort l ) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest
antiquity. Adverse Critics do but insist that however
ancient, it must needs be of spurious origin : or else that

1 Appendix, p. 88.

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 251

it is an afterthought of the Evangelist : concerning both
which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by-
and-by.

It clearly follows, indeed it may be said with truth that
it only remains, to inquire what may have led to its so
frequent exclusion from the sacred Text ? For really the
difficulty has already resolved itself into that.

And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In
the earliest age of all, the age which was familiar with
the universal decay of heathen virtue, but which had not
yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to fashion society
afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and more
enduring basis ; at a time when the greatest laxity of
morals prevailed, and the enemies of the Gospel were
known to be on the look out for grounds of cavil against
Christianity and its Author; what wonder if some were
found to remove the pericope de adultera from their
copies, lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches
of the seventh commandment? The very subject-matter,
I say, of St. John viii. 3-11 would sufficiently account for
the occasional omission of those nine verses. Moral con-
siderations abundantly explain what is found to have here
and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere con-
jecture of my own. It is the reason assigned by Augustine
for the erasure of these twelve verses from many copies
of the Gospel J . Ambrose, a quarter of a century earlier,
had clearly intimated that danger was popularly appre-

i v i. 407 : Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli
modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentes peccandi impuni-
tatem dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus
fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui
dixit, 'lam deinceps noli peccare;' aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo
illius peccati remissioue sanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. adult, ii.
cap. 7. i. 707 : Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit impends
Evangelii lectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Chnsto
oblatam, eamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis ea auribus
accipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deus censuerit
adulterium non esse damnandutn.

252 APPENDIX I.

bended from this quarter l : while Nicon, five centuries
later, states plainly that the mischievous tendency of
the narrative was the cause why it had been expunged
from the Armenian version 2 . Accordingly, just a few
Greek copies are still to be found mutilated in respect
of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications
are not a few that all the twelve verses under discussion
did not by any means labour under the same degree
of disrepute. The first three (as I shewed at the out-
set) clearly belong to a different category from the
last nine, a circumstance which has been too much
overlooked.

The Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had
made choice of St. John vii. 37-viii. 12 the greater part of
which is clearly descriptive of what happened at the Feast
of Tabernacles for her Pentecostal lesson : and judged it
expedient, besides omitting as inappropriate to the occasion
the incident of the woman taken in adultery, to ignore also
the three preceding verses ; making the severance begin,
in fact, as far back as the end of ch