Skip to main content

Full text of "The traditional text of the Holy Gospels vindicated and established"

See other formats






Tolc 'Api'oic ew Xpicrto MHCOY 

PHIL. i. i 


















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

CAVE'S Proleg. p. xliv. 

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

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


THE death of Dean Burgon in 1888, lamented 
by a large number of people on the other side 
of the Atlantic as well as on this, cut him off 
in the early part of a task for which he had 
made preparations during more than thirty years. 
He laid the foundations of his system with 
much care and caution, discussing it with his 
friends, such as the late Earl of Selborne to whom 
he inscribed The Last Twelve Verses, and the 
present Earl of Cranbrook to whom he dedicated 
The Revision Revised, for the purpose of sounding 
the depths of the subject, and of being sure that 
he was resting upon firm rock. In order to enlarge 
the general basis of Sacred Textual Criticism, 
and to treat of the principles of it scientifically 
and comprehensively, he examined manuscripts 
widely, making many discoveries at home and 
in foreign libraries ; collated some himself and 
got many collated by other scholars ; encour- 
aged new and critical editions of some of the 
chief Versions ; and above all, he devised and 
superintended a collection of quotations from the 
New Testament to be found in the works of the 
Fathers and in other ecclesiastical writings, going 



far beyond ordinary indexes, which may be found 
in sixteen thick volumes amongst the treasures of 
the British Museum. Various events led him 
during his life-time to dip into and publish some 
of his stores, such as in his Last Twelve Verses 
of St. Mark, his famous Letters to Dr. Scrivener 
in the Guardian Newspaper, and in The Revision 
Revised. But he sedulously amassed materials for 
the greater treatise up to the time of his death. 

He was then deeply impressed with the incom- 
plete state of his documents ; and gave positive 
instructions solely for the publication of his Text 
of the Gospels as marked in the margin of one 
of Scrivener's editions of the New Testament, of 
his disquisition on ' honeycomb ' which as exhibiting 
a specimen of his admirable method of criticism 
will be found in Appendix I of this volume, and 
perhaps of that on ogos in Appendix II, leaving 
the entire question as to publishing the rest to 
his nephew, the Rev. W. F. Rose, with the help of 
myself, if I would undertake the editing required, 
and of others. 

The separate papers, which were committed to 
my charge in February, 1889, were contained in 
forty portfolios, and according to my catalogue 
amounted to 2,383. They were grouped under 
various headings, and some were placed in one 
set as ' Introductory Matter' ready for the printer. 
Most had been copied out in a clear hand, especially 
by *M. W.' mentioned in the Preface of the Revision 
Revised, to whom also I am greatly indebted for 
copying others. The papers were of lengths varying 
from fourteen pages or more down to a single 


sentence or a single reference. Some were almost 
duplicates, and a very few similarly triplicates. 

After cataloguing, I reported to Mr. Rose, sug- 
gesting a choice between three plans, viz., 

1. Publishing separately according to the Dean's 
instructions such papers as were judged to be fit 
for publication, and leaving the rest : 

2. To put together a Work on the Principles of 
Textual Criticism out of the MSS., as far as they 
would go : 

3. To make up what was ready and fit into 
a Book, supplying from the rest of the materials 
and from elsewhere what was wanting besides 
filling up gaps as well as I could, and out of the 
rest (as well as from the Dean's published works) 
to construct brief notes on the Text which we had 
to publish. 

This report was sent to Dr. Scrivener, Dean 
Goulburn, Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, and 
other distinguished scholars, and the unanimous 
opinion was expressed that the third of these plans 
should be adopted. 

Not liking to encounter 

Tot et tanta negotia solus, 

I invited at the opening of 1890 the Rev. G. H. 
Gwilliam, Fellow of Hertford College, and the 
Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John's Hall, 
Highbury a man of mathematical accuracy to 
read over at my house the first draft of a large 
portion of Volume I. To my loss, Dr. Waller has 
been too busy since that time to afford me any 
help, except what may be found in his valuable 


comparison of the texts of the Peshitto and Cure- 
tonian printed in Appendix VI : but Mr. Gwilliam 
has been ready with advice and help all along 
which have been of the greatest advantage to me 
especially on the Syriac part of the subject, and 
has looked through all the first proofs of this 

It was afterwards forced upon my mind that if 
possible the Indexes to the Fathers ought to be 
included in the work. Indeed no book could ade- 
quately represent Dean Burgon's labours which did 
not include his apparatus criticus in that province of 
Textual Criticism, in which he has shewn himself so 
facile princeps, that no one in England, or Germany, 
or elsewhere, has been as yet able to come near 
him. With Sir E. Maunde Thompson's kind help, 
I have been able to get the part of the Indexes 
which relates to the Gospels copied in type-writing, 
and they will be published in course of time, God 
willing, if the learned world evinces sufficient interest 
in the publication of them. 

Unfortunately, when in 1890 I had completed 
a first arrangement of Volume II, my health gave 
way ; and after vainly endeavouring for a year to 
combine this severe toil with the conduct of a living, 
I resigned the latter, and moved into Oxford to 
devote myself exclusively to the important work of 
turning the unpublished results of the skilful faith- 
fulness and the indefatigable learning of that ' grand 
scholar' to use Dr. Scrivener's phrase towards 
the settlement of the principles that should regulate 
the ascertainment of the Divine Words constituting 
the New Testament. 


The difficulty to be surmounted lay in the fact 
that after all was gathered out of the Dean's remains 
that was suitable for the purpose, and when gaps 
of smaller or greater size were filled, as has been 
done throughout the series of unfinished and un- 
connected MSS., there was still a large space to 
cover without the Master's help in covering it. 

Time and research and thought were alike 
necessary. Consequently, upon advice, I accepted 
an offer to edit the fourth edition of Scrivener's 
Plain Introduction, and although that extremely 
laborious accomplishment occupied far more time 
than was anticipated, yet in the event it has greatly 
helped the execution of my task. Never yet, before 
or since Dean Burgon's death, has there been such 
an opportunity as the present. The general ap- 
paratus criticus has been vastly increased ; the field 
of palaeography has been greatly enlarged through 
the discoveries in Egypt ; and there is a feeling 
abroad that we are on the brink of an improvement 
in systems and theories recently in vogue. 

On returning to the work, I found that the key 
to the removal of the chief difficulty in the way 
of such improvement lay in an inflow of light upon 
what may perhaps be termed as to this subject the 
Pre-manuscriptal Period, hitherto the dark age of 
Sacred Textualism, which precedes what was once 
' the year one ' of Palaeography. Accordingly, 
I made a toilsome examination for myself of the 
quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers 
before St. Chrysostom, or as I defined them in 
order to draw a self-acting line, of those who died 
before 400 A.D., with the result that the Traditional 


Text is found to stand in the general proportion 
of 3 : 2 against other variations, and in a much 
higher proportion upon thirty test passages. After- 
wards, not being satisfied with resting the basis 
of my argument upon one scrutiny, I went again 
through the writings of the seventy-six Fathers 
concerned (with limitations explained in this book), 
besides others who yielded no evidence, and I found 
that although several more instances were conse- 
quently entered in my note-book, the general results 
remained almost the same. I do not flatter myself 
that even now I have recorded all the instances 
that could be adduced : any one who is really ac- 
quainted with this work will know that such a feat 
is absolutely impossible, because such perfection 
cannot be obtained except after many repeated 
efforts. But I claim, not only that my attempts 
have been honest and fair even to self-abnegation, 
but that the general results which are much more 
than is required by my argument, as is explained 
in the body of this work, abundantly establish the 
antiquity of the Traditional Text, by proving the 
superior acceptance of it during the period at stake 
to that of any other. 

Indeed, these examinations have seemed to 
me, not only to carry back the Traditional Text 
satisfactorily to the first age, but to lead also to 
solutions of several difficult problems, which are 
now presented to our readers. The wealth of 
MSS. to which the Fathers introduce us at second- 
hand can only be understood by those who may 
go through the writings of many of them with this 
view ; and outnumbers over and over again before 


the year 1000 all the contemporaneous Greek 
MSS. which have come down to us, not to speak of 
the years to which no MSS. that are now extant 
are in the opinion of all experts found to belong. 

It is due both to Dean Burgon and to myself to 
say that we came together after having worked on 
independent lines, though I am bound to acknow- 
ledge my great debt to his writings. At first we 
did not agree thoroughly in opinion, but I found 
afterwards that he was right and I was wrong. 
It is a proof of the unifying power of our prin- 
ciples, that as to our system there is now absolutely 
no difference between us, though on minor points, 
generally outside of this immediate subject, we do 
not always exactly concur. Though I have the 
Dean's example for altering his writings largely 
even when they were in type, as he never failed 
to do, yet in loyalty I have delayed alterations as 
long as I could, and have only made them when 
I was certain that I was introducing some im- 
provement, and more often than not upon advice 
proffered to me by others. 

Our coincidence is perhaps explained by our 
having been born when Evangelical earnestness 
affected all religious life, by our having been trained 
under the High Church movement, and at least in 
my case mellowed under the more moderate widen- 
ing caused by influences which prevailed in Oxford 
for some years after 1848. Certainly, the com- 
prehensiveness and exhaustiveness probably in 
imitation of German method which had before 
characterized Dr. Pusey's treatment of any subject, 
and found an exemplification in Professor Freeman's 


historical researches, and which was as I think to 
be seen in the action of the best spirits of the 
Oxford of 1848-56 to quote my own experience, 
lay at the root and constituted the life of 
Burgon's system, and the maintenance of these 
principles so far as we could at whatever cost 
formed the link between us. To cast away at 
least nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points 
and to draw conclusions from the petty remainder, 
seems to us to be necessarily not less even than 
a crime and a sin, not only by reason of the 
sacrilegious destructiveness exercised thereby upon 
Holy Writ, but also because such a method is 
inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and 
logical method. Perfectly familiar with all that 
can be and is advanced in favour of such proce- 
dure, must we not say that hardly any worse 
pattern than this in investigations and conclusions 
could be presented before young men at the critical 
time when they are entering upon habits of forming 
judgements which are to carry them through life ? 
Has the over-specialism which has been in vogue 
of late years promoted the acceptance of the theory 
before us, because it may have been under special- 
izing influences forgotten, that the really accom- 
plished man should aim at knowing something of 
everything else as well as knowing everything of 
the thing to which he is devoted, since narrowness 
in investigation and neglect of all but a favour- 
ite theory is likely to result from so exclusive an 
attitude ? 

The importance of the question at stake is often 
underrated. Dr. Philip Schaff in- his well-known 


'Companion' (p. 176), as Dr. E. Nestle of Ulm in 
one of his brochures (' Ein ceterum censeo zur 
neutestamentlichen Textkritik ') which he has kindly 
sent me, has pointed out, observes that whereas 
Mill reckoned the variations to amount to 30,000, 
and Scrivener supposed that they have since in- 
creased to four times as much, they 'cannot now 
fall much short of 1 50,000.' This amount is appal- 
ling, and most of them are of a petty character. 
But some involve highly important passages, and 
even Hort has reckoned (Introduction, p. 2) that 
the disputed instances reach about one-eighth of the 
whole. Is it too strong therefore to say, that we 
live over a volcano, with a crust of earth of not too 
great a thickness lying between ? 

The first half of our case is now presented 
in this Volume, which is a complete treatise in 
itself. A second will I hope follow at an early 
date, containing a disquisition on the Causes of 
the Corruption of the Traditional Text ; and, 
I am glad to say, will consist almost exclusively 
of Dean Burgon's own compositions. I ask from 
Critics who may not assent to all our conclusions 
a candid consideration of our case, which is rested 
solely upon argument and reason throughout. This 
explanation made by the Dean of his system in 
calmer times and in a more didactic form cannot, 
as I think, fail to remove much prejudice. If we 
seem at first sight anywhere to leap from reason- 
ing to dogmatism, our readers will discover, 
I believe, upon renewed observation that at least 
from our point of view that is not so. If we 
appear to speak too positively, we have done this, 


not from confidence in any private judgement, but 
because we are sure, at least in our own minds, 
that we express the verdict of all the ages and 
all the countries. 

May the great Head of the Church bless our 
effort on behalf of the integrity of His Holy Word, 
if not according to our plan and purpose, yet in 
the way that seemeth Him best! 


Epiphany 1896. 




Sacred Textual Criticism introduced by Origen settled first in the 
fourth and before the eighth centuries fresh rise after the invention 
of printing infancy childhood youth incipient maturity Tra- 
ditional Text not identical with the Received Text . . . pp. 1-5 



L Importance of the subject need of new advance and of candour 
in investigation. 2. Sacred Textual Criticism different from Pro- 
fane the New Testament assailed from the first. 3. Overruling 
Providence unique conditions, and overwhelming mass of evidence. 
4. Authority of the Church Hort's admission existence and 
descent of the Received Text. 5. The question one of the many 
against the few the plea of antiquity on the side of the few virtually 
a claim to subtle divination impossibility of compromise . . pp. 6-18 



1. Two chief branches of inquiry collection of evidence employ- 
ment of evidence. 2. Providential multiplication of Copies, ordinary 
and lectionary of Versions of Patristic quotations. 3. Similarity 
between later Uncials and Cursives overestimate of the oldest Uncials 
Copies the most important class of evidence but not so old virtually 
as the earliest Versions and Fathers. 4. Search for the readings of 
the autographs the better attested, the genuine reading need of tests 
or notes of truth seven proposed. 5. Mere antiquity of an authority 
not enough yet antiquity a most important principle. 6. ' Various 
readings' a misleading phrase Corruption patent in B and N four 
proofs that their text, not the Traditional, has been fabricated 
Scrivener's mistake in supposing that the true texts must be sought 
in the oldest uncials their constant disagreement with one another 
self-impoverishment of some Critics pp. 19-39 





1. Antiquity : the more ancient, probably the better testimony 
but not the sole arbiter. 2. Number : much fallacy in ' witnesses 
are to be weighed not counted' used to champion the very few against 
the very many number necessarily a powerful, but not the sole note 
of truth Heb. iv. 2. 3. Variety : a great help to Number various 
countries various ages no collusion St. Matt. x. 8. 4. Weight, or 
Respectability: witnesses must be (i) respectable (2) MSS. must not 
be transcripts of one another (3; Patristic evidence must not be 
copied (4) MSS. from one archetype between one and two copies 
(5} any collusion impairs weight (6) a Version outweighs any single 
MS. (7^1 also a Father weight of single MSS. to be determined by 
peculiar characteristics. 5. Continuity : value of Unbroken Tradition 
weakening effects of smaller chasms fatal consequence of the 
admitted chasm of fifteen centuries. 6. Context : (a) Context of 
meaning i Cor. xiii. 5 (6) Context of readings St. Matt. xvii. 21 
xi. 2-3 and St. Luke vii. 19 consistency in immediate context . pp. 40-67 



1. The seven Old Uncials some understanding necessary between 
the two schools dialogue with a Biblical Student the superior 
antiquity of B and N a reasonable presumption that they are the purest 
yet nearly 300 years between them and the autographs no proof that 
their archetype was much older than they conflict with the evidence 
of Versions and Fathers which are virtually much older any superior 
excellence in their text merely the opinion of one school balanced by the 
other Mai's editions of B antiquity, number, variety, and continuity 
against that school also weight Traditional Text virtually older 
proof that the text of B and X was derived from the Traditional text, 
not vice versa alleged recensions no proof to the contrary nor ' con- 
flation,' proved to be unsound their disagreement with one another 
proved by passages. 2. St. John v. 4 St. Luke xi. 24. 3. The 
' Marys' of the Gospels. 4. Jona and John. 5. The foregoing 
instances typical our appeal only to facts pp. 68-89 


I. Witness of the Early Fathers. 

1. Involuntary witness of Dr. Hort : though he denied the antiquity 
of the Traditional Text no detailed examination of Dr. Hort's theory 
intended in this didactic treatise his admission that we have the period 



of the Church since St. Chrysostom driven to label the evidence of 
those centuries with the unhappy epithet ' Syrian ' foisting into history 
his ' phantom recensions ' facts, not theory. 2. Testimony of the Ante- 
Chrysostom Writers : two examinations made of all their quotations 
of the Gospels trustworthiness of their writings on this point many 
of their quotations not capable of use general list proportion of 3 : 2 
for Traditional Text verdict of those Writers on thirty test passages 
proportion of 3 : i validity of these lists mistakes of Hort and others 
respecting separate Fathers antiquity of corruption, though subor- 
dinate, also established list of Early Traditional deponents Later 
Traditional Western or Syrio- Low- Latin Alexandrian lessons from 
these groups pp. 90-122 


II. Witness of the Early Syriac Versions. 

Startling rise of Christianity in Syria weakness of Cureton's 
arguments for the superior antiquity of the Curetonian not helped 
by the heretical Lewis Codex the idea of a Vulgate Peshitto founded 
upon a false parallel traced to the fifth century by the universal use 
of the Peshitto by Nestorians, Monophysites, Christians of St. Thomas, 
and Maronites very early date proved by numerous MSS. of the same 
period attested in the fourth by Ephraem Syrus and Aphraates must 
have been in existence before proved back by its agreement with the 
Traditional Text the petty Curetonian an unequal combatant objection 
that the Text of the Curetonian and Lewis was the older inaccurate 
advocacy of the Lewis the age of these MSS. to be decided by the 
known facts Mepharreshe or distinct Gospels to replace the Mehallete 
or mixed Gospels of Tatian pp. 123-134 


III. Witness of the Western or Syrio- Low- Latin Text. 

Wiseman wrong in supposing that all Old Latin Texts came from one 
stem the prima facie inference from similarity of language open to 
delusion contrast of other Versions table of the Old Latin MSS., as 




used by Tischendorf no very generic difference comparison under 
the thirty test passages variety of synonyms denotes variety of 
sources direct evidence of Augustine and Jerome translations must 
have been made by all who wanted them in the bilingual Roman 
Empire origin of Wiseman's idea in an etymological blunder Diez's 
subsequent teaching the deflection in the language of the Old Latin 
MSS. due to the Low-Latin dialects of the Italian Peninsula, the 
' Itala ' of St. Augustine being in the most classical of later Latin 
Syriacization of the Codex Bezae, and the teaching of the Ferrar 
group pre-Evangelistic corruption carried to Rome from Antioch, and 
afterwards foisted into the Gospels the Synoptic problem the 
Traditional Text thus attested from the first by Fathers and 
Versions pp. 135-147 



1. Alexandrian Readings, and the Alexandrian School : Text, or 
Readings ? list of early Alexandrian Fathers the thirty test passages 
in Bohairic no Alexandrian MSS. of the period instability Origen 
the leading figure elemental and critical the cradle of criticism. 
2. Caesarean School : dates from 231 A.D., when Origen moved to 
Caesarea his witness to both texts Pamphilus Eusebius really 
prefers the Traditional Palestine a central situation coalition of 
readings Eusebius' fifty MSS. probably included all sorts Acacius 
more probably the scribe of B, and of the six leaves of tf vellum came 
into prominent use at Caesarea an Asiatic product older MSS. 
written on papyrus papyrus used till the tenth century cursive hand 
on papyrus led to the ' Cursives ' pp. 148-158 


1. Superstitious deference to B and X products of the Semi- Arian 
or Homoean School (i) dated from that time (2) condemned when 
Arianism was finally condemned (3) agree with Origenism (4) pro- 
duced at Alexandria colophons in N under Esther and Ezra, and 
agreement with Codex Pamphili written accordingly at Caesarea. 
2. Origen : his writings much studied by the ancients of the same 
class as B and N , proved from various passages Gal. iii. i St. Matt. 
xiv. 19, xv. 35 St. John xiii. 26 St. Luke iv. 8 St. John viii. 38. 
3. Sceptical character of all the three pp. 159-171 




1. Parallel and connexion between the settlements of the Canon 
and the Text end of the controversy after the last General Council 
Origenism finally condemned then no rest in Roman Empire till 
then the art of writing on vellum then perfected existence of better 
copies than B and X during the early Uncial period A, #, and 5. 
2. Codex D : strange character I. Assimilation on a large scale 
St. Markiii. 26 St. Luke xix. 27 St. Matt. xx. 28 St. Lukexiv. 8-10 
II. Extreme licentiousness St. Mark iv. i. 3. St. Luke iii. 23-38. 
4. St. Luke xxii. 20, and St. Mark xv. 43-4. 5. St. Luke i. 65 
St. Mark xiv. 72, &c. 6. Bad features in D and its family. 7. Clum- 
siness and tastelessness in the Old Uncials. 8. St. John ix. 36, xiv. 
22, St. Matt. i. 18, St. Luke xviii. 14, St. John xvii. 2 delicate points 
thus rubbed off ......... pp. 172-195 


1. Nature of Tradition many streams great period of the two 
St. Gregories, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom Canon of St. Augustine 
Uncials and Cursives do not differ in kind Cursives different enough 
to be independent witnesses not copies of Cod. A a small minority 
of real dissentients era of greater perfection from end of seventh 
century expression by the majority of later Uncials and the Cursives 
of the settled judgement of the Church. 2. The text of the Cursives 
not debased (i) the Traditional Text already proved to go back to the 
first (2) could not have been formed out of non-existing materials 
(3) superior to the text of B and X proved by the consentience of 
Copies, Versions, Fathers, and superior under all the Notes of Truth. 
3. St. Luke xix. 42. 4. St. Matt. xx. 22-23. 5. St. Matt. 
iv. 17-22, St. Mark i. 14-20, St. Luke v. i-n. 6. St. Mark x. 23-24. 
7. St. Luke xvi. 9. 8. St. John xvi. 13. 9. St. Matt. viii. 5-13. 
10. St. Luke xx. 14. 11. Familiarity through collation with the 
Cursive copies will reveal the general excellence of their text . pp. 196-223 


Recapitulation quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, the 
principle of the Traditional Text an exhaustive case and very strong 
answers to objections (i) antiquity of B and N (2) witnesses 
must be weighed first (3) charge of conflation, Eph. v. 30 weak 



pleas (4) Genealogy explained only true in a limited measure 
reduces some groups of MSS. to one archetype each advance of this 
plea solely as an excuse for B and X which were founders of an 
obscure family dating from Caesarea, with huge gaps in their descent 
perfect genealogy of the Traditional Text through many lines of descent 
attested contemporaneously by numerous Fathers proved step by 
step back to the earliest days the Traditional Text contrasted with 
the Neologian in three ways, viz. (I) wide and deep against narrow- 
ness (II) founded on facts, not on speculation (III) increasing now 
in strength, instead of daily getting out of date the verdict of the 
Church, and therefore RESTING ON THE ROCK .... pp. 224-239 


HONEYCOMB UTTO /zeXto-o-iov Krjpiov pp. 240-252 

"oos VINEGAR pp. 253-258 


ST. MARK i. i PP. 279-286 





pp. 298-307 







A FEW remarks at the outset of this treatise, which was 
left imperfect by Dean Burgon at his unexpected death, 
may make the object and scope of it more intelligible to 
many readers. 

Textual Criticism of the New Testament is a close 
inquiry into what is the genuine Greek the true text of 
the Holy Gospels, of the Acts of the Apostles, of the 
Pauline and Apostolic Epistles, and the Revelation. In- 
asmuch as it concerns the text alone, it is confined to the 
Lower Criticism according to German nomenclature, just 
as a critical examination of meaning, with all its attendant 
references and connexions, would constitute the Higher 
Criticism. It is thus the necessary prelude of any scientific 
investigation of the language, the purport, and the teaching 
of the various books of the New Testament, and ought 
itself to be conducted upon definite and scientific principles. 
The object of this treatise is to lead to a general settle- 
ment of those principles. For this purpose the Dean has 
stripped the discussion of all adventitious disguise, and has 
pursued it lucidly into manifold details, in order that no 



employment of difficult terms or involved sentences may 
shed any mystification over the questions discussed, and 
that all intelligent people who are interested in such 
questions and who is not ? may understand the issues 
and the proofs of them. 

In the very earliest times much variation in the text of 
the New Testament, and particularly of the Holy Gos- 
pels for we shall treat mainly of these four books as 
constituting the most important province, and as affording 
a smaller area, and so being more convenient for the 
present inquiry : much diversity in words and expression, 
I say, arose in the Church. In consequence, the school 
of scientific Theology at Alexandria, in the person of 
Origen, first found it necessary to take cognizance of the 
matter. When Origen moved to Caesarea, he carried his 
manuscripts with him, and they appear to have formed the 
foundation of the celebrated library in that city, which was 
afterwards amplified by Pamphilus and Eusebius, and also 
byAcacius and Euzoius 1 , who were all successively bishops 
of the place. During the life of Eusebius, if not under 
his controlling care, the two oldest Uncial Manuscripts in 
existence as hitherto discovered, known as B and N, or the 
Vatican and Sinaitic, were executed in handsome form and 
exquisite caligraphy. But shortly after, about the middle 
of the fourth century as both schools of Textual Critics 
agree a text differing from that of B and tf advanced in 
general acceptance ; and, increasing till the eighth century 
in the predominance won by the end of the fourth, became 
so prevalent in Christendom, that the small number of MSS. 
agreeing with B and N forms no sort of comparison with 
the many which vary from those two. Thus the problem 
of the fourth century anticipated the problem of the nine- 

1 See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has the 
following inscription: Evotos fniaiconos iv cra>naTiois avtveuaaro, i.e. tran- 
scribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn's edition of Philo, De 
Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889. 


teenth. Are we for the genuine text of the New Testament 
to go to the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. and the few 
others which mainly agree with them, or are we to follow 
the main body of New Testament MSS., which by the end 
of the century in which those two were produced entered 
into possession of the field of contention, and have con- 
tinued in occupation of it ever since ? This is the problem 
which the following treatise is intended to solve, that is to 
say, which of these two texts or sets of readings is the 
better attested, and can be traced back through the stronger 
evidence to the original autographs. 

A few words are now needed to describe and account 
for the present position of the controversy. 

After the discovery of printing in Europe, Textual 
Criticism began to rise again. The career of it may be 
divided into four stages, which may be termed respectively, 
Infancy, Childhood, Youth, and Incipient Maturity l . 

I. Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from 
a very small number of manuscripts, probably only five, 
in repute at the time ; and six years afterwards appeared 
the Complutensian edition under Cardinal Ximenes, which 
had been printed two years before that of Erasmus. 
Robert Stephen, Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs, also, as 
is well known, published editions of their own. In the 
latter edition of the Elzevirs, issued in 1633, occurred for 
the first time the widely-used expression ' Textus Receptus.' 
The sole object in this period was to adhere faithfully to 
the text received everywhere. 

II. In the next, evidence from Manuscripts, Versions, and 
Fathers was collected, chiefly by Mill and Wetstein. Bent- 
ley thought of going back to the fourth century for decisive 
evidence. Bengel and Griesbach laid stress upon families 
and recensions of manuscripts, and led the way in departing 

1 See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 7-37. 
George Bell and Sons, 1886. 

B 2 


from the received standard. Collation of manuscripts was 
carried on by these two critics and by other able scholars, 
and largely by Scholz. There was thus an amplification of 
materials, and a crop of theories. Much that was vague 
and elemental was intermingled with a promise of a great 
deal that would prove more satisfactory in the future. 

III. The leader in the next advance was Lachmann, 
who began to discard the readings of the Received Text, 
supposing it to be only two centuries old. Authorities 
having already become inconveniently multitudinous, he 
limited his attention to the few which agreed with the 
oldest Uncials, namely, L or the Regius at Paris, one or two 
other fragments of Uncials, a few Cursives, the Old Latin 
Manuscripts, and a few of the oldest Fathers, making up 
generally some six or seven in all upon each separate reading. 
Tischendorf, the discoverer of N, the twin-sister of B, and 
the collator of a large number of MSS. \ followed him in 
the main, as did also Tregelles. And Dr. Hort, who, with 
Bishop Westcott, began to theorize and work when Lach- 
mann's influence was at the highest, in a most ingenious 
and elaborate Introduction maintained the cause of the 
two oldest Uncials especially B and their small band of 
followers. Admitting that the Received Text dates back 
as far as the middle of the fourth century, Hort argued 
that it was divided by more than two centuries and a half 
from the original Autographs, and in fact took its rise at 
Antioch and should be called 'Syrian,' notwithstanding the 
predominance which he acknowledged that it has enjoyed 
since the end of the fourth century. He termed the 
readings of which B and tf are the chief exponents ' the 
Neutral Text,' and held that that text can be traced back 
to the genuine Autographs 2 . 

1 For an estimate of Tischendorf's great labour, see an article on Tischen- 
dorf s Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July, 1895. 

8 Dr. Hort's theory, which is generally held to supply the philosophical 
explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of critics who support B 


IV. T have placed the tenets of the opposite school last 
as exhibiting signs of Incipient Maturity in the Science, 
not because they are admitted to be so, that being not the 
case, but because of their intrinsic merits, which will be 
unfolded in this volume, and because of the immense 
addition recently made of authorities to our store, as well 
as on account of the indirect influence exercised of late 
by discoveries pursued in other quarters 1 . Indeed, it is 
sought to establish a wider stock of ruling authorities, and 
a sounder method in the use of them. The leaders in the 
advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modi- 
fied degree, and especially Dean Burgon. First, be it 
understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the 
Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires 
revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon 2 , 
about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in 
St. Matthew's Gospel alone. What we maintain is the 
TRADITIONAL TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest 
ages of which there is any record. We trust to the fullest 
testimony and the most enlightened view of all the evidence. 
In humble dependence upon God the Holy Ghost, Who we 
hold has multiplied witnesses all down the ages of the 
Church, and Whose cause we believe we plead, we solemnly 
call upon those many students of the Bible in these days 
who are earnest after truth to weigh without prejudice what 
we say, in the prayer that it may contribute something 
towards the ascertainment of the true expressions employed 
in the genuine Word of GOD. 

and X as pre-eminently the sources of the correct text, may be studied in his 
Introduction. It is also explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, 
pp. 38-59 ; and has been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision 
Revised, Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply. 

1 Quarterly Review, July 1895, ' Tischendorf's Greek Testament.' 

3 See Preface. 




IN the ensuing pages I propose to discuss a problem 
of the highest dignity and importance l : namely, On what 
principles the true text of the New Testament Scriptures 
is to be ascertained ? My subject is the Greek text of 
those Scriptures, particularly of the four Gospels ; my 
object, the establishment of that text on an intelligible 
and trustworthy basis. 

That no fixed principles were known to exist before 1880 
is proved by the fact that the most famous critics not only 
differed considerably from one another, but also from them- 
selves. Till then all was empiricism in this department. 
A section, a chapter, an article, a pamphlet, a tentative 
essay all these indeed from time to time appeared : and 
some were excellent of their kind. But we require some- 
thing a vast deal more methodical, argumentative, and 

1 It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for more 
scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of the New Testa- 
ment is underrated, upon a plea that theological doctrine may be established 
upon passages other than those of which the text has been impugned by the 
destructive school. Yet (a) in all cases consideration of the text of an author 
must perforce precede consideration of inferences from the text Lower Criticism 
must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism ; (6) confirmatory passages cannot 
be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of every possible character ; 
(c) Holy Scripture is too unique and precious to admit of the study of the several 
words of it being interesting rather than important ; (d) many of the passages 
which Modern Criticism would erase or suspect such as the last Twelve Verses 
of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling description of the 
depth of the Agony, besides numerous others are valuable in the extreme ; 
and, (e) generally speaking, it is impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the 
thought and life seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is 
not, or may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as interest. E. M. 


complete, than is compatible with such narrow limits. 
Even where an account of the facts was extended to 
greater length and w r as given with much fullness and ac- 
curacy, there was an absence of scientific principle sufficient 
to guide students to a satisfactory and sound determina- 
tion of difficult questions. Tischendorf 's last two editions 
differ from one another in no less than 3,572 particulars. 
He reverses in every page in 1872 what in 1859 he offered 
as the result of his deliberate judgement. Every one, 
to speak plainly, whether an expert or a mere beginner, 
seemed to consider himself competent to pass sentence on 
any fresh reading which is presented to his notice. We 
were informed that 'according to all principles of sound 
criticism ' this word is to be retained, that to be rejected : 
but till the appearance of the dissertation of Dr. Hort 
no one was so obliging as to tell us what the principles 
are to which reference is confidently made, and by the 
loyal application of which we might have arrived at the 
same result for ourselves. And Hort's theory, as will be 
shewn further on, involves too much violation of principles 
generally received, and is too devoid of anything like proof, 
ever to win universal acceptance. As matters of fact easily 
verified, it stands in sharp antagonism to the judgement 
passed by the Church all down the ages, and in many 
respects does not accord with the teaching of the most 
celebrated critics of the century who preceded him. 

I trust I shall be forgiven, if in the prosecution of the 
present inquiry I venture to step out of the beaten track, 
and to lead my reader forward in a somewhat humbler 
style than has been customary with my predecessors. 
Whenever they have entered upon the consideration of 
principles, they have always begun by laying down on 
their own authority a set of propositions, some of which 
so far from being axiomatic are repugnant to our judge- 
ment and are found as they stand to be even false. True 


that I also shall have to begin by claiming assent to a few 
fundamental positions : but then I venture to promise that 
these shall all be self-evident. I am very much mistaken 
if they do not also conduct us to results differing greatly 
from those which have been recently in favour with many 
of the most forward writers and teachers. 

Beyond all things I claim at every thoughtful reader's 
hands that he will endeavour to approach this subject 
in an impartial frame of mind. To expect that he will 
succeed in divesting himself of all preconceived notions as 
to what is likely, what not, were unreasonable. But he is 
invited at least to wear his prejudices as loose about him 
as he can ; to be prepared to cast them off if at any time 
he has been shewn that they are founded on misappre- 
hension ; to resolve on taking nothing for granted which 
admits of being proved to be either true or false. And, 
to meet an objection which is sure to be urged against 
me, by proof of course I do but mean the nearest approach 
to demonstration, which in the present subject-matter is 

Thus, I request that, apart from proof of some sort, 
it shall not be taken for granted that a copy of the New 
Testament written in the fourth or fifth century will 
exhibit a more trustworthy text than one written in the 
eleventh or twelfth. That indeed of two ancient documents 
the more ancient might not unreasonably have been expected 
to prove the more trustworthy, I am not concerned to 
dispute, and will not here discuss such a question ; but the 
probabilities of the case at all events are not axiomatic. 
Nay, it will be found, as I am bold enough to say, that in 
many instances a fourteenth-century copy of the Gospels 
may exhibit the truth of Scripture, while the fourth-century 
copy in all these instances proves to be the depositary of 
a fabricated text. I have only to request that, until the 
subject has been fully investigated, men will suspend their 


judgement on this head : taking nothing for granted which 
admits of proof, and regarding nothing as certainly either 
true or false which has not been shewn to be so. 


That which distinguishes Sacred Science from every 
other Science which can be named is that it is Divine, and 
has to do with a Book which is inspired ; that is, whose 
true Author is God. For we assume that the Bible is to be 
taken as inspired, and not regarded upon a level with the 
Books of the East, which are held by their votaries to be 
sacred. It is chiefly from inattention to this circumstance 
that misconception prevails in that department of Sacred 
Science known as ' Textual Criticism.' Aware that the New 
Testament is like no other book in its origin, its contents, 
its history, many critics of the present day nevertheless 
permit themselves to reason concerning its Text, as if they 
entertained no suspicion that the words and sentences of 
which it is composed were destined to experience an extra- 
ordinary fate also. They make no allowances for the 
fact that influences of an entirely different kind from any 
with which profane literature is acquainted have made 
themselves felt in this department, and therefore that even 
those principles of Textual Criticism which in the case of 
profane authors are regarded as fundamental are often out 
of place here. 

It is impossible that all this can be too clearly appre- 
hended. In fact, until those who make the words of the 
New Testament their study are convinced that they move 
in a region like no other, where unique phenomena await 
them at every step, and where seventeen hundred and 
fifty years ago depraving causes unknown in every other 
department of learning were actively at work, progress 
cannot really be made in the present discussion. Men 
must by all means disabuse their minds of the prejudices 


which the study of profane literature inspires. Let me 
explain this matter a little more particularly, and establish 
the reasonableness of what has gone before by a few plain 
considerations which must, I think, win assent. I am not 
about to offer opinions, but only to appeal to certain un- 
deniable facts. What I deprecate, is not any discriminating 
use of reverent criticism, but a clumsy confusion of points 
essentially different. 

No sooner was the work of Evangelists and Apostles 
recognized as the necessary counterpart and complement of 
God's ancient Scriptures and became the ' New Testament,' 
than a reception was found to be awaiting it in the world 
closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the 
subject of its pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, per- 
secution and murderous hate, assailed Him continually. 
And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest 
age of all, was shamefully handled by mankind. Not 
only was it confused through human infirmity and mis- 
apprehension, but it became also the object of restless 
malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion, Valentinus, 
Basilides, Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus, 
Hermophilus, Apollonides, and other heretics, adapted the 
Gospels to their own ideas. Tatian, and later on Ammonius, 
created confusion through attempts to combine the four 
Gospels either in a diatessaron or upon an intricate arrange- 
ment made by sections, under which as a further result the 
words of one Gospel became assimilated to those of another 1 . 
Want of familiarity with the sacred words in the first ages, 
carelessness of scribes, incompetent teaching, and ignorance 
of Greek in the West, led to further corruption of the Sacred 
Text. Then out of the fact that there existed a vast number 
of corrupt copies arose at once the need of Recension, which 
was carried on by Origen and his school. This was a fatal 

1 See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from 
Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly Review, 
No. 306), pp. 323-324- 


necessity to have made itself felt in an age when the first 
principles of the Science were not understood ; for ' to 
correct ' was too often in those days another word for 
' to corrupt.' And this is the first thing to be briefly 
explained and enforced : but more than a counterbalance 
was provided under the overruling Providence of God. 


Before our Lord ascended up to Heaven, He told His 
disciples that He would send them the Holy Ghost, Who 
should supply His place and abide with His Church for 
ever. He added a promise that it should be the office of 
that inspiring Spirit not only * to bring to their remem- 
brance all things whatsoever He had told them 1 / but also 
to ' guide ' His Church ' into all the Truth/ or, * the whole 
Truth 2 ' (irao-av rj]v a\i')9eiav). Accordingly, the earliest great 
achievement of those days was accomplished on giving to 
the Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which 
authorized teaching was enshrined in written form. And 
first, out of those many Gospels which incompetent persons 
had * taken in hand ' to write or to compile out of much 
floating matter of an oral or written nature, He guided 
them to discern that four were wholly unlike the rest were 
the very Word of God. 

There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine 
Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind 
the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office ; 
took no further care of His work ; abandoned those pre- 
cious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was 
wrought for their preservation that copyists were protected 
against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adul- 
terating shamefully copies of the Deposit no one, it is 
presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a 
different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred 

1 St. John xiv. 26. 2 St. John xvi. 13. 


writings must needs have been God's peculiar care ; that 
the Church under Him has watched over them with 
intelligence and skill ; has recognized which copies exhibit 
a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text ; has 
generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the 
other. I am utterly disinclined to believe so grossly 
improbable does it seem that at the end of 1800 years 
995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove un- 
trustworthy ; and that the one, two, three, four or five which 
remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as 
unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what 
the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable 
to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely 
failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of 
the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German 
critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. 
Catherine ; and that the entire text had to be remodelled 
after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had 
remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had pro- 
bably owed their survival to that neglect ; whilst hundreds 
of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed 
their witness to copies made from them. 

I have addressed what goes before to persons who 
sympathize with me in my belief. To others the argu- 
ment would require to be put in a different way. Let it 
then be remembered, that a wealth of copies existed in 
early times; that the need of zealous care of the Holy 
Scriptures was always felt in the Church ; that it is only 
from the Church that we have learnt which are the books 
of the Bible and which are not ; that in the age in which 
the Canon was settled, and which is presumed by many 
critics to have introduced a corrupted text, most of the 
intellect of the Roman Empire was found within the 
Church, and was directed upon disputed questions ; that 
in the succeeding ages the art of transcribing was brought 


to a high pitch of perfection ; and that the verdict of all 
the several periods since the production of those two 
manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in favour 
of the Text which has been handed down : let it be further 
borne in mind that the testimony is not only that of all 
the ages, but of all the countries : and at the very least so 
strong a presumption will ensue on behalf of the Traditional 
Text, that a powerful case indeed must be constructed to 
upset it. It cannot be vanquished by theories grounded 
upon internal considerations often only another name for 
personal tastes , or for scholarly likes or dislikes, or upon 
fictitious recensions, or upon any arbitrary choice of favourite 
manuscripts, or upon a strained division of authorities into 
families or groups, or upon a warped application of the 
principle of genealogy. In the ascertainment of the facts 
of the Sacred Text, the laws of evidence must be strictly 
followed. In questions relating to the inspired Word, mere 
speculation and unreason have no place. In short, the 
Traditional Text, founded upon the vast majority of 
authorities and upon the Rock of Christ's Church, will, if 
I mistake not, be found upon examination to be out of all 
comparison superior to a text of the nineteenth century, 
whatever skill and ingenuity may have been expended upon 
the production or the defence of it. 


For due attention has never yet been paid to a circum- 
stance which, rightly apprehended, will be found to go 
a great way towards establishing the text of the New 
Testament Scriptures on a solid basis. I refer to the fact 
that a certain exhibition of the Sacred Text that exhibition 
of it with which we are all most familiar rests on eccle- 
siastical authority. Speaking generally, the Traditional Text 
of the New Testament Scriptures, equally with the New 
Testament Canon, rests on the authority of the Church 


Catholic. 'Whether we like it, or dislike it' (remarked 
a learned writer in the first quarter of the nineteenth cen- 
tury), ' the present New Testament Canon is neither more 
nor less than the probat of the orthodox Christian bishops, 
and those not only of the first and second, but of the third 
and fourth, and even subsequent centuries V In like manner, 
whether men would or would not have it so, it is a plain 
fact that the Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament 
is neither more nor less than the probat of the orthodox 
Greek Christian bishops, and those, if not as we maintain 
of the first and second, or the third, yet unquestionably 
of the fourth and fifth, and even subsequent centuries. 

For happily, the matter of fact here is a point on which 
the disciples of the most advanced of the modern school 
are entirely at one with us. Dr. Hort declares that ' The 
fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally 
is, beyond all question, identical with the dominant 
Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of 
the fourth century. . . . The bulk of extant MSS. written 
from about three or four to ten or eleven centuries later 
must have had in the greater number of extant variations 
a common original either contemporary with, or older than, 
our oldest MSS. 2 ' And again, 'Before the close of the 
fourth century, as we have said, a Greek text, not materially 
differing from the almost universal text of the ninth century 
and the Middle Ages, was dominant, probably by authority, 
at Antioch, and exercised much influence elsewhere 3 .' The 
mention of 'Antioch' is, characteristically of the writer, 
purely arbitrary. One and the same Traditional Text, 
except in comparatively few particulars, has prevailed in 
the Church from the beginning till now. Especially de- 
serving of attention is the admission that the Text in 

1 Rev. John Oxlee's sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three 
Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian Hierarchy, and 
especially that of the Church of England). 

2 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92. 3 Ibid. p. 142. 


question is of the fourth century, to which same century the 
two oldest of our Sacred Codexes (B and tf ) belong. There 
is observed to exist in Church Lectionaries precisely the 
same phenomenon. They have prevailed in unintermitted 
agreement in other respects from very early times, probably 
from the days of St. Chrysostom 1 , and have kept in the 
main without change the form of words in which they were 
originally cast in the unchangeable East. 

And really the problem comes before us (God be 
praised !) in a singularly convenient, a singularly intelli- 
gible form. Since the sixteenth century we owe this also 
to the good Providence of God one and the same text 
of the New Testament Scriptures has been generally re- 
ceived. I am not defending the ' Textus Receptus ' ; I am 
simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without 
authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skilful revision in 
every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be 
absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text. Its 
existence, nevertheless, is a fact from which there is no 
escaping. Happily, Western Christendom has been con- 
tent to employ one and the same text for upwards of 
three hundred years. If the objection be made, as it 
probably will be, ' Do you then mean to rest upon the 
five manuscripts used by Erasmus ? ' I reply, that the 
copies employed were selected because they were known 
to represent with accuracy the Sacred Word ; that the 
descent of the text was evidently guarded with jealous care, 
just as the human genealogy of our Lord was preserved ; 
that it rests mainly upon much the widest testimony; ami 
that where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence 
attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction. 

The question therefore which presents itself, and must 
needs be answered in the affirmative before a single 
syllable of the actual text is displaced, will always be one 

1 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76. 


and the same, viz. this : Is it certain that the evidence in 
favour of the proposed new reading is sufficient to warrant 
the innovation ? For I trust we shall all be agreed that in 
the absence of an affirmative answer to this question, the 
text tnay on no account be disturbed. Rightly or wrongly 
it has had the approval of Western Christendom for three 
centuries, and is at this hour in possession of the field. 
Therefore the business before us might be stated somewhat 
as follows : What considerations ought to determine our 
acceptance of any reading not found in the Received Text, 
or, to state it more generally and fundamentally, our 
preference of one reading before another ? For until some 
sort of understanding has been arrived at on this head, 
progress is impossible. There can be no Science of Textual 
Criticism, I repeat and therefore no security for the in- 
spired Word so long as the subjective judgement, which 
may easily degenerate into individual caprice, is allowed 
ever to determine which readings shall be rejected, which 

In the next chapter I shall discuss the principles which 
must form the groundwork of the Science. Meanwhile 
a few words are necessary to explain the issue lying between 
myself and those critics with whom I am unable to agree. 
I must, if I can, come to some understanding with them ; and 
I shall use all clearness of speech in order that my meaning 
and my position may be thoroughly apprehended. 


Strange as it may appear, it is undeniably true, that the 
whole of the controversy may be reduced to the following 
narrow issue : Does the truth of the Text of Scripture 
dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, 
concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the 
marvellous agreement which subsists between them ? Or is 
it rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively 


with a very little handful of manuscripts, which at once 
differ from the great bulk of the witnesses, and strange to 
say also amongst themselves ? 

The advocates of the Traditional Text urge that the 
Consent without Concert of so many hundreds of copies, 
executed by different persons, at diverse times, in widely 
sundered regions of the Church, is a presumptive proof of 
their trustworthiness, which nothing can invalidate but 
some sort of demonstration that they are untrustworthy 
guides after all. 

The advocates of the old uncials for it is the text 
exhibited by one or more of five Uncial Codexes known 
as ABXCD which is set up with so much confidence 
are observed to claim that the truth must needs reside 
exclusively with the objects of their choice. They seem to 
base their claim on ' antiquity ' ; but the real confidence of 
many of them lies evidently in a claim to subtle divination, 
which enables them to recognize a true reading or the true 
text when they see it. Strange, that it does not seem to 
have struck such critics that they assume the very thing 
which has to be proved. Be this as it may, as a matter of 
fact, readings exclusively found in Cod. B, or Cod. K, or 
Cod. D are sometimes adopted as correct. Neither Cod. A 
nor Cod. C are ever known to inspire similar confidence. 
But the accession of both or either as a witness is always 
acceptable. Now it is remarkable that all the five Codexes 
just mentioned are never found, unless I am mistaken, 
exclusively in accord. 

This question will be more fully discussed in the follow- 
ing treatise. Here it is only necessary further to insist 
upon the fact that, generally speaking, compromise upon 
these issues is impossible. Most people in these days 
are inclined to remark about any controversy that the 
truth resides between the two combatants, and most of us 
would like to meet our opponents half-way. The present 



contention unfortunately does not admit of such a decision. 
Real acquaintance with the numerous points at stake 
must reveal the impossibility of effecting a settlement like 
that. It depends, not upon the attitude, or the temper, 
or the intellects of the opposing parties: but upon the 
stern and incongruous elements of the subject-matter of 
the struggle. Much as we may regret it, there is positively 
no other solution. 

Indeed there exist but two rival schools of Textual 
Criticism. And these are irreconcilably opposed. In the 
end, one of them will have to give way : and, vae victis ! 
unconditional surrender will be its only resource. When 
one has been admitted to be the right, there can no place 
be found for the other. It will have to be dismissed from 
attention as a thing utterly, hopelessly in the wrong 1 . 

1 Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of the school 
found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a most valuable kind, 
and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences involved in such and other facts. 
Dean Burgon amply admitted this. The following extract from one of the 
many detached papers left by the author is appended as possessing both illus- 
trative and personal interest : 

' Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove to those 
who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no account be with- 
held. I am not addressing learned persons only. I propose, before I lay down 
my pen, to make educated persons, wherever they may be found, partakers of 
my own profound conviction that for the most part certainty is attainable on 
this subject-matter ; but that the decrees of the popular school at the head of 
which stand many of the great critics of Christendom are utterly mistaken. 
Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false premisses, their conclusions 
almost invariably are altogether wrong. And this I hold to be demonstrable ; 
and I propose in the ensuing pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, 
I shall pay the penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed 
and I wish to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at 
least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be found, and 
no others, for my judges, if I establish my position, I say, let my father and 
my mother's son be kindly remembered by the Church of Christ when he has 
departed hence.' 




THE object of Textual Criticism, when applied to the 
Scriptures of the New Testament, is to determine what the 
Apostles and Evangelists of Christ actually wrote the 
precise words they employed, and the very order of them. 
It is therefore one of the most important subjects which can 
be proposed for examination ; and unless handled unskil- 
fully, ought to prove by no means wanting in living interest. 
Moreover, it clearly takes precedence, in synthetical order 
of thought, of every other department of Sacred Science, so 
far as that rests upon the great pillar of Holy Scripture. 

Now Textual Criticism occupies itself chiefly with two 
distinct branches of inquiry, (i) Its first object is to collect, 
investigate, and arrange the evidence supplied by Manu- 
scripts, Versions, Fathers. And this is an inglorious task, 
which demands prodigious labour, severe accuracy, un- 
flagging attention, and can never be successfully conducted 
without a considerable amount of solid learning. (2) Its 
second object is to draw critical inferences ; in other words, 
to discover the truth of the text the genuine words of 
Holy Writ. And this is altogether a loftier function, and 
calls for the exercise of far higher gifts. Nothing can be 
successfully accomplished here without large and exact 
knowledge, freedom from bias and prejudice. Above all, 
there must be a clear and judicial understanding. The 

C 3 


logical faculty in perfection must energize continually: 
or the result can only be mistakes, which may easily 
prove calamitous. 

My next step is to declare what has been hitherto 
effected in either of these departments, and to characterize 
the results. In the first-named branch of the subject, till 
recently very little has been attempted : but that little 
has been exceedingly well done. Many more results have 
been added in the last thirteen years : a vast amount of 
additional evidence has been discovered, but only a small 
portion of it has been thoroughly examined and collated. 
In the latter branch, a great deal has been attempted : but 
the result proves to be full of disappointment to those who 
augured much from it. The critics of this century have 
been in too great a hurry. They have rushed to con- 
clusions, trusting to the evidence which was already in their 
hands, forgetting that only those conclusions can be 
scientifically sound which are drawn from all the materials 
that exist. Research of a wider kind ought to have pre- 
ceded decision. Let me explain and establish what I have 
been saying. 


It was only to have been anticipated that the Author 
of the Everlasting Gospel that masterpiece of Divine 
Wisdom, that miracle of superhuman skill would shew 
Himself supremely careful for the protection and preserva- 
tion of His own chiefest work. Every fresh discovery of 
the beauty and preciousness of the Deposit in its essential 
structure does but serve to deepen the conviction that 
a marvellous provision must needs have been made in 
God's eternal counsels for the effectual conservation of the 
inspired Text. 

Yet it is not too much to assert that nothing which 
man's inventive skill could have devised nearly comes up 


to the actual truth of the matter. Let us take a slight but 
comprehensive view of what is found upon investigation, 
as I hold, to have been the Divine method in respect of 
the New Testament Scriptures. 

I. From the very necessity of the case, copies of the 
Gospels and Epistles in the original Greek were multiplied 
to an extraordinary extent all down the ages and in every 
part of the Christian Church. The result has been that, 
although all the earliest have perished, there remains to 
this day a prodigious number of such transcripts ; some of 
them of very high antiquity. On examining these with 
care, we discover that they must needs have been (a) pro- 
duced in different countries, (b) executed at intervals during 
the space of one thousand years, (c] copied from originals 
no longer in existence. And thus a body of evidence has 
been accumulated as to what is the actual text of Scripture, 
such as is wholly unapproachable with respect to any other 
writings in the world 1 . More than two thousand manu- 
script copies are now (1888) known to exist 2 . 

1 There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and Odyssey 
of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many books the existing 
authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not many more than thirty of 
Aeschylus, and they are all said by W. Dindorf to be derived from one of the 
eleventh century : only a few of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the 
tenth or eleventh century : only one authority for the first six books of the 
Annals of Tacitus (see also Madvig's Introduction) : only one of the Clemen- 
tines: only one of the Didache, &c. See Gow's Companion to School Classics, 
Macmillan & Co. 1888. 

2 ' I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging 
Scholz's list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of " Evangelia" [copies 
of Gospels] to 621 : of ''Acts and Catholic Epistles" to 239: of "Paul" to 281 : 
of "Apocalypse " to 108 : of" Evangelistaria " [Lectionary copies of Gospels] 
to 299 : of the book called " Apostolos" [Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles] 
to 81 making a total of 1629. But at the end of a protracted and somewhat 
laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great continental 
libraries, I am able to state that our available " Evangelia " amount to at least 
739 : our " Acts and Cath. Epp." to 261 : our " Paul " to 338 : our " Apoc." 
to 122 : our " Evst." to 415 : our copies of the " Apostolos " to 128 making 
a total of 2003. This shews an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.' 
Revision Revised, p. 521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory's Prole- 
gomena, and of the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the 


It should be added that the practice of reading Scripture 
aloud before the congregation a practice which is observed 
to have prevailed from the Apostolic age has resulted 
in the increased security of the Deposit: for (i) it has led 
to the multiplication, by authority, of books containing 
the Church Lessons ; and (2) it has secured a living wit- 
ness to the ipsissima verba of the Spirit in all the Churches 
of Christendom. The ear once thoroughly familiarized 
with the words of Scripture is observed to resent the 
slightest departure from the established type. As for its 
tolerating important changes, that is plainly out of the 

II. Next, as the Gospel spread from land to land, it 
became translated into the several languages of the ancient 
world. For, though Greek was widely understood, the com- 
merce and the intellectual predominance of the Greeks, 
and the conquests of Alexander having caused it to be 
spoken nearly all over the Roman Empire, Syriac and 
Latin Versions were also required for ordinary reading, 
probably even in the very age of the Apostles. And thus 
those three languages in which ' the title of His accusation ' 
was written above His cross not to insist upon any abso- 
lute identity between the Syriac of the time with the then 
'Hebrew' of Jerusalem became from the earliest time 
the depositaries of the Gospel of the World's Redeemer. 
Syriac was closely related to the vernacular Aramaic of 
Palestine and was spoken in the adjoining region : whilst 
Latin was the familiar idiom of all the Churches of the 

Thus from the first in their public assemblies, orientals 

Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon's death, the list has been 
largely increased. In the fourth edition of the Introduction (Appendix F, 
p. 397*) the total number under the six classes of ' Evangel ia,' 'Acts and 
Catholic Epistles,' ' St. Paul,' 'Apocalypse,' * Evangelistaria,' and' Apostolos,' 
has reached (about) 3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 
4,000. The separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted 
more than once) are already over 3,000. 


and occidentals alike habitually read aloud the writings of 
the Evangelists and Apostles. Before the fourth and fifth 
centuries the Gospel had been further translated into the 
peculiar idioms of Lower and Upper Egypt, in what are 
now called the Bohairic and the Sahidic Versions, of 
Ethiopia and of Armenia, of Gothland. The text thus 
embalmed in so many fresh languages was clearly, to a 
great extent, protected against the risk of further change ; 
and these several translations remain to this day as wit- 
nesses of what was found in copies of the New Testament 
which have long since perished. 

III. But the most singular provision for preserving the 
memory of what was anciently read as inspired Scriptures 
remains to be described. Sacred Science boasts of a litera- 
ture without a parallel in any other department of human 
knowledge. The Fathers of the Church, the Bishops 
and Doctors of primitive Christendom, were in some in- 
stances voluminous writers, whose works have largely come 
down to our times. These men often comment upon, 
freely quote, habitually refer to, the words of Inspira- 
tion : whereby it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected 
witnesses to the truth of Scripture are sometimes pro- 
ducible. The quotations of passages by the Fathers are 
proofs of the readings which they found in the copies used 
by them. They thus testify in ordinary quotations, though 
it be at second hand : and sometimes their testimony has 
more than usual value when they argue or comment upon 
the passage in question. Indeed, very often the manu- 
scripts in their hands, which so far live in their quotations, 
are older perhaps centuries older than any copies that 
now survive. In this way, it will be perceived that a three- 
fold security has been provided for the integrity of the 
Deposit: Copies, Versions, Fathers. On the relation 
of each of which heads to one another something par- 
ticular has now to be delivered. 



Manuscript copies are commonly divided into Uncial, 
i. e. those which are written in capital letters, and Cursive or 
'minuscule,' i.e. these which are written in 'running' or 
small hand. This division though convenient is misleading. 
The earliest of the ' Cursives ' are more ancient than the 
latest of the ' Uncials ' by full one hundred years 1 . The later 
body of the Uncials belongs virtually, as will be proved, to 
the body of the Cursives. There is no merit, so to speak, in 
a MS. being written in the uncial character. The number 
of the Uncials is largely inferior to that of the Cursives, 
though they usually boast a much higher antiquity. It 
will be shewn in a subsequent chapter that there is now, in 
the face of recent discoveries of Papyrus MSS. in Egypt, 
much reason for inferring that Cursive MSS. were largely 
derived from MSS. on Papyrus, just as the Uncials them- 
selves were, and that the prevalence for some centuries of 
Uncials took its rise from the local library of Caesarea. 
For a full account of these several Codexes, and for many 
other particulars in Sacred Textual Criticism, the reader is 
referred to Scrivener's Introduction, 1894. 

Now it is not so much an exaggerated, as an utterly 
mistaken estimate of the importance of the Textual decrees 
of the five oldest of these Uncial copies, which lies at the 
root of most of the criticism of the last fifty years. We 
are constrained in consequence to bestow what will appear 
to some a disproportionate amount of attention on 
those five Codexes : viz. the Vatican Codex B, and the 
Sinaitic Codex {*, which are supposed to be both of 
the fourth century: the Alexandrian Codex A, and the 
fragmentary Parisian Codex C, which are assigned to the 
fifth : and lastly D, the Codex Bezae at Cambridge, which 
is supposed to have been written in the sixth. To these 

1 Evan. 481 is dated A.D. 835 ; Evan. S. is dated A. D. 949. 


may now be added, as far as St. Matthew and St. Mark are 
concerned, the Codex Beratinus 4>, and the Rossanenslan 
Codex 2, both of which are of the early part of the sixth 
century or end of the fifth. But these two witness generally 
against the two oldest, and have not yet received as much 
attention as they deserve. It will be found in the end that 
we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing 
B, N, and D at the outset, as three of the most corrupt 
copies in existence. Let not any one suppose that the age 
of these five MSS. places them upon a pedestal higher than 
all others. They can be proved to be wrong time after time 
by evidence of an earlier period than that which they 
can boast. 

Indeed, that copies of Scripture, as a class, are the most 
important instruments of Textual Criticism is what no 
competent person will be found to deny. The chief reasons 
of this are their continuous text, their designed embodi- 
ment of the written Word, their number y and their variety. 
But we make also such great account of MSS., because 
(i) they supply unbroken evidence to the text of Scripture 
from an early date throughout history until the invention 
of printing ; (2) they are observed to be dotted over every 
century of the Church after the first three ; (3) they are the 
united product of all the patriarchates in Christendom. 
There can have been no collusion therefore in the prepara- 
tion of this class of authorities. The risk of erroneous 
transcription has been reduced to the lowest possible 
amount. The prevalence of fraud to a universal extent 
is simply a thing impossible. Conjectural corrections of 
the text are pretty sure, in the long run, to have become 
effectually excluded. On the contrary, the testimony of 
Fathers is fragmentary, undesigned, though often on that 
account the more valuable, and indeed, as has been already 
said, is often not to be found ; yet occasionally it is very 
precious, whether from eminent antiquity or the clearness of 


their verdict: while Versions, though on larger details they 
yield a most valuable collateral evidence, yet from their 
nature are incapable of rendering help upon many important 
points of detail. Indeed, in respect of the ipsissima verba 
of Scripture, the evidence of Versions in other languages 
must be precarious in a high degree. 

Undeniable it is, that as far as regards Primitiveness, 
certain of the Versions, and not a few of the Fathers, throw 
Manuscripts altogether in the shade. We possess no actual 
copies of the New Testament so old as the Syriac and the 
Latin Versions by probably more than two hundred years. 
Something similar is perhaps to be said of the Versions 
made into the languages of Lower and Upper Egypt, 
which may be of the third century l . Reasonable also it 
is to assume that in no instance was an ancient Version 
executed from a single Greek exemplar : consequently, 
Versions enjoyed both in their origin and in their acceptance 
more publicity than of necessity attached to any individual 
copy. And it is undeniable that on countless occasions 
the evidence of a translation, on account of the clearness 
of its testimony, is every bit as satisfactory as that of an 
actual copy of the Greek. 

But I would especially remind my readers of Bentley's 
golden precept, that ' The real text of the sacred writers 
does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, 
lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all.' 
This truth, which was evident to the powerful intellect of 
that great scholar, lies at the root of all sound Textual 
Criticism. To abide by the verdict of the two, or five, or 
seven oldest Manuscripts, is at first sight plausible, and is 
the natural refuge of students who are either superficial, or 
who wish to make their task as easy and simple as possible. 
But to put aside inconvenient witnesses is contrary to all 
principles of justice and of science. The problem is more 

1 Or, as some think, at the end of the second century. 


complex, and is not to be solved so readily. Evidence of 
a strong and varied character may not with safety be cast 
away, as if it were worthless. 


We are constrained therefore to proceed to the con- 
sideration of the vast mass of testimony which lies ready 
to our hands. And we must just as evidently seek for 
principles to guide us in the employment of it. For it is 
the absence of any true chart of the ocean that has led 
people to steer to any barren island, which under a guise of 
superior antiquity might at first sight present the delusive 
appearance of being the only safe and sure harbour. 

i. We are all, I trust, agreed at least in this, That the 
thing which we are always in search of is the Text of Scripture 
as it actually proceeded from the inspired writers themselves. 
It is never, I mean, ' ancient readings ' which we propose 
as the ultimate object of our inquiries. It is always the 
oldest Reading of all which we desire to ascertain ; in other 
words, the original Text, nothing else or less than the very 
words of the holy Evangelists and Apostles themselves. 

And axiomatic as this is, it requires to be clearly laid down. 
For sometimes critics appear to be engrossed with the one 
solicitude to establish concerning the readings for which 
they contend, that at least they must needs be very ancient. 
Now, since all readings must needs be very ancient 
which are found in very ancient documents, nothing has 
really been achieved by proving that such and such 
readings existed in the second century of our era : unless 
it can also be proved that there are certain other attendant 
circumstances attaching to those readings, which constitute 
a fair presumption, that they must needs be regarded as the 
only genuine wording of the passage in question. The Holy 
Scriptures are not an arena for the exercise or display of the 
ingenuity of critics. 


2. I trust it may further be laid down as a fundamental 
principle that of two possible ways of reading the Text, 
that way which is found on examination to be the better 
attested and authenticated by which I mean, the reading 
which proves on inquiry to be supported by the better 
evidence must in every instance be of necessity presumed 
to be the actual reading, and is to be accepted accordingly 
by all students. 

3. I will venture to make only one more postulate, viz. 
this : That hitherto we have become acquainted with no 
single authority which is entitled to dictate absolutely on 
all occasions, or even on any one occasion, as to what shall 
or shall not be regarded as the true Text of Scripture. We 
have here no one infallible witness, I say, whose solitary 
dictum is competent to settle controversies. The problem 
now to be investigated, viz. what evidence is to be held to 
be * the best/ may doubtless be stated in many ways : but 
I suppose not more fairly than by proposing the following 
question, Can any rules be offered whereby in any case of 
conflicting testimony it may be certainly ascertained which 
authorities ought to be followed? The court is full of 
witnesses who contradict one another. How are we to 
know which of them to believe? Strange to say, the 
witnesses are commonly, indeed almost invariably, observed 
to divide themselves into two camps. Are there no rules 
discoverable by which it may be probably determined with 
which camp of the two the truth resides ? 

I proceed to offer for the reader's consideration seven 
Tests of Truth, concerning each of which I shall have some- 
thing to say in the way of explanation by-and-by. In the 
end I shall ask the reader to allow that where these seven 
tests are found to conspire, we may confidently assume that 
the evidence is worthy of all acceptance, and is to be 
implicitly followed. A reading should be attested then by 
the seven following 



1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness ; 

2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number ; 

3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity ; 

4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight ; 

5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition ; 

6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context ; 

7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness. 


The full consideration of these Tests of Truth must be post- 
poned to the next chapter. Meanwhile, three discussions 
of a more general character demand immediate attention. 

I. Antiquity, in and by itself, will be found to avail 
nothing. A reading is to be adopted not because it is old, 
but because it is the best attested, and therefore the oldest. 
There may seem to be paradox on my part : but there is 
none. I have admitted, and indeed insist upon it. that the 
oldest reading of all is the very thing we are in search of: 
for that must of necessity be what proceeded from the 
pen of the sacred writer himself. But, as a rule, fifty 
years, more or less, must be assumed to have intervened 
between the production of the inspired autographs and the 
earliest written representation of them now extant. And 
precisely in that first age it was that men evinced them- 
selves least careful or accurate in guarding the Deposit, 
least critically exact in their way of quoting it ; whilst the 
enemy was most restless, most assiduous in procuring its 
depravation. Strange as it may sound, distressing as the 
discovery must needs prove when it is first distinctly 
realized. the earliest shreds and scraps for they are at 
first no more that come into our hands as quotations of 
the text of the New Testament Scriptures are not only 
disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their frag- 
mentary character, their vagueness ; but they are often 


demonstrably inaccurate. I proceed to give one example 
out of many. 

' My God, My God, wherefore hast thou forsaken me ? ' 
fjit eyKare'A.nre? ; So it is in St. Matt, xxvii. 46 : so in St. 
Mark xv. 34. But because, in the latter place, NB, one 
Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Bohairic Versions, besides 
Eusebius, followed by L and a few cursives, reverse the 
order of the last two words, the editors are unanimous in 
doing the same thing. They have yet older authority, 
however, for what they do. Justin M. (A.D. 164) and the 
Valentinians (A.D. 150) are with them. As far therefore 
as antiquity goes, the evidence for reading fyicar&iir& jute 
is really wondrous strong. 

And yet the evidence on the other side, when it is 
considered, is perceived to be overwhelming 1 . Add the 
discovery that ey/careOuTre'? jue is the established reading of 
the familiar Septuagint, and we have no hesitation what- 
ever in retaining the commonly Received Text, because the 
secret is out. NB were sure to follow the Septuagint, 
which was so dear to Origen. Further discussion of the 
point is superfluous. 

I shall of course be asked, Are we then to understand 
that you condemn the whole body of ancient authorities as 
untrustworthy ? And if you do, to what other authorities 
would you have us resort ? 

I answer : So far from regarding the whole body of 
ancient authorities as untrustworthy, it is precisely ' the 
whole body of ancient authorities' to which I insist that 
we must invariably make our appeal, and to which we 
must eventually defer. I regard them therefore with more 
than reverence. I submit to their decision unreservedly. 
Doubtless I refuse to regard any one of those same 
most ancient manuscripts or even any two or three 

1 ACS (4> in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives, four Old 
Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c. 


of them as oracular. But why ? Because I am able to 
demonstrate that every one of them singly is in a high 
degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence older than 
itself. To pin my faith therefore to one, two, or three of 
those eccentric exemplars, were indeed to insinuate that the 
whole body of ancient authorities is unworthy of credit. 

It is to Antiquity, I repeat, that I make my appeal : and 
further, I insist that the ascertained verdict of Antiquity 
shall be accepted. But then, inasmuch as by ' Antiquity ' 
I do not even mean any one single ancient authority, how- 
ever ancient, to the exclusion of, and in preference to, all the 
rest, but the whole collective body, it is precisely ' the body 
of ancient authorities ' which I propose as the arbiters. 
Thus, I do not mean by ' Antiquity ' either (i) the Peshitto 
Syriac : or (2) Cureton's Syriac : or (3) the Old Latin 
Versions : or (4) the Vulgate : or (5) the Egyptian, or 
indeed (6) any other of the ancient Versions: not (7) 
Origen, nor (8) Eusebius, nor (9) Chrysostom, nor (TO) 
Cyril, nor indeed (n) any other ancient Father standing 
alone: neither (12) Cod. A. nor (13) Cod. B. nor (14) 
Cod. C, nor (15) Cod. D, nor (16) Cod. N*, nor in fact 
(17) any other individual Codex that can be named. I 
should as soon think of confounding the cathedral hard by 
with one or two of the stones which compose it. By 
Antiquity I understand the whole body of documents which 
convey to me the mind of Antiquity, transport me back 
to the primitive age, and acquaint me, as far as is now 
possible, with what was its verdict. 

And by parity of reasoning, I altogether decline to accept 
as decisive the verdict of any two or three of these in 
defiance of the ascertained authority of all, or a majority 
of the rest. 

In short, I decline to accept a fragment of Antiquity, 
arbitrarily broken off, in lieu of the entire mass of ancient 
witnesses. And further than this, I recognize other Notes 


of Truth, as I have stated already ; and I shall prove this 
position in my next chapter. 


II. The term ' various readings ' conveys an entirely 
incorrect impression of the grave discrepancies discoverable 
between a little handful of documents of which Codexes 
B-N of the fourth century, D of the sixth, L of the eighth, 
are the most conspicuous samples and the Traditional 
Text of the New Testament. The expression ' various 
readings' belongs to secular literature and refers to phe- 
nomena essentially different from those exhibited by the 
copies just mentioned. Not but what ' various readings,' 
properly so called, are as plentiful in sacred as in profane 
codexes. One has but to inspect Scrivener's Full and 
Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the 
Gospels (1853) to be convinced of the fact. But when 
we study the New Testament by the light of such Codexes 
as BKDL, we find ourselves in an entirely new region of 
experience ; confronted by phenomena not only unique 
but even portentous. The text has undergone apparently 
an habitual, if not systematic, depravation ; has been 
manipulated throughout in a wild way. Influences have 
been demonstrably at work which altogether perplex the 
judgement. The result is simply calamitous. There are 
evidences of persistent mutilation, not only of words and 
clauses, but of entire sentences. The substitution of one 
expression for another, and the arbitrary transposition of 
words, are phenomena of such perpetual occurrence, that 
it becomes evident at last that what lies before us is not 
so much an ancient copy, as an ancient recension of the 
Sacred Text. And yet not by any means a recension in 
the usual sense of the word as an authoritative revision : 
but only as the name may be applied to the product of 
individual inaccuracy or caprice, or tasteless assiduity 


on the part of one or many, at a particular time or in a long 
series of years. There are reasons for inferring, that we 
have alighted on five specimens of what the misguided piety 
of a primitive age is known to have been fruitful in pro- 
ducing. Of fraud, strictly speaking, there may have been 
little or none. We should shrink from imputing an evil 
motive where any matter will bear an honourable interpreta- 
tion. But, as will be seen later on, these Codexes abound 
with so much licentiousness or carelessness as to suggest 
the inference, that they are in fact indebted for their pre- 
servation to their hopeless character. Thus it would 
appear that an evil reputation ensured their neglect in 
ancient times ; and has procured that they should survive 
to- our own, long after multitudes which were much better 
had perished in the Master's service. Let men think of 
this matter as they will, whatever in fact may prove to 
be the history of that peculiar Text which finds its chief 
exponents in Codd. BNDL, in some copies of the Old 
Latin, and in the Curetonian Version, in Origen, and to 
a lesser extent in the Bohairic and Sahidic Translations, 
all must admit, as a matter of fact, that it differs essentially 
from the Traditional Text, and is no mere variation of it. 

But why, it will be asked, may it not be the genuine 
article ? Why may not the * Traditional Text ' be the 
fabrication ? 

i. The burden of proof, we reply, rests with our oppo- 
nents. The consent without concert of (suppose) 990 out 
of 1000 copies, of every date from the fifth to the four- 
teenth century, and belonging to every region of ancient 
Christendom, is a colossal fact not to be set aside by any 
amount of ingenuity. A predilection for two fourth- 
century manuscripts closely resembling one another, yet 
standing apart in every page so seriously that it is easier 
to find two consecutive verses in which they differ than 
two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree : such 



a preference, I say, apart from abundant or even definitely 
clear proof that it is well founded, is surely not entitled 
to be accepted as conclusive. 

2. Next, Because, although for convenience we have 
hitherto spoken of Codexes BNDL as exhibiting a single 
text, it is in reality not one text but fragments of many, 
which are to be met with in the little handful of authorities 
enumerated above. Their witness does not agree together. 
The Traditional Text, on the contrary, is unmistakably one. 

3. Further, Because it is extremely improbable, if not 
impossible, that the Traditional Text was or could have 
been derived from such a document as the archetype of 
B-N: whereas the converse operation is at once obvious 
and easy. There is no difficulty in producing a short text by 
omission of words, or clauses, or verses, from a fuller text : 
but the fuller text could not have been produced from the 
shorter by any development which would be possible under 
the facts of the case 1 . Glosses would account for changes 
in the archetype of B-tf , but not conversely 2 . 

4. But the chief reason is, Because, on making our 
appeal unreservedly to Antiquity to Versions and Fathers 
as. well as copies, the result is unequivocal. The Tra- 
ditional Text becomes triumphantly established, the 
eccentricities of BND and their colleagues become one 
and all emphatically condemned. 

1 See Vol. II. 

2 All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration. In 

St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord, ' Explain to us (<f>pdaov 
the parable of the tares.' The cursives (and late uncials) are all agreed in this 
reading. Why then do Lachmann and Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit 
?.iaaa<f>r]ffov'l Only because they find $iaad(J>r)crov in B. Had they known that 
the first reading of N exhibited that reading also, they would have been more 
confident than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the 
Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this place ? The plea 
of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for Origen reads qpaaov four times. 
The Versions do not help us. What else is Siaodtprjaov but a transparent 
Gloss? AiaaaQijaov (elucidate) explains <f>paaov, but Qpacrov (tell) does not explain 


All these, in the mean time, are points concerning which 
something has been said already, and more will have to be 
said in the sequel. Returning now to the phenomenon 
adverted to at the outset, we desire to explain that whereas 
' Various Readings,' properly so called, that is to say, the 
Readings which possess really strong attestation for more 
than nineteen-twentieths of the ' Various Readings ' com- 
monly quoted are only the vagaries of scribes, and ought 
not to be called ' Readings ' at all do not require classifi- 
cation into groups, as Griesbach and Hort have classified 
them ; ' Corrupt Readings/ if they are to be intelligently 
handled, must by all means be distributed under distinct 
heads, as will be done in the Second Part of this work. 

III. * It is not at all our design ' (remarks Dr. Scrivener) 
' to seek our readings from the later uncials, supported as 
they usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts ; but 
to employ their confessedly secondary evidence in those 
numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hope- 
lessly at variance 1 .' From which it is plain that in this 
excellent writer's opinion, the truth of Scripture is to be 
sought in the first instance at the hands of the older 
uncials: that only when these yield conflicting testimony 
may we resort to the 'confessedly secondary evidence' of 
the later uncials: and that only so may we proceed to 
inquire for the testimony of the great mass of the cursive 
copies. It is not difficult to foresee what would be the 
result of such a method of procedure. 

I venture therefore respectfully but firmly to demur to 
the spirit of my learned friend's remarks on the present, 
and on many similar occasions. His language is calculated 
to countenance the popular belief (i) That the authority 
of an uncial codex, because it is an uncial, is necessarily 
greater than that of a codex written in the cursive character : 
an imagination which upon proof I hold to be groundless. 

1 Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition. 
D 2 


Between the text of the later uncials and the text of the 
cursive copies, I fail to detect any separative difference : 
certainly no such difference as would induce me to assign 
the palm to the former. It will be shewn later on in this 
treatise, that it is a pure assumption to take for granted, or 
to infer, that cursive copies were all descended from the 
uncials. New discoveries in palaeography have ruled that 
error to be out of court. 

But (2) especially do I demur to the popular notion, to 
which I regret to find that Dr. Scrivener lends his powerful 
sanction, that the text of Scripture is to be sought in the 
first instance in the oldest of the uncials. I venture to 
express my astonishment that so learned and thoughtful 
a man should not have seen that before certain ' elder 
brethren ' are erected into a supreme court of judicature, 
some other token of fitness besides that of age must be 
produced on their behalf. Whence, I can but ask , whence 
is it that no one has yet been at the pains to establish the 
contradictory of the following proposition, viz. that Codexes 
BNCD are the several depositaries of a fabricated and 
depraved text : and that BND, for C is a palimpsest, i. e., 
has had the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over it 
as if it were of no use, are probably indebted for their very 
preservation solely to the fact that they were anciently 
recognized as untrustworthy documents ? Do men indeed 
find it impossible to realize the notion that there must have 
existed such things as refuse copies in the fourth, fifth, 
sixth, and seventh centuries as well as in the eighth, ninth, 
tenth, and eleventh ? and that the Codexes which we call 
BNCD may possibly, if not as I hold probably, have been 
of that class J ? 

Now I submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of 

1 It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius' own evidence is largely 
ngainst those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he had B and N executed 
from the aKpifir) or 'critical' copies of Origen. See below, Chapter IX. 


Codd. BN'CD as a supreme court of judicature (i) That 
as a rule they are observed to be discordant in their judge- 
ments : (2) That when they thus differ among themselves 
it is generally demonstrable by an appeal to antiquity that 
the two principal judges B and N* have delivered a mistaken 
judgement : (3) That when these two differ one from the 
other, the supreme judge B is often in the wrong : and 
lastly (4) That it constantly happens that all four agree, 
and yet all four are in error. 

Does any one then inquire, But why at all events may 
not resort be had in the first instance to Codd. BKACD ? 
I answer, Because the inquiry is apt to prejudice the 
question, pretty sure to mislead the judgement, only too 
likely to narrow the issue and render the Truth hopelessly 
difficult of attainment. For every reason, I am inclined to 
propose the directly opposite method of procedure, as at 
once the safer and the more reasonable method. When I 
learn that doubt exists, as to the reading of any particular 
place, instead of inquiring what amount of discord on the 
subject exists between Codexes ABNCD (for the chances 
are that they will be all at loggerheads among themselves), 
I inquire for the verdict as it is given by the main body of 
the copies. This is generally unequivocal. But if (which 
seldom happens) I find this a doubtful question, then in- 
deed I begin to examine the separate witnesses. Yet even 
then it helps me little, or rather it helps me nothing, to 
find, as I commonly do, that A is on one side and B on 
the other, except by the way that wherever N B are seen 
together, or when D stands apart with only a few allies, 
the inferior reading is pretty sure to be found there also. 

Suppose however (as commonly happens) there is no 
serious division, of course, significance does not attach 
itself to any handful of eccentric copies, but that there is 
a practical unanimity among the cursives and later uncials : 
I cannot see that a veto can rest with such unstable and 


discordant authorities, however much they may singly add 
to the weight of the vote already tendered. It is as a 
hundred to one that the uncial or uncials which are with 
the main body of the cursives are right, because (as will be 
shown) in their consentience they embody the virtual de- 
cision of the whole Church ; and that the dissentients be 
they few or many are wrong. I inquire however, What 
say the Versions? and last but not least, What say the 
Fathers ? 

The essential error in the proceeding I object to is best 
illustrated by an appeal to elementary facts. Only two of 
the ' five old uncials ' are complete documents, B and tf : 
and these being confessedly derived from one and the 
same exemplar, cannot be regarded as two. The rest of 
the 'old uncials' are lamentably defective. From the 
Alexandrian Codex (A) the first twenty-four chapters of 
St. Matthew's Gospel are missing : that is, the MS. lacks 
870 verses out of 1,071. The same Codex is also without 
126 consecutive verses of St. John's Gospel. More than 
one-fourth of the contents of Cod. A are therefore lost l . 
D is complete only in respect of St. Luke: wanting 119 
verses of St. Matthew, 5 verses of St. Mark, 166 verses of 
St. John. On the other hand, Codex C is chiefly defective 
in respect of St. Luke's and St. John's Gospel ; from the 
former of which it omits 643 (out of 1,151) verses ; from 
the latter, 513 (out of 880), or far more than the half in 
either case. Codex C in fact can only be described as 
a collection of fragments : for it is also without 260 verses 
of St. Matthew, and without 116 of St. Mark. 

The disastrous consequence of all this to the Textual 
Critic is manifest. He is unable to compare ' the five old 
uncials ' together except in respect of about one verse in 
three. Sometimes he finds himself reduced to the testi- 
mony of ANB : for many pages together of St. John's 

1 Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780. 


Gospel, he is reduced to the testimony of NBD. Now, 
when the fatal and peculiar sympathy which subsists 
between these three documents is considered, it becomes 
apparent that the Critic has in effect little more than two 
documents before him. And what is to be said when (as 
from St. Matt. vi. 20 to vii. 4) he is reduced to the witness of 
two Codexes, and those, NB? Evident it is that whereas 
the Author of Scripture hath bountifully furnished His 
Church with (speaking roughly) upwards of 2,300 1 copies 
of the Gospels, by a voluntary act of self-impoverishment, 
some Critics reduce themselves to the testimony of little 
more than one: and that one a witness whom many judges 
consider to be undeserving of confidence. 

1 Miller's Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397*. 1326 + 73 + 
980 - 2379. 



1. Antiquity. 

THE more ancient testimony is probably the better 
testimony. That it is not by any means always so is 
a familiar fact. To quote the known dictum of a competent 
judge : ' It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, 
that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament 
has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years 
after it was composed ; that Irenaeus and the African 
Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the 
Syriac Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those 
employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen, thirteen 
centuries after, when moulding the Textus ReceptusV 
Therefore Antiquity alone affords no security that the 
manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption 
which sprang up largely in the first and second centuries. 
But it remains true, notwithstanding, that until evidence 
has been produced to the contrary in any particular instance, 
the more ancient of two witnesses may reasonably be pre- 
sumed to be the better informed witness. Shew me for 
example that, whereas a copy of the Gospels (suppose 
Cod. B) introduces the clause ' Raise the dead ' into our 
SAVIOUR'S ministerial commission to His Apostles (St. Matt. 
x. 8), another Codex, but only of the fourteenth century 

1 Scrivener's Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265. 


(suppose Evan. 604 (Hoskier)), omits it ; am I not bound 
to assume that our LORD did give this charge to His 
Apostles ; did say to them, vtKpovs eyei/oere ; and that the 
words in question have accidentally dropped out of the 
sacred Text in that later copy ? Show me besides that in 
three other of our oldest Codexes (KCD) the place in St. 
Matthew is exhibited in the same way as in Cod. B ; and 
of what possible avail can it be that I should urge in reply 
that in three more MSS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth 
century the text is exhibited in the same way as in Evan. 
604 ? 

There is of course a strong antecedent probability, that 
the testimony which comes nearest to the original auto- 
graphs has more claim to be the true record than that which 
has been produced at a further distance from them. It is 
most likely that the earlier is separated from the original 
by fewer links than the later : though we can affirm this 
with no absolute certainty, because the present survival of 
Uncials of various dates of production shews that the exist- 
ence of copies is measured by no span like that of the life 
of men. Accordingly as a general rule, and a general rule 
only, a single early Uncial possesses more authority than 
a single later Uncial or Cursive, and a still earlier Version or 
Quotation by a Father must be placed before the reading 
of the early Uncial. 

Only let us clearly understand what principle is to guide 
us, in order that we may know how we are to proceed. Is 
it to be assumed, for instance, that Antiquity is to decide 
this matter? by which is meant only this, That, of two or 
more conflicting readings, that shall be deemed the true 
reading which is observed to occur in the oldest known 
document. Is that to be our fundamental principle? Are 
we, in other words, to put up with the transparent fallacy 
that the oldest reading must of necessity be found in the 
oldest document ? Well, if we have made up our minds 


that such is to be our method, then let us proceed to con- 
struct our text chiefly by the aid of the Old Latin and 
Peshitto Versions, the oldest authorities extant of a con- 
tinuous text : and certainly, wherever these are observed 
to agree in respect of any given reading, let us hear nothing 
about the conflicting testimony of N or B, which are of the 
fourth century ; of D, which is of the sixth ; of L, which is 
of the eighth. 

But if our adversaries shift their ground, disliking to be 
hoist with their own petard,' and if such a solution standing 
alone does not commend itself to our own taste, we must 
ask, What is meant by Antiquity ? 

For myself, if I must assign a definite period, I am 
disposed to say the first six or seven centuries of our era. 
But I observe that those who have preceded me in these 
inquiries draw the line at an earlier period. Lachmann 
fixes A.D. 400 : Tregelles (ever illogical) gives the begin- 
ning of the seventh century : Westcott and Hort, before 
the close of the fourth century. In this absence of agree- 
ment, it is found to be both the safest and the wisest course 
to avoid drawing any hard and fast line, and in fact any 
line at all. Antiquity is a comparative term. What is 
ancient is not only older than what is modern, but when 
constantly applied to the continuous lapse of ages includes 
considerations of what is more or less ancient. Codex E 
is ancient compared with Codex L : Cod. A compared with 
Cod. E : Ccd. N compared with Cod. A : Cod. B though 
in a much lesser degree compared with Cod. N : the Old 
Latin and Peshitto Versions compared with Cod. B : 
Clemens Romanus compared with either. If we had the 
copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ignatius, I suppose 
we should by common consent insist on following it almost 
implicitly. It certainly would be of overwhelming authority. 
Its decrees would be only not decisive. [This is, I think, 
too strong : there might be mistakes even in that E. M.] 


Therefore by Antiquity as a principle involving more or 
less authority must be meant the greater age of the earlier 
Copies, Versions, or Fathers. That which is older will 
possess more authority than that which is more recent : but 
age will not confer any exclusive, or indeed paramount, 
power of decision. Antiquity is one Note of Truth : but 
even if it is divorced from the arbitrary selection of 
Authorities which has regulated too much the employment 
of it in Textual Criticism, it cannot be said to cover the 
whole ground. 

2. Number. 

II. We must proceed now to consider the other Notes, 
or Tests : and the next is NUMBER. 

1. That ' witnesses are to be weighed not counted,' 
is a maxim of which we hear constantly. It may be said 
to embody much fundamental fallacy. 

2. It assumes that the 'witnesses' we possess, meaning 
thereby every single Codex, Version, Father , (i) are 
capable of being weighed : and (2) that every individual 
Critic is competent to weigh them : neither of which pro^ 
positions is true. 

3. In the very form of the maxim, ' Not to be counted 
but to be weighed,' the undeniable fact is overlooked that 
' number ' is the most ordinary ingredient of weight, and 
indeed in matters of human testimony, is an element which 
even cannot be cast away. Ask one of Her Majesty's 
Judges if it be not so. Ten witnesses (suppose) are called 
in to give evidence : of whom one resolutely contradicts 
what is solemnly deposed to by the other nine. Which of 
the two parties do we suppose the Judge will be inclined to 
believe ? 

4. But it may be urged would not the discovery of the 
one original autograph of the Gospels exceed in ' weight ' 
any ' number ' of copies which can be named ? No doubt 


it would, I answer. But only because it would be the 
original document, and not ' a copy ' at all : not * a witness ' 
to the fact, but the very fact itself. It would be as if in the 
midst of a trial, turning, suppose, on the history of the 
will of some testator , the dead man himself were to step 
into Court, and proclaim what had actually taken place. 
Yet the laws of Evidence would remain unchanged : and in 
the very next trial which came on, if one or two witnesses 
out of as many hundred were to claim that their evidence 
should be held to outweigh that of all the rest, they would 
be required to establish the reasonableness of their claim to 
the satisfaction of the Judge : or they must submit to the 
inevitable consequence of being left in an inconsiderable 

5. Number then constitutes Weight, or in other words, 
since I have used ' Weight ' here in a more general sense 
than usual, is a Note of Truth. Not of course absolutely, 
as being the sole Test, but caeteris paribus, and in its own 
place and proportion. And this, happily, our opponents 
freely admit : so freely in fact, that my only wonder is that 
they do not discover their own inconsistency. 

6. But the axiom in question labours under the far graver 
defect of disparaging the Divine method, under which in 
the multitude of evidence preserved all down the ages pro- 
vision has been made as matter of hard fact, not by weight 
but by number, for the integrity of the Deposit. The 
prevalent use of the Holy Scriptures in the Church caused 
copies of them to abound everywhere. The demand enforced 
the supply. They were read in the public Services of the 
Church. The constant quotation of them by Ecclesiastical 
Writers from the first proves that they were a source to 
Christians of continual study, and that they were used as 
an ultimate appeal in the decision of knotty questions. 
They were cited copiously in Sermons. They were em- 
ployed in the conversion of the heathen, and as in the case 


of St. Cyprian must have exercised a strong influence in 
bringing people to believe. 

Such an abundance of early copies must have ensured 
perforce the production of a resulting abundance of other 
copies made everywhere in continuous succession from them 
until the invention of printing. Accordingly, although 
countless numbers must have perished by age, use, destruc- 
tion in war, and by accident and other causes, nevertheless 
63 Uncials, 737 Cursives, and 414 Lectionaries are known 
to survive of the Gospels alone l . Add the various Versions, 
and the mass of quotations by Ecclesiastical Writers, and 
it will at once be evident what materials exist to constitute 
a Majority which shall outnumber by many times the 
Minority, and also that Number has been ordained to be 
a factor which cannot be left out of the calculation. 

7. Another circumstance however of much significance 
has yet to be stated. Practically the Axiom under con- 
sideration is discovered to be nothing else but a plausible 
proposition of a general character intended to shelter the 
following particular application of it : ' We are able ' says 
Dr. Tregelles 'to take the few documents . . . and safely 
discard . . . the J# or whatever else their numerical propor- 
tion may be 2 .' Accordingly in his edition of the Gospels, 
the learned writer rejects the evidence of all the cursive 
Codexes extant but three. He is mainly followed by the rest 
of his school, including Westcott and Hort. 

Now again I ask, Is it likely, is it in any way credible, 
that we can be warranted in rejecting the testimony of 
(suppose) 1490 ancient witnesses, in favour of the testimony 
borne by (suppose) ten ? Granting freely that two of these 
ten are older by 50 or TOO years than any single MS. of 
the 1490 I confidently repeat the question. The respective 

1 But see Miller's edition of Scrivener s Introduction, I. 397*, App. F, where 
the numbers as noiv known are given as 73, 1326, 980 respectively. 

2 Account of the Printed Text, p. 138. 


dates of the witnesses before us may perhaps be thus stated. 
The ten MSS. so confidently relied upon date as follows, 
speaking generally : 

2 about A.D. 330-340. 

i 55- 

i 7:'o. 

6 (say),, 950 to A.D. 1350. 

The 1490 MSS. which are constantly observed to bear 
consentient testimony against the ten, date somewhat thus: 

1 . . A.D. 400. 

I- 450- 

2 . . 500. 

1 6 (say) 650 to A. D. 850. 
1470 . . ., 850 to A.D. 1350. 

And the question to which I invite the reader to render an 
answer is this : By what process of reasoning, apart from 
an appeal to other authorities, (which we are going to make 
by-and-by), can it be thought credible that the few witnesses 
shall prove the trustworthy guides, and the many witnesses 
the deceivers ? 

Now those many MSS. were executed demonstrably at 
different times in different countries. They bear signs in 
their many hundreds of representing the entire area of the 
Church, except where versions were used instead of copies 
in the original Greek. Many of them were written in 
monasteries where a special room was set aside for such 
copying. Those who were in trust endeavoured with the 
utmost pains and jealousy to secure accuracy in the tran- 
scription. Copying was a sacred art. And yet, of multitudes 
of them that survive, hardly any have been copied from any 
of the rest. On the contrary, they are discovered to differ 
among themselves in countless unimportant particulars ; and 
every here and there single copies exhibit idiosyncrasies 
which are altogether startling and extraordinary. There 
has therefore demonstrably been no collusion no assimila- 


tion to an arbitrary standard, no wholesale fraud. It is 
certain that every one of them represents a MS., or a 
pedigree of MSS., older than itself; and it is but fair to 
suppose that it exercises such representation with tolerable 
accuracy. It can often be proved, when any of them exhibit 
marked extravagancy, that such extravagancy dates back 
as far as the second or third century. I venture to think 
and shall assume until I find that I am mistaken that, 
besides the Uncials, all the cursive copies in existence 
represent lost Codexes of great antiquity with at least the 
same general fidelity as Ev. i, 33, 69, which enjoy so much 
favour in some quarters only because they represent lost 
MSS. demonstrably of the same general type as Codd. 
NBD 1 . 

It will be seen that the proofs in favour of Number being 
a recognized and powerful Note of Truth are so strong, 
that nothing but the interests of an absorbing argument 
can prevent the acknowledgement of this position. It is 
doubtless inconvenient to find some 1490 witnesses con- 
travening some ten, or if you will, twenty favourites : but 
Truth is imperative and knows nothing of the inconvenience 
or convenience of Critics. 

8. When therefore the great bulk of the witnesses, in 
the proportion suppose of a hundred or even fifty to one, 
yield unfaltering testimony to a certain reading ; and the 
remaining little handful of authorities, while advocating 
a different reading, are yet observed to be unable to agree 
among themselves as to what that different reading shall 
precisely be, then that other reading concerning which all 
that discrepancy of detail is observed to exist, may be 
regarded as certainly false. 

I will now give an instance of the general need of the 
testimony of Number being added to Antiquity, in order 
to establish a Reading. 

1 This general position will be elucidated in Chapters IX and XI. 


There is an obscure expression in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, Alford speaks of it as ' almost a locus desperatus ' 
which illustrates the matter in hand not unaptly. The 
received reading of Heb. iv. 2, 'not being mixed [viz. 
the word preached] with faith in them that heard it/ is 
supported by the united testimony of the Peshitto and of 
the Latin versions 1 . Accordingly, the discovery that tf 
also exhibits o-uyKeKepaoTxez/os determined Tischendorf, who 
however stands alone with Scholz, to retain in this place 
the singular participle. And confessedly the note of 
Antiquity it enjoys in perfection ; as well as yields a suffi- 
ciently intelligible sense. But then unfortunately it proves 
to be incredible that St. Paul can have been the author of 
the expression 2 . All the known copies but four 3 read not 
(TvyKfKpajjievos but -jute'rouy. So do all the Fathers who are 
known to quote the place 4 : Macarius 5 , Chrysostom 6 , 
Theodorus of Mopsuestia 7 , Cyril 8 , Theodoret 9 , Damas- 
cene 10 , Photius n , Theophylactus 12 , Oecumenius 13 . The 
testimony of four of the older of these is even express : 
and such an amount of evidence is decisive. But we are 

1 So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan). 

2 The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is 
here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any other. 

3 N, 31,41,114. 

* Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19, I. 
8 Ap. Galland. vii. 1 78. 

6 xii. 64 c, 65 b. Kcu opa ri 0avfjiaffTu>s' OVK fi-ntv, ov ovvftpuvrjaav, dAA", oy 
avvfKpaOrjaav. See by all means Cramer's Cat. p. 451. 

7 Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. Ou yap ^anv Kara rtjv irianv rots frrayye^Ofiffi 
ffvvr}^.fj.evoi' oQtv OVTWS uvayvcaffTeov, "f^ avyKtKfpaanevovs rrj -niard rots 

8 vi. 1 5 d. 'Apo -yap tfif\\ov KO.TCL TUV iffov rpoirov avvavaKipvaoOai rt d\\rj- 
\ois, Ko.Qa.ntp dfj.(\et KO.I oivos vSan, K.T.\. After this, it becomes of little moment 
that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i. 394) read avyKCKpaptvos cv mam 
rois aKovaaoi. 

9 iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, Tt 70^ wvrjatv fj rov 
Qfov eirayy(\ia revs . . . /J.T] . . . olov ruts rov eov Xoyois uvanpaO^vras ; 

10 ii. 234. u Ap. Oecum. 12 ii. 670. 

13 From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic exhibit 
' their heart was not mixed with ' : which represents the same reading. 


able to add that of the Harkleian, Bohairic, Ethiopia, and 
Armenian versions. However uncongenial therefore the 
effort may prove, there can be no doubt at all that we must 
henceforth read here, * But the word listened to did not 
profit them, because they were not united in respect of 
faith with those who listened [and believed] ' : or words to 
that effect 1 . Let this then be remembered as a proof that, 
besides even the note of Variety to some extent super- 
added to that of Antiquity, it must further be shewn on 
behalf of any reading which claims to be authentic, that it 
enjoys also the support of a multitude of witnesses : in 
other words that it has the note of Number as well 2 . 

And let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because 
the Syriac and the Latin versions are such venerable 
documents they must be held to outweigh all the rest, 
and may be right in this matter after all. It will be found 
explained elsewhere that in places like the present, those 
famous versions are often observed to interpret rather than 
to reproduce the inspired verity : to discharge the office of 
a Targum rather than of a translation. The sympathy 
thus evinced between N and the Latin should be observed : 
the significance of it will come under consideration after- 

3. Variety. 

I must point out in the next place, that Evidence on any 
passage, which exhibits in perfection the first of the two 
foregoing characteristics that of Antiquity, may never- 
theless so easily fall under suspicion, that it becomes in 
the highest degree necessary to fortify it by other notes of 
Truth. And there cannot be a stronger ally than Variety. 

1 So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy authorities) 
writes ovyncKpa^fvovs. For this sense of the verb, see Liddell and Scott's Lex., 
and especially the instances in Wetstein. 

2 Yet Tischendorf says, ' Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus loci 
mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.' 



No one can doubt, for it stands to reason, that Variety 
distinguishing witnesses massed together must needs con- 
stitute a most powerful argument for believing such Evidence 
to be true. Witnesses of different kinds ; from different 
countries ; speaking different tongues : witnesses who can 
never have met, and between whom it is incredible that there 
should exist collusion of any kind : such witnesses deserve 
to be listened to most respectfully. Indeed, when witnesses 
of so varied a sort agree in large numbers, they must needs be 
accounted worthy of even implicit confidence. Accordingly, 
the essential feature of the proposed Test will be, that 
the Evidence of which ' Variety ' is to be predicated shall 
be derived from a variety of sources. Readings which are 
witnessed to by MSS. only; or by ancient Versions only: 
or by one or more of the Fathers only : whatever else 
may be urged on their behalf, are at least without the full 
support of this note of Truth ; unless there be in the case of 
MSS. a sufficient note of Variety within their own circle. 
It needs only a slight acquaintance with the principles 
which regulate the value of evidence, and a comparison with 
other cases enjoying it of one where there is actually no 
variety, to see the extreme importance of this third Test. 
When there is real variety, what may be called hole-and- 
corner work, conspiracy, influence of sect or clique, are 
impossible. Variety it is which imparts virtue to mere 
Number, prevents the witness-box from being filled with 
packed deponents, ensures genuine testimony. False 
witness is thus detected and condemned, because it agrees 
not with the rest. Variety is the consent of independent 
witnesses, and is therefore eminently Catholic. Origen or 
the Vatican and the Sinaitic, often stand all but alone, 
because there are scarce any in the assembly who do not 
hail from other parts with testimony different from theirs, 
whilst their own evidence finds little or no verification. 

It is precisely this consideration which constrains us to 


pay supreme attention to the combined testimony of the 
Uncials and of the whole body of the Cursive Copies. They 
are (a) dotted over at least 1000 years : (b) they evidently 
belong to so many divers countries, Greece, Constanti- 
nople, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Alexandria, and other 
parts of Africa, not to say Sicily, Southern Italy, Gaul, 
England, and Ireland : (c] they exhibit so many strange 
characteristics and peculiar sympathies : (d) they so clearly 
represent countless families of MSS., being in no single 
instance absolutely identical in their text, and certainly 
not being copies of any other Codex in existence, that 
their unanimous decision I hold to be an absolutely irre- 
fragable evidence of the Truth \ If, again, only a few of 
these copies disagree with the main body of them, I hold 
that the value of the verdict of the great majority is but 
slightly disturbed. Even then however the accession of 
another class of confirmatory evidence is most valuable. 
Thus, when it is perceived that Codd. NBCD are the only 
uncials which contain the clause vKpovs eyet/oere in St. Matt. 
x. 8, already spoken of, and that the merest fraction of the 
cursives exhibit the same reading, the main body of the 
cursives and all the other uncials being for omitting it, it is 
felt at once that the features of the problem have been 
very nearly reversed. On such occasions we inquire eagerly 
for the verdict of the most ancient of the Versions : and 
when, as on the present occasion, they are divided, the 
Latin and the Ethiopic recognizing the clause, the Syriac 
and the Egyptian disallowing it, an impartial student will 
eagerly inquire with one of old time, ' Is there not here 
a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might inquire of 
him ? ' He will wish to hear what the old Fathers have to 
say on this subject. I take the liberty of adding that when 
he has once perceived that the text employed by Origen 

1 See below, Chapter XI, where the character and authority of Cursive 
Manuscripts are considered. 

E 2, 


corresponds usually to a surprising extent with the text repre- 
sented by Codex B and some of the Old Latin Versions, 
he will learn to lay less stress on every fresh instance of 
such correspondence. He will desiderate greater variety 
of testimony, the utmost variety which is attainable. 
The verdict of various other Fathers on this passage supplies 
what is wanted l . Speaking generally, the consentient 
testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us 
from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the 
same number of witnesses proceeding from one and the same 
locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of 
sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion. Thus 
when it is found that the scribe of B wrote ' six conjugate 
leaves of Cod. tf 2 / it is impossible to regard their united 
testimony in the same light as we should have done, if one 
had been produced in Palestine and the other at Constanti- 
nople. So also of primitive Patristic testimony. The 
combined testimony of Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria ; 
Isidore of Pelusium, a city at the mouth of the Nile ; and 
Nonnus of Panopolis in the Thebaid, is not nearly so 
weighty as the testimony of one of the same three writers 
in conjunction with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and 
with Chrysostom who passed the greater part of his life at 
Antioch. The same remark holds true of Versions. Thus, 
the two Egyptian Versions when they conspire in witnessing 
to the same singular reading are entitled to far less attention 

1 The evidence on the passage is as follows : 
For the insertion : 

K*etc. BC**2DPA, i, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old 
Latin (except f ), Vulgate, Boliairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex. (2), 
Chrysostom (2). 
Against : 

EFGKLMSUVXrn. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and 
Gwilliam found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome, 
Chrysostom, in loc., Tuvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108, note. 

2 By the Editor. See Miller's Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol. I. p. 96, 
note i, and below, Chapter IX. 


than one of those same Versions in combination with the 
Syriac, or with the Latin, or with the Gothic. 

4. Weight, or Respectability. 

We must request our readers to observe, that the term 
1 weight ' may be taken as regards Textual Evidence in two 
senses, the one general and the other special. In the general 
sense, Weight includes all the notes of truth, it may relate 
to the entire mass of evidence ; or else it may be employed 
as concerning the value of an individual manuscript, or 
a single Version, or a separate Father. Antiquity confers 
some amount of Weight : so does Number : and so does 
Variety also, as well as each of the other notes of truth. 
This distinction ought not to be allowed to go out of 
sight in the discussion which is now about to occupy our 

We proceed then to consider Weight in the special sense 
and as attached to single Witnesses. 

Undeniable as it is, (a) that ancient documents do not 
admit of being placed in scales and weighed ; and (b) that 
if they did, the man does not exist who is capable of con- 
ducting the operation, there are yet, happily, principles 
of sound reason, considerations based on the common 
sense of mankind, learned and unlearned alike, by the 
aid of which something may be effected which is strictly 
analogous to the process of weighing solid bodies in an 
ordinary pair of scales. I proceed to explain. 

i. In the first place, the witnesses in favour of any given 
reading should be respectable. * Respectability ' is of course 
a relative term ; but its use and applicability in this depart- 
ment of Science will be generally understood and admitted 
by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed 
as to the classification of their authorities. Some critics 
will claim, not respectability only, but absolute and oracular 


authority for a certain set of ancient witnesses, which 
others will hold in suspicion. It is clear however that 
respectability cannot by itself confer pre-eminence, much 
less the privilege of oracular decision. We listen to any 
one whose character has won our respect : but dogmatism 
as to things outside of actual experience or mathematical 
calculation is the prerogative only of Revelation or inspired 
utterance ; and if assumed by men who have no authority 
to dogmatize, is only accepted by weak minds who find 
a relief when they are able 

' jurare in verba magistri.' 
' To swear whate'er the master says is true.' 

And if on the contrary certain witnesses are found to range 
themselves continually on the side which is condemned 
by a large majority of others exhibiting other notes of 
truth entitling them to credence, those few witnesses must 
inevitably lose in respectability according to the extent and 
frequency of such eccentric action. 

2. If one Codex (z) is demonstrably the mere transcript 
of another Codex (/), these may no longer be reckoned 
as two Codexes, but as one Codex. It is hard therefore 
to understand how Tischendorf constantly adduces the 
evidence of ' E of Paul ' although he was perfectly well 
aware that E is 'a mere transcript of the Cod. Claro- 
montanus 1 or D of Paul. Or again, how he quotes the 
cursive Evan. 102 ; because the readings of that unknown 
seventeenth-century copy of the Gospels are ascertained to 
have been derived from Cod. B itself 2 . 

3. By strict parity of reasoning, when once it has been 
ascertained that, in any particular instance, Patristic testi- 
mony is not original but derived, each successive reproduc- 
tion of the evidence must obviously be held to add nothing 
at all to the weight of the original statement. Thus, it 
used to be the fashion to cite (in proof of the spuriousness 

1 Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 176. 2 Ibid. p. 208. 


of ' the last twelve verses ' of St. Mark's Gospel) the 
authority of ' Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of An- 
tioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome Y to which were added 
' Epiphanius and Caesarius 2 ,' ' Hesychius of Jerusalem 
and Euthymius 3 .' In this enumeration, the names of 
Gregory, Victor, Severus, Epiphanius and Caesarius were 
introduced in error. There remains Eusebius, whose 
exaggeration (a) Jerome translates, (b) Hesychius (sixth 
century) copies, and (c) Euthymius (A.D. 1116) refers to 4 
and Eusebius himself neutralizes 5 . The evidence therefore 
(such as it is) collapses hopelessly: being reducible probably 
to a random statement in the lost treatise of Origen on 
St. Mark 6 , which Eusebius repudiates, even while in his 
latitudinarian way he reproduces it. The weight of such 
testimony is obviously slight indeed. 

4. Again, if two, three, or four Codexes are discovered by 
reason of the peculiarities of text which they exhibit to 
have been derived, nay, confessedly are derived from 
one and the same archetype, those two, three, or four 
Codexes "may no longer be spoken of as if they were 
so many. Codexes B and tf, for example, being cer- 
tainly the twin products of a lost exemplar, cannot in 
fairness be reckoned as = 2. Whether their combined 
evidence is to be estimated at = 1-75, 1-50, or 1-25, or 
as only i-o, let diviners decide. May I be allowed to 
suggest that whenever they agree in an extraordinary 
reading their combined evidence is to be reckoned at about 
1-50 : when in an all but unique reading, at 1-25 : when the 
reading they contain is absolutely unique, as when they 
exhibit a-vo-Tp^ofjifvoov 8e avrwz; in St. Matt. xvii. 22, they 
should be reckoned as a single Codex ? Never, at all 
events, can they be jointly reckoned as absolutely two. 

1 Tregelles' Printed Text, &c., p. 247. 

2 Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322. 3 Tischendorf and Alford. 

4 Burgon's Last Twelve Verses, &c v pp. 33-69 ; also p. 267. 

5 Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265. 6 Ibid. pp. 235-6. 


I would have them cited as B-tf . Similar considerations 
should be attached to F and G of St. Paul, as being * in- 
dependent transcripts of the same venerable archetype 1 / 
and to Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561. and perhaps 
348, 624, 788 2 , as being also the representatives of only 
one anterior manuscript of uncertain date. 

5. It requires further to be pointed out that when once 
a clear note of affinity has been ascertained to exist between 
a small set of documents, their exclusive joint consent is 
henceforward to be regarded with suspicion: in other 
words, their evidential Weight becomes impaired. For 
instance, the sympathy between D and some Old Latin 
copies is so marked, so constant, in fact so extraordinary, 
that it becomes perfectly evident that D, though only of 
the sixth century, must represent a Greek or Latin Codex 
of the inaccurate class which prevailed in the earliest age 
of all, a class from which some of the Latin translations 
were made 3 . 

6. I suppose it may be laid down that an ancient Version 
outweighs any single Codex, ancient or modern, which can 
be named : the reason being, that it is scarcely credible 
that a Version- the Peshitto, for example, an Egyptian, 
or the Gothic can have been executed from a single 
exemplar. But indeed that is not all. The first of the 
above-named Versions and some of the Latin are older, 
perhaps by two centuries than the oldest known copy. 
From this it will appear that if the only witnesses pro- 
ducible for a certain reading were the Old Latin Versions 
and the Syriac Version on the one hand, Codd. B-K on 
the other, the united testimony of the first two would 

1 Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 181. 

2 Ferrar and Abbott's Collation of Four Important Manuscripts', Abbe Martin, 
Qtiatre MSS. important*, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar Group 
(C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 398*, App. F. 

3 See below, Chapter X. Also Mr. Rendel Harris' ' Study of Codex Bezae ' 
in the Cambridge Texts and Studies. 


very largely overbalance the combined testimony of the last. 
If B or if tf stood alone, neither of them singly would be 
any match for either the Syriac or the Old Latin Versions, 
still less for the two combined. 

7. The cogency of the considerations involved in the 
last paragraph becomes even more apparent when Patristic 
testimony has to be considered. 

It has been pointed out elsewhere l that, in and by itself, 
the testimony of any first-rate Father, where it can be had, 
must be held to outweigh the solitary testimony of any 
single Codex which can be named. The circumstance 
requires to be again insisted on here. How to represent 
the amount of this preponderance by a formula, I know 
not : nor as I believe does any one else know. But the 
fact that it exists, remains, and is in truth undeniable. 
For instance, the origin and history of Codexes ABNC is 
wholly unknown : their dates and the places of their 
several production are matters of conjecture only. But 
when we are listening to the articulate utterance of any 
of the ancient Fathers, we not only know with more or 
less of precision the actual date of the testimony before us, 
but we even know the very diocese of Christendom in 
which we are standing. To such a deponent we can 
assign a definite amount of credibility, whereas in the 
estimate of the former class of evidence we have only 
inferences to guide us. 

Individually, therefore, a Father's evidence, where it can be 
certainly obtained caeteris paribus^ is considerably greater 
than that of any single known Codex. Collectively, however, 
the Copies, without question, outweigh either the Versions 
by themselves, or the Fathers by themselves. I have met 
very rarely I confess but I have met with cases where 
the Versions, as a body, were opposed in their testimony 
to the combined witness of Copies and Fathers. Also, 

1 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c. ; Revision Revised, p. 297. 


but very rarely, I have known the Fathers, as a body, 
opposed to the evidence of Copies and Versions. But 
I have never known a case where the Copies stood alone 
with the Versions and the Fathers united against them. 

I consider that such illustrious Fathers as Irenaeus and 
Hippolytus, Athanasius and Didymus, Epiphanius and 
Basil, the two Gregories and Chrysostom, Cyril and 
Theodoret, among the Greeks, Tertullian and Cyprian, 
Hilary and Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, among the 
Latins, are more respectable witnesses by far than the 
same number of Greek or Latin Codexes. Origen, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, and Eusebius, though first-rate Authors, 
were so much addicted to Textual Criticism themselves, 
or else employed such inconsistent copies, that their 
testimony is that of indifferent witnesses or bad judges. 

As to the Weight which belongs to separate Copies, that 
must be determined mainly by watching their evidence. 
If they go wrong continually, their character must be low. 
They are governed in this respect by the rules which hold 
good in life. We shall treat afterwards of the character 
of Codex D, of N, and of B. 

5. Continuity. 

In proposing Continuous Existence as another note of 
a genuine reading, I wish to provide against those cases 
where the Evidence is not only ancient, but being derived 
from two different sources may seem to have a claim to 
variety also. I am glad to have the opportunity thus 
early of pointing out that the note of variety may not 
fairly be claimed for readings which are not advocated 
by more than two distinct specimens of ancient evidence. 
But just now my actual business is to insist that some sort 
of Continuousness is requisite as well as Antiquity, Number, 
Variety, and Weight. 

We can of course only know the words of Holy Scripture 


according as they have been handed down to us ; and in 
ascertaining what those words actually were, we are driven 
perforce to the Tradition of them as it has descended to 
us through the ages of the Church. But if that Tradition 
is broken in the process of its descent, it cannot but be 
deprived of much of the credit with which it would 
otherwise appeal for acceptance. A clear groundwork of 
reasonableness lay underneath, and a distinct province was 
assigned, when quod semper was added to quod ubique et 
quod ab omnibus. So there, is a Catholicity of time, as 
well as of space and of people : and all must be claimed 
in the ascertainment and support of Holy Writ. 

When therefore a reading is observed to leave traces 
of its existence and of its use all down the ages, it comes 
with an authority of a peculiarly commanding nature. 
And on the contrary, when a chasm of greater or less 
breadth of years yawns in the vast mass of evidence which 
is ready for employment, or when a tradition is found 
to have died out, upon such a fact alone suspicion or 
grave doubt, or rejection must inevitably ensue. 

Still more, when upon the admission of the Advocates 
of the opinions which we are opposing the chasm is no 
longer restricted but engulfs not less than fifteen centuries 
in its hungry abyss, or else when the transmission ceased 
after four centuries, it is evident that according to an 
essential Note of Truth, those opinions cannot fail to be 
self-destroyed as well as to labour under condemnation 
during more than three quarters of the accomplished life 
of Christendom. 

How Churchmen of eminence and ability, who in other 
respects hold the truths involved in Churchmanship, are 
able to maintain and propagate such opinions without 
surrendering their Churchmanship, we are unable to 
explain. We would only hope and pray that they may 
be led to see the inconsistencies of their position. And 


to others who do not accept Church doctrine we would 
urge that, inasmuch as internal evidence is so uncertain 
as often to face both ways, they really cannot rest upon 
anything else than continuous teaching if they would 
mount above personal likings and dislikings to the posses- 
sion of definite and unmistakable support. In fact all 
traditional teaching which is not continuous must be like 
the detached pieces of a disunited chain. 

To put the question in the most moderate form, my 
meaning is, that although it is possible that no trace may 
be discoverable in any later document of what is already 
attested by documents of the fourth century to be the 
true reading of any given place of Scripture, yet it is 
a highly improbable circumstance that the evidence should 
entirely disappear at such a very early period. It is 
reasonable to expect that if a reading advocated by Codexes 
N and B, for instance, and the Old Latin Versions, besides 
one or two of the Fathers, were trustworthy, there ought 
to be found at least a fair proportion of the later Uncial and 
the Cursive Copies to reproduce it. If, on the contrary, 
many of the Fathers knew nothing at all about the matter ; 
if Jerome reverses the evidence borne by the Old Latin ; 
if the later Uncials, and if the main body of the Cursives 
are silent also : what can be said but that it is altogether 
unreasonable to demand acceptance for a reading which 
comes to us upon such a very slender claim to our 
confidence ? 

That is the most important inference : and it is difficult 
to see how in the nature of the case it can be got over. 
But in other respects also : when a smaller break occurs 
in the transmission, the evidence is proportionally injured. 
And the remark must be added, that in cases where there 
is a transmission by several lines of descent which, having 
in other respects traces of independence, coincide upon 
a certain point, it is but reasonable to conclude that those 


lines enjoy, perhaps, a silent, yet a parallel and unbroken 
tradition all down the ages till they emerge. This prin- 
ciple is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient 
testimony of the whole body of the Cursives and later 
Uncials l . 

6. Context. 

A prevailing fallacy with some critical writers on the 
subject to which the present volume is devoted, may be thus 
described. In the case of a disputed reading, they seem 
to think that they do enough if they simply marshal the 
authorities for and against, and deliver an oracular verdict. 
In critical editions of the Greek text, such a summary 
method is perhaps unavoidable. But I take leave to point 
out that in Sacred Textual Criticism there are several 
other considerations which absolutely require attention 
besides, and that those considerations ought to find ex- 
pression where the space permits. It is to some of these 
that I proceed now to invite the reader's attention. 

A word, a phrase, a clause, or even a sentence or 
a paragraph, must have some relation to the rest of the 
entire passage which precedes or comes after it. There- 
fore it will often be necessary, in order to reach all the 
evidence that bears upon a disputed question, to examine 
both the meaning and the language lying on both sides 
of the point in dispute. We do not at present lay so 
much stress upon the contextual meaning, because people 
are generally not unready to observe it, and it is often 
open to much difference of opinion: we refrain espe- 
cially, because we find from experience that there is in 

1 See more upon this point in Chapters V, XI. Compare St. Augustine's Canon : 
' Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nee conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, 
non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.' C. Donatist. 
iv. 24. 


the case of the New Testament always enough external 
evidence of whose existence no doubt can be entertained 
to settle any textual question that can arise. 

Nevertheless, it may be as well to give a single instance. 
In i Cor. xiii. 5, Codex B and Clement of Alexandria 
read ro JUT) tavrrjs instead of ra eavrTys, i.e. * charity seeketh 
not what does not belong to her,' instead of ' seeketh not 
her own.' That is to say, we are invited, in the midst 
of that magnificent passage which is full of lofty principles, 
to suppose that a gross violation of the eighth command- 
ment is forbidden, and to insert a commonplace repudia- 
tion of gross dishonesty. We are to sink suddenly 
from a grand atmosphere down to a vulgar level. In 
fact, the light shed on the words in question from the 
context on either side of course utterly excludes such a 
supposition ; consequently, the only result is that we are 
led to distrust the witnesses that have given evidence 
which is so palpably absurd. 

But as regards the precise form of language employed, 
it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error 
in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness 
the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain 
Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a 
very corrupt state, then it becomes even self-evident that 
those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with 
considerable suspicion and reserve. 

Take as an illustration of what I have been saying the 
exceedingly precious verse, ' Howbeit, this kind goeth not 
out but^by prayer and fasting ' (St. Matt. xvii. 21), which has 
met with rejection by the recent school of critics. Here 
the evidence against the verse is confined to B and the 
first reading of N amongst the Uncials, Evan. 33 alone of 
the Cursives, e and ff 1 of the Old Latin Versions, as well 
as the Curetonian and the Lewis. Jerusalem, Sahidic, a few 
Bohairic copies, a few Ethiopia, and the Greek of Eusebius' 


Canons : evidence of a slight and shifty character, when 
contrasted with the witness of all the other Uncials and 
Cursives, the rest of the Versions, and more than thirteen 
of the Fathers beginning with Tertullian and Origen 1 . 
It is plain that the stress of the case for rejection, since 
N being afterwards corrected speaks uncertainly, rests 
such as it is upon B ; and that if the evidence of that 
MS. is found to be unworthy of credit in the whole 
passage, weak indeed must be the contention which con- 
sists mainly of such support. 

Now if we inspect vv. 19, 20, 22, and 23, to go no 
farther, we shall discover that the entire passage in B is 
wrapped in a fog of error. It differs from the main body 
of the witnesses in ten places ; in four of which its 
evidence is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers 2 ; in two more by 
the Revisers 3 ; and of the remaining four, it is supported 
in two by only tt and severally by one or six Cursives, and 
in the other two by only tf and D with severally four or 
five Cursive copies 4 . 

Inspection of the Context therefore adds here strong 
confirmation: though indeed in this instance to have 
recourse to such a weapon is to slay the already slain. 

St. Matthew (xi. 2, 3) relates that John Baptist 'having 
heard in the prison the works of CHRIST, sent two 
of his Disciples' (bvo r&v fjia6r)T&v avrov) with the inquiry, 
'Art Thou He that should come 5 , or are we to look for 
another (trtpov) ? ' So all the known copies but nine. So 
the Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic. So Origen. So Chry- 
sostom. It is interesting to note with what differences . 

1 See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, Chapter V. 

2 KaSf I8iav, *8vvT]Or]iJi(v, rpiTjuipq, avaarrjofTai, 

3 (tfTdfia, fvOfv. 

4 <rvffTp(f)o^Vojv, bXiyotTKJTiav ; omission of 'Ij/aoCs, \tyfi. 

5 6 cpxonwos, for which D absurdly substitutes 6 (pya^ufitvos, ' he that 


of expression St. Luke reproduces this statement. Having 
explained in ver. 18 that it was the Forerunner's disciples 
who brought him tidings concerning CHRIST, St. Luke 
(vii. 19) adds that John ' called for certain two' (bvo rwas) 
of them, and 'sent them to JESUS': thus emphasizing, 
while he repeats, the record of the earlier Evangelist. 
Inasmuch however as trtpov means, in strictness, ' the other 
of two,' in order not to repeat himself, he substitutes aXKov 
for it. Now all this is hopelessly obscured by the oldest 
amongst our manuscript authorities. It in no wise sur- 
prises us to find that rivds has disappeared from D, the 
Peshitto, Latin, Bohairic, Gothic, and Ethiopic. The word 
has disappeared from our English version also. But it 
offends us greatly to discover that (i) NBLRXH (with 
Cyril) obliterate aXXov from St. Luke vii. 19, and thrust 
Tpov into its place, as clear an instance of vicious assi- 
milation as could anywhere be found : while (2) for bvo (in 
St. Matt. xi. 3) NBCDPZA write 8ta : which is acquiesced 
in by the Peshitto, Harkleian, Gothic and Armenian Ver- 
sions. The Old Latin Versions prevaricate as usual : two 
read, mittens duos ex discipulis suis : all the rest, mittens 
discipulos suos, which is the reading of Cureton's Syriac 
and the Dialogus (p. 819), but of no known Greek MS. * 
Lastly (3) for 'Irjo-ow in St. Luke, BLRH substitute Kvpiov. 
What would be thought of us if we were freely imposed 
upon by readings so plainly corrupt as these three ? 

But light is thrown upon them by the context in 
St. Luke. In the thirteen verses which immediately 
follow, Tischendorf himself being the judge, the text has 
experienced depravation in at least fourteen particulars 2 . 

1 So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective. 

a Viz. Ver. 20, aitffTti\fv for uire0Ta\K(v, NB; ercpov for a\\ov, NDLXH. 
Ver. 22, omit on, NBLXH ; insert teal before K<u<j>oi, NBDFFA*A ; insert nal 
before -nrcaxoi, SFX. Ver. 23, 6s av for 6s lav, ND. Ver. 24, rots c/xAots for irpos 
rovs oxAovs, ND and eight others ; e^Aflare for f(\i]\vOaTf, XABDLH. Ver. 25, 
itfMaTC for f cA^Atdarf, NABDLH. Ver. 26, ffri\$art for f(\rj\vOa.T(, NBDLE. 
Ver. 28, insert &i*qv before Ac'yaj, KLX ; omit irpwtfTijs, MBKLMX. Ver. 30, 


With what reason can the same critic straightway insist 
on other readings which rest exclusively upon the same 
authorities which the fourteen readings just mentioned 
claim for their support? 

This Note of Truth has for its foundation the well-known 
law that mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in 
the same or in other shapes. The carelessness, or the 
vitiated atmosphere, that leads a copyist to misrepresent 
one word is sure to lead him into error about another. The 
ill-ordered assiduity which prompted one bad correction 
most probably did not rest there. And the errors com- 
mitted by a witness just before or just after the testimony 
which is being sifted was given cannot but be held to be 
closely germane to the inquiry. 

So too on the other side. Clearness, correctness, self- 
collectedness, near to the moment in question, add to the 
authority of the evidence. Consequently, the witness of the 
Context cannot but be held to be positively or negatively, 
though perhaps more often negatively than positively, a 
very apposite Note of Truth. 

7. Internal Evidence. 

It would be a serious omission indeed to close this 
enumeration of Tests of Truth without adverting to those 
Internal Considerations which will make themselves heard, 
and are sometimes unanswerable. 

Thus the reading of TTCLVTMV (masculine or neuter) which 
is found in Cod. B (St. Luke xix. 37) we reject at once 
because of its grammatical impossibility as agreeing with 
bwdjjLtuv (feminine) ; and that of icapSiais (2 Cor. iii. 3) 
according to the witness of ANBCDEGLP on the score 
of its utter impossibility 1 . Geographical reasons are suffi- 

omit is tavrovs, KD. Ver. 32, a \(yti for Myovres, N*B. See Tischendo/f, 
eighth edition, in loco. The Concordia discors will be noticed. 

1 The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their 
English Translation to recommend it, ' in tables that are hearts of flesh ' for 



ciently strong against reading with Codd. NIK Nil 
KOL ^rfKovra in St. Luke xxiv. 13 (i.e. a hundred and 
threescore furlongs), to make it of no manner of importance 
that a few additional authorities, as Origen, Eusebius, and 
Jerome, can be produced in support of the same manifestly 
corrupt reading. On grounds of ordinary reasonableness 
we cannot hear of the sun being eclipsed when the moon 
was full, or of our Lord being pierced before death. 
The truth of history, otherwise sufficiently attested both 
by St. Matthew and Josephus, absolutely forbids avrov 
(NBDLA) to be read for dmjs (St. Mark vi. 22), and in 
consequence the wretched daughter of Herodias to be 
taken to have been the daughter of Herod. 

In these and such-like instances, the Internal reasons 
are plain and strong. But there is a manifest danger, 
when critics forsake those considerations which depend 
upon clear and definite points, and build their own inven- 
tions and theories into a system of strict canons which 
they apply in the teeth of manifold evidence that has 
really everything to recommend it. The extent to which 
some critics are ready to go may be seen in the monstrous 
Canon proposed by Griesbach, that where there are more 
readings than one of any place, that reading which favours 
orthodoxy is an object of suspicion 1 . There is doubtless 
some reason in the Canon which asserts that ' The harder 
the reading, the less likely it is to have been invented, and 
the more likely it is to be genuine,' under which 

(v ir\al leapSiais aapKivais. In the Traditional reading (a) 7rAat aapitivais 
answers to wAafi XiOivais ; and therefore aapuivais would agree with ir\ai, not 
with (^) The opposition between \iOivais and ttapSiais oapKivais would 
be weak indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to ir\ai, and 
would therefore be a blot in St. Paul's nervous passage, (c) The apposition is 
harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8), and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is 
driven to suppose 7rAai to be a ' primitive interpolation.' The faultiness of 
a majority of the Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers. 

1 * Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merilo habetur, quae 
orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.' N. T. Prolegomena, 
I. p. IxvL 


(St. Luke vi. i) must receive additional justification. But 
people are ordinarily so constituted, that when they have 
once constructed a system of Canons they place no limits 
to their operation, and become slaves to them. 

Accordingly, the true reading of passages must be 
ascertained, with very slight exception indeed, from the 
preponderating weight of external evidence, judged accord- 
ing to its antiquity, to number, variety, relative value, 
continuousness, and with the help of the context. Internal 
considerations, unless in exceptional cases they are found in 
strong opposition to evident error, have only a subsidiary 
force. Often they are the product of personal bias, or 
limited observation : and where one scholar approves, 
another dogmatically condemns. Circumstantial evidence 
is deservedly rated low in the courts of justice : and lawyers 
always produce witnesses when they can. The Text of 
Holy Scripture does not vary with the weathercock accord- 
ing to changing winds of individual or general opinion or 
caprice : it is decided by the Tradition of the Church as 
testified by eye-witnesses and written in black and white 
and gold in all countries of Christendom, and all down the 
ages since the New Testament was composed. 

I desire to point out concerning the foregoing seven 
Notes of Truth in Textual Evidence that the student can 
never afford entirely to lose sight of any of them. The 
reason is because although no doubt it is conceivable that 
any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to 
establish almost any reading which can be named, prac- 
tically this is never the case. And why? Because we 
never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest 
possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or 
indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all 
that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes 
we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation 
indeed. Their strength resides in their co-operation. 

F 2 




No progress is possible in the department of ' Textual 
Criticism ' until the superstition for we are persuaded that 
it is nothing less which at present prevails concerning 
certain of * the old uncials ' (as they are called) has been 
abandoned. By 'the old uncials' are generally meant, 
[i] The Vatican Codex (B), and [2] the Sinaitic Codex 
(N), which by common consent are assigned to the 
fourth century : [3] the Alexandrian (A), and [4] the 
Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus (C), which are given to the 
fifth century : and [5] the Codex Bezae (D), which is 
claimed for the sixth century : to which must now be added 
[6] the Codex Beratinus (<), at the end of the fifth, and 
[7] the Codex Rossanensis (2), at the beginning of the sixth 
century. Five of these seven Codexes for some unexplained 
reason, although the latest of them (D) is sundered from the 
great bulk of the copies, uncial and cursive, by about as 
many centuries as the earliest of them (BN) are sundered 
from the last of their group, have been invested with 
oracular authority and are supposed to be the vehicles of 
imperial decrees. It is pretended that what is found in 
either B or in tf or in D, although unsupported by any 
other manuscript, may reasonably be claimed to exhibit 
the truth of scripture, in defiance of the combined evidence 
of all other documents to the contrary. Let a reading be 
advocated by B and N in conjunction, and it is assumed as 
a matter of course that such evidence must needs outweigh 


the combined evidence of all other MSS. which can be 
named. But when (as often happens) three or four of 
these 'old uncials' are in accord, especially if (as is not 
unfrequently the case) they have the support of a single 
ancient version (as the Bohairic), or a solitary early 
Father (as Origen), it seems to be deemed axiomatic that 
such evidence must needs carry all before it 1 . 

I maintain the contradictory proposition, and am pre- 
pared to prove it. I insist that readings so supported are 
clearly untrustworthy and may be dismissed as certainly 

But let us in this chapter seek to come to some under- 
standing with one another. My method shall be to ask 
a plain question which shall bring the matter to a clear 
issue. I will then (i) invent the best answers I am able to 
that question : and then (2) to the best of my ability 
I will dispose of these answers one by one. If the reader 
(i) is able to assign a better answer, or (2) does not deem 
my refutation satisfactory, he has but to call me publicly 
to account : and by the rejoinder I shall publicly render 
either he, or I, must be content to stand publicly dis- 
credited. If I knew of a fairer way of bringing this by no 
means recondite matter to a definite issue, the reader may 
be well assured I should now adopt it 2 . My general 
question is, Why throughout the Gospels are B and tf 
accounted so trustworthy, that all but the absolute disposal 
of every disputed question about the Text is held to depend 
upon their evidence ? 

And I begin by asking of a supposed Biblical Student, 
Why throughout the Gospels should Codex B and tf be 
deemed more deserving of our confidence than the other 

1 See Hort's Introduction, pp. 210-270. 

2 I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory by 
the Dean's lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute sincerity and 
fearlessness. E. M. 


Biblical Student. Because they are the most ancient of 
our Codexes. 

Dean Burgon. This answer evidently seems to you to 
convey an axiomatic truth : but not to me. I must 
trouble you to explain to me why * the most ancient of 
our Codexes ' must needs be the purest ? 

B. S. I have not said that they ' must needs be the 
purest ' : and I request you will not impute to me any- 
thing which I do not actually say. 

The Dean. Thank you for a most just reproof. Let us 
only proceed in the same spirit to the end, and we shall 
arrive at important results. Kindly explain yourself there- 
fore in your own way. 

B. S. I meant to say that because it is a reasonable 
presumption that the oldest Codexes will prove the purest, 
therefore Btf being the oldest Codexes of the Gospels- 
may reasonably be expected to be the best. 

The Dean. So far happily we are agreed. You mean, 
I presume, that inasmuch as it is an admitted principle 
that the stream is purest at its source, the antiquity of B 
and N creates a reasonable presumption in their favour. 
Is that what you mean ? 

B. S. Something of the kind, no doubt. You may 
go on. 

The Dean. Yes, but it would be a great satisfaction 
to me to know for certain, whether you actually do, or 
actually do not mean what I suppose : viz., to apply the 
principle, id verum esse quod primum, I take you to mean 
that in B and K we have the nearest approach to the 
autographs of the Evangelists, and that therefore in them 
we have the best evidence that is at present within reach 
of what those autographs actually were. I will now go on 
as you bid me. And I take leave to point out to you, that 
it is high time that we should have the facts of the case 
definitely before us, and that we should keep them steadily 


in view throughout our subsequent discussion. Now all 
critics are agreed, that B and tf were not written earlier 
than about 340, or say before 330 A. D. You will admit 
that, I suppose? 

B. S. I have no reason to doubt it. 

The Dean. There was therefore an interval of not far 
short of three hundred years between the writing of the 
original autographs and the copying of the Gospels in 
B and N l . Those two oldest Codexes, or the earliest of 
them, are thus found to be separated by nearly three 
centuries from the original writings, or to speak more 
accurately, by about two centuries and three-quarters 
from three of the great autographs, and by about 250 
years from the fourth. Therefore these MSS. cannot be 
said to be so closely connected with the original autographs 
as to be entitled to decide about disputed passages what 
they were or were not. Corruption largely infected the 
several writings 2 , as I shall shew at some length in some 
subsequent chapters, during the great interval to which 
I have alluded. 

B. S. But I am surprised to hear you say this. You 
must surely recollect that B and X were derived from one 
and the same archetype, and that that archetype was 
produced 'in the early part of the second century if not 
earlier V and was very close to the autographs, and that 
they must be accordingly accurate transcripts of the 
autographs, and 

The Dean. I must really pray you to pause : you 
have left facts far behind, and have mounted into cloud- 
land. I must beg you not to let slip from your mind, that 
we start with a fact, so far as it can be ascertained, viz. 
the production of B and N, about the middle of the fourth 

1 Here the Dean's MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what follows. 
The MS. was marked in pencil, ' Very rough but worth carrying on.' 

2 See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323. 
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28. 3 Hort, Introduction, p. 223. 


century. You have advanced from that fact to what is 
only a probable opinion, in which however I am agreed 
with you, viz. that B and N are derived from one and the 
same older manuscript. Together therefore, I pray you 
will not forget, they only count nearly as one. But as to 
the age of that archetype forgive me for saying, that 
unintentionally no doubt but none the less really you 
have taken a most audacious leap. May I ask, however, 
whether you can quote any ancient authority for the date 
which you have affixed ? 

B. S. I cannot recollect one at the present moment. 

The Dean. No, nor Dr. Hort either, for I perceive 
that you adopt his speculation. And I utterly deny that 
there is any probability at all for such a suggestion : nay, 
the chances are greatly, if not decisively, against the 
original from which the lines of B and N diverged, being 
anything like so old as the second century. These MSS. 
bear traces of the Origenistic school, as I shall afterwards 
shew l . They have too much method in their error for it 
to have arisen in the earliest age : its systematic character 
proves it to have been the growth of time. They evince 
effects, as I shall demonstrate in due course, of heretical 
teaching, Lectionary practice, and regular editing, which 
no manuscript could have contracted in the first ages of 
the Church. 

B. S. But surely the differences between B and K, which 
are many, prove that they were not derived immediately 
from their common ancestor, but that some generations 
elapsed between them. Do you deny that ? 

The Dean. I grant you entirely that there are many 
differences between them, so much the worse for the 
value of their evidence. But you must not suffer yourself 
to be misled by the figure of genealogy upon points where 
it presents no parallel. There were in manuscripts no 

1 See Appendix V, and below, Chapter IX. 


periods of infancy, childhood, and youth, which must 
elapse before they could have a progeny. As soon as 
a manuscript was completed, and was examined and passed, 
it could be copied : and it could be copied, not only once 
a year, but as often as copyists could find time to write 
and complete their copies 1 . You must take also another 
circumstance into consideration. After the destruction of 
manuscripts in the persecution of Diocletian, and when the 
learned were pressing from all quarters into the Church, 
copies must have been multiplied with great rapidity. 
There was all the more room for carelessness, inaccuracy, 
incompetency, and capricious recension. Several genera- 
tions of manuscripts might have been given off in two or 
three years. But indeed all this idea of fixing the date of 
the common ancestor of B and N is based upon pure specu- 
lation : Textual Science cannot rest her conclusions upon 
foundations of sand like that. I must bring you back to 
the Rock : I must recall you to facts. B and N were 
produced in the early middle, so to speak, of the fourth 
century. Further than this, we cannot go, except to say 
and this especially is the point to which I must now request 
your attention, that we are in the possession of evidence 
older than they are. 

B. S. But you do not surely mean to tell me that 
other Uncials have been discovered which are earlier than 
these ? 

The Dean. No : not yet : though it is possible, and 
perhaps probable, that such MSS. may come to light, 
not in vellum but in papyrus ; for as far as we know, 

1 As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an 
accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean Burgon's 
Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated Jan. 29, 1873. 
' Note fui ther, that there is ... another copy of the O. T. in one volume . . . 
at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus f> cVos, the scribe, began his task 
on the 8th of June and finished it on the I5th of July, A. D. 1334, working 
very hard as he must have done indeed.' 


B and tf mark the emergence into prominence of the 
' Uncial ' class of great manuscripts 1 . But though there 
are in our hands as yet no older manuscripts, yet we have 
in the first place various Versions, viz., the Peshitto of the 
second century 2 , the group of Latin Versions 3 which begin 
from about the same time, the Bohairic and the Thebaic 
of the third century, not to speak of the Gothic which was 
about contemporary with your friends the Vatican and 
Sinaitic MSS. Next, there are the numerous Fathers who 
quoted passages in the earliest ages, and thus witnessed to 
the MSS. which they used. To take an illustration, 
I have cited upon the last twelve verses of St. Mark's 
Gospel no less than twelve authorities before the end of 
the third century, that is down to a date which is nearly 
half a century before B and tf appeared. The general 
mass of quotations found in the books of the early Fathers 
witnesses to what I say 4 . So that there is absolutely no 
reason to place these two MSS. upon a pedestal by them- 
selves on the score of supreme antiquity. They are eclipsed 
in this respect by many other authorities older than they 
are. Such, I must beg you to observe, is the verdict, not 
of uncertain speculation, but of stubborn facts. 

B. S. But if I am not permitted to plead the highest 
antiquity on behalf of the evidence of the two oldest 

The Dean. Stop, I pray you. Do not imagine for 
a single instant that I wish to prevent your pleading any- 
thing at all that you may fairly plead. Facts, which refuse 
to be explained out of existence, not myself, bar your way. 
Forgive me, but you must not run your head against 
a brick wall. 

B. S. Well then 5 , I will meet you at once by asking 

1 See below, Chapter VIII. 2. 2 See Chapter VI. 

3 See Chapter VII. * See next Chapter. 

5 Another fragment found in the Dean's papers is introduced here. 


a question of my own. Do you deny that B and N are the 
most precious monuments of their class in existence ? 

The Dean. So far from denying, I eagerly assert that 
they are. Were they offered for sale to-morrow, they 
would command a fabulous sum. They might fetch 
perhaps ^100,000. For aught I know or care they may 
be worth it. More than one cotton-spinner is worth or 
possibly several times as much. 

B. S. But I did not mean that. I spoke of their 
importance as instruments of criticism. 

The Dean. Again we are happily agreed. Their im- 
portance is unquestionably first-rate. But to come to the 
point, will you state plainly, whether you mean to assert 
that their text is in your judgement of exceptional 
purity ? 

B. S. I do. 

TJie Dean. At last there we understand one another. 
I on the contrary insist, and am prepared to prove, that 
the text of these two Codexes is very nearly the foulest in 
existence. On what, pray, do you rely for your opinion 
which proves to be diametrically the reverse of mine * ? 

B. S. The best scholars tell me that their text, and 
especially the text of B, is of a purer character than 
any other : and indeed I myself, after reading B in 
Mai's edition, think that it deserves the high praise given 
to it. 

The Dean. My dear friend, I see that you have been 
taken in by Mai's edition, printed at Leipzig, and published 
in England by Williams & Norgate and D. Nutt. Let 
me tell you that it is a most faulty representation of B. 
It mixes later hands with the first hand. It abounds in 
mistakes. It inserts perpetually passages which are no- 
where found in the copy. In short, people at the time 
fancied that in the text of the mysterious manuscript in 

1 Here the fragment ends. 


the Vatican they would find the verba ipsissima of the 
Gospels : but when Cardinal Mai was set to gratify them, 
he found that B would be unreadable unless it were edited 
with a plentiful correction of errors. So the world then 
received at least two recensions of B mixed up in this edition, 
whilst B itself remained behind. The world was generally 
satisfied, and taken in. But I am sorry that you have 
shared in the delusion. 

B. S. Well, of course I may be wrong : but surely you 
will respect the opinion of the great scholars. 

The Dean. Of course I respect deeply the opinion of 
any great scholars : but before I adopt it, I must know 
and approve the grounds of their opinion. Pray, what in 
this instance are they? 

B. S. They say that the text is better and purer than 
any other. 

The Dean. And I say that it is nearly the most corrupt 
known. If they give no special grounds except the fact 
that they think so, it is a conflict of opinion. There is 
a balance between us. But from this deadlock I proceed 
to facts. Take for example, as before, the last twelve 
verses of St. Mark. On the one side are alleged B and N, 
of which B by the exhibition of a blank space mutely 
confesses its omission, and N betrays that it is double- 
minded l ; one Old Latin MS. (k), two Armenian MSS., 
two Ethiopic, and an Arabic Lectionary; an expression of 
Eusebius, who elsewhere quotes the passage, which was 
copied by Jerome and Severus of Antioch, saying that 
the verses were omitted in some copies. L of the eighth 
century, and a few Cursives, give a brief, but impossible, 
termination. On the other side I have referred to 2 six 
witnesses of the second century, six of the third, fifteen of 
the fourth, nine of the fifth, eight of the sixth and seventh, 

1 See Dr. Gwynn's remarks which are quoted below, Appendix VII. 
a The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see Appendix VII. 


all the other Uncials, and all the other Cursives, including 
the universal and immemorial Liturgical use. Here, as 
you must see, B and N, in faltering tones, and with 
only an insignificant following, are met by an array of 
authorities, which is triumphantly superior, not only in 
antiquity, but also in number, variety, and continuousness. 
I claim also the superiority as to context, internal con- 
siderations, and in weight too. 

B. S. But surely weight is the ground of contention 
between us. 

The Dean. Certainly, and therefore I do not assume 
my claim till I substantiate it. But before I go on to do 
so, may I ask whether you can dispute the fact of the four 
first Notes of Truth being on my side ? 

B. S. No : you are entitled to so much allowance. 

The Dean. That is a very candid admission, and just 
what I expected from you. Now as to Weight. The 
passage just quoted is only one instance out of many. 
More will abound later on in this book : and even then 
many more must of necessity remain behind. In point of 
hard and unmistakable fact, there is a continual conflict 
going on all through the Gospels between B and N and 
a few adherents of theirs on the one side, and the bulk of 
the Authorities on the other, and the nature and weight of 
these two Codexes may be inferred from it. They will be 
found to have been proved over and over again to be bad 
witnesses, who were left to survive in their handsome 
dresses whilst attention was hardly ever accorded to any 
services of theirs. Fifteen centuries, in which the art of 
copying the Bible was brought to perfection, and printing 
invented, have by unceasing rejection of their claims 
sealed for ever the condemnation of their character, and 
so detracted from their weight. 

B. S. Still, whilst I acknowledge the justice of much 
that you have said, I cannot quite understand how the 


text of later copies can be really older than the text of 
earlier ones. 

The Dean. You should know that such a thing is quite 
possible. Copies much more numerous and much older 
than B and N live in their surviving descendants. The 
pedigree of the Queen is in no wise discredited because 
William the Conqueror is not alive. But then further than 
this. The difference between the text of B and ?* on the 
one side and that which is generally represented by A and 
< and 2 on the other is not of a kind depending upon date, 
but upon recension or dissemination of readings. No 
amplification of B and N could by any process of natural 
development have issued in the last twelve verses of 
St. Mark. But it was easy enough for the scribe of B 
not to write, and the scribe of tf consciously l and de- 
liberately to omit, verses found in the copy before him, 
if it were determined that they should severally do so. So 
with respect to the 2,556 omissions of B. The original 
text could without any difficulty have been spoilt by leav- 
ing out the words, clauses, and sentences thus omitted : 
but something much more than the shortened text of B 
was absolutely essential for the production of the longer 
manuscripts. This is an important point, and I must say 
something more upon it. 

First then 2 , Cod. B is discovered not to contain in the 
Gospels alone 237 words, 452 clauses, 748 whole sentences, 
which the later copies are observed to exhibit in the same 
places and in the same words. By what possible hypothesis 
will such a correspondence of the Copies be accounted for, 
if these words, clauses, and sentences are indeed, as is 
pretended, nothing else but spurious accretions to the 

Secondly, the same Codex throughout the Gospels 

1 Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII. 
8 Another MS. comes in here. 


exhibits 394 times words in a certain order, which however 
is not the order advocated by the great bulk of the Copies. 
In consequence of what subtle influence will it be pre- 
tended, that all over the world for a thousand years the 
scribes were universally induced to deflect from the 
authentic collocation of the same inspired words, and 
always to deflect in precisely the same way? 

But Cod. B also contains 937 Gospel words, of which by 
common consent the great bulk of the Cursive Copies 
know nothing. Will it be pretended that in any part of 
the Church for seven hundred years copyists of Evangelia 
entered into a grand conspiracy to thrust out of every fresh 
copy of the Gospel self-same words in the self-same 
places l ? 

You will see therefore that B, and so N, since the same 
arguments concern one as the other, must have been 
derived from the Traditional Text, and not the Traditional 
Text from those two Codexes. 

B. S. You forget that Recensions were made at Edessa 
or Nisibis and Antioch which issued in the Syrian Texts, 
and that that was the manner in which the change which 
you find so difficult to understand was brought about. 

The Dean. Excuse me, I forget no such thing ; and 
for a very good reason, because such Recensions never 
occurred. Why, there is not a trace of them in history : it 
is a mere dream of Dr. Hort : they must be ' phantom 
recensions,' as Dr. Scrivener terms them. The Church of 
the time was not so unconscious of such matters as Dr. Hort 
imagines. Supposing for a moment that such Recensions 
took place, they must have been either merely local occur- 
rences, in which case after a controversy on which history is 
silent they would have been inevitably rejected by the other 
Churches in Christendom ; or they must have been general 
operations of the Universal Church, and then inasmuch as 

1 The MS. ceases. 


they would have been sealed with the concurrence of fifteen 
centuries, I can hardly conceive greater condemnations of 
B and N. Besides how could a text which has been in fact 
Universal be * Syrian ' ? We are on terra fir ma, let me 
remind you, not in the clouds. The undisputed action of 
fifteen centuries is not to be set aside by a nickname. 

B. S. But there is another way of describing the process 
of change which may have occurred in the reverse direction 
to that which you advocate. Expressions which had been 
introduced in different groups of readings were combined 
by ' Conflation ' into a more diffuse and weaker passage. 
Thus in St. Mark vi. 33, the two clauses KCU irpo7J\6ov avrovs, 
KCU (Tvvij\6ov O.VTOV, are made into one conflate passage, 
of which the last clause is 'otiose' after vwibpapov Ki 
occurring immediately before 1 . 

The Dean. Excuse me, but I entirely disagree with 
you. The whole passage appears to me to savour of the 
simplicity of early narratives. Take for example the well- 
known words in Gen. xii. 5, * and they went forth to go 
into the land of Canaan ; and into the land of Canaan 
they came 2 .' A clumsy criticism, bereft of any fine 
appreciation of times and habits unlike the present, might 
I suppose attempt to remove the latter clause from 
that place as being ' otiose.' But besides, your explana- 
tion entirely breaks down when it is applied to other 
instances. How could conflation, or mixture, account for 
occurrence of the last cry in St. Mark xv. 39, or of vv. 43- 
44 in St. Luke xxii describing the Agony and Bloody 
Sweat, or of the first Word from the Cross in St. Luke 
xxiii. 34, or of the descending angel and the working of 
the cure in St. John v. 3-4, or of St. Peter's visit to the 
sepulchre in St. Luke xxiv. 12, or what would be the 
foisting of verses or passages of different lengths into 

1 Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99. 

bb ixri 


the numerous and similar places that I might easily 
adduce ? If these were all transcribed from some previous 
text into which they had been interpolated, they would 
only thrust the difficulty further back. How did they 
come there ? The clipped text of B and N so to call it 
could not have been the source of them. If they were 
interpolated by scribes or revisers, the interpolations are 
so good that, at least in many cases, they must have 
shared inspiration with the Evangelists. Contrast, for 
example, the real interpolations of D and the Curetonian. 
It is at the least demonstrated that that hypothesis requires 
another source of the Traditional Text, and this is the argu- 
ment now insisted on. On the contrary, if you will discard 
your reverse process, and for ' Conflation ' will substitute 
* Omission ' through carelessness, or ignorance of Greek, 
or misplaced assiduity, or heretical bias, or through some 
of the other causes which I shall explain later on, all will 
be as plain and easy as possible. Do you not see that ? 
No explanation can stand which does not account for all 
the instances existing. Conflation or mixture is utterly 
incapable of meeting the larger number of cases. But 
you will find before this treatise is ended that various 
methods will be described herein with care, and traced 
in their actual operation, under which debased texts of 
various kinds were produced from the Traditional Text. 

B. vS. I see that there is much probability in what you 
say : but I retain still some lingering doubt. 

The Dean. That doubt, I think, will be removed by the 
next point which I will now endeavour to elucidate. You 
must know that there is no agreement amongst the allies, 
except so far as the denial of truth is concerned. As soon 
as the battle is over, they at once turn their arms against 
one another. Now it is a phenomenon full of suggestion, 
that such a Concordia dtscors is conspicuous amongst B 
and N and their associates. Indeed these two Codexes are 



individually at variance with themselves, since each of 
them has undergone later correction, and in fact no less 
than eleven hands from first to last have been at work 
on tf, which has been corrected and re-corrected back- 
wards and forwards like the faulty document that it is* 
This by the way, but as to the continual quarrels of these 
dissentients 1 , which are patent when an attempt is made 
to ascertain how far they agree amongst themselves, I must 
request your attention to a few points and passages 2 . 

2. St. John v. 4. 

When it is abruptly stated that NBCD four out of 
' the five old uncials ' omit from the text of St. John's 
Gospel the account of the angel descending into the pool 
and troubling the water, it is straightway supposed that 
the genuineness of St. John v. 4 must be surrendered. 
But this is not at all the way to settle questions of this 
kind. Let the witnesses be called in afresh and examined. 

Now I submit that since these four witnesses omitting 
A, (besides a multitude of lesser discrepancies,) are unable 
to agree among themselves whether ' there was at Jeru- 
salem a sheep-/w?/' (N), or 'a pool at the sheep-gate': 
whether it was 'surnamed* (BC), or 'named' (D), or 
neither (tf ) : which appellation, out of thirty which have 
been proposed for this pool, they will adopt, seeing that 

1 An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where ' the Five Old Uncials' 
exhibit the passage thus : 

A. KCU ravra fvXoyrjaas eiirev irapareOTjvai Kai avra. 
N*. KOI evKoyrjaas avra Trapc0r]KCi>. 

N l . Kai evXoyrjaas cnrtv Kai ravra napartOwat. 

B. /cat fv\oyr)aas aura (ITTCV KOI ravra irapariOevai. 

C. Kai fvXoyrjaas avra eiirtv KOI ravra vapaOfre. 

D. Kai tvxapiaTT](Tas (nrev Kai avrovs K(\(vfffv irapanOevai. 
Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A ; Alford, and Tischendorf (1869) 

follow K ; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They happen to be all 
wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word they all agree in is the 
initial Kai. 

2 After this the MSS. recommence. 


C is for ' Bethesda ' ; B for ' Bethsaida ' ; tf for ' Bethzatha ' ; 
D for * Belzetha ' : whether or no the crowd was great, 
of which they all know nothing, and whether some were 
' paralytics,' a fact which was evidently revealed only to 
D : to say nothing of the vagaries of construction dis- 
coverable in verses 1 1 and 1 2 : when, you see, at last 
these four witnesses conspire to suppress the fact that an 
Angel went down into the pool to trouble the water ; 
this concord of theirs derives suggestive illustration from 
their conspicuous discord. Since, I say, there is so much 
discrepancy hereabouts in B and N and their two associates 
on this occasion, nothing short of unanimity in respect of 
the thirty-two contested words five in verse 3, and twenty- 
seven in verse 4 would free their evidence from sus- 
picion. But here we make the notable discovery that only 
three of them omit all the words in question, and that the 
second Corrector of C replaces them in that manuscript. 
D retains the first five, and surrenders the last twenty- 
seven : in this step D is contradicted by another of the ' Old 
Uncials,' A, whose first reading retains the last twenty- 
seven, and surrenders the first five. Even their satellite L 
forsakes them, except so far as to follow the first hand 
of A. Only five Cursives have been led astray, and they 
exhibit strikingly this Concordia discors. One (157) follows 
the extreme members of the loving company throughout. 
Two (18, 314) imitate A and L : and two more (33, 134) 
have the advantage of D for their leader. When wit- 
nesses prevaricate so hopelessly, how far can you believe 

Now to turn for a moment to the other side this is 
a matter on which the translations and such Fathers as 
quote the passage are able to render just as good evidence 
as the Greek copies : and it is found that the Peshitto, 
most of the Old Latin, as well as the Vulgate and the 
Jerusalem, with Tertullian, Ammonius, Hilary, Ephraem 

G 2 


the Syrian, Ambrose (two), Didymus, Chrysostom (eight), 
Nilus (four), Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (five), Augustine 
(two), and Theodorus Studita, besides the rest of the 
Uncials 1 , and the Cursives 2 , with the slight exception 
already mentioned, are opposed to the Old Uncials 3 . 

Let me next remind you of a remarkable instance of 
this inconsistency which I have already described in my 
book on The Revision Revised (pp. 34-36). ' The five 
Old Uncials' (NABCD) falsify the Lord's Prayer as given 
by St. Luke in no less than forty-five words. But so little 
do they agree among themselves, that they throw them- 
selves into six different combinations in their departures 
from the Traditional Text ; and yet they are never able 
to agree among themselves as to one single various 
reading : while only once are more than two of them 
observed to stand together, and their grand point of union 
is no less than an omission of the article. Such is their 
eccentric tendency, that in respect of thirty-two out of the 
whole forty-five words they bear in turn solitary evidence. 


I should weary you, my dear student, if I were to take 
you through all the evidence which I could amass upon 
this disagreement with one another, this Concordia discors. 
But I would invite your attention for a moment to a few 
points which being specimens may indicate the continued 
divisions upon Orthography which subsist between the 
Old Uncials and their frequent errors. And first 4 , how 

1 Sn mark the place with asterisks, and A with an obelus. 

2 In twelve, asterisks : in two, obeli. 

3 The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases. 

* In the Syriac one form appears to be used for all the Marys (ji+n&^- 
Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt in the Jerusalem Syriac 
^pj^iJjo = Mar-yaam), also for Miriam in the O. T., for Mariamne the wife of 
Herod, and others ; in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew 
female name. At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has Jkli^e =Ma/>/a, obviously as 


do they write the ' Mary's ' of the Gospels, of whom in 
strictness there are but three ? 

'The Mother of JESUS V as most of us are aware, was 
not 'Mary' (Mapta) at all; but ' Mariam* (Mapufyx), 
a name strictly identical with that of the sister of Moses 2 . 
We call her c Mary' only because the Latins invariably write 
her name 'Maria.' So complete an obliteration of the 
distinction between the name of the blessed Virgin and 
that of (i) her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas 3 , of (2) Mary 
Magdalene, and of (3) Mary the sister of Lazarus, may be 
deplored, but it is too late to remedy the mischief by full 
1800 years. The question before us is not that ; but 
only how far the distinction between ' Mariam* and 
' Maria ' has been maintained by the Greek copies ? 

Now, as for the cursives, with the memorable exception 
of Evann. i and 33, which latter, because it is disfigured 
by more serious blunders than any other copy written in 
the cursive character, Tregelles by a mativaise plaisanterie 
designates as ' the queen of the cursives,' it may be said 
at once that they are admirably faithful. Judging from 
the practice of fifty or sixty which have been minutely 

a translation of the Greek form in the text which was followed. (See Thesaurus 
Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.) 

In Syriac literature JU J*O = Maria occurs from time to time as the name of 
some Saint or Martyr e. g. in a volume of Acta Mart, described by Wright in 
Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and which appears to be a fifth-century MS. 

On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine (pace 
Drs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt that only one form (cf. Pearson, Creed, 
Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use, ' Maryam,' a vulgarized form of 
'Miriam'; but it may well be that Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form 
Mapta/* for the Virgin, while they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the 
other women. This fine distinction has been lost in the corrupt Uncials, while 
observed in the correct Uncials and Cursives, which is all that the Dean's 
argument requires. (G. H. G.) 

1 The MSS. continue here. 2 LXX. 

3 St. John xix. 25. As the passage is syndeton, the omission of the nai which 
would be necessary if Mapia % rov KXcuira were different from $ dSeA^i) TTJS 
ftrjTpos airov could not be justified. Compare, e. g., the construction in the 
mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3. In disregarding the usage requiring 
exclusively either syndeton or asyndeton, even scholars are guided unconsciously 
by their English experience. (Eo.) 


examined with this view, the traces of irregularity are so 
rare that the phenomenon scarcely deserves notice. Not 
so the old uncials. Cod. B, on the first occasion where 
a blunder is possible 1 (viz. in St. Matt. i. 20), exhibits Mapta 
instead of Mapiajut : so does Cod. C in xiii. 55, Cod. D in 
St. Luke i. 30, 39, 56 : ii. 5, 16, 34, Codd. CD in St. Luke 
by NBC, in St. Matt. i. 34, 38, 46, Codd. BtfD, in ii. 19. 

On the other hand, the Virgin's sister (Mapta), is twice 
written Maptoju : viz. by C, in St. Matt xxvii. 56 ; and by N*, 
in St. John xix. 25 : while Mary Magdalene is written 
Mapta^ by ' the five old uncials ' no less than eleven times : 
viz. by C, in St. Matt, xxvii. 56, by tf , in St. Luke xxiv. 10, 
St. John xix. 25, xx. n, by A, in St. Luke viii. 2, by NA, 
in St. John xx. i, by tf C, in St. Matt, xxviii. i, by NB, 
in St. John xx. 16 and 18, by BC, in St. Mark xv. 40, 
by NBC, in St. Matt, xxvii. 61. 

Lastly, Mary (Mapta) the sister of Lazarus, is called 
Mapta/x by Cod. B in St. Luke x. 42 : St. John xi. 2 : xii. 
3 ; by BC, in St. Luke xi. 32 ; by KC, in St. Luke x. 
39. I submit that such specimens of licentiousness or 
inattention are little calculated to conciliate confidence in 
Codd. BNCD. It is found that B goes wrong nine times : 
D, ten (exclusively in respect of the Virgin Mary) : C, 
eleven : N, twelve. Evan. 33 goes wrong thirteen times : i, 
nineteen times. A, the least corrupt, goes wrong only twice. 


Another specimen of a blunder in Codexes BNL33 is 
afforded by their handling of our LORD'S words, 'Thou 
art Simon the son of Jona.' That this is the true reading 
of St. John i. 43 is sufficiently established by the fact that 

1 The genitive Map'as is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16, 18 ; ii. 
II ; Mark vi. 3 ; Luke i. 41. Ma/>ta/* is used in the Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55 ; 
Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56 ; ii. 5, 19. In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The 
Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. 
occurs for another Mary in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6. 


it is the reading of all the Codexes, uncial and cursive 
alike, excepting always the four vicious specimens speci- 
fied above. Add to the main body of the Codexes the 
Vulgate, Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, the Armenian, 
Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions : besides several 
of the Fathers, such as Serapion 1 , Basil 2 , Epiphanius 3 , 
Chrysostom 4 , Asterius 5 , and another (unknown) writer 
of the fourth century 6 : with Cyril 7 of the fifth, and a 
body of evidence has been adduced, which alike in respect 
of its antiquity, its number, its variety, and its respecta- 
bility, casts such witnesses as B-tf entirely into the shade. 
When it is further remembered that we have preserved 
to us in St. Matt. xvi. 17 our Saviour's designation of 
Simon's patronymic in the vernacular of Palestine, * Simon 
Bar-jona,' which no manuscript has ventured to disturb, 
what else but irrational is the contention of the modern 
School that for 'Jona' in St. John i. 43, we are to read 
' John ' ? The plain fact evidently is that some second- 
century critic supposed that 'Jonah' and 'John' are iden- 
tical : and of his weak imagination the only surviving 
witnesses at the end of 1700 years are three uncials and 
one cursive copy, a few copies of the Old Latin (which 
fluctuate between ' Johannis,' 'Johanna,' and *Johna'), 
the Bohairic Version, and Nonnus. And yet, on the 
strength of this slender minority, the Revisers exhibit in 
their text, 'Simon the son of John/ and in their margin 
volunteer the information that the Greek word is ' Joanes/ 
which is simply not the fact : IcoauTj? being the reading 
of no Greek manuscript in the world except Cod. B 8 . 

1 Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile) A. D. 340 (ap. Galland. 
v. 60 a). 

2 Basil, i. 2406. 3 Epiphanius, i. 435 c. 

4 Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e ; vii. 180 a, 547 e quat. ; viii. 112 a c (nine times). 

5 Asterius, p. 128 b. 

6 Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 5006 (cf. p. 377 Monitum). 

7 Cyril, iv. 131 c. 

8 A gives Iowa ; tf , Ifaavvrj^ ; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the 


Again, in the margin of St. John i. 28 we are informed 
that instead of Bethany the undoubted reading of the 
place, some ancient authorities read * Betharabah.' Why, 
there is not a single ancient Codex, not a single ancient 
Father, not a single ancient Version, which so reads the 
place l . 


B. S. But 2 , while I grant you that this general dis- 
agreement between B and N and the other old Uncials 
which for a time join in their dissent from the Traditional 
Text causes the gravest suspicion that they are in error, 
yet it appears to me that these points of orthography are 
too small to be of any real importance. 

The Dean. If the instances just given were only excep- 
tions, I should agree with you. On the contrary, they 
indicate the prevailing character of the MSS. B and N 
are covered all over with blots 3 , N even more so than B. 
How they could ever have gained the characters which 
have been given them, is passing strange. But even great 
scholars are human, and have their prejudices and other 
weaknesses; and their disciples follow them everywhere 
as submissively as sheep. To say nothing of many great 
scholars who have never explored this field, if men of 
ordinary acquirements in scholarship would only eman- 
cipate themselves and judge with their own eyes, they 
would soon see the truth of what I say. 

revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17, must stand or fall 
together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and NB are joined by 
C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117), Basil (ii. 298), Chrysostom 
(viii. 525 c d), Theodoret (ii. 426), Jo. Damascene (ii. 510 e), and Eulogins 
([A. D. 580] ap. Photium, p. 1612), come to our aid. Not that we require it. 

1 ' Araba' (instead of 'abara') is a word which must have exercised so 
powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern scribes, (having been 
for thirty-four centuries the established designation of the sterile Wady, which 
extends from the Southern extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the 
Arabian Gulf) that the only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia. 
See Gesenius on i"liny (Apafia in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the 
Revised O. T.). 

2 The MSS. have ceased. 3 See Appendix V. 


B. S. I should assent to all that you have told me, 
if I could only have before me a sufficient number of 
instances to form a sound induction, always provided that 
they agree with these which you have quoted Those which 
you have just given are enough as specimens : but forgive 
me when I say that, as a Biblical Student, I think I ought 
to form my opinions upon strong, deep, and wide founda- 
tions of facts. 

The Dean. So far from requiring forgiveness from me, 
you deserve all praise. My leading principle is to build 
solely upon facts, upon real, not fancied facts, not upon 
a few favourite facts, but upon all that are connected with 
the question under consideration. And if it had been 
permitted me to carry out in its integrity the plan which 
I laid down for myself 1 , that however has been withheld 
under the good Providence of Almighty GOD. Neverthe- 
less I think that you will discover in the sequel enough 
to justify amply all the words that I have used. You 
will, I perceive, agree with me in this, That whichever 
side of the contention is the most comprehensive, and rests 
upon the soundest and widest induction of facts, that 
side, and that side alone, will stand. 

1 See Preface. 




1. Involuntary Evidence of Dr. Hort. 

OUR readers will have observed, that the chief obstacle 
in the way of an unprejudiced and candid examination of 
the sound and comprehensive system constructed by Dean 
Burgon is found in the theory of Dr. Hort. Of the 
internal coherence and the singular ingenuity displayed in 
Dr. Hort's treatise, no one can doubt : and I hasten to pay 
deserved and sincere respect to the memory of the highly 
accomplished author whose loss the students of Holy 
Scripture are even now deploring. It is to his arguments 
sifted logically, to the judgement exercised by him upon 
texts and readings, upon manuscripts and versions and 
Fathers, and to his collisions with the record of history, that 
a higher duty than appreciation of a Theologian however 
learned and pious compels us to demur. 

But no searching examination into the separate links 
and details of the argument in Dr. Hort's Introduction to 
his Edition of the New Testament will be essayed now. 
Such a criticism has been already made by Dean Burgon 
in the 3o6th number of the Quarterly Review, and has 

1 This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the 


been republished in The Revision Revised 1 . The object 
here pursued is only to remove the difficulties which 
Dr. Hort interposes in the development of our own treatise. 
Dr. Hort has done a valuable service to the cause of 
Textual Criticism by supplying the rationale of the attitude 
of the School of Lachmann. We know what it really 
means, and against what principles we have to contend. 
He has also displayed a contrast and a background to the 
true theory ; and has shewn where the drawing and 
colouring are either ill-made or are defective. More than 
all, he has virtually destroyed his own theory. 

The parts of it to which I refer are in substance briefly 
the following : 

1 The text found in the mass of existing MSS. does not 
date further back than the middle of the fourth century. 
Before that text was made up, other forms of text were in 
vogue, which may be termed respectively Neutral, Western, 
and Alexandrian. The text first mentioned arose in Syria 
and more particularly at Antioch. Originally there had 
been in Syria an Old-Syriac, which after Cureton is to be 
identified with the Curetonian. In the third century, about 
250 A. D., "an authoritative revision, accepted by Syriac 
Christendom," was made, of which the locality would be 
either Edessa or Nisibis, or else Antioch itself. " This 
revision was grounded probably upon an authoritative 
revision at Antioch" (p. 137) of the Greek texts which 
called for such a recension on account of their " growing 
diversity and confusion." Besides these two, a second 
revision of the Greek texts, or a third counting the Syriac 
revision, similarly authoritative, was completed at Antioch 
" by 35 or thereabouts " ; but what was now " the Vulgate 
Syriac " text, that is the Peshitto, did not again undergo 
any corresponding revision. From the last Greek revision 

1 See also Miller's Textual Guide, chapter iv. No answer has been made to 
the Dean's strictures. 


issued a text which was afterwards carried to Constanti- 
nople " Antioch being the true ecclesiastical parent of 
Constantinople" and thenceforward became the Text 
dominant in Christendom till the present century. Never- 
theless, it is not the true Text, for that is the " Neutral " 
text, and it may be called " Syrian." Accordingly, in in- 
vestigations into the character and form of the true Text, 
" Syrian " readings are to be " rejected at once, as proved 
to have a relatively late origin." ' 

A few words will make it evident to unprejudiced 
judges that Dr. Hort has given himself away in this part 
of his theory. 

i. The criticism of the Canon and language of the 
Books of the New Testament is but the discovery and 
the application of the record of Testimony borne in history 
to those books or to that language. For a proof of this 
position as regards the Canon, it is sufficient to refer to 
Bishop Westcott's admirable discussion upon the Canon 
of the New Testament. And as with the Books generally, 
so with the details of those Books their paragraphs, their 
sentences, their clauses, their phrases, and their words. To 
put this dictum into other terms : The Church, all down 
the ages, since the issue of the original autographs, has 
left in Copies or in Versions or in Fathers manifold 
witness to the books composed and to the words written. 
Dr. Hort has had the unwisdom from his point of view 
to present us with some fifteen centuries, and I must in 
duty say it the audacity to label those fifteen centuries of 
Church Life with the title * Syrian/ which as used by him 
I will not characterize, for he has made it amongst his 
followers a password to contemptuous neglect. Yet those 
fifteen centuries involve everything. They commenced when 
the Church was freeing herself from heresy and formulating 
her Faith. They advanced amidst the most sedulous care 
of Holy Scripture. They implied a consentient record from 


the first, except where ignorance, or inaccuracy, or care- 
lessness, or heresy, prevailed. And was not Dr. Hort 
aware, and do not his adherents at the present day know, 
that Church Life means nothing arbitrary, but all that is 
soundest and wisest and most complete in evidence, and 
most large-minded in conclusions ? Above all, did he fancy, 
and do his followers imagine, that the HOLY GHOST who 
inspired the New Testament could have let the true Text 
of it drop into obscurity during fifteen centuries of its life, 
and that a deep and wide and full investigation (which 
by their premisses they will not admit) must issue in the 
proof that under His care the WORD of GOD has been 
preserved all through the ages in due integrity? This 
admission alone when stripped of its disguise, is plainly 
fatal to Dr. Hort's theory. 

2. Again, in order to prop up his contention, Dr. Hort 
is obliged to conjure up the shadows of two or three 
' phantom revisions,' of which no recorded evidence exists l . 
We must never forget that subjective theory or individual 
speculation are valueless, when they do not agree with facts, 
except as failures leading to some better system. But 
Dr. Hort, as soon as he found that he could not maintain 
his ground with history as it was, instead of taking back 
his theory and altering it to square with facts, tampered 
with historical facts in order to make them agree with 
his theory. This is self-evident : no one has been able to 
adduce, during the quarter of a century that has elapsed 
since Dr. Hort published his book, passages to shew that 
Dr. Hort was right, and that his supposed revisions 
really took place. The acute calculations of Adams and 
Leverrier would have been very soon forgotten, if Neptune 
had not appeared to vindicate their correctness. 

But I shall not leave matters here, though it is evident 

1 See Dr. Scrivener's incisive criticism of Dr. Hoii's theory, Introduction, 
edit. 4, ii. 284-296. 


that Dr. Hort is confuted out of his own mouth. The 
fifteen centuries of dominant evidence, which he admits 
to have been on our side, involve the other centuries that 
had passed previously, because the Catholic Church of 
Christ is ever consistent with itself, and are thus virtually 
decisive of the controversy ; besides the collapse of his 
theory when superimposed upon the facts of history and 
found not to coincide with them. I proceed to prove 
from the surviving records of the first three or four cen- 
turies, during the long period that elapsed between the 
copying of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. and the days 
of the Evangelists, that the evidence of Versions and 
Fathers is on our side. 
And first of the Fathers. 

2. Testimony of the Ante-Chrysostom Writers. 

No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic 
examination of the quotations occurring in the writings 
of the Fathers who died before A. D. 400 and in public 
documents written prior to that date. The consequence is 
that many statements have been promulgated respecting 
them which are inconsistent with the facts of the case. 
Dr. Hort, as I shall shew, has offended more than once in 
this respect. The invaluable Indexes drawn up by Dean 
Burgon and those who assisted him, which are of the 
utmost avail in any exhaustive examination of Patristic 
evidence upon any given text, are in this respect of little 
use, the question here being, What is the testimony of all 
the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of every separate 
Father, as to the MSS. used by them or him, upon the 
controversy waged between the maintainers of the Tradi- 
tional Text on the one side, and on the other the defenders 
of the Neologian Texts ? The groundwork of such an 


examination evidently lies not in separate passages of the 
Gospels, but in the series of quotations from them found 
in the works of the collective or individual Fathers of the 
period under consideration. 

I must here guard myself. In order to examine the 
text of any separate passage, the treatment must be ex- 
haustive, and no evidence if possible should be left out. 
The present question is of a different kind. Dr. Hort 
states that the Traditional Text, or as he calls it ' the 
Syrian/ does not go back to the earliest times, that is as 
he says, not before the middle of the fourth century. In 
proving my position that it can be traced to the very first, 
it would be amply sufficient if I could shew that the 
evidence is half on our side and half on the other. It is 
really found to be much more favourable to us. We fully 
admit that corruption prevailed from the very first l : and 
so, we do not demand as much as our adversaries require 
for their justification. At all events the question is of 
a general character, and does not depend upon a little 
more evidence or a little less. And the argument is 
secondary in its nature : it relates to the principles of the 
evidence, not directly to the establishment of any particular 
reading. It need not fail therefore if it is not entirely ex- 
haustive, provided that it gives a just and fair representation 
of the whole case. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to 
make it exhaustive as far as my power would admit, 
having gone over the whole field a second time, and having 
employed all the care in either scrutiny that I could com- 

The way in which my investigation has been accomplished 
is as follows : A standard of reference being absolutely 
necessary, I have kept before me a copy of Dr. Scrivener's 
Cambridge Greek Testament, A. D. 1887, in which the dis- 
puted passages are printed in black type, although the 

1 The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334. 


Text there presented is the Textus Receptus from which 
the Traditional Text as revised by Dean Burgon and here- 
after to be published differs in many passages. It follows 
therefore that upon some of these the record, though not 
unfavourable to us, has many times been included in our 
opponents' column. I have used copies of the Fathers in 
which the quotations were marked, chiefly those in Migne's 
Series, though I have also employed other editions where 
I could find any of superior excellence as well as Migne. 
Each passage with its special reading was entered down in 
my note-book upon one column or the other. Successive 
citations thus fell on either side when they witnessed upon 
the disputed points so presented. But all doubtful quota- 
tions (under which head were included all that were not 
absolutely clear) were discarded as untrustworthy witnesses 
in the comparison that was being made ; and all instances 
too of mere spelling, because these latter might have been 
introduced into the text by copyists or editors through an 
adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages when 
the text of the Father in question was copied or printed. 
The fact also that deflections from the text more easily 
catch the eye than undeviating rejection of deflections was 
greatly to the advantage of the opposite side. And lastly, 
where any doubt arose I generally decided questions against 
my own contention, and have omitted to record many 
smaller instances favourable to us which I should have 
entered in the other column. From various reasons the 
large majority of passages proved to be irrelevant to this 
inquiry, because no variation of reading occurred in them, 
or none which has been adopted by modern editors. Such 
were favourite passages quoted again and again as the two 
first verses of St. John's Gospel, ' I and My Father are one,' 
' I am the way, the truth, and the life,' ' No man knoweth 
the Father but the Son/ and many others. In Latin 
books, more quotations had to be rejected than in Greek, 


because the verdict of a version cannot be so close as the 
witness of the original language. 

An objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of 
the books of the Fathers are sure to have been altered in 
order to coincide more accurately with the Received Text. 
This is true of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil, and of the 
Regulae brevius Tractatae, which seem to have been read 
constantly at meals, or were otherwise in continual use in 
Religious Houses. The monks of a later age would not 
be content to hear every day familiar passages of Holy 
Scripture couched in other terms than those to which they 
were accustomed, and which they regarded as correct. This 
fact was perfectly evident upon examination, because these 
treatises were found to give evidence for the Textus Re- 
ceptus in the proportion of about 6 : i, whereas the other 
books of St. Basil yielded according to a ratio of about 

8: 3 . 

For the same reason I have not included Marcion's 
edition of St. Luke's Gospel, or Tatian's Diatessaron, in 
the list of books and authors, because such representations 
of the Gospels having been in public use were sure to have 
been revised from time to time, in order to accord with the 
judgement of those who read or heard them. Our readers 
will observe that these were self-denying ordinances, because 
by the inclusion of the works mentioned the list on the 
Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet 
our foundations have been strengthened, and really the 
position of the Traditional Text rests so firmly upon 
what is undoubted, that it can afford to dispense with 
services which may be open to some suspicion \ And the 
natural inference remains, that the difference between the 
witness of the Ethica and the Regulae brevius Tractatae on 
the one hand, and that of the other works of Basil on the 

1 Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon individual 



other, suggests that too much variation, and too much which 
is evidently characteristic variation, of readings meets us in 
the works of the several Fathers, for the existence of any 
doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps 
not the spelling, as they issued originally from the author's 
pen l . Variant readings of quotations occurring in different 
editions of the Fathers are found, according to my ex- 
perience, much less frequently than might have been 
supposed. Where I saw a difference between MSS. noted 
in the Benedictine or other editions or in copies from the 
Benedictine or other prints, of course I regarded the 
passage as doubtful and did not enter it. Acquaintance 
with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general 
trustworthiness the more evident. The habit of quotation 
of authorities from the Fathers by Tischendorf and all 
Textual Critics shews that they have always been taken 
to be in the main trustworthy. It is in order that we may 
be on sure ground that I have rejected many passages on 
both sides, and a larger number of cases of pettier testi- 
mony on the Traditional side. 

In the examination of the Greek Fathers, Latin Trans- 
lations have generally been neglected (except in the case 
of St. Irenaeus 2 ), because the witness of a version is second- 
hand, and Latin translators often employed a rendering 
with which they were familiar in representing in Latin 
passages cited from the Gospels in Greek. And in the 
case even of Origen and especially of the later Fathers 
before A. D. 400, it is not certain whether the translation, 
such as that of Rufinus, comes within the limit of time 
prescribed. The evidence of the Father as to whether he 

1 E. g. ' Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different places shew 
discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for either by looseness of citation 
or by corruption of the MSS. of his writings.' Hort, Introduction, p. 113. 
See also the whole passage, pp. 113-4. 

2 See Hort, Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus 1 works 
in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of the fourth century. 


used a Text or Texts of one class or another is of course 
much better exhibited in his own Greek writing, than 
where some one else has translated his words into Latin. 
Accordingly, in the case of the Latin Fathers, only the 
clearest evidence has been admitted. Some passages 
adduced by Tischendorf have been rejected, and later 
experience has convinced me that such rejections made in 
the earlier part of my work were right. In a secondary 
process like this, if only the cup were borne even, no harm 
could result, and it is of the greatest possible importance 
that the foundation of the building should be sound. 

The general results will appear in the annexed Table. 
The investigation was confined to the Gospels. For want 
of a better term, I have uniformly here applied the title 
' Neologian ' to the Text opposed to ours. 

Fathers. Traditional Text. Neologian. 

Patres Apostolici and Didache . . 1 1 ... 4 

Epistle to Diognetus i ... o 

Papias i ... o 

Justin Martyr 17 ...20 

Heracleon i . . . . 7 

Gospel of Peter 2 ... o 

Seniores apud Irenaeum .... 2 ... o 

Athenagoras 3 ... i 

Irenaeus (Latin as well as Greek) .63 ... 41 

Hegesippus ........ 2 ... o 

Theophilus Antiochenus .... 2 ... 4 

Testament of Abraham .... 4 ... o 

EpistolaViennensium et Lugdunensium i . . . o 

Clement of Alexandria 82 ...72 

Tertullian 74 ... 65 

Clementines 18 ... 7 

Hippolytus . . 26 ... ii 

Callixtus (Pope) ....... i ... o 

Pontianus (Pope) o . . 2 

3H 2 34 

H 2 


Fathers. Traditional Text. Neologian. 

Brought forward ...... 311 ... 234 

Origen 460 . . . 491 

Julius Africanus i ... i 

Gregory Thaumaturgus . . . . 1 1 ... 3 

Novatian 6 ... 4 

Cornelius (Pope) 4 ... i 

Synodical Letter i ... 2 

Cyprian 100 ... 96 

Concilia Carthaginiensia .... 8 ... 4 

Dionysius of Alexandria ....12 ... 5 

Synodus Ahtiochena 3 ... i 

Acta Pilati 5 ... i 

Theognostus o ... i 

Archelaus (Manes) n ... 2 

Pamphilus 5 ... i 

Methodius ....14 ... 8 

Peter of Alexandria 7 ... 8 

Alexander Alexandrinus .... 4 ... o 

Lactantius o ... i 

Juvencus i ... 2 

Arius 2 ... i 

Acta Philippi 2 ... i 

Apostolic Canons and Constitutions . 61 . . . 28 

Eusebius (Caesarea) 315 . . .214 

Theodorus Heracleensis .... 2 ... o 

Athanasius 179 ... 119 

Firmicus Maternus 3 ... i 

Julius (Pope) i ... 2 

Serapion 5 ... i 

Eustathius 7 ... 2 

Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus *. .36 ... 17 

1577 I2 52 

1 Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish 

him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some of his 
works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius was 

a considerable writer, as may be understood from the fact that he occupies 

nearly 1000 pages in Migne's Series. His memory is still, I am informed, 
preserved in Egypt. But in some fields of scholarship at the present day he 
has met with strange neglect. 


Fathers. Traditional Text. Neologian. 

Brought forward 1577 . 1252 

Hilary (Poictiers) 73 39 

Candidus Arianus o ... i 

Eunomius i ... o 

Didymus 81 ... 36 

Victorinus of Pettau 4 ... 3 

Faustinus 4 ... o 

Zeno 3 ... 5 

Basil 272 ... 105 

Victorinus Afer 14 ...14 

Lucifer of Cagliari 17 ... 20 

Titus of Bostra 44 ... 24 

Cyril of Jerusalem 54 ... 32 

Pacianus , 2 ... 2 

Optatus 10 ... 3 

Quaestiones ex Utroque Test. . . 13 ... 6 

Gregory of Nyssa 91 ... 28 

Philastrius 7 ... 6 

Gregory of Nazianzus 18 ... 4 

Amphilochius 27 ...10 

Epiphanius 123 ... 78 

Ambrose 169 . . . 77 

Macarius Magnes n ... 5 

Diodorus of Tarsus i ... o 

Evagrius Ponticus 4 ... o 

Esaias Abbas i ... o 

Nemesius o ... i 

Philo of Carpasus * 9 ... 2 

2630 1753 

The testimony therefore of the Early Fathers is empha- 
tically, according to the issue of numbers, in favour of the 
Traditional Text, being about 3 : 2. But it is also necessary 
to inform the readers of this treatise, that here quality con- 
firms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important 

1 The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could not 
find any witness on one side or the other in their writings. Also Syriac writings 
are not here included. 


passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it 
will be seen that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the 
Traditional readings as against 170 on the other side. In 
other words, the Traditional Text beats its opponent in a 
general proportion of 3 to i. This result supplies a fair idea 
of the two records. The Neologian record consists mainly 
of unimportant, or at any rate of smaller alterations, such 
as 8e'8o>Ka for eScoKa, 6 ovpdvios for 6 kv ovpavols, $o/3eio-0e for 
(o/3Tj0?jre, disarrangements of the order of words, omissions 
of particles, besides of course greater omissions of more 
or less importance. In fact, a great deal of the variations 
suggest to us that they took their origin when the Church 
had not become familiar with the true readings, the verba 
ipsissima, of the Gospels, and when an atmosphere of much 
inaccuracy was spread around. It will be readily under- 
stood how easily the text of the Holy Gospels might have 
come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from the 
pulpit or otherwise, and how corruptions must have so 
embedded themselves in the memories and in the copies of 
many Christians of the day, that it needed centuries before 
they could be cast out. That they were thus rooted 
out to a large extent must have been due to the loving 
zeal and accuracy of the majority. Such was a great 
though by no means the sole cause of corruption. But 
before going further, it will be best to exhibit the testi- 
mony referred to as it is borne by thirty of the most 
important passages in dispute. They have been selected 
with care : several which were first chosen had to be 
replaced by others, because of their absence from the 
quotations of the period under consideration. Of course, 
the quotations are limited to that period. Quotations are 
made in this list also from Syriac sources. Besides my own 
researches, The Last Twelve Verses, and The Revision 
Revised, of Dean Burgon have been most prolific of 
apposite passages. A reference here and there has been 



added from Resch's Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu 
den Evangelien, Leipzig, 1894-5. 

I. St. Matt. i. 25. UptoToroKov. 
On the Traditional side: 

Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 9). 
Gregory Nyss. (ii. 229). 
Ephraem Syrus (Commentary 

on Diatessaron). 
Epiphanius (Haer. II. li. 5 ; III. 

Tatian (Diatessaron). 
Athanasius (c. Apoll. i. 20 ; ii. 


Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. (291) ; in 
S.Xti.Gen.5; 1.392; ii.599, 

Didymus (Trin. iii. 4). 

Ixxxviii. 17, &c. 5 times). 
Ambrose (De Fid. I. xiv. 89) '. 

Against : I can discover nothing. 

2. St. Matt. v. 44 (some of the clauses). 
Traditional : Separate clauses are quoted by 

Didache ( i). 

Polycarp (x.). 

Justin M. (Apol. i. 15). 

Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 


Tertullian (De Patient, vi.). 
Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autoly- 

Clemens Alex. (Paed.i. 8 ; Strom. 

iv. 14; vii. i4)f 
Origen (De Orat. i. ; Cels. viii. 

35; 4i)- 

Eusebius (Praep. Ev. xiii. 7 ; 
Comment, in Isai. 66 ; Com- 
ment, in Ps. 3 ; 108). 

Athanasius (De Incarnat. c. 
Arian. 3; 13). 

Against : 
Cyprian (De Bono Patient, v. ; 

De Zelo xv.; Test, ad Jud. 

iii. 49). 
Irenaeus (Haer. III. xviii. 5). 

Apost. Const, (i. i, all the 

clauses; vii. i). 
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 124). 
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ. ; 

In S. Stephanum). 
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.). 
Philo of Carpasus (I. 7). 
Pacianus (Epist. ii.). 
Hilary (Tract, in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9 ; 

10. 16). 
Ambrose (De Abrahamo ii. 30; 

InPs.xxxviii. 10 ; In Ps. cxviii. 


Aphraates (Dem. ii.). 
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels 

Origen (Comment, on St. John 

XX. xv. ; xxvii.). 
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. xiii. 7). 
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.). 

1 See The Revision Revised, p. 123 


3. St. Matt. vi. 13. Doxology. 

Traditional : 

Didache (viii, with variation). with variation). 

Apostol. Const, (iii. 18 ; vii. 25, Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24). 

Against (?), i.e. generally silent about it : 
Tertullian (De Orat. 8). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xxiii., Myst. 5, 

Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. 27). 18). 

Origen (De Orat. 18). Gregory Nyss. is doubtful (De 

Orat. Dom. end). 

4. St. Matt. vii. 13, 14. 'H 

Traditional : 

Hippolytus (In Susannam v. 18). Ambrose (Epist. I. xxviii. 6). 

Testament of Abraham(5 times). Esaias Abbas. 

Origen (Select, in Ps. xvi. ; Philo of Carpasus (iii. 73). 

Comment, in Matt. xii. 12). 


Against : 

Hippolytus (Philosoph. v. i . Basil (Horn, in Ps. xxxiii. 4 ; 

i bis). xlv. 2). 

Origen ( 17; Select, in Ps. Cyril Jerus. (Cat. iii. 7). 

xlv. 2 ; cxvii.; c. Haeres. v. 8). Gregory Nyss. (c. Fornicarios). 

Cyprian (De Hab. Virg. xxi. ; Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. iv. 

Test, ad Jud. iii. 6). 37). 

Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. iii. 4 ; Philo of Carpasus (i. 7). 

Comment, in Ps. 3). MacariusAegypt. (Horn, xxviii.). 

Clemens Alex. (Strom. IV. ii.; vi.; Lucifer (De Athan. ii. ; Morien- 

v. 5 ; Cohort, ad Gent. p. 79). dum esse). 

5. St. Matt. ix. 13. els ^ravoiav. Mark ii. 17. 
Traditional : 

Barnabas (5). Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad 

Justin M. (Apol. i. 15). loc.). 

Irenaeus (III. v. 2). Basil (De Poenitent. 3 ; Horn. 

Origen (Comment, in Joh. in Ps. xlviii. i ; Epist. Class. I. 

xxviii. 1 6). xlvi. 6). 
Eusebius( Ps. cxlvi.). 



Against : 
Clemens Rom. (ii. 2). 

Hilary (in Mark ii. 17). 

6. St. Matt. xi. 37. (3ov\r)Tai a7TOKa\v\lraL. 
Traditional : 

Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. vi. i). 

Archelaus Manes (xxxvii.). 

Clementines (Recog. ii. 47 ; 
Horn. xvii. 4; xviii. 4; 13). 

Athanasius (Matt. xi. 27 com- 
menting upon it ; De Incarn. 
c. Arian. 7; 13; 47; 48; c. 
Arianos iii. 26; 49; c. Sabell. 
Greg. 4). 

Didymus (De Trin. iii. 36). 

Against : 

Irenaeus (c. Haeres. I. xx. 3 ; 

II. vi. i ; IV. vi. 3). 
Clemens Alex. (Cohort, ad Gent. 

i. end ; Paed. i. 5 ; Strom, i. 

28; v. 13; vii. 10; 18; Quis 

Div. Salv. viii.). 
Justin M. (Apol. i. 63 bis; 

Dial. c. Tryph. 100). 
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Comm. in 

Job. i. 42). 
Synodus Antiochena. 

Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 314). 
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium i. 


Ambrose (De Fide V. xvi. 201 ; 

De Spir. S. II. xi. 123). 
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i.). 
Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad 

loc. ; De Trin. ii. 10 ; vi. 26 ; 

ix. 50 ; Frag. xv.). 
Quaestiones ex N. T. (124). 

Athanasius (Hist. Arian. xii. ; c. 

Arian.i. 12; 39; iv. 23 ; Serm. 

Maj. de Fide, 28). 
Didymus (De Trin. ii. 16). 
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. i. n; 

De Eccles, Theol. I. xv ; xvi.). 
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 311). 
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vi. 6; x. i). 
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. {.34. 

18; ii. 54. 4; iii. 65. 4; 76. 

4; 29; Ancor. 67). 

7. St. Matt. xvii. 2,1. The Verse. 
Traditional : 
Clement Alex. 'E*Xoyai & r. 

7TpO(f) XV. 

Origen (Comment, in Matt. xiii. 

7 ; Horn. i.). 

Athanasius (De Virg. vii.). 
Basil (De Jejun. Horn. i. 9 ; Reg. 

fus. tract, xviii. ; Horn, de 

Jejun. iii.). 

Juvencus (iii. vv. 381-2). 
Ambrose (In Ps. xlv. 9 ; Epist. 

Class. I. xlii. n). 
Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad 



Against : none, so far as I can find. 

8. St. Matt, xviii. n. The Verse. 

Traditional : 

Origen (ii. 147 ; Cone. v. 675). Ambrose (De Interpell. Dav. IV. 

Tertullian (Pudic. 9; Resurr. ii-4; Expos, in Luc. vii. 209 ; 

9). De Fid. Res. II. 6) '. 

Against : none, so far as I can find. 

9. St. Matt. xix. 16, 17. 

Traditional : 
Clemens Alex. (Strom, v. 10). 
Origen ayaOe (Comment, in 

Matt. xv. 10). 

Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21). 
Athanasius (De Incarn. c. Arian. 

Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xviii. 30). 

Against : 

Origen (Praep. Evan. xi. 19; 

Comment, in Matt. xv. 10. 

Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21). 

dyafle, and Tre/n TOV ayaOov. 

Gregory Naz. (i. 529). 

Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad 

Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 

34- 1 8). 
Macarius Magnes (i. 9) 2 . 

Novatian (De Trin. xxx.). 
Hilary omits dyade (Comment, 
in loc.). 

10. St. Matt, xxiii. 38. lpr]/utos. St. Luke xiii. 35. 
Traditional : 

Cyprian (Test, ad Jud. i. 6). 
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xxxvi. 

8 ; xxxvii. 5). 
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 9). 
Methodius (Serm. de Simeone 

et Anna). 
Origen (Horn, in Jerem. vii. 

bis ; x. ; xiii. ; Select, in Jere- 

miam xv. ; in Threnos fv. 6). 
Apostol. Const, (vi. 5). 
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. II. iv. 

(38) four times ; IV. xvi. 

(189); VI. (291); viii.(40i); 

x. (481); Eclog. Proph. IV. 

1 The Revision Revised, p. 92. 

2 I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted professedly 
from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x. 17-18, and in St. Luke 
xviii. 18-19, i s frequently quoted without reference to any one of the Gospels. 
Surely some of these quotations must be meant for St. Matthew. 


I0 7 

i. ; Comment, in Ps. 73 bis ; 
77; 79; in Isaiam 7-8; De 
Theophan. vii. tris). 
Basil (Comment, in Isaiam i. 20). 

Against : 

Didymus (Expos, in Ps. 67). 
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. 

Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 32). 
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 83). 
Ambrose (In Ps. xliii. 69 
Cant. Cant. iv. 54). 

iii. 40). 
Zeno (xiv. 2). 


ii. St. Matt, xxvii. 34. v Oos and oivov. 
Traditional : 

Gospel of Peter ( 5). 

Acta Philippi ( 26). 

Barnabas ( 7). 





Against : 

Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. 
Macarius Magnes (ii. 12). 

Eusebius of Emesa. 
Theodore of Heraclea. 
Gregory Naz. 
Gregory Nyss. 
Ephraem Syrus. 
Titus of Bostra. 

Gospel of Nicodemus \ 

12. St. Matt, xxviii. 2. airb Trjs Ovpas. 
Traditional : 

Gospel of Nicodemus. Eusebius (ad Marinum, ii. 4). 

Acta Philippi. Greg. Nyss. (De Christ. Resurr. 

Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. I. 390, 398) 2 ? 

Compare also Acta Pilati (euro rov aro'/^aro? rov cnr^kaiov, 
and e.< rov juurqpclov), and Gospel of Peter (km Trjs Ovpas 
7n rrjs Ovpas). 

Against : 

Dionysius Alex. (Epist. Canon. Origen (c. Celsum, ii. 70). 
ad Basilidem). Apostol. Can. (vii. i). 

1 For the reff. see below, Appendix II. 

2 Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3. 


13. St. Matt, xxviii. 19. 
Traditional : 

Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xvii. i). 
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noet. 

' 4). 
Apostolic Canons (pp. 29; 43; 

49 (Lagarde) ; Const, ii. 26 ; 

iv. i ; vii. 22). 
Concilia Carthaginiensia (vii. 


Ps. Justin (Expos. Rect. Fid. v.). 
Tertullian (De Baptismo xiii.). 
Cyprian (Epist. ad Jubaianum v.; 

xxv. 2 tingentes ; Ixiii. 1 8 ; 

ad Novatianum Heret. iii. 

3rd cent. ; Testimon. II. 

xxvi. tingentes). 
Eusebius (c. Marcell. I. i.). 
Athanasius (Epist. Encycl. i. ; 

Epist. ad Scrap, i. 6 ; 28; ii. 

6; iii. 6; iv. 5 ; de Syn. 23 ; 

De Titulis Ps. 148). 
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 299 ; De 

Fide 4 ; De Bapt. I. i ; ii. 6 ; 

Against : none. 

14- St. Mark i. 2. roi? 7rpo<rjrai? . . . 'Hcrafa. 
Traditional : 

Titus of Bostra. 



Epist. Class. I. viii. 1 1 ; II. 

ccx. 3). 
Didymus (De Trin. i. 30; 36; 

ii. 5 ; iii. 23). 
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xvi. 4). 
Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad 

loc. ; c. Auxentium 14; De 

Syn. xxix.; De Trin. ii. i). 
Amphilochius (Epist. Synod.). 
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xi. ; 

In Bapt. Christ; In Christ. 

Resurr. bis; Epist. v.; xxiv.). 
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. 

i. i5). 

Optatus (De Schism. Don. v. 5). 
Firmicus Maternus (De Error. 

Profan. Relig. xxv.). 
Ambrose (De Joseph, xii. 71). 
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium 

iv. 1 8). 
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. iii. 73. 

3 > 74- 5 > BKHEf^aXaMKW, end). 

Irenaeus (III. xvi. 3). 
Ambrose \ 

Against : 

Irenaeus (III. xi. 8). 
Origen (Cels. ii. 4 ; Comment, 
in John i. 14). 

1 For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. i, flov TOV Qfov, see Appendix IV. 

Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manich. 

iii. 4). 


I0 9 

Basil (Adv. Eunom. ii. 15). 
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. i. 



Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. 
S. Joann.). 

15. St. Mark xvi. 9-20. Last Twelve Verses. 

Traditional : 

Papias (Eus. H. E. Hi. 39). 
Justin Martyr (Tryph. 53 ; Apol. 

i- 45). 
Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. x. 6 ; iv. 


Tertullian (De Resurr. Cam. 

xxxvii. ; Adv. Praxeam xxx.). 
Clementines (Epit. 141). 
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 

ad fin.}. 
Vincentius (2nd Council of 

Carthage Routh, Rell. Sacr. 

iii. p. 124). 
Acta Pilati (xiv. 2). 
Apost. Can. and Const, (can. i ; 

v. 7; 19; vi. 15; 30; viii. i). 
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. 

Nov. Collect, i. p. i). 

Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiv. 27). 
Syriac Table of Canons. 
Macarius Magnes (iii. 16 ; 24). 
Aphraates (Dem. i. bis). 
Didymus (Trin. ii. 12). 
Syriac Acts of the Apostles. 
Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. I. xliv. 

Gregory Nyss. (In Christ. Resurr. 


Apocryphal Acts of the Gospel 

Wright (4; 17; 24). 
Ambrose (Hexameron vi. 38 ; 

Delnterpell.ii.5 ; Apol.proph. 

David II. iv. 26; Luc. vii. 

81; De Poenit. I. viii. 35; De 

Spir. S. II. xiii. 151). 

Against : 
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect, i. p. i) 1 . 

1 6. St. Luke i. 28. 
Traditional : 

. K.r.X. 

Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. vi.). Aphraates (Dem. ix.). 
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. vii. 329). Ambrose (Exposit. in loc.). 

Against : 
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in loc. ; Adv. Manich. iii.). 

1 The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51. The 
latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both sides. 


17. St. Luke ii 

Traditional : 
Irenaeus (III. x. 4). 
Origen (c. Celsum i. 60 ; Selecta 

in Ps. xlv. ; Comment, in 

Matt. xvii. ; Comment, in 

Job. i. 13). 

Apostol. Const, (vii. 47 ; viii. 1 2). 
Methodius (Serm. de Simeon, et 

Eusebius (Dem. Ev. iv. (163); 

vii. (342) ). 
Gregory Thaumaturgus (De 

Fid. Cap. 12). 
Aphraates (Dem. ix. ; xx.). 
Titus of Bostra (Expos, in Luc. 

ad loc.). 

Irenaeus (III. x. 4). 
Optatus (De Schism. Don. iv. 4). 
Cyril Jtrus. (Cat. xii. 72). 


Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. 

Didymus (De Trin. i. 27; 

Expos, in Ps. Ixxxiv.). 
Basil (In S. Christ Gen. 5). 
Gregory Naz. (Or. xlv. i.). 
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 167). 
Epiphanius (Haer. I. 30. 29 ; III. 

78. 15). 
Gregory Nyss. (In Ps. xiv. ; In 

Cant. Cant. xv. ; In Diem 

Nat. Christ. 1138 ; De Occurs. 

Dom. 1156). 
Ephraem Syr. 1 (Gr. iii. 434). 

Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. ad 

Juvencus (II. v. 174). 

XP et ' a e 
Evagrius Ponticus. 

1 8. St. Luke x. 41-2. UAtyooy xpeia eort^, 77 

Traditional : 
Basil (Const. Monast. i. i). 
Macarius Aegypt. (De Orat.). 

Against : 
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc. But fj.fptfj.vas}. 

19. St. Luke xxii. 43~4- Ministering Angel and Agony. 
Traditional : 

Justin M. (Tryph. 103). Dionysius Alex. (Hermen. in 

Irenaeus (Haer. III. xxii. 2 ; IV. Luc. ad loc.). 

Eusebius (Sect. 283). 
Athanasius (Expos, in Ps. Ixviii.). 

xxxv. 3). 

Tatian (Ciasca, 556). 
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 5 ; Ephraem Syrus (ap. Theodor. 

1 8). Mops.). 

Marcion (ad loc.). 

Gregory Naz. (xxx. 16). 
1 The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1 ; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3. 



Didymus (Trin. iii. 21). 
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad 

Against : none. 

Epiphanius (Haer. II. (2) Ixix. 

19; 591 Ancor. 31; 37). 
Arius(Epiph.Haer.lxix.i9; 6i) 1 . 

20. St. Luke xxiii. 34. Our Lord's Prayer for His 

Traditional : 
Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23). 
Ps. Justin (Quaest. et Respons. 

1 08 bis). 

Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. xviii. 5). 
Archelaus (xliv.). 
Marcion (in loc.). 
Hippolytus (c. Noet. 1 8). 
Clementines (Recogn. vi. 5 ; 

Horn. xi. 20). 

Apost. Const, (ii. 16; v. 14). 
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss., Ps. cv.). 
Eusebius (canon x.). 
Didymus (Trin. iii. 21). 
Amphilochius (Orat. in d. Sab- 


Hilary (De Trin. i. 32). 
Ambrose (De Joseph, xii. 69 ; 

Against : none. 

De Interpell. III. ii. 6; In 

Ps. CXVIII. iii. 8; xiv. 28; 

Expos. Luc. v. 77 ; x. 62 ; 

Cant. Cant. i. 46). 
Gregory Nyss. (De Perf. Christ. 

anim. forma bis). 
Titus of Bostra (Comment. Luc. 

ad loc. bis). 
Acta Pilati (x. 5). 
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 290). 
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 78). 
Ephraem Syr. (ii. 321). 
Acta Philippi ( 26). 
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test. 

(N.T. 67; Mixtae II. (i) 4). 
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels 

(Wright), ii ; (i6) 2 . 

2i. St. Luke xxiii. 38. The Superscription. 

Traditional : 

Marcion (ad loc.). Gregory Nyss. (In Cant. Cant. 
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. II. xiv.). vii.). 

Gospel of Peter (i. ii ). Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad 
Acta Pilati (x. i). loc.). 

Against : none. 

1 The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty witnesses 
in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances, are only the Fathers 
before St. Chrysostom. 

3 Ibid. pp. 82-5. 


22. St. Luke xxiii. 45. 
Traditional : 

Marcion (ad loc.). 
Gospel of Peter ( 5). 
Acta Pilati. 
Anaphora Pilati ( 7). 
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 18). 
Tertullian (Adv. Jud. xiii.). 
Athanasius (De Incarn. Verb. 
49 ; ad Adelph. 3 ; ap. Epiph. 

Against : 
Origen (Cels. ii. 35). 

i. 1006). 

Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 24). 
Macarius Magnes (iii. 17). 
Julius Africanus (Chronicon, v. 


Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels 

(Wright, p. 1 6). 
Ephraem Syrus (ii. 48). 

Acta Pilati. 

Eusebius mentions the reading 
afterwards to condemn it 1 . 

, but appears 

23. St. Luke xxiv. 40. The Verse. 
Traditional : 

Marcion (ad loc.). Eusebius (ap. Mai, ii. 294). 

Tertullian (De Carne Christi 5). Ambrose (ap. Theodoret, iv. 

Athanasius (ad Epictet. 7 ; 141). 

quoted by Epiph. i. 1003). Epiphanius (Haer. IH.lxxvii. 9) 2 . 

Against : none. 

24. St. Luke xxiv. 42. OTTO jmeAtcnnov 
Traditional : 

Marcion (ad loc.). 
Justin Martyr (bis). 
Clemens Alex. 

Against : 
Clemens Alex. Paed. i. 5 3 . 

Athanasius (c. Arian. iv. 35). 
Cyril Jerus. (bis). 
Gregory Nyss. 

1 The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65. 

2 Ibid. pp. 90-1. 3 See below, Appendix I. 


25. St. John i. 3-4. Full stop at the end of the Verse? 

Traditional : 
Athanasius (Serm. in Nativ. 

Christ. Hi.). 

Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 19). 
Didymus (De Trin. I. xv.). 
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i. p. 

348 bis; ii. p. 450; p. 461; 

Against : 

Irenaeus (I. viii. 5 (2) ; III. xi. i). 
Theodotus (ap. Clem. Alex. vi.). 
Hippolytus (Philosoph. V. i. 8 ; 


Clemens Alex. (Paed. ii. 9). 
Valentinians (ap. Epiph. Haer. 

I. (xxxi.) 27). 

Origen (c. 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; c. 
Haer. v. 151). 

26. St. John i. 18. 

Traditional : 
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xi. 6 ; 

IV. xx. 6). 

Tertullian (Adv. Praxean xv.). 
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noeti 5). 
Synodus Antiochena. 
Archelaus (Manes) (xxxii.). 
Origen (Comment, in Joh. vi. 

2 ; c. Celsum ii. 71). 
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. I. 

ix. ; II. xi. ; xxiii.). 
Alexander Alex. (Epist.). 

p. 468; iv. p. 584; v.p. 591). 
Epiphanius (Haer. I. (xliii.) i ; II. 

(Ii.) 12; (Ixv.) 3; (Ixix.) 56; 

Ancoratus Ixxv.). 
Alexandrians and Egyptians 

(Ambrose In Ps. 36). 

Eusebius (de Eccles. Theol. II. 


Basil (c. Eunom. V. 303). 
Gregory Nyss. (De Cant. Cant. 

Horn. ii.). 
Candidus Arianus (De Generat. 

Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium I. 

iv- 33; 4i). 

Hilary (De Trin. i. 10). 
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxvi. 35 (4) ; 

De Fide III. vi. 41-2 tris) 1 . 

'O Movoyevrjs Tto's. 

Gregory Naz. (Oral. xxix. 17). 
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. ii). 
Didymus (In Ps. cix.). 
Athanasius (De Deer. Nic. Syn. 

xiii. ; xxi. ; c. Arianos ii. 62 ; 

iv. 26). 
Titus of Bostra (Adv. Mani- 

chaeos iii. 6). 
Basil (De Spir. S. xi.; Horn. 

in Ps. xxviii. 3 ; Epist. 

ccxxxiv. ; Sermons xv, 3). 

1 Many of the Fathers quote only as far as ou5 eV. But that was evidently 
a convenient quotation of a stock character in controversy, just as -navra 8t' avrov 
iytvero was even more commonly. St. Epiphanius often quotes thus, but re- 
marks (Haer. II. (Ixix.) 56, Ancor. Ixxv.), that the passage goes on to & 


Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. ii. 

p. 522). 
Hilary (De Trin. iv. 8; 42; vi. 

39; 4o). 

Ambrose (De Interpell. I. x. 
30; De Benedict, xi. 51; 
Expos, in Luc. i. 25 bis;ii. 
12; De Fide III. iii. 24; De 

Against : 
Irenaeus (IV. xx. u). 
Theodotus (ap. Clem. vi.). 
Clemens Alex. (Strom, v. 12). 
Origen (Comment, in Job. II. 

29; XXXII. 13). 
Eusebius (Yl6s or ecfr, De Eccles. 

Theol. I. ix-x.). 
Didymus (De Trin. i. 1 5 ; ii. 5 ; 1 6 ). 

27. St. John iii. 13. 

Traditional : 
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 4). 
Novatian (De Trin. 13). 
Athanasius (i. 1275; Frag. p. 

1222, apud Panopl. Euthym. 

Origen (In Gen. Horn. iv. 5 ; In 

Rom. viii. 2 bis). 
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 2). 
Amphilochius (Sentent. 

Excurs. xix.). 
Didymus (De Trin. III. ix.). 


Spir. S. I. i. 26). 
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18). 
Faustinus (De Trin. ii. 5 tris). 
Quaest. ex Utroque Test. (71; 

Victorinus Afer (De General. 

Verb. xvi. ; xx. ; Adv. Arium 

i. 2 bis; iv. 8 ; 32). 

Arius (ap. Epiph. 73 Tisch.). 
Basil (De Spiritu Sanct. vi. ; c. 

Eunom. i. p. 623). 
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. iii. 

p. 577 bis; 581). 
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. 

(lxv.) 5 ; III. (Ixx.) 7). 

Theodoras Heracleensis (In Is. 

liii. 5). 

Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.). 
Epiphanius (Haer. II. Ivii. 7). 
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18). 
Zeno (xii. i). 
Hilary (Tract, in Ps. ii. ii ; 

cxxxviii. 22 ; De Trin. x. 16). 
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxix. 17 ; xliii. 

39; Expos, in Luc. vii. 74). 
Aphraates (Dem. viii.). 

Against: some Fathers quote as far as these words 
and then stop, so that it is impossible to know whether 
they stopped because the words were not in their copies, 
or because they did not wish to quote further. On some 
occasions at least it is evident that it was not to their 
purpose to quote further than they did, e.g. Greg. Naz. 


Ep. ci. Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. ii.) is only less doubtful ] . 
See Revision Revised, p. 134, note. 

28. St. John x. 14. yivwcnco/Liai v-no r&v JJL&V. 
Traditional : 
Macarius Aegypt. (Horn. vi.). Gregory Naz. (orat. xv. end ; 

xxxiii. 15). 
Against : 
Eusebius(Comment.inIsaiam8). Basil (Horn. xxi. ; xxiii.). 

Epiphanius (Comm. inPs.lxvi.) 2 . 

29. St. John xvii. 24. ovs (or o). 

Traditional : 

Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xiv. i). Hilary (Tract, in Ps. Ixiv. 5 ; 
Cyprian (De Mortal, xxii. ; Test. De Trin. ix. 50). 

ad Jud. iii. 58) 3 . 
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8). 
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. iii.). 
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. iii. Quaestiones ex N. T. (75)*. 

17 bis; c. Marcell. p. 292). 

Against : 
Clemens Alex. (140 Tisch.). 

30. St. John xxi. 
Traditional : 
Origen (Princ. II. vi. ; vol. ii. 

1 = 81; In Matt. XIV. 12; 
In Luc. Horn, xxvii ; xxix ; 
In Job. I. ii ; V. ap. Eus. 
H. E.VI. 25; XIII. 5; XIX. 

2 ; XX. 2 7 ; Cat. Corder. 
p. 474). 

Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig.Pref.; 

Against : none. 

Ambrose (De Bon. Mort. xii. 
54; De Fide V. vi. 86; De 
Spirit. S. II. viii. 76). 

25. The Verse. 

iii. ap. Gall. iv. pp. 9, 15). 
Eusebius (Mai, iv. 297 ; Eus. 

H. E vi. 25 ; Lat. iii. 964). 
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xii. 


Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxviii. 20). 
Ambrose (Expos. Luc. I. n). 
Philastrius (Gall. vii. 499) 5 . 

1 See The Revision Revised, p. 133. 

3 Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side. 

2 Ibid. pp. 220-1. 

4 The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8. 

5 Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No. XIX., 
1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic acuteness and 

I 2 


As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A. D. are 
concerned, the question may now be put and answered. 
Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from 
the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, 
both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testi- 
mony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional 
Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during 
the period under review. Let any one who disputes 
this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the 
Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and tf, a case from the 
evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that 
which has been now placed before the reader. 

An objection may be raised by those who are not well 
acquainted with the quotations in the writings of the 
Fathers, that the materials of judgement here produced are 
too scanty. But various characteristic features in their 
mode of dealing with quotations should be particularly 
noticed. As far as textual criticism is concerned, the 
quotations of the Fathers are fitful and uncertain. They 
quote of course, not to hand down to future ages a 
record of readings, but for their own special purpose 
in view. They may quote an important passage in dis- 
pute, or they may leave it wholly unnoticed. They often 
quote just enough for their purpose, and no more. Some 
passages thus acquire a proverbial brevity. Again, they 
write down over and over again, with unwearied richness 
of citation, especially from St. John's Gospel, words which 
are everywhere accepted : in fact, all critics agree upon 
the most familiar places. Then again, the witness of the 
Latin Fathers cannot always be accepted as being free 
from doubt, as has been already explained. And the 
Greek Fathers themselves often work words of the New 
Testament into the roll of their rhetorical sentences, so 
that whilst evidence is given for the existence of a verse, 
or a longer passage, or a book, no certain conclusions can 


be drawn as to the words actually used or the order of 
them. This is particularly true of St. Gregory of Nazianzus 
to the disappointment of the Textual Critic, and also of 
his namesake of Nyssa, as well as of St. Basil. Others, 
like St. Epiphanius, quote carelessly. Early quotation 
was usually loose and inaccurate. It may be mentioned 
here, that the same Father, as has been known about 
Origen since the days of Griesbach, often used conflicting 
manuscripts. As will be seen more at length below, 
corruption crept in from the very first. 

Some ideas have been entertained respecting separate 
Fathers which are not founded in truth. Clement of 
Alexandria and Origen are described as being remarkable 
for the absence of Traditional readings in their works 1 . 
Whereas besides his general testimony of 82 to 72 as we 
have seen, Clement witnesses in the list just given 8 times 
for them to 14 against them ; whilst Origen is found 44 
times on the Traditional side to 27 on the Neologian. 
Clement as we shall see used mainly Alexandrian texts 
which must have been growing up in his days, though he 
witnesses largely to Traditional readings, whilst Origen 
employed other texts too. Hilary of Poictiers is far from 
being against the Traditional Text, as has been frequently 
said: though in his commentaries he did not use so 
Traditional a text as in his De Trinitate and his other 
works. The texts of Hippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus, 
and even of Justin, are not of that exclusively Western 
character which Dr. Hort ascribes to them 2 . Traditional 
readings occur almost equally with others in Justin's works, 
and predominate in the works of the other three. 

But besides establishing the antiquity of the Traditional 
Text, the quotations in the early Fathers reveal the 
streams of corruption which prevailed in the first ages, till 
they were washed away by the vast current of the trans- 

1 Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127. 2 Ibid. p. 113. 


mission of the Text of the Gospels. Just as if we ascended 
in a captive balloon over the Mississippi where the volume 
of the Missouri has not yet become intermingled with the 
waters of the sister river, so we may mount up above 
those ages and trace by their colour the texts, or rather 
clusters of readings, which for some time struggled with 
one another for the superiority. But a caution is needed. 
We must be careful not to press our designation too far. 
We have to deal, not with distinct dialects, nor with 
editions which were separately composed, nor with any 
general forms of expression which grew up independently, 
nor in fact with anything that would satisfy literally the 
full meaning of the word ' texts,' when we apply it as it has 
been used. What is properly meant is that, of the variant 
readings of the words of the Gospels which from whatever 
cause grew up more or less all over the Christian Church, 
so far as we know, some have family likenesses of one 
kind or another, and may be traced to a kindred source. 
It is only in this sense that we can use the term Texts, 
and we must take care to be moderate in our conception 
and use of it. 

The Early Fathers may be conveniently classed, accord- 
ing to the colour of their testimony, the locality where 
they flourished, and the age in which they severally lived, 
under five heads, viz., Early Traditional, Later Traditional, 
Syrio-Low Latin, Alexandrian, and what we may perhaps 
call Caesarean. 

I. Early Traditional. 

Traditional. Neologian. 

Patres Apostolici and Didache . . 1 1 ... 4 

Epistle to Diognetus i ... o 

Papias i ... o 

EpistolaViennensium et Lugdunensium i . . . o 

Hegesippus 2 ... o 

Seniores apud Irenaeum .... 2 ... o 

"Ts" "7 


Traditional. Neologian. 

Brought forward ...... 18 ... 4 

Justin 1 ....... ... 17 ... 20 

Athenagoras ........ 3 ... i 

Gospel of Peter ....... 2 ... o 

Testament of Abraham ..... 4 ... o 

Irenaeus ......... 63 ... 41 

Clementines ........ 18 ... 7 

Hippolytus ......... 26 ... ii 

151 84 

II. Later Traditional. 

Gregory Thaumaturgus . . . . 1 1 ... 3 

Cornelius ......... 4 ... i 

Synodical Letter ....... i ... 2 

Archelaus (Manes) . . . . . 1 1 ... 2 

Apostolic Constitutions and Canons 61 . . . 28 

Synodus Antiochena ..... 3 ... i 

Concilia Carthaginiensia .... 8 ... 4 

Methodius ......... 14 ... 8 

Alexander Alexandrinus .... 4 ... o 

Theodorus Heracleensis .... 2 ... o 

Titus of Bostra ....... 44 ... 24 

Athanasius( except Contra Arianos) 2 122 ... 63 

Serapion ......... 5 ... i 

Basil ........... 272 ... 105 

Eunomius ......... i ... o 

Cyril of Jerusalem ...... 54 ... 32 

Firmicus Maternus ...... 3 ... i 

Victorinus of Pettau ...... 4 ... 3 

Gregory of Nazianzus ..... 1 8 ... 4 

Hilary of Poictiers ...... 73 . . . 39 

1 It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here : but 
the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and Luke xxii. 43-44, is 
more on the Traditional r.ide, though the numbers are against that. 

2 Athanasius in his ' Orationes IV contra Arianos ' used Alexandrian texts. 
See IV. 


Traditional. Neologian. 

Brought forward 715 . . .321 

Eustathius 7 ... 2 

Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus . . 36 ...17 

Didymus 81 ... 36 

Victorinus Afer 14 ...14 

Gregory of Nyssa 91 ... 28 

Faustinus 4 ... o 

Optatus 10 ... 3 

Pacianus 2 ... 2 

Philastrius 7 ... 6 

Amphilochius (Iconium) .... 27 . . . 10 

Ambrose 169 ... 77 

Diodorus of Tarsus i ... o 

Epiphanius 123 ... 78 

Acta Pilati 5 ... i 

Acta Philippi 2 ... i 

Macarius Magnes u ... 5 

Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento 13 ... 6 

Evagrius Ponticus 4 ... o 

Esaias Abbas i ... o 

Philo of Carpasus 9 ... 2 

1332 609 

III. Western or Syrio-Low Latin. 

Theophilus Antiochenus .... 2 ... 4 

Callixtus and Pontiarius (Popes) . . i ... 2 

Tertullian 74 ... 65 

Novatian 6 ... 4 

Cyprian 100 ... 96 

Zeno, Bishop of Verona .... 3 ... 5 

Lucifer of Cagliari 17 ... 20 

Lactantius o ... i 

Juvencus (Spain) i ... 2 

Julius (Pope) ? i ... 2 

Candidus Arianus o ... i 

Nemesius (Emesa) o ... i 

205 203 


IV. Alexandrian. 

Traditional. Neologian. 

Heracleon i ... 7 

Clement of Alexandria 82 ...72 

Dionysius of Alexandria . ... 12 ... 5 

Theognostus o . . . i 

Peter of Alexandria 7 ... 8 

Arius 2 ... i 

Athanasius (Orat. c. Arianos) ... 57 ... 56 

161 150 

V. Palestinian or Caesarean. 

Julius Africanus (Emmaus) ... i ... i 

Origen 460 . . .491 

Pamphilus of Caesarea 5 ... i 

Eusebius of Caesarea 315 . . .214 

781 707 

The lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just 
assembled are now sufficiently clear. 

I. The o'riginal predominance of the Traditional Text is 
shewn in the list given of the earliest Fathers. Their 
record proves that in their writings, and so in the Church 
generally, corruption had made itself felt in the earliest 
times, but that the pure waters generally prevailed. 

II. The tradition is also carried on through the majority 
of the Fathers who succeeded them. There is no break 
or interval : the witness is continuous. Again, not the 
slightest confirmation is given to Dr. Hort's notion that 
a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at 
Antioch in the middle of the fourth century. There was 
a gradual improvement, as the Traditional Text gradually 
established itself against the forward and persistent in- 
trusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if not altogether 
impossible, to discover a ripple on the surface betokening 


any movement in the depths such as a revision or recension 
would necessitate. 

III. A source of corruption is found in Low-Latin MSS. 
and especially in Africa. The evidence of the Fathers 
shews that it does not appear to have been so general as 
the name ' Western ' would suggest. But this will be 
a subject of future investigation. There seems to have 
been a connexion between some parts of the West in this 
respect with Syria, or rather with part of Syria. 

IV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria. 
This, as in the last case, is exactly what we should expect, 
and will demand more examination. 

V. Syria and Egypt, Europe, Asia, and Africa, seem 
to meet in Palestine under Origen. 

But this points to a later time in the period under in- 
vestigation. We must now gather up the depositions of the 
earliest Versions. 




THE rise of Christianity and the spread of the Church 
in Syria was startling in its rapidity. Damascus and 
Antioch shot up suddenly into prominence as centres of 
Christian zeal, as if they had grown whilst men slept. 

The arrangement of places and events which occurred 
during our Lord's Ministry must have paved the way to 
this success, at least as regards principally the nearer of the 
two cities just mentioned. Galilee, the scene of the first 
year of His Ministry ' the acceptable year of the Lord ' 
through its vicinity to Syria was admirably calculated for 
laying the foundation of such a development. The fame 
of His miracles and teaching extended far into the country. 
Much that He said and did happened on the Syrian side of 
the Sea of Galilee. Especially was this the case when, 
after the death of John the Baptist had shed consternation 
in the ranks of His followers, and the Galilean populace 
refused to accompany Him in His higher teaching, and the 
wiles of Herod were added as a source of apprehension to 
the bitter opposition of Scribes and Pharisees, He spent 
some months between the Passover and the Feast of 
Tabernacles in the north and north-east of Palestine. If 
Damascus was not one of the ' ten cities V yet the report 

1 According to Pliny (N. H. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were : I. Scytho- 
polis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix. 7); 2. Philadelphia; 


of His twice feeding thousands, and of His stay at Caesarea 
Philippi and in the neighbourhood 1 of Hermon, must 
have reached that city. The seed must have been sown 
which afterwards sprang up men knew not how. 

Besides the evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, accord- 
ing to which Antioch following upon Damascus became 
a basis of missionary effort hardly second to Jerusalem, 
the records and legends of the Church in Syria leave but 
little doubt that it soon spread over the region round about. 
The stories relating to Abgar king of Edessa, the fame of 
St. Addaeus or Thaddaeus as witnessed particularly by his 
Liturgy and 'Doctrine,' and various other Apocryphal 
Works 2 , leave no doubt about the very early extension of 
the Church throughout Syria. As long as Aramaic was 
the chief vehicle of instruction, Syrian Christians most 
likely depended upon their neighbours in Palestine for 
oral and written teaching. But when probably about 
the time of the investment of Jerusalem by Vespasian and 
Titus and the temporary removal of the Church's centre 
to Pella through the care of St. Matthew and the other 

3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara ; 5. Hippos ; 6. Dios ; 7. Pella ; 8. Gerasa ; 9. Canatha 
(Otopos, Joseph.) ; 10. Damascus. This area does not coincide with that 
which is sometimes now marked in maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria. 
But the Gospel notion of Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying 
near to the Lake, starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the 
mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv. 25), was 
mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20, Eusebius and Jerome 
OS 2 , pp. 251, 89 'around Pella and Basanitis,' Epiphanius Haer. i. 123), 
extended also to the west (Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus, 
passim, ' Decapolis of Syria '), and was generally after the time of Pompey under 
the jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica 
describes it well as ' situated, with the exception of a small portion, on the 
eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of Tiberias.' Smith's Dictionary 
of the Bible, to which I am indebted for much of the evidence given above, is 
inconsistent. The population was in a measure Greek. 

1 Els rds KOJ/MS Kaiffapfias rrjs QiXiimov, What a condensed account of His 
sojourn in various ' towns ' ! 

2 See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment of 
Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited by W. Cureton, 
D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864. 


Evangelists the Gospel was written in Greek, some regular 
translation was needed and doubtless was made. 

So far both Schools of Textual Criticism are agreed. 
The question between them is, was this Translation the 
Peshitto, or was it the Curetonian ? An examination into 
the facts is required : neither School has any authority to 
issue decrees. 

The arguments in favour of the Curetonian being the 
oldest form of the Syriac New Testament, and of the 
formation of the Peshitto in its present condition from it, 
cannot be pronounced to be strong by any one who is 
accustomed to weigh disputation. Doubtless this weak- 
ness or instability may with truth be traced to the nature 
of the case, which will not yield a better harvest even to 
the critical ingenuity of our opponents. May it not with 
truth be said to be a symptom of a feeble cause ? 

Those arguments are mainly concerned with the internal 
character of the two texts. It is asserted 1 (i) that the 
Curetonian was older than the Peshitto which was brought 
afterwards into closer proximity with the Greek. To this 
we may reply, that the truth of this plea depends upon 
the nature of the revision thus claimed 2 . Dr. Hort was 
perfectly logical when he suggested, or rather asserted 
dogmatically, that such a drastic revision as was necessary 
for turning the Curetonian into the Peshitto was made in 
the third century at Edessa or Nisibis. The difficulty lay 
in his manufacturing history to suit his purpose, instead 
of following it. The fact is, that the internal difference 
between the text of the Curetonian and the Peshitto is so 
great, that the former could only have arisen in very queer 
times such as the earliest, when inaccuracy and looseness, 

1 Cureton's Preface to ' An Antient Recension, c.' 

2 Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in the 
eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical peculiarities. This 
would on general grounds be not impossible, because the art of copying was 
perfected by about that time. 


infidelity and perverseness, might have been answerable 
for anything. In fact, the Curetonian must have been 
an adulteration of the Peshitto, or it must have been partly 
an independent translation helped from other sources : from 
the character of the text it could not have given rise to it l . 

Again, when (2) Cureton lays stress upon * certain 
peculiarities in the original Hebrew which are found in 
this text, but not in the Greek,' he has not found others to 
follow him, and (3) the supposed agreement with the 
Apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, as regards 
any results to be deduced from it, is of a similarly slippery 
nature. It will be best to give his last argument in his 
own words : ' It is the internal evidence afforded by the 
fact that upon comparing this text with the Greek of 
St. Matthew and the parallel passages of St. Mark and 
St Luke, they are found to exhibit the same phenomena 
which we should, a priori, expect certainly to discover, 
had we the plainest and most incontrovertible testimony 
that they are all in reality translations from such an 
Aramaic original as this.' He seems here to be trying to 
establish his position that the Curetonian was at least 
based on the Hebrew original of St. Matthew, to which he 
did not succeed in bringing over any scholars. 

The reader will see that we need not linger upon these 
arguments. When interpreted most favourably they carry 
us only a very short way towards the dethronement of the 
great Peshitto, and the instalment of the little Curetonian 
upon the seat of judgement. But there is more in what 
other scholars have advanced. There are resemblances 
between the Curetonian, some of the Old- Latin texts, the 
Codex Bezae, and perhaps Tatian's Diatessaron, which 
lead us to assign an early origin to many of the peculiar 
readings in this manuscript. Yet there is no reason, but 
all the reverse, for supposing that the Peshitto and the 
1 See Appendix VI. 


Curetonian were related to one another in line-descent. 
The age of one need have nothing to do with the age of 
the other. The theory of the Peshitto being derived from 
the Curetonian through a process of revision like that 
of Jerome constituting a Vulgate rests upon a false 
parallel 1 . There are, or were, multitudes of Old-Latin 
Texts, which in their confusion called for some recension : 
we only know of two in Syriac which could possibly have 
come into consideration. Of these, the Curetonian is but 
a fragment : and the Codex Lewisianus, though it includes 
the greater part of the Four Gospels, yet reckons so many 
omissions in important parts, has been so determinedly 
mutilated, and above all is so utterly heretical 2 , that it 
must be altogether rejected from the circle of purer texts of 
the Gospels. The disappointment caused to the adherents 
of the Curetonian, by the failure of the fresh MS. which had 
been looked for with ardent hopes to satisfy expectation, 
may be imagined. Noscitur a sociis : the Curetonian is 
admitted by all to be closely allied to it. and must share 
in the ignominy of its companion, at least to such an 
extent as to be excluded from the progenitors of a Text 
so near to the Traditional Text as the Peshitto must ever 
have been 3 . 

But what is the position which the Peshitto has occupied 
till the middle of the present century? What is the 
evidence of facts on which we must adjudicate its claim ? 

Till the time of Cureton, it has been regarded as the 
Syriac Version, adopted at the time when the translation 
of the New Testament was made into that language, which 

1 This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church Quarterly 
Review for April, 1895, on 'The Text of the Syriac Gospels,' pp. 123-5. 

2 The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4 : a ^ so Church Times, Jan. u, 
1895. This position is established in both places. 

3 Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more reason 
there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph Original. Verily this is 
evolution run wild. 


must have been either the early part of the second century, 
or the end of the first, adopted too in the Unchangeable 
East, and never deposed from its proud position. It can 
be traced by facts of history or by actual documents to 
the beginning of the golden period of Syriac Literature 
in the fifth century, when it is found to be firm in its 
sway, and it is far from being deserted by testimony suffi- 
cient to track it into the earlier ages of the Church. 

The Peshitto in our own days is found in use amongst 
the Nestorians who have always kept to it 1 , by the 
Monophysites on the plains of Syria, the Christians of 
St. Thomas in Malabar, and by 'the Maronites on the 
mountain-terraces of Lebanon V Of these, the Maronites 
take us back to the beginning of the eighth century when 
they as Monothelites separated from the Eastern Church ; 
the Monophysites to the middle of the fifth century; the 
Nestorians to an earlier date in the same century. Hostile 
as the two latter were to one another, they would not 
have agreed in reading the same Version of the New 
Testament if that had not been well established at the 
period of their separation. Nor would it have been thus 
firmly established, if it had not by that time been generally 
received in the country for a long series of years. 

But the same conclusion is reached in the indubitable 
proof afforded by the MSS. of the Peshitto Version which 
exist, dating from the fifth century or thereabouts. Mr. 
Gwilliam in the third volume of Studia Biblica et Eccle- 
siastica 3 mentions two MSS. dating about 450 A.D., besides 
four of the fifth or sixth century, one of the latter, and three 
which bear actual dates also of the sixth. These, with 
the exception of one in the Vatican and one belonging 

1 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Qth ed., 'Syriac Literature,' by Dr. W. Wrightj 
now published separately under the same title. 

2 Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7. 

3 See also Miller's Edition of Scrivener's Introduction (4th), II. 12. 


to the Earl of Crawford, are from the British Museum 
alone 1 . So that according to the manuscriptal evidence 
the treasures of little more than one library in the world 
exhibit a very apparatus criticus for the Peshitto, whilst 
the Curetonian can boast only one manuscript and that in 
fragments, though of the fifth century. And it follows 
too from this statement, that whereas only seven uncials 
of any size can be produced from all parts of the world of 
the Greek Text of the New Testament before the end 
of the sixth century, no less than eleven or rather twelve 
of the Peshitto can be produced already before the same 
date. Doubtless the Greek Text can boast certainly two, 
perhaps three, of the fourth century : but the fact cannot but 
be taken to be very remarkable, as proving, when compared 
with the universal Greek original, how strongly the local 
Peshitto Version was established in the century in which 
4 commences the native historical literature of Syria 2 .' 

The commanding position thus occupied leads back 
virtually a long way. Changes are difficult to introduce in 
'the unchangeable East.' Accordingly, the use of the 

1 Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod. Philipp. 1388, 
in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller's Scrivener the name is spelt PHILLIPPS). 
Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century, thus 
making it older than the Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, 
II. 12. A full description will be found in Sachau's Catalogue of the Syr. MSS. 
in the Berlin Library. 

The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St. John, 
by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the possession of 
Mr. G william, who informs me that all three support the Peshitto text, and 
are free from all traces of any pre- Peshitto text, such as according to Dr. Hort 
and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh 
accession of evidence tends always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version 
more securely in the position it has always held until quite recent years. 

The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the uniformity of 
their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for example the evidence of 
No. 10 in Miller's Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12, and 
Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results 
are published in Studia Biblica, vol. i, ' A fifth century MS.' 

2 Dr. W. Wright's article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could not 
have been aware of this fact when he spoke of ' the almost total extinction of 
Old Syriac MSS.' : or else he lamented a disappearance of what never appeared. 



Peshitto is attested in the fourth century by Ephraem 
Syrus and Aphraates. Ephraem ' in the main used the 
Peshitto text' is the conclusion drawn by Mr. F. H. 
Woods in the third volume of Studia Biblica *. And as far 
as I may judge from a comparison of readings 2 , Aphraates 
witnesses for the Traditional Text, with which the Peshitto 
mainly agrees, twenty-four times as against four. The 
Peshitto thus reckons as its supporters the two earliest of 
the Syrian Fathers. 

But the course of the examination of all the primitive 
Fathers as exhibited in the last section of this work suggests 
also another and an earlier confirmation of the position 
here taken. It is well known that the Peshitto is mainly 
in agreement with the Traditional Text. What therefore 
proves one, virtually proves the other. If the text in the 
latter case is dominant, it must also be in the former. If, 
as Dr. Hort admits, the Traditional Text prevailed at 
Antioch from the middle of the fourth century, is it not 
more probable that it should have been the continuance 
of the text from the earliest times, than that a change 
should have been made without a record in history, and 
that in a part of the world which has been always alien 
to change? But besides the general traces of the Tradi- 
tional Text left in patristic writings in other districts of the 
Church, we are not without special proofs in the parts 
about Syria. Though the proofs are slight, they occur 
in a period which in other respects was for the present 
purpose almost ' a barren and dry land where no water is.' 
Methodius, bishop of Tyre in the early part of the fourth 
century, Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia in the latter 
half of the third, the Synodus Antiochena in A. D. 265, at 
a greater distance Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neocaesarea 
in Pontus who flourished about 243 and passed some time 
at Caesarea in Palestine, are found to have used mainly 

1 p. 107. 2 See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895. 


Traditional MSS. in Greek, and consequently' witness to 
the use of the daughter text in Syriac. Amongst those 
who employed different texts in nearly equal proportions 
were Origen who passed his later years at Caesarea and 
Justin who issued from the site of Sychar. Nor is there 
reason, whatever has been said, to reject the reference 
made by Melito of Sardis about A.D. 170 in the words 
6 2vpos. At the very least, the Peshitto falls more naturally 
into the larger testimony borne by the quotations in the 
Fathers, than would a text of such a character as that 
which we find in the Curetonian or the Lewis Codex. 

But indeed, is it not surprising that the petty Curetonian 
with its single fragmentary manuscript, and at the best its 
short history, even with so discreditable an ally as the 
Lewis Codex, should try conclusions with what we may 
fairly term the colossal Peshitto ? How is it possible that 
one or two such little rills should fill so great a channel ? 

But there is another solution of the difficulty which has 
been advocated by the adherents of the Curetonian in 
some quarters since the discovery made by Mrs. Lewis. It 
is urged that there is an original Syriac Text which lies at 
the back of the Curetonian and the Codex Lewisianus, and 
that this text possesses also the witness of the Diatessaron 
of Tatian : that those MSS. themselves are later, but that 
the Text of which they give similar yet independent speci- 
mens is the Old Syriac, the first Version made from the 
Gospels in the earliest ages of the Church. 

The evidence advanced in favour of this position is of 
a speculative and vague nature, and moreover is not always 
advanced with accuracy. It is not ' the simple fact that no 
purely " Antiochene " [i.e. Traditional] reading occurs in the 
Sinai Palimpsest V It is not true that ' in the Diatessaron 

1 See in St. Matt, alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the translation of 
ti/n?), ix. 13 (of (Is /ifTcWcu/), xi. 23 ('which art exalted'), xx. 16 (of iroAXot 
yap fieri K\rjroi } 0X1704 S fK\fKTo'i), xxvi. 42 (iroT^piov}, 28 (/calves) ; besides 

K 2 


Joseph and Mary are never spoken of as husband and 
wife,' because in St. Matt. i. 19 Joseph is expressly called 
'her husband,' and in verse 24 it is said that Joseph 
' took unto him Mary his wife.' It should be observed that 
besides a resemblance between the three documents in 
question, there is much divergence. The Cerinthian heresy, 
which is spread much more widely over the Lewis Codex 
than its adherents like to acknowledge, is absent from the 
other two. The interpolations of the Curetonian are not 
adopted by the remaining members of the trio. The Dia- 
tessaron, as far as we can judge, for we possess no copy 
either in Greek or in Syriac, but are obliged to depend 
upon two Arabic Versions edited recently by Agostino 
Ciasca, a Latin Translation of a commentary on it by 
Ephraem Syrus, and quotations made by Aphraates or 
Jacobus Nisibenus , differs very largely from either. 
That there is some resemblance between the three we 
admit : and that the two Codexes are more or less made 
up from very early readings, which we hold to be corrupt, 
we do not deny. What we assert is, that it has never yet 
been proved that a regular Text in Syriac can be con- 
structed out of these documents which would pass muster 
as the genuine Text of the Gospels ; and that, especially in 
the light shed by the strangely heretical character of one 
of the leading associates, such a text, if composed, cannot 
with any probability have formed any stage in the trans- 
mission of the pure text of the original Version in Syriac 
to the pages of the Peshitto. If corruption existed in the 
earliest ages, so did purity. The Word of GOD could not 
have been dragged only through the mire. 

We are thus driven to depend upon the leading historical 
facts of the case. What we do know without question is 
this : About the year 170 A D., Tatian who had sojourned 

St. Luke ii. 14 (evdoKia), xxiii. 45 (kaKOTiaQrf), John iii. 13 (though 'from 
heaven'), xxi. 25 (the verse). 


for some time at Rome drew up his Diatessaron, which is 
found in the earlier half of the third century to have been 
read in Divine service at Edessa 1 . This work was current 
in some parts of Syria in the time of Eusebius 2 , to which 
assertion some evidence is added by Epiphanius 3 . Rab- 
bula, bishop of Edessa, A.D. 41 2-435 4 , ordered the presbyters 
and deacons of his diocese to provide copies of the distinct 
or Mepharreshe Gospels. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus 
near the Euphrates 5 , writes in 453 A.D., that he had turned 
out about two hundred copies of Tatian's Diatessaron from 
his churches, and had put the Gospels of the four Evangelists 
in their place. These accounts are confirmed by the testi- 
mony of many subsequent writers, whose words together 
with those to which reference has just been made may be 
seen in Mr. Hamlyn Hill's book on the Diatessaron . It 
must be added, that in the Curetonian we find ' The 
Mcpharresha Gospel of Matthew V and the Lewis Version 
is termed ' The Gospel of the Mepharrhhe four books ' ; 
and that they were written in the fifth century. 

Such are the chief facts : what is the evident corollary ? 
Surely, that these two Codexes, which were written at the 
very time when the Diatessaron of Tatian was cast out of 
the Syrian Churches, were written purposely, and possibly 
amongst many other MSS. made at the same time, to 
supply the place of it copies of the Mepharreshe, i.e. 
Distinct or Separate 8 Gospels, to replace the Mehallete or 
Gospel of the Mixed. When the sockets are found to 
have been prepared and marked, and the pillars lie fitted 
and labelled, what else can we do than slip the pillars 
into their own sockets ? They were not very successful 

Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17. 2 H. E. iv. 29. 

Haer. xlvi. i. * Canons. 5 Haer. i. 20. 

The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII. 

The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels. 
It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true meaning. Payne 
Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4. 


attempts, as might have been expected, since the Peshitto, 
or in some places amongst the Jacobites the Philoxenian 
or Harkleian, entirely supplanted them in future use, and 
they lay hidden for centuries till sedulous inquiry unearthed 
them, and the ingenuity of critics invested them with an 
importance not their own l . 

What was the origin of the mass of floating readings, of 
which some were transferred into the text of these two 
Codexes, will be considered in the next section. Students 
should be cautioned against inferring that the Diatessaron 
was read in service throughout Syria. There is no evidence 
to warrant such a conclusion. The mention of Edessa and 
Cyrrhus point to the country near the upper Euphrates ; 
and the expression of Theodoret, relating to the Diates- 
saron being used * in churches of our parts,' seems to hint 
at a circumscribed region. Plenty of room was left for 
a predominant use of the Peshitto, so far as we know : and 
no reason on that score can be adduced to counterbalance 
the force of the arguments given in this section in favour of 
the existence from the beginning of that great Version. 

Yet some critics endeavour to represent that the Peshitto 
was brought first into prominence upon the supersession of 
the Diatessaron, though it is never found under the special 
title of Mepharresha. What is this but to disregard the 
handposts of history in favour of a pet theory ? 

1 The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping, 
while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other writing. Perhaps 
others were treated in similar fashion, which would help to account for the 
fact mentioned in note 2, p. 129. 




THERE are problems in what is usually termed the 
Western Text of the New Testament, which have not yet, 
as I believe, received satisfactory treatment. Critics, in- 
cluding even Dr. Scrivener 1 , have too readily accepted 
Wiseman's conclusion 2 , that the numerous Latin Texts all 
come from one stem, in fact that there was originally only 
one Old-Latin Version, not several. 

That this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon 
the mind of the inquirer, I readily admit. The words and 
phrases, the general cast and flow of the sentences, are so 
similar in these texts, that it seems at the outset extremely 
difficult to resist the inference that all of them began from 
the same translation, and that the differences between them 
arose from the continued effect of various and peculiar 
circumstances upon them and from a long course of copying. 
But examination will reveal on better acquaintance certain 
obstinate features which will not allow us to be guided 
by first appearances. And before investigating these, we 
may note that there are some considerations of a general 
character which take the edge off this phenomenon. 

1 Plain Introduction, II. 43-44. 

2 Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the con- 
troversy concerning i John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are more 
ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of Low-Latin. 


Supposing that Old-Latin Texts had a multiform origin, they 
must have gravitated towards more uniformity of expres- 
sion : intercourse between Christians who used different 
translations of a single original must, in unimportant points 
at least, have led them to greater agreement. Besides this, 
the identity of the venerated original in all the cases, except 
where different readings had crept into the Greek, must 
have produced a constant likeness to one another, in all 
translations made into the same language and meant to 
be faithful. If on the other hand there were numerous 
Versions, it is clear that in those which have descended to 
us there must have been a survival of the fittest. 

But it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence, 
for the answers to all problems must depend upon that, 
and upon nothing but that. 

The first point that strikes us is that there is in this 
respect a generic difference between the other Versions and 
the Old-Latin. The former are in each case one, with no 
suspicion of various origination. Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic, 
Armenian (though the joint work of Sahak and Mesrop 
and Eznik and others), Ethiopic, Slavonic : each is one 
Version and came from one general source without doubt 
or question. Codexes may differ : that is merely within 
the range of transcriptional accuracy, and has nothing to 
do with the making of the Version. But there is no pre- 
eminent Version in the Old-Latin field. Various texts 
compete with difference enough to raise the question. 
Upon disputed readings they usually give discordant 
verdicts. And this discord is found, not as in Greek 
Codexes where the testifying MSS. generally divide into 
two hostile bodies, but in greater and more irregular 
discrepancy. Their varied character may be seen in the 
following Table including the Texts employed by Tischen- 
dorf, which has been constructed from that scholar's notes 
upon the basis of the chief passages in dispute, as revealed 


in the text of the Revised Version throughout the Gospels, 
the standard being the Textus Receptus : 

Brixianus, f . ** = about y 

Monacensis, q VT =1 + 

Claromontanus, h (only in St. Matt.) f f-z=|-f 
Colbe^tinus, c ^-J = about } 

Fragm. Sangall. n f = I 

Veronensis, b T!! 4 + 

Sangermanensis II, g 2 f f 

Corbeiensis II, ff 2 . 1JJ = |- 

Sangermanensis I, g 2 fj f ~~ 

Rehdigeranus, 1 ...... !=! + 

Vindobonensis, i rj i + 

Vercellensis, a =| 

Corbeiensis I, fF 1 f = i 

Speculum, m -j s g = j 

Palatinus, e . . . . . . . . T yV=i + 

Frag. Ambrosiana, s t = i 

Bobiensis, k . f| = | -f 

Looking dispassionately at this Table, the reader will 
surely observe that these MSS. shade off from one another 
by intervals of a somewhat similar character. They do 
not fall readily into classes : so that if the threefold division 
of Dr. Hort is adopted, it must be employed as not mean- 
ing very much. The appearances are against all being 
derived from the extreme left or from the extreme right. 
And some current modes of thought must be guarded 
against, as for instance when a scholar recently laid down 
as an axiom which all critics would admit, that k might be 
taken as the representative of the Old-Latin Texts, which 
would be about as true as if Mr. Labouchere at the present 
day were said to represent in opinion the Members of the 
House of Commons. 

* The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times throughout 
the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees in the selected 
passages with the Textus Receptus : the denominator, when it witnesses to the 
Neologian Text. 


The sporadic nature of these Texts may be further 
exhibited, if we take the thirty passages which helped us 
in the second section of this chapter. The attestation 
yielded by the Old-Latin MSS. will help still more in the 
exhibition of their character. 

Traditional. A r eologian. 

St. Matt. 

1.25 . . . f . ff 1 . g 2 . q. . . . b. c. g 1 . k. 

v. 44 . (i)c. f.h a. b. ff 1 . g 1 - 2 . k. 1. 

(a) a. b. c. f. h. 

vi. 13 . . . f. g 1 . q a. b. c. ff 1 . g 2 . 1. 

vii. 13 . . . f. ff 2 . g 1 - 2 . q. . . . a. b. c. h. k. m. 

ix. 13 ... c. g 1 - 2 a. b. f. ff 1 . h. k. 1. q. 

xi. 27 ... All. 

xvii. 21 . .'Most'a. b. c. (P)g 1 . . e. ff 1 . 

xviii. ii e. ff 1 . 

xix. 17 

(1) ayaBe . . b. C. f. ff 2 . g 1 - 8 . h. q. . a. e. ff 1 . 

(2) ri /ote cparrqs ) f f a. b. C. C. ff 1 - 2 . g 1 . h. 1. 

K.r.A. j *' q \ (Vulg.) 

(3) els eW. 6 ay. f. g \ m. q. . . . b. C. ff L2 . 1. (Vulg.) 

xxiii. 38 

(Lk. xiii. 35) All except . . . ff 2 . 

xxvii. 34 . . c. f. h. q a. b. ff . g L2 . 1. (Vulg.) 

xxviii. 2 . .f. h a. b. c. ff 1 - 2 . g 1 - 2 . 1. n. 

19 . .All. 
St. Mark 

i. 2 All. 

xvi. 9-20 . . All except . . . k. 
St. Luke 

i. 28 ... All. 

ii. 14 All. 

x. 41-42 . . f. g 1>2 . q. (Vulg.) . . a. b. c. e. ff 2 . i. 1. 

xxii. 43-44 . a. b. c. e. ff 2 . g 1 - 2 . 

i.l-q f. 

xxiii. 34 . . c. e. f. ff 2 . 1. . . . a. b. d. 
38 .. All except ... a. 
45 . .a. b. c. e. f. ff 2 . 


Traditional. Neologian. 

(St. Luke) 

xxiv. 40 . . c. f. q a. b. d. e. ff 2 . 1. 

42 . . a. b. f. ff 2 . 1. q. . . . e. 
St. John 

i. 3-4 ... c. (Vuljr.) a. b. e. ff 2 . q. 

., 18 . . . a.b. c. e. f. ff 2 . 

iii. 13 . . . All. 

x. 14 All. 

xvii. 24 . .All (Vulg.) .... Vulg. MSS. 
xxi. 25 . . All. 

It will be observed that in all of these thirty passages, 
Old-Latin MSS. witness on both sides and in a sporadic 
way, except in three on the Traditional side and six on 
the Neologian side, making nine in all against twenty-one. 
In this respect they stand in striking contrast with all the 
Versions in other languages as exhibiting a discordance in 
their witness which is at the very least far from suggesting 
a single source, if it be not wholly inconsistent with such 
a supposition. 

Again, the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so 
great that they could not have arisen except from variety 
of origin. Copyists do not insert ad libitum different modes 
of expression. For example, Mr. White has remarked 
that eTTtrt/xai; is translated ' in no less than eleven different 
ways,' or adding arguere, in twelve, viz. by 

admonere emendare minari praecipere 

comminari imperare obsecrare prohibere 
corripere^ increpare objurgare arguere (r). 

It is true that some of these occur on the same MS., 
but the variety of expression in parallel passages hardly 
agrees with descent from a single prototype. Greek MSS. 
differ in readings, but not in the same way. Similarly 

1 Once in k by comferire probably a slip for corripere. Old Latin Texts, 
III. pp. xxiv-xxv. 


which occurs, as he tells us, thirty-seven times in 
the Gospels, is rendered by clarifico, glorifico, honorem 
accipio, honor ificO) honoro, magnifico, some passages present- 
ing four variations. So again, it is impossible to under- 
stand how nvvoyji in the phrase avvox^i tOv&v (St. Luke 
xxi. 25) could have been translated by compressio (Vercel- 
lensis, a), occur sus (Brixianus,/"), prcssura (others), conflictio 
(Bezae, d), if they had a common descent. They represent 
evidently efforts made by independent translators to express 
the meaning of a difficult word. When we meet with possi- 
debo and Jiaereditabo for K.Xr}povo^r\(r^ (St. Luke x. 25) lumen 
and lux for $<3s (St. John i. 9), antegalli cantum and antcquam 
gallus cantet for Trplv aXe/cropa (/>a)znjo-ai (St. Matt. xxvi. 34), 
locum and praedium and in agro for \u>piov (xxvi. 35), transfer 
a me calicem istum and transeat a me calix iste for TrapeAtfeVco 
cnr' (fjiov TO itorripiov TOVTO (xxvi. 39) ; when we fall upon 
vox venit de caelis, vox facta est de caelis, vox de caelo facta 
est^ vox de caelis, and the like ; or qui mihi bene complacuisti, 
charissimus in te complacui, dilectus in quo bene placuit mihi, 
dilectus in te bene sensi (St. Mark i. n), or adsumpsit (autem 
. . . duodecim\ adsumens, convocatis (St. Luke xviii. 31) it is 
clear that these and the instances of the same sort occurring 
everywhere in the Old-Latin Texts must be taken as finger- 
posts pointing in many directions. Various readings in 
Greek Codexes present, not a parallel, but a sharp contrast. 
No such profusion of synonyms can be produced from them. 
The arguments which the Old-Latin Texts supply in- 
ternally about themselves are confirmed exactly by the 
direct evidence borne by St. Augustine and St. Jerome. 
The well-known words of those two great men who must 
be held to be competent deponents as to what they found 
around them, even if they might fall into error upon the 
events of previous ages, prove (i) that a very large number 
of texts then existed, (2) that they differed greatly from 
one another, (3) that none had any special authority, and 


(4) that translators worked on their own independent lines l . 
But there is the strongest reason for inferring that Augus- 
tine was right when he said, that 'in the earliest days of 
the faith whenever any Greek codex fell into the hands 
of any one who thought that he had slight familiarity 
(aliquantulum facultatis) with Greek and Latin, he was 
bold enough to attempt to make a translation V For 
what else could have happened than what St. Augustine 
says actually did take place? The extraordinary value 
and influence of the sacred Books of the New Testament 
became apparent soon after their publication. They were 
most potent forces in converting unbelievers : they swayed 
the lives and informed the minds of Christians : they were 
read in the services of the Church. But copies in any 
number, if at all, could not be ordered at Antioch, or 
Ephesus, or Rome, or Alexandria. And at first no doubt 
translations into Latin were not to be had. Christianity 
grew almost of itself under the viewless action of the HOLY 
GHOST : there were no administrative means of making 
provision. But the Roman Empire was to a great extent 
bilingual. Many men of Latin origin were acquainted more 
or less with Greek. The army which furnished so many 
converts must have reckoned in its ranks, whether as officers 
or as ordinary soldiers, a large number who were accom- 
plished Greek scholars. All evangelists and teachers would 
have to explain the new Books to those who did not under- 
stand Greek. The steps were but short from oral to written 
teaching, from answering questions and giving exposi- 
tion to making regular translations in fragments or books 
and afterwards throughout the New Testament. The 
resistless energy of the Christian faith must have demanded 
such offices on behalf of the Latin-speaking members of the 

1 ' Tot snnt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,' Jerome, Epistola ad 
Damascum. 'Latmorum interpretum infinita varietas/ ' interpretum numero- 
sitas,' 'nullo modo numerari possunt,' De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 16, 21. 

1 De Doctr. Christ, ii. 16. 


Church, and must have produced hundreds of versions, 
fragmentary and complete. Given the two languages side 
by side, under the stress of the necessity of learning and 
the eagerness to drink in the Words of Life, the information 
given by St. Augustine must have been amply verified. 
And the only wonder is, that scholars have not paid more 
attention to the witness of that eminent Father, and have 
missed seeing how natural and true it was. 

It is instructive to trace how the error arose. It came 
chiefly, if I mistake not, from two ingenious letters of 
Cardinal Wiseman, then a young man, and from the 
familiarity which they displayed with early African Lite- 
rature. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, 
Scrivener, and Westcott and Hort, followed him. Yet an 
error lies at the root of Wiseman's argument which, if the 
thing had appeared now, scholars would not have let pass 
unchallenged and uncorrected. 

Because the Bobbian text agreed in the main with the 
texts of Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Primasius, 
Wiseman assumed that not only that text, but also the 
dialectic forms involved in it, were peculiar to Africa and 
took their rise there. But as Mr. White has pointed out *, 
4 that is because during this period we are dependent almost 
exclusively on Africa for our Latin Literature.' Moreover, 
as every accomplished Latin scholar who is acquainted 
with the history of the language is aware, Low- Latin took 
rise in Italy, when the provincial dialects of that Peninsula 
sprang into prominence upon the commencement of the 
decay of the pure Latin race, occurring through civil and 
foreign wars and the sanguinary proscriptions, and from 
the consequent lapse in the predominance in literature 
of the pure Latin Language. True, that the pure Latin 
and the Low-Latin continued side by side for a long time, 
the former in the best literature, and the latter in ever 

1 Scrivener's Plain Introduction, IL 44, note I. 


increasing volume. What is most apposite to the question, 
the Roman colonists in France, Spain, Portugal, Provence, 
and Walachia, consisted mainly of Italian blood which 
was not pure Latin, as is shewn especially in the veteran 
soldiers who from time to time received grants of land 
from their emperors or generals. The six Romance Lan- 
guages are mainly descended from the provincial dialects 
of the Italian Peninsula. It would be contrary to the 
action of forces in history that such and so strong a change 
of language should have been effected in an outlying 
province, where the inhabitants mainly spoke another 
tongue altogether. It is in the highest degree improbable 
that a new form of Latin should have grown up in Africa, 
and should have thence spread across the Mediterranean, 
and have carried its forms of speech into parts of the exten- 
sive Roman Empire with which the country of its birth 
had no natural communication. Low-Latin was the early 
product of the natural races in north and central Italy, 
and from thence followed by well-known channels into 
Africa and Gaul and elsewhere 1 . We shall find in these 
truths much light, unless I am deceived, to dispel our 
darkness upon the Western text. 

The best part of Wiseman's letters occurs where he 
proves that St. Augustine used Italian MSS. belonging to 
what the great Bishop of Hippo terms the ' Itala,' and 
pronounces to be the best of the Latin Versions. Evidently 
the ' Itala ' was the highest form of Latin Version highest, 
that is, in the character and elegance of the Latin used in 
it, and consequently in the correctness of its rendering. So 

1 See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as Introduction 
to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by C. B. Cayley. Also 
Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English Translation, pp. 227-9. 
' The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first published some forty years ago, has 
once for all disposed of those Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which never- 
theless crop up from time to time.' Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the 
French Language, pp. 3-5 ; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, 
pp. 165, &c., &c. 


here we now see our way. Critics have always had some 
difficulty about Dr. Hort's * European ' class, though there 
is doubtless a special character in b and its following. It 
appears now that there is no necessity for any embarrass- 
ment about the intermediate MSS., because by unlocalizing 
the text supposed to be African we have the Low- Latin 
Text prevailing over the less educated parts of Italy, over 
Africa, and over Gaul, and other places away from Rome 
and Milan and the other chief centres. 

Beginning with the Itala, the other texts sink gradually 
downwards, till we reach the lowest of all. There is thus 
no bar in the way of connecting that most remarkable 
product of the Low-Latin Text, the Codex Bezae, with any 
others, because the Latin Version of it stands simply as 
one of the Low-Latin group. 

Another difficulty is also removed. Amongst the most 
interesting and valuable contributions to Sacred Textual 
Criticism that have come from the fertile conception and 
lucid argument of Mr. Rendel Harris, has been the proof 
of a closer connexion between the Low-Latin Text, as 
I must venture to call it, and the form of Syrian Text 
exhibited in the Curetonian Version, which he has given 
in his treatment of the Ferrar Group of Greek MSS. Of 
course the general connexion between the two has been 
long known to scholars. The resemblance between the 
Curetonian and Tatian's Diatessaron, to which the Lewis 
Codex must now be added, on the one hand, and on the 
other the less perfect Old-Latin Texts is a commonplace 
in Textual Criticism. But Mr. Harris has also shewn that 
there was probably a Syriacization of the Codex Bezae, 
a view which has been strongly confirmed on general points 
by Dr. Chase : and has further discovered evidence that the 
text of the Ferrar Group of Cursives found its way into 
and out of Syriac and carried back, according to Mr. Harris' 
ingenious suggestion, traces of its sojourn there. Dr. Chase 


has very recently shed more light upon the subject in his 
book called 'The Syro- Latin Element of the Gospels 1 .' 
So all these particulars exhibit in strong light the connexion 
between the Old-Latin and the Syriac. If we are dealing, 
not so much with the entire body of Western Texts, but 
as I contend with the Low-Latin part of them in its wide 
circulation, there is no difficulty in understanding how such 
a connexion arose. The Church in Rome shot up as 
noiselessly as the Churches of Damascus and Antioch. 
How and why? The key is given in the sixteenth chapter 
of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. How could he have 
known intimately so many of the leading Roman Chris- 
tians, unless they had carried his teaching along the road 
of commerce from Antioch to Rome? Such travellers, 
arid they would by no means be confined to the days of 
St. Paul, would understand Syriac as well as Latin. The 
stories and books, told or written in Aramaic, must have 
gone through all Syria, recounting the thrilling history of 
redemption before the authorized accounts were given in 
Greek. Accordingly, in the earliest times translations must 
have been made from Aramaic or Syriac into Latin, as 
afterwards from Greek. Thus a connexion between the 
Italian and Syrian Churches, and also between the teaching 
given in the two countries, must have lain embedded in 
the foundations of their common Christianity, and must 
have exercised an influence during very many years after. 

This view of the interconnexion of the Syrian and Old- 
Latin readings leads us on to what must have been at first 
the chief origin of corruption. ' The rulers derided Him ' : 
' the common people heard Him gladly.' It does not, 
I think, appear probable that the Gospels were written 
till after St. Paul left Jerusalem for Rome. Literature of 
a high kind arose slowly in the Church, and the great 

1 'Syro-Latin' is doubtless an exact translation of 'Syro-Latinus' : but as 
we do not say 'Syran' but ' Syrian/ it is not idiomatic English. 



missionary Apostle was the pioneer. It is surely impos- 
sible that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels should have 
seen one another's writings, because in that case they would 
not have differed so much from one another *. The effort 
of St. Luke (Pref.), made probably during St. Paul's im- 
prisonment at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), though he may 
not have completed his Gospel then, most likely stimulated 
St. Matthew. Thus in time the authorized Gospels were 
issued, not only to supply complete and connected accounts, 
but to become accurate and standard editions of what had 
hitherto been spread abroad in shorter or longer narratives, 
and with more or less correctness or error. Indeed, it is 
clear that before the Gospels were written many erroneous 
forms of the stories which made up the oral or written 
Gospel must have been in vogue, and that nowhere are 
these more likely to have prevailed than in Syria, where 
the Church took root so rapidly and easily. But the read- 
ings thus propagated, of which many found their way, 
especially in the West, into the wording of the Gospels 
before St. Chrysostom, never could have entered into the 
pure succession. Here and there they were interlopers 
and usurpers, and after the manner of such claimants, had 
to some extent the appearance of having sprung from the 
genuine stock. But they were ejected during the period 
elapsing from the fourth to the eighth century, when the 
Text of the New Testament was gradually purified. 

This view is submitted to Textual students for verifi- 

We have now traced back the Traditional Text to the 
earliest times. The witness of the early Fathers has 
established the conclusion that there is not the slightest 

1 This is purely my own opinion. Dean Eurgon followed Townson in 
supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one another's 


uncertainty upon this point. To deny it is really a piece 
of pure assumption. It rests upon the record of facts. Nor 
is there any reason for hesitation in concluding that the 
career of the Peshitto dates back in like manner. The Latin 
Texts, like others, are of two kinds : both the Traditional 
Text and the forms of corruption find a place in them. So 
that the testimony of these great Versions, Syriac and 
Latin, is added to the testimony of the Fathers. There 
are no grounds for doubting that the causeway of the 
pure text of the Holy Gospels, and by consequence of 
the rest of the New Testament, has stood far above the 
marshes on either side ever since those sacred Books were 
written. What can be the attraction of those perilous 
quagmires, it is hard to understand. ' An highway shall 
be there, and a way ' ; ' the redeemed shall walk there ' ; 
' the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein V 

1 Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9. 

L 2 



1. Alexandrian Readings, and the Alexandrian 

WHAT is the real truth about the existence of an 
Alexandrian Text ? Are there, or are there not, sufficient 
elements of an Alexandrian character, and of Alexandrian 
or Egyptian origin, to constitute a Text of the Holy 
Gospels to be designated by that name ? 

So thought Griesbach, who conceived Origen to be the 
standard of the Alexandrian text. Hort, who appears to 
have attributed to his Neutral text much of the native 
products of Alexandria 1 , speaks more of readings than of 
text. The question must be decided upon the evidence 
of the case, which shall now be in the main produced. 

The Fathers or ancient writers who may be classed as 
Alexandrian in the period under consideration are the 
following : 

Traditional. Neologian. 

Heracleon ..... i 7 

Clement of Alexandria 82 72 

Dionysius of Alexandria ..12 5 

Theognostus o i 

Peter of Alexandria ... 7 8 

Arius ..... 2 i 

Athanasius (c. Arianos) . . 57 56 

161 150 

1 Introduction, pp. 127, &c. 


Under the thirty places already examined, Clement, 
the most important of these writers, witnesses 8 times for 
the Traditional reading and 14 times for the Neologian. 
Origen, who in his earlier years was a leader of this 
school, testifies 44 and 27 times respectively in the order 

The Version which was most closely connected with 
Lower Egypt was the Bohairic, and under the same thirty 
passages gives the ensuing evidence : 

1. Matt. i. 25. Omits. One MS. says the Greek has 'her 

first-born son/ 

2. ,, v. 44. Large majority, all but 5, omit. Some add 

in the margin. 

3. vi. 13. Only 5 MSS. have the doxology. 

4. ,, vii. 13. All have it. 

5. ,, ix. 13. 9 have it, and 3 in margin : 12 omit, besides 

the 3 just mentioned. 

6. ,, xi. 27. All have povXrjrai. 

7. xvii. 21. Only 6 MSS. have it, besides 7 in margin or 

interlined: n omit wholly. 

8. xviii. ii. Only 4 have it. 

9. xix. 1 6. Only 7 have 'good/ besides a few corrections : 

12 omit. 

17. Only i has it. 
jo. xxiii. 38. Only 6 have it. 

11. ,, xxvii. 34. One corrected and one which copied the 

correction. All the rest have oivov 1 . 

12. xxviii. 2. All have it. 

13. 19. All have it. 

14. Mark i. 2. All (i.e. 25) give, 'Ho-aia. 

15. xvi. 9-20. None wholly omit: 2 give the alternative ending. 

1 6. Luke i. 28. Only 4 + 2 corrected have it: 12 omit. 

17. ii. 14. All have ft-fioKia. 

1 8. x. 412. 'OAryeoi/ 8e (3 omit) earl xP fl/a *7 * v s l omits 

17 evos. 2 corrected add ' of them/ 

19. xxii.43-4. Omitted by iS 1 . 

20. xxiii. 34. All omit *. 

1 Probably Alexandrian readings. 


21. Luke xxiii. 38. All omit except 5* (?). 

22. ,, ,, 45. All have eKAiTToi/ros J . 

23. xxiv. 40. All have it. 

24. ,, 42. All omit 1 . 

25. John i. 3-4. All (except i which pauses at ovde ei>) have it. 

The Sahidic is the other way. 

26. ., 1 8. All have Gtos l . 

27. iii. 13. Omitted by 9. 

28. ,, x. 14. All have ' mine know me/ The Bohairic has 

no passive : hence the error l . 

29. xvii. 24. The Bohairic could not express ovs: hence 

the error l . 

30. xxi. 25. All have it. 

The MSS. differ in number as to their witness in each place. 

No manuscripts can be adduced as Alexandrian : and 
in fact we are considering the ante-manuscriptal period. 
All reference therefore to manuscripts would be consequent 
upon, not a factor in, the present investigation. 

It will be seen upon a review of this evidence, that the 
most striking characteristic is found in the instability of 
it. The Bohairic wabbles from side to side. Clement 
witnesses on both sides upon the thirty places but mostly 
against the Traditional text, whilst his collected evidence 
in all cases yields a slight majority to the latter side 
of the contention. Origen on the contrary by a large 
majority rejects the Neologian readings on the thirty 
passages, but acknowledges them by a small one in his 
habitual quotations. It is very remarkable, and yet 
characteristic of Origen, who indeed changed his home 
from Alexandria to Caesarea, that his habit was to adopt 
one of the most notable of Syrio-Low-Latin readings in 
preference to the Traditional reading prevalent at Alex- 
andria. St. Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi. 35) in defending the 
reading of St. John i. 3-4, * without Him was not anything 
made : that which was made was life in Him,' says that 

1 Probably Alexandrian readings. 


Alexandrians and Egyptians follow the reading which is 
now adopted everywhere except by Lachmann, Tregelles, 
and W.-Hort. It has been said that Origen was in the 
habit of using MSS. of both kinds, and indeed no one can 
examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion. 
Therefore we are led first of all to the school of Christian 
Philosophy which under the name of the Catechetical 
School has made Alexandria for ever celebrated in the 
early annals of the Christian Church. Indeed Origen was 
a Textual Critic. He spent much time and toil upon the 
text of the New Testament, besides his great labours on 
the Old, because he found it disfigured as he says by 
corruptions ' some arising from the carelessness of scribes, 
some from evil licence of emendation, some from arbitrary 
omissions and interpolations V Such a sitting in judgement, 
or as perhaps it should be said with more justice to Origen 
such a pursuit of inquiry, involved weighing of evidence 
on either side, of which there are many indications in 
his works. The connexion of this school with the school 
set up at Caesarea, to which place Origen appears to have 
brought his manuscripts, and where he bequeathed his 
teaching and spirit to sympathetic successors, will be 
carried out and described more fully in the next section. 
Origen was the most prominent personage by far in the 
Alexandrian School. His fame and influence in this 
province extended with the reputation of his other writings 
long after his death. ' When a writer speaks of the 
" accurate copies," what he actually means is the text of 
Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen V 
Indeed it was an elemental, inchoate school, dealing in an 
academical and eclectic spirit with evidence of various 
kinds, highly intellectual rather than original, as for ex- 

1 In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton Lectures 
on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123. 

2 Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z. 


ample in the welcome given to the Syrio- Low -Latin 
variation of St. Matt. xix. 16, 17, and addicted in some 
degree to alteration of passages. It would appear that 
besides this critical temper and habit there was to some 
extent a growth of provincial readings at Alexandria or 
in the neighbourhood, and that modes of spelling which 
were rejected in later ages took their rise there. Specimens 
of the former of these peculiarities may be seen in the 
table of readings just given from the Bohairic Version. 
The chief effects of Alexandrian study occurred in the 
Cacsarean school which now invites our consideration. 

2. Caesar e an School. 

In the year 231, as seems most probable, Origen finally 
left Alexandria. His head-quarters thenceforward may be 
said to have been Caesarea in Palestine, though he travelled 
into Greece and Arabia and stayed at Neo- Caesarea in 
Cappadocia with his friend and pupil Gregory Thauma- 
turgus. He had previously visited Rome: so that he must 
have been well qualified by his experience as well as 
probably by his knowledge and collection of MSS. to lay 
a broad foundation for the future settlement of the text. 
But unfortunately his whole career marks him out as 
a man of uncertain judgement. Like some others, he was 
a giant in learning, but ordinary in the use of his learning. 
He was also closely connected with the philosophical 
school of Alexandria, from which Arianism issued. 

The leading figures in this remarkable School of 
Textual Criticism at Caesarea were Origen and Eusebius, 
besides Pamphilus who forms the link between the two. 
The ground-work of the School was the celebrated library 
in the city which was formed upon the foundation supplied 
by Origen, so far as the books in it escaped the general 
destruction of MSS. that occurred in the persecution 


of Diocletian. It is remarkable, that although there seems 
little doubt that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. were 
amongst the fruits of this school, as will be shewn in the 
next chapter, the witness of the writings of both Origen 
and Eusebius is so favourable as it is to the Traditional 
Text. In the case of Origen there is as already stated l 
not far from an equality between the totals on either side, 
besides a majority of 44 to 27 on the thirty important 
texts : and the numbers for Eusebius are respectively 
315 to 214, and 41 to n. 

Palestine was well suited from its geographical position 
to be the site of the junction of all the streams. The very 
same circumstances which adapted it to be the arena of 
the great drama in the world's history drew to its shores 
the various elements in the representation in language of 
the most characteristic part of the Word of God. The 
Traditional Text would reach it by various routes : the 
Syrio-Low-Latin across the sea and from Syria : the Alex- 
andrian readings from the near neighbourhood. Origen in 
his travels would help to assemble all. The various alien 
streams would thus coalesce, and the text of B and N 
would be the result. But the readings of MSS. recorded by 
Origen and especially by Eusebius prove that in this broad 
school the Traditional Text gained at least a decided pre- 
ponderance according to the private choice of the latter 
scholar. Yet, as will be shewn, he was probably, not the 
writer of B and of the six conjugate leaves in tf, yet as 
the executor of the order of Constantine the superintendent 
also in copying those celebrated MSS. Was he then in- 
fluenced by the motives of a courtier in sending such texts 
as he thought would be most acceptable to the Emperor? 
Or is it not more in consonance with the facts of the case 
especially as interpreted by the subsequent spread in 

' Above, p. ioo. 


Constantinople of the Traditional Text 1 . that we should 
infer that the fifty MSS. sent included a large proportion of 
Texts of another character ? Eusebius, the Homoiousian or 
Semi-Arian, would thus be the collector of copies to suit 
different tastes and opinions, and his scholar and successor 
Acacius, the Homoean. would more probably be the writer 
of B and of the six conjugate leaves of N 2 . The trimming 
character of the latitudinarian, and the violent forwardness 
of the partisan, would appear to render such a supposition 
not unreasonable. Estimating the school according to prin- 
ciples of historical philosophy, and in consonance with both 
the existence of the Text denoted by B and N and also 
the subsequent results, it must appear to us to be transi- 
tional in character, including two distinct and incongruous 
solutions, of which one was afterwards proved to be the 
right by the general acceptation in the Church that even 
Dr. Hort acknowledges to have taken place. 

An interesting inquiry is here suggested with respect 
to the two celebrated MSS. just mentioned. How is it 
that we possess no MSS. of the New Testament of any 
considerable size older than those, or at least no other such 
MSS. as old as they are ? Besides the disastrous results of 
the persecution of Diocletian, there is much force in the 
reply of Dean Burgon, that being generally recognized as 
bad MSS. they were left standing on the shelf in their 
handsome covers, whilst others which were more correct 
were being thumbed to pieces in constant use. But the 
discoveries made since the Dean's death enables me to 
suggest another answer which will also help to enlarge our 
view on these matters. 

The habit of writing on vellum belongs to Asia. The 
first mention of it that we meet with occurs in the 58th 

1 Hort, Introduction, p. 143. 

2 Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far as he 
had a position, is best indicated as above. 


chapter of the 5th book of Herodotus, where the historian 
tells us that the lonians wrote on the skins of sheep and 
goats because they could not get 'byblus,' or as we best 
know it, papyrus. Vellum remained in comparative ob- 
scurity till the time of Eumenes II, King of Pergamum. 
That intelligent potentate, wishing to enlarge his library 
and being thwarted by the Ptolemies who refused out of 
jealousy to supply him with papyrus, improved the skins 
of his country 1 , and made the 'charta Pergamena/ from 
whence the term parchment has descended to us. It will 
be remembered that St. Paul sent to Ephesus for 'the 
books, especially the parchments 2 .' There is evidence 
that vellum was used at Rome : but the chief materials 
employed there appear to have been waxen tablets and 
papyrus. Martial, writing towards the end of the first 
century, speaks of vellum MSS. of Homer, Virgil, Cicero, 
and Ovid 3 . But if such MSS. had prevailed generally, 
more would have come down to us. The emergence of 
vellum into general use is marked and heralded by the 
products of the library at Caesarea, which helped by the 
rising literary activity in Asia and by the building 'of 
Constantinople, was probably the means of the introduction 
of an improved employment of vellum. It has been already 
noticed 4 , that Acacius and Euzoius, successively bishops 
of Caesarea after Eusebius, superintended the copying of 
papyrus manuscripts upon vellum. Greek uncials were 
not unlike in general form to the square Hebrew letters 
used at Jerusalem after the Captivity. The activity in 
Asiatic Caesarea synchronized with the rise in the use of 
vellum. It would seem that in moving there Origen 
deserted papyrus for the more durable material. 

1 Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin. 
at. Hist. xiii. n. 

2 rd t/3A<'a, p.a\iara ras /^e/x/3pai/as, 2 Tim. iv. 13. 

3 Palaeography, p. 36. * See above, p. 2. 


A word to explain my argument. If vellum had been 
in constant use over the Roman Empire during the first 
three centuries and a third which elapsed before B and N 
were written, there ought to have been in existence some 
remains of a material so capable of resisting the tear and 
wear of use and time. As there are no vellum MSS. at 
all except the merest fragments dating from before 
330 A. D., we are perforce driven to infer that a material 
for writing of a perishable nature was generally employed 
before that period. Now not only had papyrus been for 
' long the recognized material for literary use,' but we can 
trace its employment much later than is usually supposed. 
It is true that the cultivation of the plant in Egypt began 
to wane after the capture of Alexandria by the Mahom- 
medans in 638 A. D., and the destruction of the famous 
libraries : but it continued in existence during some 
centuries afterwards. It was grown also in Sicily and 
Italy. ' In France papyrus was in common use in the 
sixth century.' Sir E. Maunde Thompson enumerates 
books now found in European Libraries of Paris, Genoa, 
Milan, Vienna, Munich, and elsewhere, as far down as the 
tenth century. The manufacture of it did not cease in 
Egypt till the tenth century. The use of papyrus did not 
lapse finally till paper was introduced into Europe by the 
Moors and Arabs 1 , upon which occurrence all writing was 
executed upon tougher substances, and the cursive hand 
drove out uncial writing even from parchment. 

1 Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man named 
^j>- ^jjg Ts'ai Lun, who lived about A. D. 90. He is said to have used the 
bark of a tree ; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent, from which a coarse 
kind of paper is still made in northern China. The better kinds of modern 
Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which is soaked and pounded to 
a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in China, von Friedrich Hirth. Pub- 
lished in Vol. I. of the Toung Pao (April, 1890). S. J. Brille : Leide. (Kindly 
communicated by Mr. H. A. Giles, H.B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of 
' A Chinese-English Dictionary,' &c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior 
of Park Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.) 


The knowledge of the prevalence of papyrus, as to which 
any one may satisfy himself by consulting Sir E. Maunde 
Thompson's admirable book, and of the employment of 
the cursive hand before Christ, must modify many of the 
notions that have been widely entertained respecting the 
old Uncials. 

1. In the first place, it will be clear that all the Cursive 
MSS. are not by any means the descendants of the 
Uncials. If the employment of papyrus in the earliest 
ages of the Christian Church was prevalent over by far 
the greater part of the Roman Empire, and that description 
is I believe less than the facts would warrant, then more 
than half of the stems of genealogy must have originally 
consisted of papyrus manuscripts. And further, if the use 
of papyrus continued long after the date of B and K, then 
it would not only have occupied the earliest steps in the 
lines of descent, but much later exemplars must have 
carried on the succession. But in consequence of the 
perishable character of papyrus those exemplars have 
disappeared and live only in their cursive posterity. This 
aspect alone of the case under consideration invests the 
Cursives with much more interest and value than many 
people would nowadays attribute to them. 

2. But beyond this conclusion, light is shed upon the 
subject by the fact now established beyond question, that 
cursive handwriting existed in the world some centuries 
before Christ l . For square letters (of course in writing inter- 
spersed with circular lines) we go to Palestine and Syria, 
and that may not impossibly be the reason why uncial 
Greek letters came out first, as far as the evidence of extant 
remains can guide us, in those countries. The change 

1 ... 'the science of palaeography, which, now stands on quite a different 
footing; from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago. Instead of beginning 
practically in the fourth century of our era, with the earliest of the great vellum 
codices of the Bible, it now begins in the third century before Christ. . . .' 
Church Quarterly Review for October, 1894, p. 104. 


from uncial to cursive letters about the tenth century is 
most remarkable. Must it not to a great extent have arisen 
from the contemporary failure of papyrus which has been 
explained, and from the cursive writers on papyrus now 
trying their hand on vellum and introducing their more 
easy and rapid style of writing into that class of manu- 
scripts 1 ? If so, the phenomenon shews itself, that by the 
very manner in which they are written, Cursives mutely 
declare that they are not solely the children of the Uncials. 
Speaking generally, they are the progeny of a marriage 
between the two, and the papyrus MSS. would appear to 
have been the better half. 

Such results as have been reached in this chapter and 
the last have issued from the advance made in discovery 
and research during the last ten years. But these were not 
known to Tischendorf or Tregelles, and much less to Lach- 
mann. They could not have been embraced by Hort in 
his view of the entire subject when he constructed his 
clever but unsound theory some forty years ago 2 . Surely 
our conclusion must be that the world is leaving that 
school gradually behind. 

1 . . . ' it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the beginning 
of the Christian era is substantially identical with that of the tenth or eleventh 
century manuscripts, on which our present texts of the classics are based. 
Setting minor differences aside, the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent 
the same texts as the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.' Church 
Quarterly, pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as 
regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for manuscripts 
of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure successors of 

2 Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears 
chiefly upon Lachmann's foundation. 



I 1 - 

CODEX B was early enthroned on something like specu- 
lation, and has been maintained upon the throne by what 
has strangely amounted to a positive superstition. The 
text of this MS. was not accurately known till the edition 
of Tischendorf appeared in i86y 2 : and yet long before 
that time it was regarded by many critics as the Queen 
of the Uncials. The collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of 
Rulotta, and of Birch, were not trustworthy, though they 
far surpassed Mai's two first editions. Yet the prejudice 
in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to 
issue decrees from the Vatican 3 did not wait till the clear 
light of criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its 
defalcations. The same spirit, biassed by sentiment not 
ruled by reason, has remained since more has been dis- 
closed of the real nature of this Codex 4 . 

A similar course has been pursued with respect to 
Codex N. It was perhaps to be expected that human 
infirmity should have influenced Tischendorf in his treat- 
ment of the treasure-trove by him : though his character 

1 By the Editor. 

2 Tischendorf s fourteen brief days' work is a marvel of accuracy, but must 
not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly gives EvpavvXauv 
instead of Eiy>av8cui/, as Vercellone pointed out in his Preface to the octavo ed. 
of Mai in 1859, an( ^ as ma y ^ )e seen * n tne photographic copy of B. 

3 Cf. Scrivener's Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283. 

* See Kuenen and Cobet's Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction. 


for judgement could not but be seriously injured by the 
fact that in his eighth edition he altered the mature con- 
clusions of his seventh in no less than 3-572 1 instances, 
chiefly on account of the readings in his beloved Sinaitic 

Yet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged 
even more strongly against K. It adds to the number of 
the blunders of its associate : it is conspicuous for habitual 
carelessness or licence: it often by itself deviates into 
glaring errors 2 . The elevation of the Sinaitic into the 
first place, which was effected by Tischendorf as far as his 
own practice was concerned, has been applauded by only 
very few scholars : and it is hardly conceivable that they 
could maintain their opinion, if they would critically and 
impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the New 
Testament for themselves. 

The fact is that B and N were the products of the school 
of philosophy and teaching which found its vent in 
Semi-Arian or Homoean opinions. The proof of this 
position is somewhat difficult to give, but when the nature 
of the question and the producible amount of evidence are 
taken into consideration, is nevertheless quite satisfactory. 

In the first place, according to the verdict of all critics 
the date of these two MSS. coincides with the period when 
Semi-Arianism or some other form of Arianism were in the 
ascendant in the East, and to all outward appearance 
swayed the Universal Church. In the last years of his 
rule, Constantine was under the domination of the 
Arianizing faction ; and the reign of Constantius II over 
all the provinces in the Roman Empire that spoke Greek, 
during which encouragement was given to the great 
heretical schools of the time, completed the two central 

1 Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf s 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I) 
p. 286. 

2 See Appendix V. 


decades of the fourth century 1 . It is a circumstance that 
cannot fail to give rise to suspicion that the Vatican and 
Sinaitic MSS. had their origin under a predominant influ- 
ence of such evil fame. At the very least, careful investi- 
gation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact 
free from that influence which has met with universal 

Now as we proceed further we are struck with another 
most remarkable coincidence, which also as has been 
before noticed is admitted on all hands, viz. that the 
period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from 
oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great 
Nicene controversy was also the time when the text of 
B and N sank into condemnation. The Orthodox side 
under St. Chrysostom and others became permanently 
supreme : so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then 
to assume with our opponents that in the Church con- 
demnation and acceptance were inseparable companions? 
That at first heresy and the pure Text, and afterwards or- 
thodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in hand ? That 
such ill-matched couples graced the history of the Church ? 
That upon so fundamental a matter as the accuracy of the 
written standard of reference, there was precision of text 
when heretics or those who dallied with heresy were in 
power, but that the sacred Text was contaminated when 
the Orthodox had things their own way? Is it indeed 
come to this, that for the pure and undefiled Word of GOD 
we must search, not amongst those great men who under 
the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and settled for 
ever the main Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of Holy 
Scripture, but amidst the relics of those who were unable 
to agree with one another, and whose fine-drawn subtleties 
in creed and policy have been the despair of the historians, 

1 Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360. 


and a puzzle to students of Theological Science? It is not 
too much to assert, that Theology and History know no 
such unscientific conclusions. 

It is therefore a circumstance full of significance that 
Codexes B and N* were produced in such untoward times 1 , 
and fell into neglect on the revival of orthodoxy, when 
the Traditional Text was permanently received. But the 
case in hand rests also upon evidence more direct than this. 

The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on 
the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary. The fame of 
his learning added to the splendour of his genius, his vast 
Biblical achievements and his real insight into the depth 
of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard 
of early Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the 
highest praise for the profundity of many of his utterances, 
the ingenuity of almost all. It must at the same time 
be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the 
verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness ; unwarrantedly 
confident in his assertions ; deficient in sobriety ; in his 
critical remarks even foolish. A prodigious reader as well 
as a prodigious writer, his words would have been of 
incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so 
saturated with the strange speculations of the early 
heretics, that he sometimes adopts their wild method ; 
and in fact has not been reckoned among the orthodox 
Fathers of the Church. 

But (and this is the direction in which the foregoing 
remarks have tended) Origen's ruling passion is found to 
have been textual criticism 2 . This was at once his forte 

1 In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued 
that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of X from that of B. But 
it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which he embraced on the 
first appearance of N in favour of the conclusion adopted by Tischendorf and 
Scrivener and other experts, in consequence of their identifying the writing of the 
six conjugate leaves of N with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp. 46, 52. 

2 The Revision Revised, p. 292. 


and his foible. In the library of his friend PamphiJus at 
Caesarea were found many Codexes that had belonged to 
him, and the autograph of his Hexapla, which was seen 
and used by St. Jerome 1 . In fact, the collection of books 
made by Pamphilus, in the gathering of which at the very 
least he was deeply indebted to Origen, became a centre 
from whence, after the destruction of copies in the persecu- 
tion of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text radiated 
in various directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum 
was assiduously prosecuted there 2 . Constantine applied 
to Eusebius for fifty handsome copies 3 , amongst which it 
is not improbable that the manuscripts (o-cojuaria) B and N 
were to be actually found 4 . But even if that is not so, the 
Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order, 
if that bishop had not been in the habit of providing 
copies : and Eusebius in fact carried on the work which 
he had commenced under his friend Pamphilus, and in 
which the latter must have followed the path pursued by 
Origen. Again, Jerome is known to have resorted to this 
quarter 5 , and various entries in MSS. prove that others 
did the same 6 . It is clear that the celebrated library of 
Pamphilus exercised great influence in the province of 

1 The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of the 

a See above, Introduction, p. 2. 

3 It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to 
Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order afterwards to 
Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. 4 (Montfaucon, Vita Athan. p. xxxvii), ap. 
Wordsworth's Church History, Vol. II. p. 45. 

* See Canon Cook's ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough 
for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late Archdeacon Palmer 
(Scrivener's Introduction, I. 119, note), which I too hastily adopted on other 
grounds also in my Textual Guide, p. 82, note I, will not stand, because 
ooj^aria cannot mean 'collections [of writings],' but simply, according to the 
frequent usage of the word in the early ages of the Church, ' vellum manu- 
scripts.' The difficulty in translating rpiaad xal rtrpaaoa ' of three or four 
columns in a page ' is not insuperable. 

5 Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.). 

6 Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.). 

M 2 


Textual Criticism ; and the spirit of Origen was powerful 
throughout the operations connected with it, at least till 
the Origenists got gradually into disfavour and at length 
were finally condemned at the Fifth General Council in 
A.D. 553. 

But in connecting B and tf with the Library at Caesarea 
we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well- 
known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther 
in N by the third corrector, it is stated that from the 
beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the 
MS. was compared with a copy ' corrected by the hand of 
the holy martyr Pamphilus,' which itself was written and 
corrected after the Hexapla of Origen 1 . And a similar 
colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. 
It is added that the Codex Sinaiticus (robe TO TV\.S) and 
the Codex Pamphili (TO CLVTO TraXaitoTarov ftift\Cov) manifested 
great agreement with one another. The probability that 
tf was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript exe- 
cuted by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain 
' Codex Marchalianus ' is often mentioned which was due 
to Pamphilus and Eusebius ; and that Origen's recension 
of the Old Testament, although he published no edition 
of the Text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On 
the books of Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts 
executed by Origen with great care, which were published 
by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St. Paul 
it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the 
library of Caesarea ' which was written by the hand of the 
holy Pamphilus 2 .' These notices added to the frequent 

1 The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the 
well-known ' Texte und Untersuchungen/ edited by Oscar von Gebhardt and 
Adolf Harnack, entitled ' Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament,' p. 45. 
II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice was kindly drawn by 
Dr. Sanday. 

2 Miller's Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards Bp. of 


reference by St. Jerome and others to the critical 
MSS., by which we are to understand those which were 
distinguished by the approval of Origen or were in con- 
sonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the 
position in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and 
its illustrious founder had won in those days. And it is 
quite in keeping with that position that K should have 
been sent forth from that * school of criticism.' 

But if N was, then B must have been ; at least, if the 
supposition certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, 
that the six conjugate leaves of K were written by the 
scribe of B. So there is a chain of reference, fortified by 
the implied probability which has been furnished for us 
from the actual facts of the case. 

Yet Dr. Hort is ' inclined to surmise that B and tf were 
both written in the West, probably at Rome ; that the 
ancestors of B were wholly Western (in the geographical, 
not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed ; 
and that the ancestors of N were in great part Alexandrian. 
again in the geographical, not the textual sense 1 .' For 
this opinion, in which Dr. Hort stands alone amongst 
authorities, there is nothing but 'surmise' founded upon 
very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought 
forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides 
that the connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts 
or Readings, which has been recently confirmed in a very 
material degree, must weaken the force of some of his 

2 2 . 

The points to which I am anxious rather to direct 
attention are (i) the extent to which the works of 
Origen were studied by the ancients: and (2) the curious 

1 Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and N were 
written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now maintains. 
* By the Dean. 


discovery that Codexes NB, and to some extent D, either 
belong to the same class as those with which Origen was 
chiefly familiar ; or else have been anciently manipulated 
into conformity with Origen's teaching. The former seems 
to me the more natural supposition ; but either inference 
equally satisfies my contention : viz. that Origen, and mainly 
BND, are not to be regarded as wholly independent 
authorities, but constitute a class. 

The proof of this position is to be found in various 
passages where the influence of Origen may be traced, 
such as in the omission of Yiov rov Qeov ' The Son of 
God ' in Mark i. 1 1 ; and of tv 'E^eVw ' at Ephesus '- 
in Eph. i. i 2 ; in the substitution of Bethabara (St. John 
i. 28) for Bethany 3 ; in the omission of the second part of 
the last petition the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke 4 , of e/xTrpocr- 
Oev fjiov ytyovtv in John i. 27 5 . 

He is also the cause why the important qualification 
cur} (' without a cause ') is omitted by BN from St. Matt. 
v. 22 ; and hence, in opposition to the whole host of Copies, 
Versions 6 , Fathers, has been banished from the sacred 
Text by Lachmann,Tischendorf, W.-Hort and the Revisers 7 . 
To the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed 
the omission from a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-N, 
D*, F-G, and 17*) of the clause rf; dAry^eta JUT) 

1 See Appendix IV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum, Praef. 
ii. 4 ; Comment, in John ix. Followed here only by N *. 

2 See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235. 

3 Migne, viii. 96 d. Tavra e-ye^tro kv BrjOavia. oaa Si TUIV dvriypdffxav aKpi&fff- 

%X (l > * v B7/0a/3apa, iprjaiv. fj yap BrjOavia ov^l irepav rov 'lopSavov, oi/5e errl 
v r\v dAA.' eyyvs irov rwv 'Iepoao\vfj.ajv. This speedily assumed the form 
of a scholium, as follows : X/>?) 5 yivwattfiv, on rd diepi0^ TUV dvTiypdfow fv 
Br/Oafiapq irtpitx* 1 ' "h T^P BrjOavia oiX' Tfp av TOV 'Ivpodvov, d\\' eyyvs nov TUV 
'Ifpoao\vnwv : which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of Origen in 
M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column), evidently from Coisl. 23, our 
Evan. 39, since the words are found in Cramer, Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3). 

4 Origen, i. 265 ; coll. i. 227, 256. 

5 Origen, Comment, in John vi. 

6 The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the Peshitto. 

7 See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61. 


('that you should not obey the truth') Gal. iii. I. Jerome 
duly acknowledges those words while commenting on 
St. Matthew's Gospel 1 ; but when he comes to the place 
in Galatians 2 , he is observed, first to admit that the clause 
' is found in some copies,' and straightway to add that 
'inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of Adamantius 3 , 
he omits it.' The clue to his omission is supplied by his 
own statement that in writing on the Galatians he had 
made Origen his guide 4 . And yet the words stand in the 

For :- 

C D c E K L P, 46 Cursives. Theodoret ii. 40. 

Vulg. Goth. Harkl. Arm. Ethiop. J. Damascene ii. 163. 

Orig. ii. 373. Theodorus Studita, 433, 1136. 

Cyril Al. ii. 737. Hieron. vii. 418. c. Legitur in 

Ephr. Syr. iii. 203. quibusdam codicibus, ' Quis 

Macarius Magnes (or rather the vos fascinavit non credere 

heathen philosopher with veritati?' Sed hoc, quia in 

whom he disputed), 128. exemplaribus Adamantii non 

ps.-Athanas. ii. 454. habetur, omisimus. 

Against : 

K A B D* F G 17*. Exemplaria Adamantii. 

d e f g fu. Cyril 429. 

Peshitto, Bohairic. Theodoret i. 658 ( = Mai vii 2 150). 

Chrys. Theodorus Mops. 

Euthal. C0(i . Hier. vii. 418. c. 

In a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical expo- 
sition of our LORD'S two miracles of feeding 5 ; drawing 
marvellous inferences, as his manner is, from the details of 

1 vii. 52. a vii. 418. 

s A name by which Origen was known. 

4 Imljecillitatem virium mearum sentiens. Origenis Commentaries sum 
sequutus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie 
volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super explanatione 
ejus sermone complevit. Praefutio, vii. 370. 

5 iii. 509-10. 


either miracle. We find that Hilary 1 , that Jerome 2 , that 
Chrysostom 3 , had Origen's remarks before them when they 
in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the 4000. 
At the feeding of the 5000, Origen points out that our LORD 
* commands the multitude to sit down' (St. Matt. xiv. 19): 
but at the feeding of the 4000, He does not 'command' 
but only 'directs' them to sit down (St. Matt. xv. 35 4 )... 
From which it is plain that Origen did not read as we do in 
St. Matt. xv. 35 KCLL ^KeAeixre TOIS 0^X019 but TrapryyyeiAe T<O 
oxAw avatrto-elv ; which is the reading of the parallel place 
in St. Mark (viii. 6). We should of course have assumed 
a slip of memory on Origen's part ; but that NBD are 
found to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in conformity 
with Origen 5 . He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which 
he has before him ; and remarking, as his unfortunate 
manner is, on what proves to be really nothing else but 
a palpable depravation of the text. 

Speaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks, ' It is 
not written " He it is to whom I shall give the sop " ; but 
with the addition of " I shall dip " : for it says, " I shall dip 
the sop and give it." ' This is the reading of BCL and is 
adopted accordingly by some Editors. But surely it is 
a depravation of the text which may be ascribed with 
confidence to the officiousness of Origen himself. Who, at 
all events, on such precarious evidence would surrender the 
established reading of the place, witnessed to as it is by 

1 686-7. 2 y ii- 117-20. 3 vii. 537 seq. 

4 I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to the 
English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in English without 
more words than the point is worth. Origen says : KUKCI plv K\*vfi rovs 
OX\QVS dvaK\t0rjvai (Matt. xiv. 19), 77 ovaireatlv ITTI rov \6pTov. (/rai yap 6 
A.OVKOLS (ix. 14) KaraK\ivaTf avrovs, aveypcuf/e" KOI 6 Mapxos (vi. 39), IWra^e, 
<pr}3iv, avrots iravras dra/fAtVcu') evOdde St ov mAc&i, d\Ad Trapayyf\\fi TO> <->X^V 
avaK\i0fji>at. iii. 509 f, 510 a. 

5 The only other witnesses are from Evan. I, 33, and the lost archetype of 
13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly between Ke\(vca and 
irapayy\\ci}. Chrysostom, the only Father who quotes this place, exhibits 
etct\(V(Tf ... /cat Xa&wv (vii. 539 c). 


every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers? 
The grounds on which Tischendorf reads Ja^o> TO ^co/uW 
/cat ^wo-co avra>, are characteristic, and in their way a 
curiosity 1 . 

Take another instance of the same phenomenon. It is 
plain, from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that 
our Saviour rejected the Temptation which stands second 
in St. Luke's Gospel with the words, ' Get thee behind 
Me, Satan 2 . 5 But Origen officiously points out that this 
(quoting the words) is precisely what our LORD did not 
say. He adds a reason, ' He said to Peter, " Get thee 
behind Me, Satan " ; but to the Devil, " Get thee hence," 
without the addition " behind Me " ; for to be behind Jesus 
is a good thing 3 .' 

1 Lectio ab omni parte coramendatur, et a correctore alienissima : @<n[/ca ttai 
oojcrca ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur @ai[/as eTnSoxrcu vel Scuacu. 

2 Luke iv. 8. 

3 Hpus TOV ntrpov ttirev viraye omffca pov, ^arava' TT/JOS Sc rav 8ia/3o\ov. 
vrrayf, Saram, x&pis TTJS orriaca uov irpoo6r]Ki)S' TO yap uniaca TOV 'Irjaov fJvat dyaOuv 
fffTi. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the sole cause of the perplexity. Com- 
menting on Matt. xvi. 23 vnaye omaoj fjiov Saram (the words addressed to Simon 
Peter), he explains that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at 
Satan's instigation desisted from following Him. Comp. (he says) these words 
spoken to Peter (ytr. oir. p.ov 2.) with those addressed to Satan at the temptation 
without the omoca pov 'for to be behind Christ is a good thing.' ... I suppose he 
had before him a MS. of St. Matt, without the OTTLOOJ uov. This gloss is referred 
to by Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even repeated by 
Jerome on Matt. vii. 2 1 d e : Non ut plerique putant eadem Satanas et Apostolus 
Petrus sententia condemnantur. Petro enim dicitur, ' Vade retro me, Satana ;' 
id est ' Sequere me, qui contrarius es voluntati meae.' Hie vero audit, ' Vade 
Satana-. ' et non ei dicitur 'retro me] ut subaudiatur, ' vade in ignem aeternum.' 
Vade Satana (Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter Alex, has vnayc Sarai/a, 
ycYpavTai yap, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on p. 55). Audierat diabolus a 
Domino, Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi es. Scriptum est, Dominum Deum 
ttium adorabis et illi soli servies, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. OVK fTnfv "Yira-ff 
uTTiaco P.OV ov yap vno&Tptyai olos re* a\\a' "fnaye 2arai/a, kv ols ire\(ca. 
Epist. ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. interpol. According to some Critics (Tisch., 
Treg., W.-Hort) there is no viraye OTTIGQ} ynou 2. in Lu. iv. 8, and only virayf 2. 
in Matt. iv. 10, so that v-naye OUKJOJ pov 2arai/a occurs in neither accounts of the 
temptation. But I believe v-nayt omoca p.ov 2. is the correct reading in both 
places. Justin M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so 
Ambrose, i. 671 ; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e ; redi post 
me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theocloret, ii. 1608. So Maximus Taur., Vigil. Taps. 


Our Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38) thus 
addressed his wicked countrymen: f l speak that which 
I have seen with My Father ; and ye likewise do that 
which you have seen with your father.' He contrasts His 
own gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds ; and 
refers them to their respective 'Fathers,' to 'My Father,' 
that is, GOD ; and to 'your father,' that is, the Devil 1 . 
That this is the true sense of the place appears plainly 
enough from the context. ' Seen with ' and ' heard from - ' 
are the expressions employed on such occasions, because 
sight and hearing are the faculties which best acquaint 
a man with the nature of that whereof he discourses. 

Origen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that GOD 
is the 'Father' spoken of on either side. He I suspect it 
was who, in order to support this view, erased ' My ' and 
' your ' ; and in the second member of the sentence, for 
' seen with/ substituted ' heard from ' ; as if a contrast had 
been intended between the manner of the Divine and of 
the human knowledge, which would be clearly out of 
place. In this way, what is in reality a revelation, becomes 
converted into a somewhat irrelevant precept : ' I speak 
the things which I have seen with the Father/ ' Do ye 
the things which ye have heard from the Father,' which 
is how Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit 
the place. Cyril Alex, employed a text thus impaired. 
Origen also puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept (eore . . . 

Vade retro S. ap. Sabattier. ' Vade post me Satana. Et sine dubio ire post 
Deum servi est.' Et iterum quod ait ad ilium, ' Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, 
et ipsi soli setvies? Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 1 20), A. D. 277. 
St. Antony the monk, apud Athanas. ' Vita Ant' i. 824 c d ( . Galland. iv. 647 a). 
A. u. 300. Retro varfe Satana, ps.-Tatian (Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d, 
537 c 5^9 f- Nestorius ap. Marium Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c) Vade retro S. 
but only Vade S. viii. 631 c. Idatius (A. D. 385) apud Athanas. ii. 605 b. 
Chrys. vii. 172 bis (Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734, 737. Opus 
Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48 bis. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch. p. 250. 

1 See ver. 44. 

2 St. John viii. 40; xv. 15. 


but he has all the Fathers 1 (including himself), 
all the Versions, all the copies against him, being 
supported only by B. 

But the evidence against ( the restored reading' to which 
Alford invites attention, (viz. omitting /xou and substituting 
r)Kov(TCLT Ttapa TOV Ilarpos for loopa/care Trapa rw riarpt v\j.S>v.^ 
is overwhelming. Only five copies (BCLTX) omit pov : 
only four (BLT, 13) omit v^G>v: a very little handful are for 
substituting ^Koware with the genitive for eoopa/arre. Chrys., 
Apolinaris, Cyril Jerus., Ammonius, as well as every ancient 
version of good repute, protest agninst such an exhibition 
of the text. In ver. 39, only five read core (NBDLT) : 
while 77ottr is found only in Cod. B. Accordingly, some 
critics prefer the imperfect eTroietre, which however is only 
found in NDLT. ' The reading is remarkable' says Alford. 
Yes, and clearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right. 


Besides these passages, in which there is actual evidence 
of a connexion subsisting between the readings which they 
contain and Origen, the sceptical character of the Vatican 
and Sinaitic manuscripts affords a strong proof of the 
alliance between them and the Origenistic School. It 
must be borne in mind that Origen was not answerable 
for all the tenets of the School which bore his name, 
even perhaps less than Calvin was responsible for all that 
Calvinists after him have held and taught. Origenistic 
doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with 
Christianity in the schools of Alexandria where Origen 
was the most eminent of the teachers engaged 2 . 

1 Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom. 

2 For the sceptical passages in B and N see Appendix V. 



I 1 - 

IT is specially remarkable that the Canon of Holy 
Scripture, which like the Text had met with opposition, 
was being settled in the later part of the century in which 
these two manuscripts were produced, or at the beginning 
of the next. The two questions appear to have met 
together in Eusebius. His latitudinarian proclivities seem 
to have led him in his celebrated words 2 to lay undue 
stress upon the objections felt by some persons to a few of 
the Books of the New Testament ; and cause us therefore 
not to wonder that he should also have countenanced those 
who wished without reason to leave out portions of the 
Text. Now the first occasion, as is well known, when we 
find all the Books of the New Testament recognized with 
authority occurred at the Council of Laodicea in 363 A. D., 
if the passage is genuine 3 , which is very doubtful ; and the 

1 By the Editor. 

3 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church into 
three classes : 

1. The Received Books (o^oXo^ovp.^va), i. e. the Four Gospels, Acts, the 

Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, i Peter, i John, and the Revelation (?). 

2. Doubtful (uvTiAcYo/xem), i. e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude (c(. 

ii. 2 3 /w.). 

3. Spurious (v66a), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of 

St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called AtSaxai, Revelation of 

St. John (?). 

This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as representing 
the general opinion of the Church of the time. 
3 See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9. 


settlement of the Canon which was thus initiated, and was 
accomplished by about the end of the century, was followed, 
as was natural, by the settlement of the Text. But inas- 
much as the latter involved a large multitude of intricate 
questions, and corruption had crept in and had acquired 
a very firm hold, it was long before universal acquiescence 
finally ensued upon the general acceptance effected in the 
time of St. Chrysostom. In fact, the Nature of the Divine 
Word, and the character of the Written Word, were con- 
firmed about the same time: mainly, in the period 
when the Nicene Creed was re-asserted at the Council of 
Constantinople in 381 A.D. ; for the Canon of Holy Scripture 
was fixed and the Orthodox Text gained a supremacy over 
the Origenistic Text about the same time: and finally, 
after the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 A. D., 
at which the acknowledgement of the Natures of the Son 
of Man was placed in a position superior to all heresy; 
for it was then that the Traditional Text began in nearly 
perfect form to be handed down with scarce any opposition 
to future ages of the Church. 

Besides the multiplicity of points involved, three special 
causes delayed the complete settlement of the Text, so far 
as the attainment was concerned all over the Church of 
general accuracy throughout the Gospels, not to speak of 
all the New Testament. 

1. Origenism, going beyond Origen, continued in force 
till it was condemned by the Fifth General Council in 
553 A. D., and could hardly have wholly ended in that year. 
Besides this, controversies upon fundamental truths agitated 
the Church, and implied a sceptical and wayward spirit 
which would be ready to sustain alien variations in the 
written Word, till the censure passed upon Monothelitism 
at the Sixth General Council in 680 A.D. 

2. The Church was terribly tried by the overthrow of the 
Roman Empire, and the irruption of hordes of Barbarians : 


and consequently Churchmen were obliged to retire into 
extreme borders, as they did into Ireland in the fifth 
century 1 , and to spend their energies in issuing forth from 
thence to reconquer countries for the Kingdom of Christ. 
The resultant paralysis of Christian effort must have been 
deplorable. Libraries and their treasures, as at Caesarea 
and Alexandria under the hands of Mahommedans in the 
seventh century, were utterly destroyed. Rest and calm- 
ness, patient and frequent study and debate, books and 
other helps to research, must have been in those days hard 
to get, and were far from being in such readiness as to 
favour' general improvement in a subject of which extreme 
accuracy is the very breath and life. 

3. The Art of Writing on Vellum had hardly passed its 
youth at the time when the Text advocated by B and N 
fell finally into disuse. Punctuation did but exist in the 
occasional use of the full stop : breathings or accents were 
perhaps hardly found : spelling, both as regards consonants 
and vowels, was uncertain and rudimental. So that the 
Art of transcribing on vellum even so far as capital letters 
were concerned, did not arrive at anything like maturity 
till about the eighth century. 

But it must not be imagined that manuscripts of sub- 
stantial accuracy did not exist during this period, though 
they have not descended to us. The large number of 
Uncials and Cursives of later ages must have had a goodly 
assemblage of accurate predecessors from which they were 
copied. It is probable that the more handsome and less 
correct copies have come into our hands, since such would 
have been not so much used, and might have been in the 
possession of the men of higher station whose heathen 

1 See particularly Haddan's Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the Continent. 
The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent churchman at a comparatively 
early age to the toil which was unavoidable under want of encouragement of 
ability and genius has entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be 


ancestry had bequeathed to them less orthodox tenden- 
cies, and the material of many others must have been 
too perishable to last. Arianism prevailed during much of 
the sixth century in Italy, Africa, Burgundy, and Spain. 
Ruder and coarser volumes, though more accurate, would 
be readily surrendered to destruction, especially if they 
survived in more cultured descendants. That a majority of 
such MSS. existed, whether of a rougher or more polished 
sort, both in vellum and papyrus, is proved by citations of 
Scripture found in the Authors of the period. But those 
MSS. which have been preserved are not so perfect as the 
others which have come from the eighth and following 

Thus Codex A, though it exhibits a text more like the 
Traditional than either B or N, is far from being a sure 
guide. Codex C, which was written later in the fifth 
century, is only a fragmentary palimpsest, i. e. it was 
thought to be of so little value that the books of 
Ephraem the Syrian were written over the Greek : it 
contains not more than two-thirds of the New Testament, 
and stands as to the character of its text between A and 
B. Codex Q, a fragment of 235 verses, and Codex I of 
135, in the same century, are not large enough to be taken 
into consideration here. Codexes 3> and 2, recently dis* 
covered, being products of the end of the fifth or beginning 
of the sixth, and containing St Matthew and St. Mark 
nearly complete, are of a general character similar to A, 
and evince more advancement in the Art. It is unfortu- 
nate indeed that only a fragment of either of them, though 
that fragment in either case is pretty complete as far as it 
goes, has come into our hands. After them succeeds 
Codex D, or Codex Bezae, now in the Cambridge Library, 
having been bequeathed to the University by Theodore 
Beza, whose name it bears. It ends at Acts xxii. 29. 


2. CODEX D 1 . 

No one can pretend fully to understand the character of 
this Codex who has not been at the pains to collate every 
word of it with attention. Such an one will discover that 
it omits in the Gospels alone no less than 3,704 words ; 
adds to the genuine text 2,213; substitutes 2,121 ; trans- 
poses 3471, and modifies 1,772. By the time he has 
made this discovery his esteem for Cod. D will, it is pre- 
sumed, have experienced serious modification. The total 
of 13,281 deflections from the Received Text is a formid- 
able objection to explain away. Even Dr. Hort speaks 
of * the prodigious amount of error which D contains V 

But the intimate acquaintance with the Codex which he 
has thus acquired has conducted him to certain other 
results, which it is of the utmost importance that we 
should particularize and explain. 

I. And first, this proves to be a text which in one 
Gospel is often assimilated to the others. And in fact the 
assimilation is carried sometimes so far, that a passage 
from one Gospel is interpolated into the parallel passage in 
another. Indeed the extent to which in Cod. D interpo- 
lations from St. Mark's Gospel are inserted into the Gospel 
according to St. Luke is even astounding. Between verses 
14 and 15 of St. Luke v. thirty- two words are interpolated 
from the parallel passage in St. Mark i. 45~ii. i : and 
in the icth verse of the vith chapter twelve words are 
introduced from St. Mark ii. 27, 28. In St. Luke iv. 
37, fj aKorj, ' the report,' from St. Mark i. 28, is sub- 
stituted for ?7x ^ ' the sound,' which is read in the other 
manuscripts. Besides the introduction into St. Luke i. 64 

1 The reader is now in the Dean's hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris' ingenious 
and suggestive ' Study of Codex Bezae ' in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, 
and Dr. Chase's ' The Old Syriac P:iement in the Text of Codex Bezae.' But 
we must demur to the expression * Old Syriac.' 

2 Introduction, p. 149. 

CODEX D. 177 

of \v0r] from St. Mark vii. 35, hich will be described 
below, in St. Luke v. 27 seven words are brought from 
the parallel passage in St. Mark ii. 14, and the entire 
passage is corrupted 1 . In giving the Lord's Prayer in 
St. Luke xi. 2, the scribe in fault must needs illustrate the 
Lord's saying by interpolating an inaccurate transcription 
of the warning against 'vain repetitions' given by Him 
before in the Sermon on the Mount. Again, as to inter- 
polation from other sources, grossly enough, St. Matt. ii. 23 
is thrust in at the end of St. Luke ii. 39 ; that is to say, 
the scribe of D, or of some manuscript from which D was 
copied, either directly or indirectly, thought fit to explain 
the carrying of the Holy Child to Nazareth by the explana- 
tion given by St. Matthew, but quoting from memory 
wrote ' by the prophet ' in the singular, instead of ' by the 
prophets' in the plural 2 . Similarly, in St. Luke iv. 31 
upon the mention of the name of Capernaum, D must 
needs insert from St. Matt. iv. 13, 'which is upon the sea- 
coast within the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim ' 
(rTf]v irapa6a\a(T(TLOv (sic] v opiou Z*a(3ov\(i)v KCH Ne(/>0aAei/z). 
Indeed, no adequate idea can be formed of the clumsiness, 
the coarseness of these operations, unless some instances 
are given : but a few more must suffice. 

i. In St. Mark in. 26, our LORD delivers the single 
statement, ' And if Satan is risen against himself (<Wcrre 
</>' kavTov) and is divided (/cat juejue'/norcu) he cannot stand, 
but hath an end (a\\a re'Aos exet).' Instead of this, D ex- 
hibits, ' And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against 
himself: his kingdom cannot stand, but hath the end (dAAa 

1 The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what follows, 
viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26), and the call of 
St. Matthew (27-34) : as well as in respect of the walk through the cornfields 
on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the healing of the man with the withered 
hand (6-n). Indeed it is continued to the end of the call of the Twelve 
(12-19). The particulars are too many to insert here. 

2 KO.00JS tpeOr] 8ia rov irpoiprjrov, instead of onus nXrjpcaQfj SioL TWV 



TO re'Aoj ex et V Now this is clearly an imitation, not 
a copy, of the parallel place in St. Matt. xii. 26, where 
also a twofold statement is made, as every one may see. 
But the reply is also a clumsy one to the question asked 
in St. Mark, but not in St. Matthew, ' How can Satan cast 
out Satan?' Learned readers however will further note 
that it is St. Matthew's e/xepurflr], where St. Mark wrote 
/xejueptrrrcu, which makes the statement possible for him 
which is impossible according to the representation given 
by D of St. Mark. 

2. At the end of the parable of the pounds, the scribe 
of D, or one of those whom he followed, thinking that the 
idle servant was let off too easily, and confusing with this 
parable the other parable of the talents, blind of course 
to the difference between the punishments inflicted by 
a ' lord ' and those of a new-made king, inserts the 3Oth 
verse of St. Matt. xxv. at the end of St. Luke xix. 27. 

3. Again, after St. Matt. xx. 28, when the LORD had 
rebuked the spirit of ambition in the two sons of Zebedee, 
and had directed His disciples not to seek precedence, 
enforcing the lesson from His own example as shewn in 
giving His Life a ransom for many, D inserts the following 
tasteless passage : ' But ye seek to increase from a little, 
and from the greater to be something less 1 .' Nor is this 
enough : an addition is also made from St. Luke xiv. 
8-10, being the well-known passage about taking the 
lowest room at feasts. But this additional interpolation 
is in style and language unlike the words of any Gospels, 
and ends with the vapid piece of information, ' and this 
shall be useful to thee.' It is remarkable that, whereas D 
was alone in former errors, here it becomes a follower in 
one part or other of the passage of twelve Old Latin 
manuscripts 2 : and indeed the Greek in the passage in D is 

T&Tt ffe fjiiKpov avgrjaat, KO.I tK p.eiovos (\arrov tivai. 
2 I.e. abed e ff U2 g 1 ' 2 h m n. 

CODEX D. 179 

evidently a version of the Syrio-Low-Latin. The following 
words, or forms of words or phrases, are not found in the 
rest of the N. T. : TrapaKXrjOevTts (aor. part, rogati or vocati), 
(recinnbite), e^oj/ra? (eminentioribus] , benrvo- 
(invitator caenae), hi Karoo x^P L (fldhuc infra accede\ 
rJTTova TOTTOV (loco inferiori), rJTTav (inferior}) avvayt ert az/co 
(collige ad/mc sitperius}. These Latin expressions are taken 
from one or other of the twelve Old Latin MSS. Outside of 
the Latin, the Curetonian is the sole ally, the Lewis being 
mutilated, of the flighty Old Uncial under consideration. 

These passages are surely enough to represent to the 
reader the interpolations of Codex D, whether arising from 
assimilation or otherwise. The description given by the 
very learned editor of this MS. is in the following words : 
'No known manuscript contains so many bold and exten- 
sive interpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts 
alone), countenanced, where they are not absolutely un- 
supported, chiefly by the Old Latin and the Curetonian 
version 1 .' 

II. There are also traces of extreme licentiousness in this 
copy of the Gospels which call for distinct notice. Some- 
times words or expressions are substituted : sometimes the 
sense is changed, and utter confusion introduced : delicate 
terms or forms are ignored : and a general corruption 

I mean for example such expressions as the following, 
which are all found in the course of a single verse (St. Mark 
iv. i). 

St. Mark relates that once when our SAVIOUR was 
teaching ' by the sea-side ' (irapa) there assembled so vast 
a concourse of persons that * He went into the ship, and 

1 Scrivener's Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will recollect the 
suggestion given above in Chapter VII that some of these corruptions may 
have come from the earliest times before the four Gospels were written. The 
interpolation just noticed may very well have been such a survival. 

N 2 


sat in the sea,' all the multitude being ( on the land, 
towards the sea ' : i. e. with their faces turned in the 
direction of the ship in which He was sitting. Was 
a plain story ever better told? 

But according to D the facts of the case were quite 
different. First, it was our SAVIOUR who was teaching 
' towards the sea ' (irpos). Next, in consequence of the 
crowd, He crossed over, and ' sat on the other side of the 
sea' (irtpav). Lastly, the multitude followed Him, I sup- 
pose; for they also 'were on the other side of the sea' 
(-ntpav}. . . Now I forgive the scribe for his two transposi- 
tions and his ungrammatical substitution of 6 Aao? for 0x^05. 
But I insist that a MS. which circulates incidents after 
this fashion cannot be regarded as trustworthy. Verse 2 
begins in the same licentious way. Instead of, 'And He 
taught them many things (iroXXd) in parables,' we are in- 
formed that ' He taught them in many parables ' (TroAAats). 
Who will say that we are ever safe with such a guide ? 


All are aware that the two Evangelical accounts of our 
LORD'S human descent exhibit certain distinctive features. 
St. Matthew distributes the 42 names in c the book of the 
generations of JESUS CHRIST, the son of David, the son 
of Abraham/ into three fourteens ; and requires us to 
recognize in the 'h^ovias of ver. I i a different person (viz. 
Jehoiakim) from the 'Ifxovtas of ver. 12 (viz. Jehoiachin). 
Moreover, in order to produce this symmetry of arrange- 
ment, he leaves out the names of 3 kings, Ahaziah, Joash, 
Amaziah : and omits at least 9 generations of Zorobabel's 
descendants 1 . The mystical correspondence between the 
42 steps in our SAVIOUR'S human descent from Abraham, 
and the 42 stations of the Israelites on their way to Canaan 2 , 

1 The number of the generations in St. Luke's Gospel is 18. 
8 Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7. 

CODEX D. l8l 

has been often remarked upon. It extends to the fact 
that the stations also were, historically, far more than 42. 
And so much for what is contained in St. Matthew's 

St. Luke, who enumerates the 77 steps of his genealogy 
in backward order, derives the descent of ' JESUS, the son 
of Joseph ' from ' Adam, the son of GOD.' He traces our 
LORD'S descent from David and again from Zorobabel 
through a different line of ancestry from that adopted by 
St. Matthew. He introduces a second ' Cainan ' between 
Arphaxad and Sala (ver. 35, 36). The only names which 
the two tables of descent have in common are these five, 
David, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Joseph, JESUS. 

But Cod. D (from which the first chapter of St. Matthew's 
Gospel has long since disappeared) in St. Luke iii. exhibits 
a purely fabricated table of descent. To put one name for 
another, as when A writes ' Shem ' instead of Seth : to 
misspell a name until it ceases to be recognizable, as when 
tf writes ' Balls ' for Boaz : to turn one name into two by 
cutting it in half, as where tf writes * Admin ' and ' Adam ' 
instead of Aminadab : or again, in defiance of authority, 
to leave a name out, as when A omits Mainan and Pharez; 
or to put a name in, as when Verona Lat. (b) inserts 
' Joaram ' after Aram : with all such instances of licence 
the * old Uncials ' have made us abundantly familiar. But 
we are not prepared to find that in place of the first 18 
names which follow those of 'JESUS' and 'Joseph' in 
St. Luke's genealogy (viz. Heli to Rhesa inclusive), D in- 
troduces the 9 immediate ancestors of Joseph (viz. Abiud 
to Jacob) as enumerated by St. Matthew, thus abbreviating 
St. Luke's genealogy by 9 names. Next, ' Zorobabel ' 
and ' Salathiel ' being common to both genealogies, in 
place of the 20 names found in St. Luke between Salathiel 
and David (viz. Neri to Nathan inclusive), Cod. D presents 
us with the 15 royal descendants of David enumerated by 


St. Matthew (viz. Solomon to Jehoiachin x inclusive) ; 
infelicitously inventing an imaginary generation, by styling 
Jehoiakim 'the son of Eliakim,' being not aware that 
' Jehoiakim ' and ' Eliakim ' are one and the same person : 
and, in defiance of the first Evangelist, supplying the names 
of the 3 kings omitted by St. Matthew (i. 8), viz. Ahaziah, 
Joash, and Amaziah. Only 34 names follow in Cod. D ; 
the second 'Cainan' being omitted. In this way, the 
number of St. Luke's names is reduced from 77 to 66. 
A more flagrant instance of that licentious handling of 
the deposit which was a common phenomenon in Western 
Christendom is seldom to be met with 2 . This particular 
fabrication is happily the peculiar property of Cod. D ; and 
we are tempted to ask, whether it assists in recommend- 
ing that singular monument of injudicious and arbitrary 
textual revision to the favour of one of the modern schools 
of Critics. 


We repeat that the ill treatment which the deposit has 
experienced at the hands of those who fabricated the text 
of Cod. D is only to be understood by those who will be 

Note, that whereas the 'lexow'as of St. Matt. i. n is Jehoiakim, and the 
i'as of ver. 1 2, Jehoiachin, Cod. D writes them respectively Icuaetfi and 

2 Cureton's Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the three 
omitted kings are found in St. Matthew's Gospel : which, I suppose, explains 
why the learned editor of that document flattered himself that he had therein 
discovered the lost original of St. Matthew's Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) 
shews that in other quarters also (e. g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually 
known as Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam to JESUS 
exclusive : that number being obtained by adding 24 of St. Matthew's 
names and 33 of St. Luke's to the 3 names common to both Evangelists 
(viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these, adding the 3 omitted 

The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the number of 
names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including our SAVIOUR'S 
name and the name of the Divine AUTHOR of Adam's being) the number of 
the names is 77. So Basil made it ; so Greg. Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa ; 
so Jerome and Augustine. 

CODEX D. 183 

at the pains to study its readings throughout. Constantly 
to substitute the wrong word for the right one ; or at all 
events to introduce a less significant expression : on count- 
less occasions to mar the details of some precious incident ; 
and to obscure the purpose of the Evangelist by tastelessly 
and senselessly disturbing the inspired text, this will be 
found to be the rule with Cod. D throughout. As another 
example added to those already cited : In St. Luke xxii, 
D omits verse 20, containing the Institution of the Cup, 
evidently from a wish to correct the sacred account by 
removing the second mention of the Cup from the record 
of the third Evangelist. 

St. Mark (xv. 43) informs us that, on the afternoon of the 
first Good Friday, Joseph of Arimathaea * taking courage 
went in (eto-rjAfle) to Pilate and requested to have the body 
(cr&p.a) of Jesus': that 'Pilate wondered (i&avpacrev) [at 
hearing] that He was dead (reflyrj/ce) already : and sending 
for the centurion [who had presided at the Crucifixion] 
inquired of him if [JFSUS] had been dead long?' ( 

But the author of Cod. D, besides substituting ' went' 
) for 'went in} ^ corpse' (7rr<juta) for 'body' (which 
by the way he repeats in ver. 45), and a sentiment of 
' continuous wonder' ((QavfjM&v) for the fact of astonishment 
which Joseph's request inspired, having also substituted 
the prosaic reflect for the graphic reflvr/Ke of the Evangelist, 
represents Pilate as inquiring of the centurion ' if [indeed 
JESUS] was dead already?' (et ijbrj retf^/cei ; si jam mor tuns 
esset?), whereby not only is all the refinement of the 
original lost, but the facts of the case also are seriously 
misrepresented. For Pilate did not doubt Joseph's tidings. 
He only wondered at them. And his inquiry was made 
not with a view to testing the veracity of his informant, but 
for the satisfaction of his own curiosity as to the time 
when his Victim had expired. 


Now it must not be supposed that I have fastened unfairly 
on an exceptional verse and a half (St. Mark xv. half of 
v. 43 and all v. 44) of the second Gospel. The reader is 
requested to refer to the note 1 , where he will find set down 
a collation of ei^ht consecutive verses in the selfsame 
context : viz. St. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 7 inclusive ; after an 
attentive survey of which he will not be disposed to deny 
that only by courtesy can such an exhibition of the original 
verity as Cod. D be called ' a copy ' at all. Had the 
genuine text been copied over and over again till the crack 
of doom, the result could never have been this. There are 
in fact but 117 words to be transcribed: and of these no 
less than 67 much more than half have been either 
omitted (21), or else added (n); substituted (10), or else 
transposed (n); depraved (12, as by writing a^areAAoz^roj 
for <WretAairros), or actually blundered (2, as by writing 
p\ovrai rjfjuov for epyjovrai r^uv). Three times the construc- 
tion has been altered, once indeed very seriously, for the 
Angel at the sepulchre is made to personate Christ. 
Lastly, five of the corrupt readings are the result of 
Assimilation. Whereas the evangelist wrote KOI avafiXtyacrai 
0a)pov(Tiv on aTro/ceKvAiorat 6 \i6os, what else but a licentious 

1 17 5e Mapta (D ij) MayoaXrjv^ KOI Mapta 'Icaarj (D laitoj&ov) eOfwpovv (D 
(deaaavTo) irov (D OTTOU) riOfrat (D Tefletrat). Kai Stayevo^vov TOV aa@fia.TOV, 
Mapta TI MayoaXrjvf) /rat Mapta f) rov 'latewfiov real ~S.aXup.rj (D omits the foregoing 
thirteen words] (D + iropfvOfioai} i' t j6paaav apw^ara, i'va tXQovaai (D tXOovaai) 
aXttycaaiv avrov (D avr. a\fiif/.} /eat (D + fpxoprai} \iav (D Ami/) irpa>t T7/y 
(D T^S) ^tta? aa@(3a,Tojv (D aa@(3arov} p\ovrai (D see above} em TO fj.vrjfj.tiov, 
dvaTciXavTOs fD avaT\\ovTos) TOV f]\iov. Kal 4' \cyov -npos eauras (D caurous), 
Tt? airoKV\ia(i TI\UV (D rjpiov a7ro.) TOV \lOov (K (D OTTO) 777? Ovpas TOV jjivrjufiov; 
(T) + ijv yap }j.tyas acpoopa). Kat dva@\i//aaai Oeajpovaiv (D (pxovrat Kai evpi- 
CKovatv} on a.TTOKfKi \iOTai 6 \iOos (D aTTOKtKvXiap.tvov TOV XiOov]' fy yap fjifyas 
<T(po5pa. (D see above?) KOI .... eioov vfaviafcov (D veav. t8.) Kad-qp-tvov .... 
teal f^eOan^rjOrjaav (D eOavftrjaav}. o ot \eyei avTais (D at \eyei avrots) 
(D + o ayy(\os}. M?) eK6af*.(3(iff0e (D (poflftaOai} (D + Tov] 'Irjaovv ^retrc TOV 
NafrpTjVOV (D Tov Na.) . . . . toe (D ftScTf) o TOTTOS (D (Kft TOITOV avTov) OTTOV 
eOrjfcav avTov. d\\' (D aAAa) VTrayfTf (D + Kai) ctVarc . . . . OTI (D + tSov) 
TTpodyei (D irpoayoi) vfids tt's TTJV TaktXaiav' tKet avTov (D /if) 6\[/ea0, 
etirtv (D etprjKa) vp.iv. St. Mark xv. 47 xvi. 7. 

CODEX D. 185 

paraphrase is the following, p\ovrcu K.GLI evpicrKovcriv 
KKv\i(Tfjivov Tov XiQov ? This is in fact a fabricated, not an 
honestly transcribed text : and it cannot be too clearly 
understood that such a text (more or less fabricated, 
I mean) is exhibited by Codexes END throughout. 

It is remarkable that whenever the construction is some- 
what harsh or obscure, D and the Latin copies are observed 
freely to transpose, to supply, and even slightly to 
paraphrase, in order to bring out the presumed meaning 
of the original. An example is furnished by St. Luke 
i. 65, where the Evangelist, having related that Zacharias 
wrote ' His name is John,' adds, ' and all wondered. 
And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue, 
and he spake praising GOD.' The meaning of course is that 
his tongue ' was loosed.' Accordingly D actually supplies 
\vdr], the Latin copies, * resoluta est. J But D does more. 
Presuming that what occasioned the 'wonder' was not so 
much what Zacharias wrote on the tablet as the restored 
gift of speech, it puts that clause first, ingeniously trans- 
posing the first two words (itapaxpwa KCU) ; the result of 
which is the following sentence: 'And immediately his 
tongue was loosed ; and all wondered. And his mouth was 

opened, and he spake praising GOD ' In the next 

verse it is related that ' fear came upon all who dwelt round 
about them.' But the order of the words in the original 
being unusual (/cat eyeuero M Travras (frofios TOVS irepLOLKovvTas 
CLVTOVS), D and the Latin copies transpose them: (indeed 
the three Syriac do the same) : but D b c gratuitously in- 
troduce an epithet, KCU eyerero (j)o(3os //eyas CTH navTas TOVS 

avTuv In vcr. 70, the expression 

a-n ai&vos irpo^T&v avTov appearing harsh was (by 
transposing the words) altered into this, which is the easy 


and more obvious order : Tiyxx^r/rcoy avrov TU*V ctTr' aicoro? ..... 
So again in ver. 71 : the phrase o-corrjoiaz; ef \6pu>v seeming 
obscure, the words e/c ^a/jo's- (which follow) were by D 
substituted for e. The result (<ra)nj/>iai> ex \eLpds ty^Op&v 
ijfjiMv [compare ver. 74]> KCLL ^^vrc^v r&v HICTOVVT&V ^/xa?) is 
certainly easier reading : but like every other change 
found in the same context it labours under the fatal 
condemnation of being an unauthorized human gloss. 

The phenomenon however which perplexes me most in 
Cod. D is that it abounds in fabricated readings which 
have nothing whatever to recommend them. Not con- 
tented with St. Luke's expression ' to thrust out a little 
(oXiyov) from the land ' (v. 3), the scribe writes oaov ocrov. 
In ver. 5, instead of 'I will let down the net' (xaAa^co TO 
SLKTVOV) he makes St. Peter reply, * I will not neglect 
to obey ' (ov /XT/ TTCI/XIKOUO-O/IXCU). So, for ' and when they had 
this done,' he writes 'and when they had straightway let 
down the nets': and immediately after, instead of bieppri- 
yvvro 6e ro SLKTVOV avr&v we are presented with coo-re ra 
diKTva prja-o-to-Oai. It is very difficult to account for this, 
except on an hypothesis which I confess recommends itself 
to me more and more : viz. that there were in circulation in 
some places during the earliest ages of the Church Evan- 
gelical paraphrases, or at least free exhibitions of the chief 
Gospel incidents, to which the critics resorted ; and from 
which the less judicious did not hesitate to borrow 
expressions and even occasionally to extract short passages. 
Such loose representations of passages must have prevailed 
both in Syria, and in the West where Greek was not so 
well understood, and where translators into the vernacular 
Latin expressed themselves with less precision, whilst they 
attempted also to explain the passages translated. 

This notion, viz. that it is within the province of a Copyist 
to interpret the original before him, clearly lies at the root 
of many a so-called ' various reading.' 

CODEX D. 187 

Thus for the difficult tTripaXuv eKAcue (in St. Mark xiv. 72), 
' when he thought thereon ' (i. e. ' when in self-abandon- 
ment he flung himself upon the thought '), * he wept,' D 
exhibits /ecu r/pfaro K\aUiv, * and he began to weep/ a much 
easier and a very natural expression, only that it is not 
the right one, and does not express all that the true words 
convey. Hence also the transposition by D and some Old 
Latin MSS. of the clause r\v yap /xe'ya? a<pobpa ' for it was 
very great ' from xvi. 4, where it seems to be out of place, 
to ver. 3 where it seems to be necessary. Eusebius is 
observed to have employed a MS. similarly corrupt. 

Hence again the frequent unauthorized insertion of 
a nominative case to determine the sense: e.g. 6 ayyeAos 
'the angel,' xvi. 6, 6 5e 'Icoo-?;^ 'Joseph,' xv. 46, or the sub- 
stitution of the name intended for the pronoun, as rrj? (sic) for avrrjs in St. Luke i. 41. 

Hence in xvi. 7, instead of, ' He goeth before you into 
Galilee, there shall ye see Him as He said unto you,' 
D exhibits, 'Behold, I go before you into Galilee, there 
shall ye see Me, as I told you.' As if it had been thought 
allowable to recall in this place the fact that our SAVIOUR 
had once (St. Matt. xxvi. 32, St. Mark xiv. 28) spoken these 
words in His own person. 

And in no other way can I explain D's vapid substi- 
tution, made as if from habit, of 'a Galilean city' for 
' a city of Galilee, named Nazareth ' in St. Luke i. 26. 

Hence the frequent insertion of a wholly manufactured 
clause in order to impart a little more clearness to the 
story as of the words TO ovopa avrov ' his name ' (after 
KATj0//<rerai 'shall be called ') into St. Luke i. 60. 

These passages afford expressions of a feature in this 
Manuscript to which we must again invite particular 
attention. It reveals to close observation frequent indica- 
tions of an attempt, not to supply a faithful representation 
of the very words of Holy Scripture and nothing more 


than those words, but to interpret, to illustrate, in 
a word, to be a Targum. Of course, such a design or 
tendency is absolutely fatal to the accuracy of a transcriber. 
Yet the habit is too strongly marked upon the pages of 
Codex D to admit of any doubt whether it existed or not 1 . 

In speaking of the character of a MS. one is often con- 
strained to distinguish between the readings and the scribe. 
The readings may be clearly fabricated : but there may be 
evidence that the copyist was an accurate and painstaking 
person. On the other hand, obviously the scribe may have 
been a considerable blunderer, and yet it may be clear that 
he was furnished with an admirable archetype. In the 
case of D we are presented with the alarming concurrence 
of a fabricated archetype and either a blundering scribe, or 
a course of blundering scribes. 

But then further, One is often obliged (if one would be 
accurate) to distinguish between the penman who actually 
produced the MS., and the critical reader for whom he 
toiled. It would really seem however as if the actual 
transcriber of D, or the transcribers of the ancestors of D, 
had invented some of those monstrous readings as they went 
on. The Latin version which is found in this MS. exactly 
reflects, as a rule, the Greek on the opposite page : but 
sometimes it bears witness to the admitted truth of Scrip- 
ture, while the Greek goes off in alia omnia 2 . 


It will of course be asked, But why may not D be in 
every respect an exact copy, line for line, word for word, 
letter for letter, of some earlier archetype? To establish 

1 So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the difficult 
avTTj 77 uiroypcHpfi irpwrrj (ffvfTO (ii. 2) becomes CLVTTJ eyfvfro awYpatyrj irpcarrj ; 
(Tr\rjffOT]anv is changed into the simpler fT\fffOrjaav <po$os ptyas (ii. 9) after 
f(f)o&r)6r)aav into atyoSpa ; KO.I (ii. 10) is inserted before iravrl TO> \a>. 

Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g. Acts v. S ; 
xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29. 

CODEX D. 189 

the reverse of this, so as to put the result beyond the reach 
of controversy, is impossible. The question depends upon 
reasons purely critical, and is not of primary importance. 
For all practical purposes, it is still Codex D of which 
we speak. When I name ' Codex D ' I mean of course 
nothing else but Codex D according to Scrivener's reprint 
of the text. And if it be a true hypothesis that the actual 
Codex D is nothing else but the transcript of another 
Codex strictly identical with itself, then it is clearly 
a matter of small importance of which of the two I speak. 
When ' Codex D ' is cited, it is the contents of Codex D 
which are meant, and no other thing. 

And upon this point it may be observed, that D is chiefly 
remarkable as being the only Greek Codex 1 which exhibits 
the highly corrupt text found in some of the Old Latin 
manuscripts, and may be taken as a survival from the 
second century. 

The genius of this family of copies is found to have 

1. To substitute one expression for another, and generally 
to paraphrase. 

2. To remove difficulties, and where a difficult expres- 
sion presented itself, to introduce a conjectural emendation 
of the text. For example, the passage already noticed 
about the Publican going down to his house 'justified 
rather than the other ' is altered into ' justified more than 
that Pharisee ' (juaAAoz; itap CKZLVOV rov <bapi<raiov. St. Luke 
xviii. T4) 2 . 

3. To omit what might seem to be superfluous. Thus 
the verse, * Lord, he hath ten pounds ' (St. Luke xix. 25) 
is simply left out 3 . 

Enough has been surely said to prove amply that the 
text of Codex D is utterly untrustworthy. Indeed, the 

1 Cureton's Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less so. 

2 See bcefffMlq Vulg. * So b e g 2 Curetonian, Lewis. 


habit of interpolation found in it, the constant tendency to 
explain rather than to report, the licentiousness exhibited 
throughout, and the isolation in which this MS. is found, 
except in cases where some of the Low- Latin Versions and 
Cureton's Syriac, and perhaps the Lewis, bear it company, 
render the text found in it the foulest in existence. 
What then is to be thought of those critics who upon the 
exclusive authority of this unstable offender and of a few 
of the Italic copies occasionally allied with it, endeavour 
to introduce changes in face of the opposition of all other 
authorities? And since their ability is unquestioned, must 
we not seek for the causes of their singular action in the 
theory to which they are devoted ? 


Before we take leave of the Old Uncials, it will be well 
to invite attention to a characteristic feature in them, which 
is just what the reader would expect who has attended to 
all that has been said, and which adds confirmation to the 
doctrine here propounded. 

The clumsy and tasteless character of some at least of 
the Old Uncials has come already under observation. This 
was in great measure produced by constantly rubbing off 
delicate expressions which add both to the meaning and 
the symmetry of the Sacred Record. We proceed to give 
a few examples, not to prove our position, since it must 
surely be evident enough to the eyes of any accomplished 
scholar, but as specimens, and only specimens, of the loss 
which the Inspired Word would sustain if the Old Uncials 
were to be followed. Space will not admit of a full discus- 
sion of this matter. 

An interesting refinement of expression, which has been 
hopelessly obscured through the proclivity of tf B D to fall 
into error, is found in St. Matt. xxvi. 71. The Evangelist 
describing the second of St. Peter's denials notes that the 


damsel who saw him said to the bystanders, ' This man 
too (/cat) was with Jesus of Nazareth.' The three MSS. 
just mentioned omit the /cat. No other MS., Uncial or 
Cursive, follows them. They have only the support of the 
unstable Sahidic l . The loss inflicted is patent : comment 
is needless. 

Another instance, where poverty of meaning would be 
the obvious result if the acceptance by some critics of the 
lead of the same trio of Uncials were endorsed, may be 
found in the description of what the shepherds did when 
they had seen the Holy Child in the manger. Instead of 
' they made known abroad ' (Stey^copto-a^), we should simply 
have ' they made known ' (eyvtopivav}. We are inclined to 
say, ' Why this clipping and pruning to the manifest dis- 
advantage of the sacred deposit.' Only the satellite L and 
H and six Cursives with a single passage from Eusebius 
are on the same side. The rest in overwhelming majority 
condemn such rudeness 2 . 


The undoubtedly genuine expression /cat rts eVrt, Kvpte 
(which is the traditional reading of St. John ix. 36), loses 
its characteristic KAI in Cod. tf*AL, though it retains it 
in the rest of the uncials and in all the cursives. The /cat' 
is found in the Complutensian, because the editors fol- 
lowed their copies : it is not found in the Textus Receptus 
only because Erasmus did not as in cases before mentioned 
follow his. The same refinement of expression recurs in 
the Traditional Text of ch. xiv. 22 (Ku'pte, KAl rt yiyovtv\ 

1 St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. d int.\ Victor of Antioch (335) 
insert the /cat. 

2 So too avatcftpfvovs (BCLA. 42) for avvavaKtfj.vovs (St. Mark vi. 26) : 
omit 5e (NBC*LA. six curs.) in xal d\\a 5* irXofa (iv. 36): tyttpovatv (NB*C*AII. 
few curs.) for Sieydpovrjiv (iv. 38) : HOrjuev (NBC 2 DL. few curs.) for ffaWfi/Mf 
(xv. 46): n4ya\a (N* etc6 BD*L) for /^-yaAem (St. Luke i. 49): avavtauv 
(X c BC*KLXn* few curs.) for iitnreauv (St. John xiii. 25) : &c., &c. 


and experienced precisely the same fate at the hands of the 
two earliest editors of the printed Greek Text. It is also 
again faithfully upheld in its integrity by the whole body 
of the cursives, always excepting ' 33.' But (as before) 
in uncials of bad character, as BDL (even by AEX) the is omitted, for which insufficient reason it has been 
omitted by the Revisers likewise, notwithstanding the 
fact that it is maintained in all the other uncials. As is 
manifest in most of these instances, the Versions, being 
made into languages with other idioms than Greek, can 
bear no witness ; and also that these delicate embellish- 
ments would be often brushed off in quotations, as well as 
by scribes and so-called correctors. 

We have not far to look for other instances of this. 
St. Matthew (i. 18) begins his narrative, ^vrjo-T^vdeia-^s FA V P 
TTJS p]r/D09 avrov Mapia9 ra> 'Icoo-?/0. Now, as readers of 
Greek are aware, the little untranslated (because untrans- 
lateable) word exhibited in capitals 1 stands with peculiar 
idiomatic force and propriety immediately after the first 
word of such a sentence as the foregoing, being employed 
in compliance with strictly classical usage 2 : and though it 
might easily come to be omitted through the carelessness 
or the licentiousness of copyists, yet it could not by any 
possibility have universally established itself in copies of 
the Gospel as it has done had it been an unauthorized 
accretion to the text. We find it recognized in St. Matt. i. 
18 by Eusebius 3 , by Basil 4 , by Epiphanius 5 , by Chrysos- 
tom 6 , by Nestorius 7 , by Cyril 8 , by Andreas Cret. 9 : which 
is even extraordinary ; for the yap is not at all required for 
purposes of quotation. But the essential circumstance as 

1 Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not represented here 
in so much as a single ancient Version. 

2 l Est enim rov TAP officium inchoare narrationem? Hoogeveen, De Partic. 
Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44. 

3 Dem. Ev. 320 b. * ii. 597 : 278. 5 i. 10400. 
6 viii. 314 a : (Eclog.) xii. 694 d. 7 Ap. Cyril, v 2 . 28 a. 

8 v 1 . 676 e. 9 30 b ( = Gall. xiii. 109 d). 

CODEX D. 193 

usual is, that yap is found besides in the whole body of the 
manuscripts. The only uncials in fact which omit the 
idiomatic particle are four of older date, viz. BNC*Z. 

This same particle (yap) has led to an extraordinary 
amount of confusion in another place, where its idiomatic 
propriety has evidently been neither felt nor understood, 
viz. in St. Luke xviii. 14. 'This man' (says our LORD) 
* went down to his house justified rather than ' (r? yap) ' the 
other.' Scholars recognize here an exquisitely idiomatic 
expression, which in fact obtains so universally in the 
Traditional Text that its genuineness is altogether above 
suspicion. It is vouched for by 16 uncials headed by A, 
and by the cursives in the proportion of 500 to i. The 
Complutensian has it, of course : and so would the Textus 
Receptus have it, if Erasmus had followed his MS. : but 
' praefero ' (he says) ' quod est usitatius apud probos aittores! 
Uncongenial as the expression is to the other languages of 
antiquity, j\ -yap is faithfully retained in the Gothic and in 
the Harkleian Version ! . Partly however, because it is of 
very rare occurrence and was therefore not understood 2 , 
and partly because when written in uncials it easily got 
perverted into something else, the expression has met with 
a strange fate. HFAP is found to have suggested, or else 
to have been mistaken for, both HTTEP 3 and YT7EP 4 . The 
prevailing expedient however was, to get rid of the H, to 
turn TAP into TTAP, and, for eKetroj to write eKetw^ 5 . The 

1 So, in Garnier's MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in Cyril apud Mai 
ii. 378. 

2 So Mill, Prolegg, 1346 and 1363. Beza says roundly, ' Quod plerique 
Graeci codices scriptiim habent T\ -yap e/mi/o?, sane non intelligo ; nisi dicam 
yap redundare? 

3 -/'TTtp (Kfivos is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 2/8 a. 

4 vrrep avrov is found in Basil ii. i6cb: vttlp lifetvov, in Dorotheus (A.D. 596) 
ap. Galland. xii. 403 d: virtp rov &ap'ffaiov, in Chrysostom iv. 5 36 a; vi. 142 d 
(where one of the Manuscripts exhibits -napa rov Qapiaaiov}. Nilus the Monk 
has the same reading (vir^p rov Qapiaaiov}, i. 280. 

5 Accordingly, irap' ettfTvov is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads the author 



uncials which exhibit this strange corruption of the text 
are exclusively that quaternion which have already come 
so often before us, viz. BtfDL. But D improves upon 
the blunder of its predecessors by writing, like a Targum, 
pa\\ov HAP' ai.K.tivov (sic), and by adding (with the Old 
Latin and the Peshitto) rbv Qapia-alov, an exhibition of the 
text which (it is needless to say) is perfectly unique 1 . 

And how has the place fared at the hands of some 
Textual critics? Lachmann and Tregelles (forsaken by 
Tischendorf) of course follow Codd. BNDL. The Revisers 
(with Dr. Hort) not liking to follow BNDL, and unable 
to adopt the Traditional Text, suffer the reading of the 
Textus Receptus (r) e/cetyos') to stand, though a solitary 
cursive (Evan, i) is all the manuscript authority that can 
be adduced in its favour. In effect, r) eKet^os may be said to 
be without manuscript authority 2 . 

The point to be noticed in all this is, that the true read- 
ing of St. Luke xviii. 14 has been faithfully retained by the 
MSS. in all countries and all down the ages, not only by 
the whole body of the cursives, but by every uncial in 
existence except four. And those four are BNDL. 

But really the occasions are without number when 
minute words have dropped out of NB and their allies, 
and yet have been faithfully retained, all through the 
centuries, by the later Uncials and despised Cursive copies. 
In St. John xvii. 2, for instance, we read boao-6v a-ov TOV 

of the scholium in Cramer's Cat. ii. 133, which is the same which Matthaei 
(in loc.} quotes out of Evan. 256. And so Cyril (ap. Mai, ii. 180), Trap' (KCIVOV 
TOV Qapiaaiov. Euthymius (A. D. 1116), commenting on the traditional text 
of Luke xviii. 14 (see Matthaei's Praefat. i. 177), says TTAP b (/ctivos tfyovv ovtc 


1 The fj,d\\ov is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help out the 
meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 1 24 d) we meet with fid\\ov avrov : in 
Chrysostom (i. 151 c), fj.d\\ov uirip TOV Qaptaaiov : and in Basil Sel. (p. 1840), 
p.d\.\ov fj 6 Qapiaaios. 

2 It is found however in ps.- Chrysostom (viii. IIQC): in Antiochus Mon. 
(p. iiO2=-ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c) : and in Theophylact (i. 433 c). At 
p. 435 b, the last-named writes ^ l/cetVos, dvrl TOV TTAP' t CKCIVOS. 

CODEX D. 195 

viov, Iva KAP 6 via* COY 5oao-i7 at : where KCU is omitted by 
tf ABCD : and a-ov (after 6 vlos) by NBC. Some critics 
will of course insist that, on the contrary, both words are 
spurious accretions to the text of the cursives ; and they 
must say so, if they will. But does it not sensibly impair 
their confidence in tf to find that it, and it only, exhibits 
\\d\r]Kv (for eAaATjo-eu) in ver. I, 8a>o-co avru> (for buxri] 
avrols) in ver. 2, while NB are peculiar in writing 'lyo-ovs 
without the article in ver. i ? 

Enough has surely been said to exhibit and illustrate 
this rude characteristic of the few Old Copies which out 
of the vast number of their contemporaries are all that 
we now possess. The existence of this characteristic is 
indubitable and undoubted : it is in a measure acknow- 
ledged by Dr. Hort in words on which we shall remark 
in the ensuing chapter 1 . Our readers should observe 
that the ' rubbing off' process has by no means been 
confined to particles like KCU and yap, but has extended 
to tenses, other forms of words, and in fact to all kinds 
of delicacies of expression. The results have been found 
all through the Gospels : sacred and refined meaning, such 
as accomplished scholars will appreciate in a moment, 
has been pared off and cast away. If people would 
only examine B, N and D in their bare unpresentableness, 
they would see the loss which those MS S. have sustained, 
as compared with the Text supported by the overwhelming 
mass of authorities : and they would refuse to put their trust 
any longer in such imperfect, rudimentary, and ill-trained 

1 Introduction, p. 135. 

O 2 



THE nature of Tradition is very imperfectly understood 
in many quarters ; and mistakes respecting it lie close to 
the root, if they are not themselves the root, of the chief 
errors in Textual Criticism. We must therefore devote 
some space to a brief explanation of this important element 
in our present inquiry. 

Tradition is commonly likened to a stream which, as is 
taken for granted, contracts pollution in its course the further 
it goes. Purity is supposed to be attainable only within 
the neighbourhood of the source : and it is assumed that 
distance from thence ensures proportionally either greater 
purity or more corruption. 

Without doubt there is much truth in this comparison : 
only, as in the case of nearly all comparisons there are 
limits to the resemblance, and other features and aspects 
are not therein connoted, which are essentially bound up 
with the subject believed to be illustrated on all points in 
this similitude. 

In the first place, the traditional presentment of the 
New Testament is not like a single stream, but resembles 
rather a great number of streams of which many have 

1 For all this section except the early part of ' 4 ' the Editor is responsible. 


remained pure, but some have been corrupted. One 
cluster of bad streams was found in the West, and, as is 
most probable, the source of very many of them was in 
Syria : another occurred in the East with Alexandria and 
afterwards Caesarea as the centre, where it was joined by 
the currents from the West. A multitude in different parts 
of the Church were kept wholly or mainly clear of these 
contaminants, and preserved the pure and precise utterance 
as it issued from the springs of the Written Word. 

But there is another pitfall hidden under that imperfect 
simile which is continually employed on this subject either 
by word of mouth or in writing. The Tradition of the 
Church does not take shape after the model of a stream or 
streams rolling in mechanical movement and unvaried flow 
from the fountain down the valley and over the plain. 
Like most mundane things, it has a career. It has passed 
through a stage when one manuscript was copied as if 
mechanically from another that happened to be at hand. 
Thus accuracy except under human infirmity produced 
accuracy ; and error was surely procreative of error. After- 
wards came a period when both bad and good exemplars 
offered themselves in rivalry, and the power of refusing the 
evil and choosing the good was in exercise, often with much 
want of success. As soon as this stage was accomplished, 
which may be said roughly to have reached from Origen 
till the middle of the fourth century, another period com- 
menced, when a definite course was adopted, which was 
followed with increasing advantage till the whole career 
was fixed irrevocably in the right direction. The period of 
the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, and others, was the 
time when the Catholic Church took stock of truth and 
corruption, and had in hand the duty of thoroughly casting 
out error and cleansing her faith. The second part of the 
Creed was thus permanently defined ; the third part which, 
besides the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, relates to His action 


in the Church, to the Written Word, inclusive both of 
the several books generally and the text of those books, to 
the nature of the Sacraments, to the Ministry, to the 
character of the unity and government of the Church, was 
on many points delayed as to special definition by the ruin 
soon dealt upon the Roman Empire, and by the ignorance 
of the nations which entered upon that vast domain : and 
indeed much of this part of the Faith remains still upon 
the battlefield of controversy. 

But action was taken upon what may be perhaps termed 
the Canon of St. Augustine 1 : 'What the Church of the time 
found prevailing throughout her length and breadth, not 
introduced by regulations of Councils, but handed down 
in unbroken tradition, that she rightly concluded to have 
been derived from no other fount than Apostolic authority.' 
To use other words, in the accomplishment of her 
general work, the Church quietly and without any public 
recension examined as to the written Word the various 
streams that had come down from the Apostles, and 
followed the multitude that were purest, and by gradual 
filtration extruded out of these nearly all the corruption 
that even the better lines of descent had contracted. 

We have now arrived at the period, when from the 
general consentience of the records, it is discovered that 
the form of the Text of the New Testament was mainly 
settled. The settlement was effected noiselessly, not by 
public debate or in decrees of general or provincial councils, 
yet none the less completely and permanently. It was the 
Church's own operation, instinctive, deliberate, and in the 
main universal. Only a few witnesses here and there 
lifted up their voices against the prevalent decisions, 
themselves to be condemned by the dominant sense of 
Christendom. Like the repudiation of Arianism, it was 

1 See above, p. 61, note. 


a repentance from a partial and temporary encouragement 
of corruption, which was never to be repented of till it was 
called in question during the general disturbance of faith 
and doctrine in the nineteenth century. Doubtless, the 
agreement thus introduced has not attained more than 
a general character. For the exceeding number of 
questions involved forbids all expectation of an universal 
coincidence of testimony extending to every single case. 

But in the outset, as we enter upon the consideration of 
the later manuscripts, our way must be cleared by the 
removal of some fallacies which are widely prevalent 
amongst students of Sacred Textual Criticism. 

It is sometimes imagined (i) that Uncials and Cursives 
differ in kind ; (2) that all Cursives are alike ; (3) that all 
Cursives are copies of Codex A, and are the results of 
a general Recension ; and (4) that we owe our knowledge 
of the New Testament entirely to the existing Uncials. To 
these four fallacies must be added an opinion which stands 
upon a higher footing than the preceding, but which is no 
less a fallacy, and which we have to combat in this chapter, 
viz. that the Text of the later Uncials and especially the 
Text of the Cursives is a debased Text. 

i. The real difference between Uncials and Cursives is 
patent to all people who have any knowledge of the 
subject. Uncials form a ruder kind of manuscripts, 
written in capital letters with no space between them 
till the later specimens are reached, and generally with 
an insufficient and ill-marked array of stops. Cursives 
show a great advance in workmanship, being indited, as 
the name suggests, in running and more easily flowing 
letters, with 'asystem of punctuation much the same as in 
printed books.' As contrasted with one another, Uncials 
as a class enjoy a great superiority, if antiquity is con- 
sidered ; and Cursives are just as much higher than the 
sister class, if workmanship is to be the guiding principle 


of judgement. Their differences are on the surface, and are 
such that whoso runs may read. 

But Textual Science, like all Science, is concerned, not 
with the superficial, but with the real ; not with the dress 
in which the text is presented, but with the text itself ; 
not again with the bare fact of antiquity, since age alone is 
no sure test of excellence, but with the character of the 
testimony which from the nature of the subject-matter 
is within reach. Judging then the later Uncials, and 
comparing them with the Cursives, we make the discovery 
that the texts of both are mainly the same. Indeed, 
they are divided by no strict boundary of time : they over- 
lap one another. The first Cursive is dated May 7, 835 l : 
the last Uncials, which are Lectionaries, are referred to the 
eleventh, and possibly to the twelfth, century 2 . One, 
Codex A, is written partly in uncials, and partly in cursive 
letters, as it appears, by the same hand. So that in the 
ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries both uncials and 
cursives must have issued mainly and virtually from the 
same body of transcribers. It follows that the difference 
lay in the outward investiture, whilst, as is found by 
a comparison of one with another, there was a much more 
important similarity of character within. 

2. But when a leap is made from this position to another 
sweeping assertion that all cursives are alike, it is necessary 
to put a stop to so illicit a process. In the first place, 
there is the small handful of cursive copies which is 
associated with B and K. The notorious i, handsome 
outwardly like its two leaders but corrupt in text, 33, 
118, 131, 157, 205, 209 3 , and others; the Ferrar Group, 
containing 13, 69, j 24, 346. 556, 561, besides 348, 624, 7 88 ;~ 

1 481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg. 

2 The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335, 340. 

3 Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably from 
the same original. Burgon, Letters in Guardian to Dr. Scrivener. 


these are frequently dissentients from the rest of the Cur- 
sives. But indeed, when these and a few others have been 
subtracted from the rest and set apart in a class by them- 
selves, any careful examination of the evidence adduced on 
important passages will reveal the fact that whilst almost 
always there is a clear majority of Cursives on one side, 
there are amply enough cases of dissentience more or less 
to prove that the Cursive MSS. are derived from a multi- 
plicity of archetypes, and are endued almost severally with 
what may without extravagance be termed distinct and 
independent personality. Indeed, such is the necessity of 
the case. They are found in various countries all over 
the Church. Collusion was not possible in earlier times 
when intercommunication between countries was extremely 
limited, and publicity was all but confined to small areas. 
The genealogies of Cursive MSS., if we knew them, would 
fill a volume. Their stems must have been extremely 
numerous ; and like Uncials, and often independently of 
Uncials, they must have gone back to the vast body of 
early papyrus manuscripts. 

3. And as to the Cursives having been copies of 
Codex A, a moderate knowledge of the real character 
of that manuscript, and a just estimate of the true value 
of it, would effectually remove such a hallucination. It 
is only the love of reducing all knowledge of intricate 
questions to the compass of the proverbial nutshell, and 
the glamour that hangs over a very old relic, which has 
led people, when they had dropped their grasp of B, to 
clutch at the ancient treasure in the British Museum. It is 
right to concede all honour to such a survival of so early 
a period : but to lift the pyramid from its ample base, and 
to rest it upon a point like A, is a proceeding which hardly 
requires argument for its condemnation. And next, when 
the notion of a Recension is brought forward, the answer 
is, What and when and how and where ? In the absence 


of any sign or hint of such an event in records of the past, 
it is impossible to accept such an explanation of what is 
no difficulty at all. History rests upon research into 
documents which have descended to us, not upon imagina- 
tion or fiction. And the sooner people get such an idea 
out of their heads as that of piling up structures upon 
mere assumption, and betake themselves instead to what is 
duly attested, the better it will be for a Science which 
must be reared upon well authenticated bases, and not 
upon phantom theories. 

4. The case of the Cursives is in other respects strangely 
misunderstood, or at least is strangely misrepresented. 
The popular notion seems to be, that we are indebted 
for our knowledge of the true text of Scripture to the 
existing Uncials entirely ; and that the essence of the 
secret dwells exclusively with the four or five oldest of 
those Uncials. By consequence, it is popularly supposed 
that since we are possessed of such Uncial Copies, we 
could afford to dispense with the testimony of the Cursives 
altogether. A more complete misconception of the facts 
of the case can hardly be imagined. For the plain truth is 
that all the phenomena exhibited by the Uncial MSS. are 
reproduced by the Cursive Copies. A small minority of 
the Cursives, just as a small minority of the Uncials, are 
probably the depositaries of peculiar recensions. 

It is at least as reasonable to assert that we can afford 
entirely to disregard the testimony of the Uncials, as 
to pretend that we can afford entirely to disregard the 
testimony of the Cursives. In fact of the two, the former 
assertion would be a vast deal nearer to the truth. Our 
inductions would in many cases be so fatally narrowed, if 
we might not look beyond one little handful of Uncial 

But the point to which the reader's attention is specially 
invited is this: that so far from our being entirely 


dependent on Codexes BtfCD, or on some of them, 
for certain of the most approved corrections of the 
Received Text, we should have been just as fully aware of 
every one of those readings if neither B nor N, C nor D, 
had been in existence. Those readings are every one to 
be found in one or more of the few Cursive Codexes which 
rank by themselves, viz. the two groups just mentioned 
and perhaps some others. If they are not, they may be 
safely disregarded ; they are readings which have received 
no subsequent recognition l . 

Indeed, the case of the Cursives presents an exact 
parallel with the case of the Uncials. Whenever we 
observe a formal consensus of the Cursives for any reading, 
there, almost invariably, is a grand consensus observable 
for the same reading of the Uncials. 

The era of greater perfection both in the outer present- 
ment and in the internal accuracy of the text of copies of 
the New Testament may be said, as far as the relics which 
have descended to us are concerned, to have commenced 
with the Codex Basiliensis or E of the Gospels. This 
beautiful and generally accurate Codex must have been 
written in the seventh century 2 . The rest of the later 

1 I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact 
counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every reading 
however extraordinary, contained in Codd. END, is also to be met with in one of 
the few Cursives already specified. But what then ? Neither do any of the oldest 
Uncials contain all the textual avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives. 

The thing asserted is only this : that, as a rule, every principal reading 
discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is also exhibited in one 
or more of the Cursives already cited or in others of them ; and that generally 
when there is consent among the oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent 
among about as many of the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to 
say that we find ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the 
same little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents : and therefore, as was 
stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never existed, the readings 
which they advocate would have been advocated by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, 
thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries. 

2 Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries, Letters in the Guardian from 
Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener, Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873. ' You will not be 
dating it too early if you assign it to the seventh century.' 


Uncials are ordinarily found together in a large or 
considerable majority : whilst there is enough dissent to 
prove that they are independent witnesses, and that error 
was condemned, not ignored. Thus the Codex Regius 
(L, eighth century), preserved at Paris, generally follows B 
and tf : so does the Codex Sangallensis (A, ninth century), 
the Irish relic of the monastery of St. Gall, in St. Mark 
alone : and the Codex Zacynthius (H, an eighth century 
palimpsest) now in the Library of the Bible Society, in 
St. Luke 1 . The isolation of these few from the rest of 
their own age is usually conspicuous. The verdict of the 
later uncials is nearly always sustained by a large majority. 
In fact, as a rule, every principal reading discoverable in 
any of the oldest Uncials is also exhibited in one, two, or 
three of the later Uncials, or in one or more of the small 
handful of dissentient Cursives already enumerated. Except 
indeed in very remarkable instances, as in the case of the 
last twelve verses of St. Mark, such readings are generally 
represented : yet in the later MSS. as compared with the 
oldest there is this additional feature in the representation, 
that if evidence is evidence, and weight, number, and 
variety are taken into account, those readings are altogether 


But we are here confronted with the contention that 
the text of the Cursives is of a debased character. Our 
opponents maintain that it is such that it must have been 
compounded from other forms of text by a process of con- 

1 The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and N are of 
earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John is of the 
fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis in the British Museum) 
is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew (Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest, 
is of the sixth : Q and P, fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth 
and sixth. 

2 By the Editor. 


flation so called, and that in itself it is a text of a character 
greatly inferior to the text mainly represented by B and tf. 

Now in combating this opinion, we are bound first to 
remark that the burden of proof rests with the opposite 
side. According to the laws which regulate scientific 
conclusions, all the elements of proof must be taken into 
consideration. Nothing deserves the name of science in 
which the calculation does not include all the phenomena. 
The base of the building must be conterminous with the 
facts. This is so elementary a principle that it seems 
needless to insist more upon it. 

But then, this is exactly what we endeavour to accom- 
plish, and our adversaries disregard. Of course they have 
their reasons for dismissing nineteen-twentieths of the 
evidence at hand : but this is the point it rests with 
them to prove that such dismissal is lawful and right. 
What then are their arguments? Mainly three, viz. the 
supposed greater antiquity of their favourite text, the 
superiority which they claim for its character, and the 
evidence that the Traditional Text was as they maintain 
formed by conflation from texts previously in existence. 

Of these three arguments, that from antiquity has been 
already disposed of, and illustration of what has been already 
advanced will also be at hand throughout the sequel of this 
work. As to conflation, a proof against its possible applic- 
ability to the Traditional Text was supplied as to particles 
and other words in the last chapter, and will receive illustra- 
tion from instances of words of a greater size in this. Con- 
flation might be possible, supposing for a moment that other 
conditions favoured it, and that the elements to be conflated 
were already in existence in other texts. But inasmuch 
as in the majority of instances such elements are found 
nowhere else than in the Traditional Text, conflation as 
accounting for the changes which upon this theory must 
have been made is simply impossible. On the other hand, 


the Traditional Text might have been very easily chipped 
and broken and corrupted, as will be shewn in the second 
part of this Treatise, into the form exhibited by B and N 1 . 

Upon the third argument in the general contention, we 
undertake to say that it is totally without foundation. On 
the contrary, the text of the Cursives is greatly the superior 
of the two. The instances which we proceed to give as 
specimens, and as specimens only, will exhibit the propriety 
of language, and the taste of expression, in which it is pre- 
eminent 2 . Let our readers judge fairly and candidly, as we 
doubt not that they will, and we do not fear the result. 

But before entering upon the character of the later text, 
a few words are required to remind our readers of the 
effect of the general argument as hitherto stated upon this 
question. The text of the later Uncials is the text to 
which witness is borne, not only by the majority of the 
Uncials, but also by the Cursives and the Versions and 
the Fathers, each in greater numbers. Again, the text of 
the Cursives enjoys unquestionably the support of by very 
far the largest number among themselves, and also of the 
Uncials and Versions and Fathers. Accordingly, the text 
of which we are now treating, which is that of the later 
Uncials and the Cursives combined, is incomparably 
superior under all the external Notes of Truth. It pos- 
sesses in nearly all cases older attestation 3 : there is no sort 
of question as to the greater number of witnesses that bear 
evidence to its claims : nor to their variety : and hardly 
ever to the explicit proof of their continuousness ; which 
indeed is also generally nay, universally implied owing 
to the nature of the case : their weight is certified upon 
strong grounds : and as a matter of fact, the context in 
nearly all instances testifies on their side. The course of 
doctrine pursued in the history of the Universal Church is 

1 Above, pp. 80-81. 2 Hort, Introduction, p. 135. 

3 Chapters V, VI, VII. 


immeasurably in their favour. We have now therefore only 
to consider whether their text, as compared with that of 
END and their allies, commends itself on the score of 
intrinsic excellence. And as to this consideration, if as has 
been manifested the text of B-N, and that of D, are bad, 
and have been shewn to be the inferior, this must be 
the better. We may now proceed to some specimen in- 
stances exhibiting the superiority of the Later Uncial and 
Cursive text. 


Our SAVIOUR'S lament over Jerusalem (' If thou hadst 
known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which 
belong unto thy peace !') is just one of those delicately 
articulated passages which are safe to suffer by the process 
of transmission. Survey St. Luke's words (xix. 42), El eyz;a>? 
KOL crijj KCU ye kv Try fjnepq crov ravrr], TO. Trpo? tlprivr]v arov, and 
you will perceive at a glance that the vulnerable point in 
the sentence, so to speak, is KOL av, /cat ye. In the mean- 
\vhile, attested as those words are by the Old Latin 1 and by 
Eusebius 2 , as well as witnessed to by the whole body of the 
copies beginning with Cod. A and including the lost original 
of 13-69-124-346 &c., the very order of those words 
is a thing quite above suspicion. Even Tischendorf admits 
this. He retains the traditional reading in every respect. 
Eusebius however twice writes KCU ye < 3 ; once, KOL o-v ye 4 ; 
and once he drops KCH ye entirely 5 . Origen drops it 3 times 6 . 
Still, there is at least a general consensus among Copies, 
Versions and Fathers for beginning the sentence with the 
characteristic words, et eyz/'cos KOI av ; the phrase being 

1 Vercell. : Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tua die, quae ad pacem tuam. 
So Amiat. and Aur. : Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in hdc die tud, quae ad 
pacem tibi. 

2 Mai, iv. 1 29. 3 Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7. 
4 Montf. ii. 470. 5 Montf. i. 700. 

6 iii. 321; interp. 977 ; iv. 180. 


witnessed to by the Latin, the Bohairic, the Gothic, and 
the Harkleian Versions ; by Irenaeus l , by Origen 2 , 
by ps.-Tatian 3 , by Eusebius 4 , by Basil the Great 5 , by 
Basil of Seleucia 6 , by Cyril 7 . 

What then is found in the three remaining Uncials, 
for C is defective here ? D exhibits et eyvous KCU av, ev TTJ 
r^epa rcrurrj, ra TT/OO? Lprjvriv aoi : being supported only by 
the Latin of Origen in one place 8 . Lachmann adopts this 
reading all the same. Nothing worse, it must be confessed, 
has happened to it than the omission of /cat ye, and of the 
former a-ov. But when we turn to BK, we find that they 
and L, with Origen once 9 , and the Syriac heading prefixed 
to Cyril's homilies on St. Luke's Gospel 10 , exclusively 
exhibit, et eyrco? V rr] r//xepa ravrr] /ecu (TV ra Trpo? ipj]vr]v : 
thus, not only omitting /cat ye, together with the first and 
second crov, but by transposing the words KCU <rv eV 777 
Wtpa ravrrj, obliterating from the passage more than half its 
force and beauty. This maimed and mutilated exhibition 
of our LORD'S words, only because it is found in BN, is 
adopted by W.-Hort, who are in turn followed by the 
Revisers 11 . The Peshitto by the way omits /cat (TV, and 
transposes the two clauses which remain 12 . The Curetonian 
Syriac runs wild, as usual, and the Lewis too 13 . 

Amid all this conflict and confusion, the reader's attention 
is invited to the instructive fact that the whole body of 
cursive copies (and all the uncials but four) have retained 

1 i. 2 20 : also the Vet. inlerp., ' Si cognovisses et tu.' And so ap. Rpiph, 
i. 254 b. 

2 iii. 321, 977. 3 Evan. Cone. 184, 207. 
4 In all 5 places. 5 Mor. ii. 272 b. 

6 205. 7 In Luc. (Syr.) 686. 

8 Int. iii. 977. 9 iv. 180. 

10 In Luc. (Syr.) 607. 

11 In their usual high-handed way, these editors assume, without note or 
comment, that BK are to be followed here. The 'Revisers' of 1881 do the 
same. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with the English reader ? 

12 Viz. ci eyvcas TO. irpos dprjvrjv oov, /cat 76 cv rrj rjp.tpa. aov 

13 Viz. et at kv ry -fffjiepq. ravrri tyvcas rf,v fiprjvrjv aov. 


in this passage all down the ages uninjured every exquisite 
lineament of the inspired archetype. The truth, I say, is 
to be found in the cursive copies, not in the licentious 
BNDL, which as usual stand apart from one another and 
from A. Only in respect of the first o-ov is there a slight 
prevarication on the part of a very few witnesses 1 . Note 
however that it is overborne by the consent of the Syriac, 
the Old Latin and the Gothic, and further that the testimony 
of ps.-Tatian is express on this head 2 . There is therefore 
nothing to be altered in the traditional text of St. Luke 
xix. 42, which furnishes an excellent instance of fidelity of 
transmission, and of an emphatic condemnation of B-tf . 


It is the misfortune of inquiries like the present that they 
sometimes constrain us to give prominence to minute 
details which it is difficult to make entertaining. Let me 
however seek to interest my reader in the true reading of 
St. Matt. xx. 22, 23 : from which verses recent critical 
Editors reject the words, ' and to be baptized with the 
baptism that I am baptized with/ KOL TO j8a7rrto-/xa 6 

About the right of the same words to a place in the 
corresponding part of St. Mark's Gospel (x. 38), there is no 
difference of opinion : except that it is insisted that in 
St. Mark the clause should begin with ?/ instead of KCLL. 

Next, the reader is requested to attend to the following 
circumstance : that, except of course the four (NBDL) and 
Z which omit the place altogether and one other (S), all 
the Uncials together with the bulk of the Cursives, and the 

1 It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71, 511, 
Evst. 222, 259. For the second aov still fewer authorities exhibit aoi : while 
some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether. 

2 ' Hanc diem tuam. Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus ejus !' 
p. 184, and so 207. 



Peshitto and Harkleian and several Latin Versions, concur 
in reading r) rd /3a7rrto-/xa in St. Matthew : all the Uncials but 
eight (tf BCDLWA2), together with the bulk of the Cursives 
and the Peshitto, agree in reading KOL TO /3a7mo7za in 
St. Mark. This delicate distinction between the first and 
the second Gospel, obliterated in the Received Text, is 
faithfully maintained in nineteen out of twenty of the 
Cursive Copies. 

In the meantime we are assured on the authority of 
NBDLZ. with most of the Latin Copies, including of 
course Hilary and Jerome, the Cureton, the Lewis, and the 
Bohairic, besides Epiphanius, that the clause in question 
has no right to its place in St. Matthew's Gospel. So 
confidently is this opinion held, that the Revisers, following 
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, have 
ejected the words from the Text. But are they right? 
Certainly not, I answer. And I reason thus. 

If this clause has been interpolated into St. Matthew's 
Gospel, how will you possibly account for its presence in 
every MS. in the world except 7, viz. 5 uncials and 
2 cursives ? It is pretended that it crept in by assimila- 
tion from the parallel place in St. Mark. But I reply, 

1. Is this credible? Do you not see the glaring 
improbability of such an hypothesis? Why should the 
Gospel most in vogue have been assimilated in all the 
Copies but seven to the Gospel least familiarly known and 
read in the Churches ? 

2. And pray when is it pretended that this wholesale 
falsification of the MSS. took place ? The Peshitto Syriac 
as usual sides with the bulk of the Cursives : but it has been 
shewn to be of the second century. Some of the Latin 
Copies also have the clause. Codex C, Chrysostom and 
Basil of Seleucia also exhibit it. Surely the preponderance 
of the evidence is overwhelmingly one way. But then 

3. As a matter of fact the clause cannot have come 


in from St. Mark's Gospel, for the very conclusive reason 
that the two places are delicately discriminated. as on the 
testimony of the Cursives and the Peshitto has been shewn 
already. And 

4. I take upon myself to declare without fear of contra- 
diction on the part of any but the advocates of the popular 
theory that, on the contrary, it is St. Matthew's Gospel 
which has been corrupted from St. Mark's. A conclusive 
note of the assimilating process is discernible in St. Mark's 
Gospel where ?/ has intruded, not in St. Matthew's. 

5. Why St. Matthew's Gospel was maimed in this 
place, I am not able to explain. Demonstrable it is that 
the Text of the Gospels at that early period underwent 
a process of Revision at the hands of men who ap- 
parently were as little aware of the foolishness as of 
the sinful ness of all they did : and that Mutilation was 
their favourite method. And, what is very remarkable, 
the same kind of infatuation which is observed to attend 
the commission of crime, and often leads to its detection, 
is largely recognizable here. But the Eye which never 
sleeps has watched over the Deposit, and provided Himself 
with witnesses. 


Singular to relate, the circumstances under which Simon 
and Andrew, James and John were on the last occasion 
called to Apostleship (St. Matt. iv. 17-22 : St. Mark i. 14-20: 
St. Luke v. i-n) have never yet been explained 1 . The 
facts were as follows. 

It was morning on the Sea of Galilee. Two boats were 

1 'Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them, seated 
on the shore, were occupying their time in washing, and two, seated in their 
boat . . . were mending. their nets.' (P'arrar's Life of Christ, i. 241-2.) The 
foot-note appended to this ' attempt to combine as far as it is possible in one 
continuous narrative ' the ' accounts of the Synoptists,' is quite a curiosity. 

P 2 


moored to the shore. The fishermen having ' toiled all the 
night and taken nothing 1 ,' 'were gone out of them and 
had washed out (Jhr&rXvpai') their nets (ra BftcTva) 2 . 1 But 
though fishing in deep water had proved a failure, they 
knew that by wading into the shallows, they might even 
now employ a casting-net with advantage. Accordingly 
it was thus that our SAVIOUR, coming by at this very 
juncture, beheld Simon and Andrew employed (/3aAAoz>ras 
afjL(j)Lf3\ri(JTpov) 3 . Thereupon, entering Simon's boat, ' He 
prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the 
land 4 .' The rest requires no explanation. 

Now, it is plain that the key which unlocks this interest- 
ing story is the graphic precision of the compound verb 
employed, and the well-known usage of the language which 
gives to the aorist tense on such occasions as the present 
a pluperfect signification 5 . The Translators of 1611, not 
understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, fol- 
lowing the Vulgate 6 , had been before them, to render 
aTreirXvvav ra SiKrua, 'were washing their nets.' Of this 
rendering, so long as the Greek was let alone, no serious 
harm could come. The Revisers of 1881, however, by not 
only retaining the incorrect translation ' were washing their 
nets/ but, by making the Greek tally with the English 
by substituting in short TT\VVOV for airtTiXvvav, have so 
effectually darkened the Truth as to make it simply 
irrecoverable by ordinary students. The only point in the 
meantime to which the reader's attention is just now 
invited is this : that the compound verb in the aorist 
tense (a-ne-nXvvav} has been retained by the whole body of 
the Cursives, as transmitted all down the ages : while the 

1 St. Luke v. 5. 2 Ibid., verses i, 2. 

3 St. Matt. iv. i8 = St. Mark i. 16. * St. Luke v. 3. 

5 As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60 ; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16 ; St. John xviii. 24 ; 
xxi. 15 ; Acts xii. 17 ; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c. 

6 lavabant retia, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod. Rehdi- 
geranus [VII] (^Tischendorf). 


barbarous HirXvvov is only found at this day in the two 
corrupt uncials BD 1 and a single cursive (Evan. 91) 2 . 


* How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the 
Kingdom of Heaven,' exclaimed our LORD on a memorable 
occasion. The disciples were amazed. Replying to their 
thoughts, ' Children,' He added, ' how hard is it for them 
that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of GOD.' 
(St. Mark x. 23, 24). Those familiar words, vouched for by 
1 6 uncials and all the cursives, are quite above suspicion. 
But in fact all the Versions support them likewise. There 
is really no pretext for disturbing what is so well attested, 
not to say so precious. Yet Tischendorf and Westcott and 
Hort eject TOVS neiroidoras em rot? wrmaviv from the text, on 
the sole ground that the clause in question is omitted by 
NBA, one copy of the Italic (k), and one copy of the 
Bohairic. Aware that such a proceeding requires an 
apology, ( I think it unsafe,' says Tischendorf, ' to forsake 
in this place the very ancient authorities which I am accus- 
tomed to follow ' : i. e. Codexes K and B. But of what 
nature is this argument ? Does the critic mean that he 
must stick to antiquity ? If this be his meaning, then let 
him be reminded that Clemens 3 , a more ancient authority 
than NB by 150 years, not to say the Latin and the 
Syriac Versions, which are more ancient still, recognizes 
the words in question 4 . Does however the learned critic 
mean no more than this, That it is with him a funda- 
mental principle of Textual Criticism to uphold at all 

1 The same pair of authorities are unique in substituting PaTrrioavTes (for 
0anTiovTfs) in St. Matt, xxviii. 19; i. e. the Apostles were to baptize people 
first, and make them disciples afterwards. 

* NC exhibit 1-nXvvav : A (by far the purest of the five ' old uncials ') retains 
the traditional text. 

3 P- 938. 

* So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and N, p. 392. 


hazards the authority of B and X ? He cannot mean that ; 
as I proceed to explain. 

For the strangest circumstance is behind. Immediately 
after he has thus (in ver. 24) proclaimed the supremacy of 
NB, Tischendorf is constrained to reject the combined 
evidence of NBCA. In ver. 26 those 4 copies advocate the 
absurd reading Aeyoures irpos AYTON Kcu rts bvvarai a-aiOfjvaL] 
whereas it was evidently to themselves (irpos CCLVTOVS) that the 
disciples said it. Aware that this time the * antiquissimae 
quas sequi solet auctoritates ' stand self-condemned, instead 
of ingenuously avowing the fact, Tischendorf grounds his 
rejection of irpos avrov on the consideration that * Mark 
never uses the expression Aeyeii/ Trpos avrov' Just as if the 
text of one place in the Gospel is to be determined by the 
practice of the same Evangelist in another place, and not 
by its own proper evidence ; which in the present instance 
is (the reader may be sure) simply overwhelming ! 

Westcott and Hort erroneously suppose that all the 
copies but four, all the versions but one (the Bohairic), 
may be in error : but that B-K, C, and Cod. A which is 
curious in St. Mark, must needs be in the right. 


There are many occasions as I remarked before, 
where the very logic of the case becomes a powerful 
argument. Worthless in and by themselves, in the face, 
I mean, of general testimony, considerations derived from 
the very reason of the thing sometimes vindicate their 
right to assist the judgement wherever the evidence is 
somewhat evenly balanced. But their cogency is felt to be 
altogether overwhelming when, after a careful survey of the 
evidence alone, we entertain no doubt whatever as to what 
must be the right reading of a place. They seem then to 
sweep the field. Such an occasion is presented by St. Luke 


xvi. 9, where our LORD, having shewn what provision the 
dishonest steward made against the day when he would 
find himself houseless, the Divine Speaker infers that 
something analogous should be done by ourselves with our 
own money, ' in order ' (saith He) ' that when ye fail, ye 
may be received into the everlasting tabernacles.' The 
logical consistency of all this is as exact, as the choice of 
terms in the Original is exquisite : the word employed to 
designate Man's departure out of this life (eKAnnjre), con- 
veying the image of one fainting or failing at the end of 
his race. It is in fact the word used in the LXX to denote 
the peaceful end of Abraham, and of Ishmael, and of Isaac, 
and of Jacob 1 . 

But instead of this, NBDLRIT with AX present us with 
K\L7rrj or e/cAeiTnj, shewing that the author of this reading 
imagined without discrimination, that what our LORD meant 
to say was that when at last our money ' fails ' us, we may 
not want a home. The rest of the Uncials to the number 
of twelve, together with two correctors of N, the bulk of 
the Cursives, and the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, 
Gothic, Harkleian, and Ethiopic Versions, with Irenaeus 2 , 
Clemens Alex. 3 , Origen 4 , Methodius 5 , Basil 6 , Ephraem 
Syrus 7 , Gregory Naz. 8 , Didymus 9 , Chrysostom 10 , Seve- 
rianus 11 , Jerome 12 , Augustine 13 , Eulogius u , and Theo- 
doret 15 , also Aphraates (A. D. 325) 16 , support the reading 
Cyril appears to have known both readings 1T . 

1 Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22 ; Lament, i. 20; 
Job xiii. 19 ; Ps. ciii. 30. 

2 268, 661. 3 942, 953 (Lat. Tr.). 4 162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666. 
5 ap. Phot. 791. 6 i. 353. 7 iii. 120. 

8 i. 861. 280. 10 i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606. 

11 vi. 520. Ia i. 859 b. . 13 3 l . 772. 

14 Mai, 2. 15 i. 517. 16 388. 

17 In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc. no), 
the reading is plainly iVo orav ete\iirT)T : but when the Greek of the same 
passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is observed to be destitute of 
the disputed clause. On the other hand, at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading is 
etc\iiTT}. But then the entire quotation is absent from the Gieek original (Mai, 


His testimony, such as it is, can only be divined from his 
fragmentary remains ; and ' divination ' is a faculty to 
which I make no pretence. 

In p. 349, after 6et 6e ircj;ra>9 avrovs aTroirto-tlv rrjs ot 

Oavarov, KOL TU>V Ka6' T/jxas 7rpayju,ara) 
yap avdpuirfp iravrl TOV Oavdrov TOV XtVor, Cyril is 
represented as saying (6 lines lower down) orav CLVTOVS 6 tiri- 
yeto? eKAeiTrrj ITAOTTO2, with which corresponds the Syriac 
of Luc. 509. But when we encounter the same passage 
in Cramer's Catena (p. 122), besides the reference to death, 
aTTOTreo-ouzmu TTCLVTMS rrj? otKorojuu'as, 7rt7rr]8a)^ro9 carets TOV 
6avdrov (lines 213), we are presented with orav amovs rj 
tTtiytios K\iTTOL Zo)?}, which clearly reverses the testimony. 
If Cyril wrote that^ he read (like every other Father) 
K\LTrr]T. It is only right to add that tuXi-ny is found 
besides in pp. 525, 526 ( = Mai ii. 358) and 572 of Cyril's 
Syriac Homilies on St. Luke. This however (like the 
quotation in p. 506) may well be due to the Peshitto. 
I must avow that amid so much conflicting evidence, my 
judgement concerning Cyril's text is at fault. 


There is hardly to be found a more precious declaration 
concerning the guiding and illuminating office of the Holy 
Ghost, than our Lord's promise that ' when He, the Spirit 
of Truth shall come, He shall guide you into all the 
Truth': oS^yrjo-et v^as et? iiacrav ri]v aXr}6ziav (St. John 
xvi. 13). Now, the six words just quoted are found to 
have experienced an extraordinary amount of perturbation ; 
far more than can be due to the fact that they happen to 
be the concluding words of a lection. To be brief, every 

ii. 349, line u from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril's reading is certainly 


known variety in reading this passage may be brought 
under one of three heads : 

1. With the first, which is in fact a gloss, not a reading 
(8iT7yA?(rerai vfjfiv Tr]i> dAry^etay Tracrav") , we need not delay 
ourselves. Eusebius in two places 1 , Cyril Jer. 2 , copies of 
the Old Latin 3 , and Jerome 4 in a certain place, so read the 
place. Unhappily the same reading is also found in the 
Vulgate 5 . It meets with no favour however, and may be 

2. The next, which even more fatally darkens our 
Lord's meaning, might have been as unceremoniously 
dealt with, the reading namely of Cod. L (68>/y?j(rei ujuci? ez> 
rr? aXrjOtiq iraa-p), but that unhappily it has found favour 
with Tischendorf, I suppose, because with the exception 
of TTavrj it is the reading of his own Cod. N 6 . It is thus 
that Cyril Alex. 7 thrice reads the place : and indeed the 
same thing practically is found in D 8 ; while so many copies 
of the Old Latin exhibit in omni veritate, or in veritate 

that one is constrained to inquire. How is tv 
irao-fl to be accounted for ? 
We have not far to look. 'OS^yetz; followed by tv occurs 
in the LXX, chiefly in the Psalms, more than 16 times. 
Especially must the familiar expression in Ps. xxiv. 5 
(oSrjyrjo-oV /ote er rfj dAr^eta o-oi>, Dirige me in veritate tua\ 
by inopportunely suggesting itself to the mind of some 
early copyist, have influenced the text of St. John xvi. 13 
in this fatal way. One is only astonished that so acute 
a critic as Tischendorf should have overlooked so plain 

1 Eus. marc 330, -P 251 ( irao-m/). 2 Cyr hr 270. 

3 e, inducet vobis veritatem omnem : m, disseret vobis omnem veritatem. 

* docebit vos omnem veritatem (ii. 301). 

5 Cod. am. (which exhibits docebit vos in omnem, &c.) clearly confuses two 
distinct types. 

6 N om. iraari. 7 Cyr. Alex. iv. 347 ; v. 369, 593. 

8 D, (fceTvos v^ds 68r)~ff](ri fv rr) d\r)6dq irdar}. 

9 So Cod. b, deducet vos in veritate omni. Cod. c, docebit vos in veritate 


a circumstance. The constant use of the Psalm in Divine 
Service, and the entire familiarity with the Psalter resulting 
therefrom, explains sufficiently how it came to pass, that in 
this as in other places its phraseology must have influenced 
the memory. 

3. The one true reading of the place (o^yrjo-et ^a? 
cts iraa-av TTJV a\r\Qtiav) is attested by 12 of the uncials 
(EGHPKMSUrAAn), the whole body of the cursives, 
and by the following Fathers, Didymus 1 , Epiphanius 2 , 
Basil 3 , Chrysostom 4 , Theodotus, bp. of Antioch 5 , Cyril 
Alex. 6 , Theodoret 7 ; besides Tertullian in five places, Hilary 
and Jerome in two 8 . 

But because the words irao-av ri]v aXr\Qtiav are found 
transposed in ABY alone of manuscripts, and because Peter 
Alex. 9 , and Didymus 10 once, Origen 11 and Cyril Alex. 12 
in two places, are observed to sanction the same infelici- 
tous arrangement (viz. TI)V a^r/deiav irao-av), Lachmann, 
Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, adopt without 
hesitation this order of the words 13 . It cannot of course 
be maintained. The candid reader in the meantime will 
not fail to note that as usual the truth has been preserved 
neither by A nor B nor D : least of all by K : but 
comes down to us unimpaired in the great mass of MS. 
authorities, uncial and cursive, as well as in the oldest 
Versions and Fathers. 

1 Did. 278, 446, 388 (irpos), 443 (-TTJV}. 2 Epiph. i. 898 ; ii. 78. 

3 Bas. iii. 42 (irpos: and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. (I). 

4 Chrys. viii. 527 : also 460, 461 ( rrjv). 5 Theod. ant 541, ap. Wegn. 

6 Cyr. Alex. txt iv. 923 : v. 628. 7 Thdt. iii. 15 (!f. os fyx. 65.). 

8 Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. n, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140, 141. There 
are many lesser variants : ' (diriget vos Tert. i. 884, deducet vos Tert. ii. 21, 
Vercell. vos deducet ; i. 762 vos ducet : Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem 
veritatem. 1 Some few (as D, Tert. i. 762 ; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii. 
15) prefix ffceivos. 

9 Pet. Alex. ap. Routh, p. 9. 10 Did. 55. 

11 Oiig. i. 387, 388. I2 Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986. 

13 fls TTJV ciA/,'?0. rrdffav L., Tr., W.-H.: iv rr) a\r)0. iraari T. 



It may have been anticipated by the readers of these 
pages that the Divine Author of Scripture has planted here 
and there up and down the sacred page often in most 
improbable places and certainly in forms which we should 
have least of all imagined tests of accuracy, by attending 
to which we may form an unerring judgement concerning 
the faithfulness of a copy of the sacred Text. This is 
a discovery which at first astonished me : but on mature 
reflection, I saw that it was to have been confidently anti- 
cipated. Is it indeed credible that Almighty Wisdom 
which is observed to have made such abundant provision 
for the safety of the humblest forms of animal life, for the 
preservation of common seeds, often seeds of noxious 
plants, should yet have omitted to make provision for the 
life-giving seed of His own Everlasting Word ? 

For example, strange to relate, it is a plain fact (of 
which every one may convince himself by opening a copy 
of the Gospels furnished with a sufficient critical apparatus), 
that although in relating the healing of the centurion's 
servant (St. Matt. viii. 5-13) the Evangelist writes Karor- 
rapxOS in verses 5 and 8, he writes e/<arozrrapxH instead of 
-Xil in ver. 13. This minute variety has been faithfully 
retained by uncials and cursives alike. Only one uncial 
(viz. N) has ventured to assimilate the two places, writing 
KaTovTap\ris throughout. With the blindness proverbially 
ascribed to parental love, Tischendorf follows K, though 
the carelessness that reigns over that MS. is visible to all 
who examine it. 

The matter is a trifle confessedly. But so was the scrap 
of a ballad which identified the murderer, another scrap of 
it being found with the bullet in the body of the murdered 

When we find /cat disappearing before Kpia-Lv (in the 


solemn statement $ovartav e'8o>Kei> avry [sc. 6 Darr)/)] KAI V 
Kpio-iv Troieii;) 1 , it nothing moves us to discover that 4 
Greek Codexes (ABL 33), as many ancient versions 2 , and 
as many ancient Fathers 3 are without that little but 
significant word. The fact that all other Greek copies have 
it, is conclusive for retaining it. And why ? Because while 
nothing is more easily accounted for than the absence of 
/cat in this place from a little handful of documents, quite 
inexplicable is its presence in all the rest 4 except on 
the hypothesis that it was found in the autograph of 
St. John. 


Again, that pathetic anticipation of the lord of the 
vineyard (St. Luke xx. 13) that when the servants had once 
'seen' his 'beloved son' (&<fore?), they would reverence 
him, disappears under the baneful influence of NBCDLQ, 
and their little handful of adherents. (Consider in con- 
nexion with this the latter part of Is. liii. 2.) Does not 
the very repetition of iSovrcs 8e, in the next verse, seem 
to demand the presence of the word which the Cursives 
almost to a manuscript have so jealously retained, but 
which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, West- 
cott and Hort have expunged?.... Then further, the 
inward thoughts of the heart, those irovripoi 6iaAoyto-/xot 
of which our Saviour elsewhere speaks 5 , and which were 
never more conspicuous than in the men who compassed 
His shameful death, become wellnigh obliterated from the 
parable. It was 'within themselves ' (St. Matt. xxi. 38) 'to 

1 St. John v. 27. 2 Bohairic, Cureton, Armenian, Ethiopia. 

3 Origen, ii. 548, 558; iv. 41, 359, 360; Didymus, Trin. iii. 17, aj>. Chrys. 
viii. 230 a ; Paul of Samos, Ath. Gen. v. i68c ; Thdrt. v. 1108. 

4 In the Old Lat., Peshitto and Harkleian, Chrys. viii. 229de; Cyril, iv. 
2 35 5 v - 1 5^2 ; v. 2 177, 179 (= Cone. iii. 310, 311) ; Gennadius, Cord. Cat. in 
Ps i. 69. 

St. Matt. xv. 19. 


themselves' (St. Mark xii. 7), He says, that those sinful 
men declared their murderous purpose. Their hearts it 
was, not their lips, which spoke. Hence St. Luke says 
plainly, 'they thought to themselves' (xx. 14). But we 
are now invited on yet slenderer evidence than before, 
instead of SieA. irpos tavrovs, to read irpos aAA?jAoi>9, which 

is certainly wrong Lastly, that murderous resolve of 

the servants, ' This is the heir : come, let us kill him ' (Aeure 
aTroKretVw/^er), which (as every student knows) is nothing 
else but a quotation from the Septuagint version of Genesis 
(xxxvii. 19), is robbed of its characteristic word in deference 
to ARMQn and the Latin copies: Tischendorf, sheltering 
himself complacently behind the purblind as well as 
tasteless dictum of Schulz, 'Lucas nunquam usus est 
hoc verbo ' : as if that were any reason why he might not 
quote the Septuagint ! In this way, the providential care 
which caused that the same striking expression should 
find place in all the three Evangelists, is frustrated ; and it 
might even be overlooked by a reader of the third Gospel 
that Joseph is a divinely intended type of our Saviour 


The instances which have been given in this chapter of the 
superiority of the text exhibited in the later Uncials and 
the Cursives might have been increased in number to 
almost any extent out of the papers left by Dean Burgon. 
The reader will find many more illustrations in the rest 
of these two volumes. Even Dr. Hort admits that the 
Traditional Text which is represented by them is ' entirely 
blameless on either literary or religious grounds as re- 
gards vulgarized or unworthy diction 1 ,' while ' repeated and 

1 Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in fact. 
Constant and careiul study combined with subtle appreciation will not reveal 
' feebleness ' or ' impoverishment ' either in ' sense ' or ' force.' 


diligent study ' can only lead, if conducted with deep and 
wide research, to the discovery of beauties and meanings 
which have lain unrevealed to the student before. 

Let it be always borne in mind, that (a) the later Uncials 
and Cursives are the heirs in succession of numerous and 
varied lines of descent spread throughout the Church ; 
that (fr) their verdict is nearly always decisive and clear ; 
and that nevertheless (c) such unanimity or majority of 
witnesses is not the testimony of mechanical or suborned 
testifiers, but is the coincidence, as facts unquestionably 
prove, except in certain instances of independent deponents 
to the same story. 

Let me be allowed to declare 1 in conclusion that no 
person is competent to pronounce concerning the merits 
or demerits of cursive copies of the Gospels, who has not 
himself, in the first instance, collated with great exactness 
at least a few of them. He will be materially assisted, if 
it has ever fallen in his way to familiarize himself however 
partially with the text of vast numbers. But nothing can 
supply the place of exact collation of at least a few copies : 
of which labour, if a man has had no experience at all, he 
must submit to be assured that he really has no right to 
express himself confidently in this subject-matter. He 
argues, not from facts, but from his own imagination of 
what the facts of the case will probably be. Those only 
who have minutely collated several copies, and examined 
with considerable attention a large proportion of all the 
Sacred Codexes extant, are entitled to speak with authority 
here. Further, I venture to assert that no conviction will 
force itself so irresistibly on the mind of him who submits 
to the labour of exactly collating a few Cursive copies of 
the Gospels, as that the documents in question have been 
executed with even extraordinary diligence, fidelity, and 
skill. That history confirms this conviction, we have only 

1 These are the Dean's words to the end of the paragraph. 


to survey the elaborate arrangements made in monasteries 
for carrying on the duty, and perfecting the art, of copying 
the Holy Scriptures. 

If therefore this body of Manuscripts be thus declared 
by the excellence of its text, by the evident pains 
bestowed upon its production, as well as by the consen- 
tience with it of other evidence, to possess high character- 
istics ; if it represents the matured settlement of many 
delicate and difficult questions by the Church which after 
centuries of vacillation more or less, and indeed less rather 
than more, was to last for a much larger number of 
centuries ; must it not require great deference indeed from 
all students of the New Testament? Let it always be 
remembered, that no single Cursive is here selected from 
the rest or advanced to any position whatsoever which 
would invest its verdicts with any special authority. It is 
the main body of the Cursives, agreeing as they generally 
do with the exception of a few eccentric groups or indi- 
viduals, which is entitled to such respect according to the 
measure of their agreement. And in point of fact, the 
Cursives which have been collated are so generally con- 
sentient, as to leave no doubt that the multitude which 
needs collation will agree similarly. Doubtless, the later 
Uncials and the Cursives are only a class of the general 
evidence which is now before us : but it is desirable that 
those Textual Students who have been disposed to under- 
value this class should weigh with candour and fairness 
the arguments existing in favour of it, which we have 
attempted to exhibit in this chapter. 



THE Traditional Text has now been traced, from the 
earliest years of Christianity of which any record of the 
New Testament remains, to the period when it was 
enshrined in a large number of carefully-written manuscripts 
in main accord with one another. Proof has been given 
from the writings of the early Fathers, that the idea that 
the Traditional Text arose in the middle of the fourth 
century is a mere hallucination, prompted by only 
a partial acquaintance with those writings. And witness 
to the existence and predominance of that form of Text 
has been found in the Peshitto Version and in the best 
of the Latin Versions, which themselves also have been 
followed back to the beginning of the second century or 
the end of the first. We have also discovered the truth, 
that the settlement of the Text, though mainly made in the 
fourth century, was not finally accomplished till the eighth 
century at the earliest ; and that the later Uncials, not the 
oldest, together with the cursives express, not singly, not 
in small batches or companies, but in their main agreement, 
the decisions which had grown up in the Church. In so 
doing, attention has been paid to all the existing evidence : 
none has been omitted. Quod semper, quod ubique, quod 
ab omnibus, has been the underlying principle. The 
foundations of the building have been laid as deeply and 
as broadly as our power would allow. No other course 
would be in consonance with scientific procedure. The 


seven notes of truth have been made as comprehensive as 
possible. Antiquity, number, variety, weight, continuity, 
context, and internal evidence, include all points of view 
and all methods of examination which are really sound. The 
characters of the Vatican, Sinaitic, and Bezan manuscripts 
have been shewn to be bad, and the streams which led to 
their production from Syrio-Old-Latin and Alexandrian 
sources to the temporary school of Caesarea have been 
traced and explained. It has been also shewn to be 
probable that corruption began and took root even before 
the Gospels were written. The general conclusion which 
has grown upon our minds has been that the affections of 
Christians have not been misdirected ; that the strongest 
exercise of reason has proved their instincts to have been 
sound and true ; that the Text which we have used and 
loved rests upon a vast and varied support ; that the 
multiform record of Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers, 
is found to defend by large majorities in almost all in- 
stances those precious words of Holy Writ, which have 
been called in question during the latter half of this 

We submit that it cannot be denied that we have 
presented a strong case, and naturally we look to see 
what has been said against it, since except in some features 
it has been before the World and the Church for some 
years. We submit that it has not received due attention 
from opposing critics. If indeed the opinions of the other 
School had been preceded by, or grounded upon, a search- 
ing examination, such as we have made in the case of 
B and N, of the vast mass of evidence upon which we 
rest, if this great body of testimony had been proved to 
be bad from overbalancing testimony or otherwise, we 
should have found reason for doubt, or even for a reversal 
of our decisions. But Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf 
laid down principles chiefly, if not exclusively, on the score 



of their intrinsic probability. Westcott and Hort built up 
their own theory upon reasoning internal to it, without clear- 
ing the ground first by any careful and detailed scrutiny. 
Besides which, all of them constructed their buildings 
before travellers by railways and steamships had placed 
within their reach the larger part of the materials which 
are now ready for use. We hear constantly the proclama- 
tion made in dogmatic tones that they are right : no proof 
adequate to the strength of our contention has been worked 
out to shew that we are wrong. 

Nevertheless, it may be best to listen for a moment 
to such objections as have been advanced against con- 
clusions like these, and which it may be presumed will be 
urged again. 

1. 'After all it cannot be denied that B and tf are the 
oldest manuscripts of the New Testament in existence, 
and that they must therefore be entitled to the deference 
due to their age.' Now the earlier part of this allegation 
is conceded by us entirely : prima facie it constitutes 
a very strong argument. But it is really found on examina- 
tion to be superficial. Fathers and Versions are virtually 
older, and, as has been demonstrated, are dead against the 
claim set up on behalf of those ancient manuscripts, that 
they are the possessors of the true text of the Gospels. 
Besides which antiquity is not the sole note of truth any 
more than number is. So much has been already said on 
this part of the subject, that it is needless to enter into 
longer discussion here. 

2. 'The testimony of witnesses ought to be weighed 
before it is reckoned.' Doubtless : this also is a truism, 
and allowance has been made for it in the various l notes 
of truth.' But this argument, apparently so simple, is 
really intended to carry a huge assumption involved in 
an elaborate maintenance of the (supposed) excellent 
character of B and N and their associates. After so much 


that has been brought to the charge of those two MSS. in 
this treatise, it is unnecessary now to urge more than that 
they appeared in strange times, when the Church was con- 
vulsed to her centre ; that, as has been demonstrated, their 
peculiar readings were in a very decided minority in the 
period before them ; and, as all admit, were rejected in 
the ages that passed after the time of their date. 

3. It is stated that the Traditional is a conflate text, 
i. e. that passages have been put together from more than 
one other text, so that they are composite in construction 
instead of being simple. We have already treated this 
allegation, but we reply now that it has not been estab- 
lished : the opinion of Canon Cooke who analysed all the 
examples quoted by Hort 1 , of Scrivener who said they 
proved nothing 2 , and of many other critics and scholars 
has been against it. The converse position is maintained, 
that the text of B and tf is clipped and mutilated. Take 
the following passage, which is fairly typical of the large 
class in question: 'For we are members of His Body' 
(writes St. Paul 3 ) ' of His flesh and of His bones ' (CK TTJS 
vapKos avrov KCLL K T&V oore'coy carou). But those last 
9 words are disallowed by recent editors, because they 
are absent from B-N, A, 8, and 17, and the margin of 67, 
besides the Bohairic version. Yet are the words genuine. 
They are found in DFGKLP and the whole body of the 
cursives : in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the two Syriac 
versions : in Irenaeus 4 , in Theodorus of Mopsuestia 5 , in 
Nilus 6 , in Chrysostom 7 more than four times, in 
Severianus 8 , in Theodoret 9 , in Anastasius Sinaita 10 , 
and in John Damascene 11 . They were probably read by 

1 Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218. 2 Introduction, i. 292-93. 

3 Ephes. v. 30. * 718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat. 

5 In loc. ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat. 6 i. 95, 267. 

7 iii. 215 b, 216 a ; viii. 272 c ; xi. 147 abed. 

8 Ap, Cramer, vi. 205, 208. 9 iii. 434. 
10 (A.D. 560), 1004 a, 1007 a. u ii. 1906. 



Origen 1 and by Methodius 2 , Many Latin Fathers, viz. 
Ambrose 3 , Pacian 4 , Esaias abb. 5 , Victorinus 6 , 
Jerome 7 , Augustine 8 and Leo P. 9 recognise them. 

Such ample and such varied attestation is not to be set 
aside by the vapid and unsound dictum ' Western and 
Syrian,' or by the weak suggestion that the words in 
dispute are an unauthorized gloss, fabricated from the 
LXX version of Gen. ii. 23. That St. Paul's allusion is 
to the oracular utterance of our first father Adam, is true 
enough : but, as Alford after Bengel well points out, it is 
incredible that any forger can have been at work here. 

Such questions however, as we must again and again 
insist, are not to be determined by internal considerations : 
no, nor by dictation, nor by prejudice, nor by divina- 
tion, nor by any subjective theory of conflation on which 
experts and critics may be hopelessly at issue : but by the 
weight of the definite evidence actually producible and 

1 Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates, 'quia membra sumus corporis ejus, et reliqua? 
What else can this refer to but the very words in dispute ? 

2 Ap. Galland. iii. 688 c: oOtv 6 'AirooToAo? v6v@6\as fls Xpicrruv dvrjK6vTtaf 
TO, Kara, rbv 'AS/r OVTOJS yap av fj.a\iaTa rwv borwv avrov KOL rfjs aaptcos 
TT\V CKK\rjaiav av^cavrjfffi yeyovtvai. And lower down (e, and 689 a) : OTTOJS 
avgrjOuaiv ol li/ aura) oiKodofjiTjOtvTes a-navrts, ol ycytvvr] /j.fvoi 8ia TOV \uvrpov, K 

TWV OffTUIV KO.I e/f T7JS ffdpKOS, TOVTfffTlV (K T7)S aftClJOVl'TjS O.VTOV, Kdl (K TTJS 8<jr]S 

irpofft\r](f>6Ts' bara yap ical aaprca 2,o(pias 6 \tywv tli/ai ai>vriv Kal dpfrrjv, 
bpdvrara \fyd. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we 
do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b) without the clause in dispute. 
Those who give their minds to these studies are soon made aware that it is 
never safe to infer from the silence of a Father that he disallowed the words he 
omits, especially if those words are in their nature parenthetical, or supple- 
mentary, or not absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his 
immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This subject has 
been discussed elsewhere : but it is apt to the matter now in hand that I should 
point out that Augustine twice (iv. 297 c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the 
present place abruptly : ' Apostolo dicente, Quoniam membra sumus corporis 
ejus. 1 And yet, elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full. 

It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were anything 
in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer's Cat. p. 88. 

3 i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d. 

* Ap. Galland. vii. 2626 (A.D. 372). 5 Ibid. 314 c. 

6 Mai, iii. 140. 7 vii. 659!). 

8 See above, end of note 2. 9 Concil. iv. .50 b. 


produced on either side. And when, as in the present 
instance, Antiquity, Variety of testimony, Respectability 
of witnesses, and Number are overwhelmingly in favour 
of the Traditional Text, what else is it but an outrage 
on the laws of evidence to claim that the same little 
band of documents which have already come before us 
so often, and always been found in error, even though 
aided by speculative suppositions, shall be permitted to 
outweigh all other testimony? 

To build therefore upon a conflate or composite character 
in a set of readings would be contrary to the evidence: or 
at any rate, it would at the best be to lay foundations upon 
ground which is approved by one school of critics and 
disputed by the other in every case. The determination 
of the text of Holy Scripture has not been handed over 
to a mere conflict of opposite opinions, or to the uncertain 
sands of conjecture. 

Besides, as has been already stated, no amount of 
conflation would supply passages which the destructive 
school would wholly leave out. It is impossible to ' conflate ' 
in places where BN and their associates furnish no mater- 
ials for the supposed conflation. Bricks cannot be made 
without clay. The materials actually existing are those 
of the Traditional Text itself. But in fact these questions 
are not to be settled by the scholarly taste or opinions of 
either school, even of that which we advocate. They must 
rest upon the verdict found by the facts in evidence : and 
those facts have been already placed in array. 

4. Again, stress is laid upon Genealogy. Indeed, as Dean 
Burgon himself goes on to say, so much has lately been 
written about ' the principle ' and ' the method ' e of genea- 
logy,' that it becomes in a high degree desirable that we 
should ascertain precisely what those expressions lawfully 
mean. No fair controversialist would willingly fail to 
assign its legitimate place and value to any principle for 


which he observes an opponent eagerly contending. But 
here is a ' principle ' and here is a ' method ' which are 
declared to be of even paramount importance. ' Documents 
. . . are all fragments, usually casual and scattered fragments, 
of a genealogical tree of transmission, sometimes of vast 
extent and intricacy. The more exactly we are able to 
trace the chief ramifications of the tree, and to determine 
the places of the several documents among the branches, 
the more secure will be the foundations laid for a criti- 
cism capable of distinguishing the original text from its 
successive corruptions V 

The expression is metaphorical; belonging of right to 
families of men, but transferred to Textual Science as 
indicative that similar phenomena attend families of 
manuscripts. Unfortunately the phenomena attending 
transmission, of Natures on the one hand, of Texts on 
the other, are essentially dissimilar. A diminutive couple 
may give birth to a race of giants. A genius has been 
known to beget a dunce. A brood of children exhibiting 
extraordinary diversities of character, aspect, ability, some- 
times spring from the same pair. Nothing like this is 
possible in the case of honestly-made copies of MSS. The 
analogy breaks down therefore in respect of its most essen- 
tial feature. And yet, there can be no objection to the use 
of the term ' Genealogy ' in connexion with manuscripts, 
provided always that nothing more is meant thereby than 
derivation by the process of copying : nothing else claimed 
but that ' Identity of reading implies identity of origin V 

Only in this limited way are we able to avail ourselves 
of the principle referred to. Of course if it were a well- 
ascertained fact concerning three copies (XYZ), that Z was 
copied from Y, and Y from X, XYZ might reasonably be 
spoken of as representing three descents in a pedigree ; 
although the interval between Z and Y were only six 

1 Hort, Introduction, p. 40. 2 Ibid. p. 46. 


months, the interval between Y and X, six hundred years. 
Moreover, these would be not three independent authori- 
ties, but only one. Such a case, however, (the fact can- 
not be too clearly apprehended), is simply non-existent. 
What is known commonly lies on the surface : viz. that 
occasionally between two or more copies there exists such 
an amount of peculiar textual affinity as to constrain us to 
adopt the supposition that they have been derived from 
a common original. These peculiarities of text, we tell 
ourselves, cannot be fortuitous. Taking our stand on the 
true principle that * identity of reading implies identity of 
origin,' we insist on reasoning from the known to the 
unknown : and (at our humble distance) we are fully as 
confident of our scientific fact as Adams and Le Verrier 
would have been of the existence of Neptune had they 
never actually obtained sight of that planet. 

So far are we therefore from denying the value and 
importance of the principle under discussion that we are 
able to demonstrate its efficacy in the resolution of some 
textual problems which have been given in this work. 
Thus E, the uncial copy of St. Paul, is 'nothing better,' 
says Scrivener, 'than a transcript of the Cod. Claromon- 
tanus ' D. ' The Greek is manifestly worthless, and should 
long since have been removed from the list of authorities 1 .' 
Tischendorf nevertheless, not Tregelles, quotes it on every 
page. He has no business to do so, Codexes D and E, to 
all intents and purposes, being strictly one Codex. This 
case, like the two next, happily does not admit of diversity 
of opinion. Next, F and G of St. Paul's Epistles, inas- 
much as they are confessedly derived from one and the 
same archetype, are not to be reckoned as two authorities, 
but as one. 

Again, the correspondence between the nine MSS. of the 
Ferrar group Evann. 13 at Paris, 69 at Leicester, 124 at 

1 Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177. 


Vienna, 346 at Milan, 556 in the British Museum, 561 at 
Bank House, Wisbech, and in a lesser degree, 348 at 
Milan, 624 at Crypta Ferrata, 788 at Athens, is so 
extraordinary as to render it certain that these copies are 
in the main derived from one common archetype 1 . Hence, 
though one of them (788) is of the tenth century, three 
(348, 561, 624) are of the eleventh, four (13, 124, 346, 556) 
of the twelfth, and one (69) of the fourteenth, their joint 
evidence is held to be tantamount to the recovery of a lost 
uncial or papyrus of very early date, which uncial or 
papyrus, by the way, it would be convenient to indicate by 
a new symbol, as F r . standing for Ferrar, since <3> which 
was once attributed to them is now appropriated to the 
Codex Beratinus. If indicated numerically, the figures 
should at all events be connected by a hyphen (13- 
6g-i24~346-&c.); not as if they were independent witnesses, 
as Tischendorf quotes them. And lastly, B and N are 
undeniably, more than any other two Codexes which can 
be named, the depositaries of one and the same peculiar, 
all but unique, text. 

I propose to apply the foregoing remarks to the solution 
of one of the most important of Textual problems. That 
a controversy has raged around the last twelve verses of 
St. Mark's Gospel is known to all. Known also it is that 
a laborious treatise was published on the subject in 1871, 
which, in the opinion of competent judges, has had the 
effect of removing the * Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark ' 
beyond the reach of suspicion. Notwithstanding this, at 
the end of ten years an attempt was made to revive 
the old plea. The passage, say Drs. Westcott and Hort, 
' manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority ; but is 
doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age,' 
of which the * precise date must remain unknown.' It is 
'a very early interpolation' (pp. 51, 46). In a word, 'the 

1 Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*. 


last twelve verses' of St. Mark's Gospel, according to 
Drs. Westcott and Hort, are spurious. But what is their 
ground of confidence? for we claim to be as competent to 
judge of testimony as they. It proves to be ' the unique 
criterion supplied by the concord of the independent attes- 
tations of N and B ' (p. 46). 

' Independent attestations' ! But when two copies of 
the Gospel are confessedly derived from one and the same 
original, how can their ' attestations ' be called ' indepen- 
dent'? This is however greatly to understate the case. 
The non-independence of B and N in respect of St. Mark 
xvi. 9-20 is absolutely unique : for, strange to relate, it so 
happens that the very leaf on which the end of St. Mark's 
Gospel and the beginning of St. Luke's is written (St. Mark 
xvi. 2-Luke i. 56), is one of the six leaves of Cod. N which 
are held to have been written by the scribe of Cod. B. 
' The inference,' remarks Scrivener, * is simple and direct, 
that at least in these leaves Codd. BN make but one witness, 
not two 1 .' 

The principle of Genealogy admits of a more extended 
and a more important application to this case, because 
B and N do not stand quite alone, but are exclusively asso- 
ciated with three or four other manuscripts which may be 
regarded as being descended from them. As far as we can 
judge, they may be regarded as the founders, or at least 
as prominent members of a family, whose descendants 
were few, because they were generally condemned by the 
generations which came after them. Not they, but other 
families upon other genealogical stems, were the more like 
to the patriarch whose progeny was to equal the stars of 
heaven in multitude. 

Least of all shall I be so simple as to pretend to fix the 

1 Introduction, II. 337, note i. And for Dean Burgon's latest opinion on the 
date of N see above, pp. 46, 52, 162. The present MS., which I have been 
obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much that has been already 
said, was one of the Dean's latest productions. See Appendix VII. 


precise date and assign a definite locality to the fontal 
source, or sources, of our present perplexity and distress. 
But I suspect that in the little handful of authorities which 
have acquired such a notoriety in the annals of recent 
Textual Criticism, at the head of which stand Codexes B 
and tf, are to be recognized the characteristic features of 
a lost family of (once well known) second or third-century 
documents, which owed their existence to the misguided 
zeal of some well-intentioned but utterly incompetent 
persons who devoted themselves to the task of correcting 
the Text of Scripture ; but were entirely unfit for the 
undertaking l . 

Yet I venture also to think that it was in a great 
measure at Alexandria that the text in question was 
fabricated. My chief reasons for thinking so are the fol- 
lowing: (i) There is a marked resemblance between the 
peculiar readings of Btf and the two Egyptian Versions, 
the Bohairic or Version of Lower Egypt especially. (2) No 
one can fail to have been struck by the evident sympathy 
between Origen, who at all events had passed more than 
half his life at Alexandria, and the text in question. 
(3) I notice that Nonnus also, who lived in the Thebaid, 
exhibits considerable sympathy with the text which I deem 
so corrupt. (4) I cannot overlook the fact that Cod. N 
was discovered in a monastery under the sway of the 
patriarch of Alexandria, though how it got there no 
evidence remains to point out. (5) The licentious hand- 
ling so characteristic of the Septuagint Version of the 
O. T., the work of Alexandrian Jews, points in the 
same direction, and leads me to suspect that Alexandria 
was the final source of the text of B-N. (6) I further 
observe that the sacred Text (KZLUCVOV) in Cyril's Homilies 

1 Since Dean Burgon's death, there has been reason to identify this set of 
readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of which I have traced 
to the earliest times before the Gospels were written by St. Matthew, 
St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St. John. 


on St. John is often similar to B-K ; and this, I take for 
granted, was the effect of the school of Alexandria, not 
of the patriarch himself. (7) Dionysius of Alexandria 
complains bitterly of the corrupt Codexes of his day: 
and certainly (8) Clemens habitually employed copies of 
a similar kind. He too was of Alexandria 1 . 

Such are the chief considerations which incline me to 
suspect that Alexandria contributed largely to our Textual 

The readings of B-tf are the consequence of a junction 
of two or more streams and then of derivation from a single 
archetype. This inference is confirmed by the fact that 
the same general text which B exhibits is exhibited also 
by the eighth-century Codex L, the work probably of an 
Egyptian scribe 2 : and by the tenth-century Codex 33 : 
and by the eleventh-century Codex I : and to some extent 
by the twelfth-century Codex 69. 

We have already been able to advance to another and a 
very important step. There is nothing in the history of the 
earliest times of the Church to prove that vellum manu- 
scripts of the New Testament existed in any number 
before the fourth century. No such documents have come 
down to us. But we do know, as has been shewn above 3 , 
that writings on papyrus were transcribed on vellum in the 
library of Caesarea. What must we then conclude ? That, 
as has been already suggested, papyrus MSS. are mainly 
the progenitors of the Uncials, and probably of the oldest 
Uncials. Besides this inference, we have seen that it is 
also most probable that many of the Cursives were tran- 
scribed directly from papyrus books or rolls. So that the 
Genealogy of manuscripts of the New Testament includes 
a vast number of descendants, and many lines of descent, 
which ramified from one stem on the original start from 

1 So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p. 119, note 2. 

2 Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138. 3 pp. 2, 155. 


the autograph of each book. The Vatican and the Sinaitic 
do not stand pre-eminent because of any great line of 
parentage passing through them to a multitudinous pos- 
terity inheriting the earth, but they are members of a con- 
demned family of which the issue has been small. The 
rejected of the fourth century has been spurned by suc- 
ceeding centuries. And surely now also the fourth century, 
rich in a roll of men conspicuous ever since for capacity 
and learning, may be permitted to proclaim its real senti- 
ments and to be judged from its own decisions, without 
being disfranchised by critics of the nineteenth. 

The history of the Traditional Text, on the contrary, 
is continuous and complete under the view of Genealogy. 
The pedigree of it may be commended to the examination 
of the Heralds' College. It goes step by step in unbroken 
succession regularly back to the earliest time. The present 
printed editions may be compared for extreme accuracy 
with the text passed by the Elzevirs or Beza as the text 
received by all of their time. Erasmus followed his few 
MSS. because he knew them to be good representatives 
of the mind of the Church which had been informed under 
the ceaseless and loving care of mediaeval transcribers : 
and the text of Erasmus printed at Basle agreed in but 
little variation with the text of the Complutensian editors 
published in Spain, for which Cardinal Ximenes procured 
MSS. at whatever cost he could. No one doubts the coin- 
cidence in all essential points of the printed text with the 
text of the Cursives. Dr. Hort certifies the Cursive Text 
as far back as the middle of the fourth century. It depends 
upon various lines of descent, and rests on the testimony 
supplied by numerous contemporary Fathers before the year 
1000 A. D., when co-existing MSS. failed to bear witness 
in multitudes. The acceptance of it by the Church of 
the fifth century, which saw the settlement of the great 
doctrinal controversies either made or confirmed, proves 


that the seal was set upon the validity of the earliest 
pedigrees by the illustrious intellects and the sound faith 
of those days. And in the fifth chapter of this work, con- 
temporary witness is carried back to the first days. There 
is thus a cluster of pedigrees, not in one line but in many 
parallel courses of descent, not in one country but in 
several, ranging over the whole Catholic Church where 
Greek was understood, attested by Versions, and illustrated 
copiously by Fathers, along which without break in the 
continuity the Traditional Text in its main features has 
been transmitted. Doubtless something still remains for 
the Church to do under the present extraordinary wealth 
of authorities in the verification of some particulars issuing 
in a small number of alterations, not in challenging or 
changing like the other school anything approaching to 
one-eighth of the New Testament 1 : for that we now 
possess in the main the very Words of the Holy Gospels 
as they issued from their inspired authors, we are taught 
under the principle of Genealogy that there is no valid 
reason to doubt. 

To conclude, the system which we advocate will be seen 
to contrast strikingly with that which is upheld by the 
opposing school, in three general ways : 

I. We have with us width and depth against the narrow- 
ness on their side. They are conspicuously contracted in 
the fewness of the witnesses which they deem worthy of 
credence. They are restricted as to the period of history 
which alone they consider to deserve attention. They are 
confined with regard to the countries from which their 
testimony comes. They would supply Christians with 
a shortened text, and educate them under a cast-iron 
system. We on the contrary champion the many against 
the few : we welcome all witnesses, and weigh all testi- 
mony : we uphold all the ages against one or two, and 

1 Hort, Introduction, p. 2. 


all the countries against a narrow space. We maintain 
the genuine and all-round Catholicism of real Christendom 
against a discarded sectarianism exhumed from the fourth 
century. If we condemn, it is because the evidence con- 
demns. We cling to all the precious Words that have come 
down to us, because they have been so preserved to our 
days under verdicts depending upon overwhelming proof. 

II. We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt 
B and K and D because in their own opinion those copies 
are the best. They weave ingenious webs, and invent 
subtle theories, because their paradox of a few against the 
many requires ingenuity and subtlety for its support. 
Dr. Hort revelled in finespun theories and technical terms, 
such as ' Intrinsic Probability,' ' Transcriptional Probability/ 
* Internal evidence of Readings/ ' Internal evidence of 
Documents/ which of course connote a certain amount of 
evidence, but are weak pillars of a heavy structure. Even 
conjectural emendation l and inconsistent decrees 2 are not 
rejected. They are infected with the theorizing which 
spoils some of the best German work, and with the ideal- 
ism which is the bane of many academic minds, especially 
at Oxford and Cambridge. In contrast with this sojourn 
in cloudland, we are essentially of the earth though not 
earthy. We are nothing, if we are not grounded in facts : 
our appeal is to facts, our test lies in facts, so far as we can 
we build testimonies upon testimonies and pile facts on 
facts. We imitate the procedure of the courts of justice 
in decisions resulting from the converging product of all 
the evidence, when it has been cross-examined and sifted. 
As men of business, not less than students, we endeavour 
to pursue the studies of the library according to the best 
methods of the world. 

III. Our opponents are gradually getting out of date : 
the world is drifting away from them. Thousands of 

1 Hort, Introduction, p. 7. 2 Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895. 


manuscripts have been added to the known stores since 
Tischendorf formed his system, and Hort began to theorize, 
and their handful of favourite documents has become by 
comparison less and less. Since the deaths of both of 
those eminent critics, the treasures dug up in Egypt 
and elsewhere have put back the date of the science of 
palaeography from the fourth century after the Christian 
era to at least the third century before, and papyrus 
has sprung up into unexpected prominence in the ancient 
and mediaeval history of writing. It is discovered that 
there was no uncial period through which the genealogy 
of cursives has necessarily passed. Old theories on those 
points must generally be reconstructed if they are to 
tally with known facts. But this accession of knowledge 
which puts our opponents in the wrong, has no effect on 
us except to confirm our position with new proof. Indeed, 
we welcome the unlocking of the all but boundless treasury 
of ancient wealth, since our theory, being as open as 
possible, and resting upon the visible and real, remains 
not only uninjured but strengthened. If it were to require 
any re-arrangement, that would be only a re-ordering 
of particulars, not of our principles which are capacious 
enough to admit of any addition of materials of judgement. 
We trust to the Church of all the ages as the keeper and 
witness of Holy Writ, we bow to the teaching of the HOLY 
GHOST, as conveyed in all wisdom by facts and evidence : 
and we are certain, that, following no preconceived notions 
of our own, but led under such guidance, moved by prin- 
ciples so reasonable and comprehensive, and observing 
rules and instructions appealing to us with such authority, 
we are in all main respects 



HONEVCOMB airo /uteAi<r<rioi> Krjpiov. 

[The Dean left positive instructions for the publication of this Dissertation, 
as being finished for Press.] 

I PROPOSE next to call attention to the omission from 
St. Luke xxiv. 42 of a precious incident in the history of 
our Lord's Resurrection. It was in order effectually to 
convince the Disciples that it was Himself, in His human 
body, who stood before them in the upper chamber on the 
evening of the first Easter Day, that He inquired, [ver. 41] 
Have ye here any meat? [ver. 42] and they gave Him 
a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN HONEYCOMB.' But 
those four last words (/cat airb ^Xto-a-iov Kypiov) because they 
are not found in six copies of the Gospel, are by Westcott 
and Hort ejected from the text. Calamitous to relate, the 
Revisers of 1881 were by those critics persuaded to exclude 
them also. How do men suppose that such a clause as 
that established itself universally in the sacred text, if it 
be spurious? * How do you suppose/ I shall be asked in 
reply, ' if it be genuine, that such a clause became omitted 
from any manuscript at all?' 

I answer, The omission is due to the prevalence in the 
earliest age of fabricated exhibitions of the Gospel narra- 
tive ; in which, singular to relate, the incident recorded in 
St. Luke xxiv. 41-43 was identified with that other mysteri- 
ous repast which St. John describes in his last chapter 1 . 

1 St. John xxi. 9-13. 


It seems incredible, at first sight, that an attempt would 
ever be made to establish an enforced harmony between 
incidents exhibiting so many points of marked contrast : 
for St. Luke speaks of (i) 'broiled fish [i^Ovos OKTOV] and 
honeycomb,' (2) which * they gave Him! (3) ' and He did 
eat ' (4) on the first Easter Day, (5) at evening, (6) in 
a chamber, (7) at Jerusalem : whereas St. John specifies 
(i) ' bread, and fish [dv/ra/noz;] likewise,' (2) which He gave 
them, (3) and of which it is not related that Himself par- 
took. (4) The occasion was subsequent : (5) the time, 
early morning : (6) the scene, the sea-shore : (7) the coun- 
try, Galilee. 

Let it be candidly admitted on the other hand, in the 
way of excuse for those ancient men, that * broiled fish ' 
was common to both repasts ; that they both belong to the 
period subsequent to the Resurrection : that the same 
parties, our LORD namely and His Apostles, were con- 
cerned in either transaction ; and that both are prefaced 
by similar words of inquiry. Waiving this, it is a plain 
fact that Eusebius in his 9th Canon, makes the two inci- 
dents parallel ; numbering St. Luke (xxix. 41-3), 341 ; 
and St. John (xxi. 9, 10. 12, first half, and 13), severally 
221, 223, 225. The Syriac sections which have hitherto 
escaped the attention of critical scholars 1 are yet more 
precise. Let the intention of their venerable compiler 
whoever he may have been be exhibited in full. It has 
never been done before : 

1 (Si. LUKE xxiv.) ' (Si. JOHN xxi.) 

' 397- [Jesus] said unto ' 255. Jesus saith unto them, 
them, Have ye here any meat ? Children, have ye any meat ? 
(ver. 41.) They answered Him, No. (ver. 5.) 

' Id. ' 259. ... As soon then as 

they were come to land, they saw 

1 In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two years 
after the Dean's death, will be found a full description of this form of sections. 



(Sx. LUKE xxiv.) (St. JOHN xxi.) 

a fire of coals there, and fish laid 
thereon, and bread, (ver. 9.) 

'398. And they gave Him a ' 264. Jesus then cometh and 
piece of a broiled fish and of an taketh bread, and giveth them, 
honeycomb, (ver. 42.) ' and fish likewise, (ver. 13.) 

' 399. And He took it and ' 262. Jesus saith unto them, 
did eat before them. (ver. 43.)' Come and dine. (ver. 12.)' 

The intention of all this is unmistakable. The places 
are deliberately identified. But the mischief is of much 
older date than the Eusebian Canons, and must have been 
derived in the first instance from a distinct source. 
Eusebius, as he himself informs us, did but follow in the 
wake of others. Should the Diatessaron cf Ammonius or 
that of Tatian ever be recovered, a flood of light will for 
the first time be poured over a department of evidence 
where at present we must be content to grope our way 1 . 

But another element of confusion I suspect is derived 
from that lost Commentary on the Song of Solomon in 
which Origen is said to have surpassed himself 2 . Certain 
of the ancients insist on discovering in St. Luke xxiv. 42 
the literal fulfilment of the Greek version of Cant. v. i, 
* I ate my bread vj\i\i honey! Cyril of Jerusalem remarks 
that those words of the spouse 'were fulfilled ' when ' they 
gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb 3 ': 
while Gregory Nyss. points out (alluding to the same place) 
that ' the true Bread,' when He appeared to His Disciples, 
'was by honeycomb made sweet 4 .' Little did those 

1 As far as we know at present about Tatian's Diatessaron, he kept these 
occurrences distinct. ED. 

2 ' Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorum 
ipse se vicit.' Hieron. Opp. iii. 499 ; i. 525. 

3 After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42 in extenso, he proceeds, 0\tn(is irws 
ir(ir\r)pa}Tai TO' 'Effxiyov aprov fji.ov ^erd /ieAtTos pov (p. 2lob) : and KOI fjicra 
TTJV avaaraaiv t\(y(v t 'E^ayov T^JV aprov fterd fttXiros p.ov. tSajtcav yap avTca 
airo f*f\iaaiov itrjpiov (p. 341 a). 

* "Apros yiverat, ovKtTi (irl iriKplluiv <j0i6fivoy . . . aAX* o^ov (CLVT> TO jj.(\t 


Fathers imagine the perplexity which at the end of 15 
centuries their fervid and sometimes fanciful references to 
Scripture would occasion ! 

I proceed to shew how inveterately the ancients have 
confused these two narratives, or rather these two distinct 
occasions. ' Who knows not,' asks Epiphanius, * that our 
SAVIOUR ate, after His Resurrection from the dead ? As 
the holy Gospels of Truth have it, "There was given unto 
Him " [which is a reference to St. Luke], " bread and part 
of a broiled fish." [but it is St. John who mentions the 
bread]; "and He took and ate" [but only according to 
St. Luke], "and gave to His disciples," [but only according 
to St. John. And yet the reference must be to St. Luke's 
narrative, for Epiphanius straightway adds,] " as He also 
did at the sea of Tiberias ; both eating," [although no eat- 
ing on His part is recorded concerning that meal,] "and 
distributing 1 ."' Ephraem Syrus makes the same mis- 
statement. ' If He was not flesh/ he asks, ' who was it, at 
the sea of Tiberias, who ate 2 ? ' ' While Peter is fishing,' 
says Hesychius 3 , (with plain reference to the narrative in 
St. John), * behold in the LORD'S hands bread and honey- 
comb 4 ': where the 'honeycomb' has clearly lost its way, 
and has thrust out the ' fish.' Epiphanius elsewhere even 
more fatally confuses the two incidents. ' JESUS' (he says) 
'on a second occasion after His Resurrection ate both 
a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb 5 .' One 
would have set this down to sheer inadvertence, but that 

And, 6 [Afro. TT)V dvaaraaiv irpofpavtis rofs fnaO-qrats apros kari, r$ 
TOV fuAiros ^Svvo/jLevos, i. 624 a b. See more concerning this quotation 
below, p. 249 note. 

1 Epiph. i. 143. 2 Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e. 

3 Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the Resurrection, 
wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99). Hesychius was probably 
the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both 
are compilations however, into which precious passages of much older Fathers 
have been unscrupulously interwoven, to the infinite perplexity of every 
attentive reader. 

* Apud Greg. Nyss. iii. 39yd. 5 Epiph. i. 65 2 d. 

R a 


Jerome circumstantially makes the self-same assertion : 
4 In John we read that while the Apostles were fishing, He 
stood upon the shore, and ate part of a broiled fish and 
honeycomb. At Jerusalem He is not related to have done 
anything of the kind 1 .' From whom can Jerome have 
derived that wild statement 2 ? It is certainly not his own. 
It occurs in his letter to Hedibia where he is clearly 
a translator only 3 . In another place, Jerome says, ' He 
sought fish broiled upon the coals, in order to confirm 
the faith of His doubting Apostles, who were afraid to 
approach Him, because they thought they saw a spirit, 
not a solid body 4 ': which is a mixing up of St. John's 
narrative with that of St. Luke. Clemens Alex., in a pas- 
sage which has hitherto escaped notice, deliberately affirms 
that * the LORD blessed the loaves and the broiled fishes 
with which He feasted His Disciples 5 .' Where did he find 
that piece of information ? 

One thing more in connexion with the ' broiled fish and 
honeycomb' Athanasius and Cyril Alex. 6 after him 
rehearse the incident with entire accuracy ; but Athanasius 
adds the apocryphal statement that ' He took what remained 
over, and gave it unto them 7 ': which tasteless appendix is 
found besides in Cureton's Syriac [not in the Lewis], in 
the Bohairic, Harkleian, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions ; 
and must once have prevailed to a formidable extent, for 

1 In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit, et partem 
assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis indicia sunt. In 
Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur. Hieron. i. 825 a. 

2 Not from Eusebius' Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however 
Jerome, i. 824 d with Eusebius (ap. Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x). 

3 See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6. * i. 444 b. 

5 p. 172. 6 iv. 1108 c. 

7 Athanas. i. 644 : Kal <j>a-yuv tvwmov avruv, AABHN TA EniAOIIlA, 
AireSuKev awrofs. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary 
published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words ai diro /neA. /?/>. The 
characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who 
merely says KCU eSute* TOIS /xa^rafs, confusing the place in St. Luke with the 
place in St. John. 


it has even established itself in the Vulgate 1 . It is wit- 
nessed to, besides, by two ninth-century uncials (KF1) and 
ten cursive copies 2 . The thoughtful reader will say to him- 
self, ' Had only Cod. B joined itself to this formidable 
conspiracy of primitive witnesses, we should have had this 
also thrust upon us by the new school as indubitable 
Gospel : and remonstrances would have been in vain ! ' 

Now, as all must see, it is simply incredible that these 
many Fathers, had they employed honestly-made copies 
of St. Luke's and of St. John's Gospel, could have fallen 
into such frequent and such strange misrepresentations of 
what those Evangelists actually say. From some fabri- 
cated Gospel from some ' Diatessaron ' or ' Life of Christ,' 
once famous in the Church, long since utterly forgotten, 
from some unauthentic narrative of our Saviour's Death 
and Resurrection, I say, these several depravations of the 
sacred story must needs have been imported into St. Luke's 
Gospel. And lo, out of all that farrago, the only manu- 
script traces which survive at this distant day, are found in 
the notorious B-tf , with A, D, L, and FT, one copy each of 
the Old Latin (e) and the Bohairic [and the Lewis], which 
exclusively enjoy the unenviable distinction of omitting 
the incident of the * honeycomb ' : while the confessedly 
spurious appendix. ' He gave them what remained over/ 
enjoys a far more ancient, more varied, and more respect- 
able attestation, and yet has found favour with no single 
Editor of the Sacred Text : no, nor have our Revisers seen 
fit by a marginal note to apprize the ordinary English 
reader that ' many uncial authorities ' are disfigured in this 
particular way. With this latter accretion to the inspired 
verity, therefore, we need not delay ourselves : but that, so 

1 Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (A. D. 400) ; viii. 472 (A. D. 404). 

2 To the 9 specified by Tisch. (Evann. 13, 42, 88 (TO. ire piaaev, 130 
(TO firava\(i<pOfv}, 161, 300, 346, 400, 507, add Evan. 33, in which the words 
teal TO. -ni\onra fSwKfv avrois have been overlooked by Tregelles. 


many disturbing influences having resulted, at the end of 
seventeen centuries, in the elimination of the clause Kal avo 
/ueAio-tnov Krjpiov from six corrupt copies of St. Luke's 
Gospel, a fixed determination or a blundering tendency 
should now be exhibited to mutilate the Evangelical narra- 
tive in respect of the incident which those four words 
embody, this may well create anxiety. It makes critical 
inquiry an imperative duty : not indeed for our own satis- 
faction, but for that of others. 

Upon ourselves, the only effect produced by the sight of 
half a dozen Evangelia, whether written in the uncial or 
in the cursive character we deem a matter of small account, 
opposing themselves to the whole body of the copies, 
uncial and cursive alike, is simply to make us suspicious 
of those six Evangelia. Shew us that they have been 
repeatedly tried already and as often have been con- 
demned, and our suspicion becomes intense. Add such 
evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has been 
already set before the reader ; and further inquiry in our 
own minds we deem superfluous. But we must answer 
those distinguished Critics who have ruled that Codexes 
B-N, D, L, can hardly if ever err. 

The silence of the Fathers is really not of much account. 
Some critics quote Clemens Alexandrinus. But let that 
Father be allowed to speak for himself. He is inveighing 
against gluttony. ' Is not variety consistent with simplicity 
of diet?' (he asks); and he enumerates olives, vegetables, 
milk, cheese, &c. If it must be flesh, he proceeds, let the 
flesh be merely broiled. '" Have ye here any meat?" said 
our Lord to His disciples after His Resurrection. Where- 
upon, having been by Him taught frugality in respect of 
diet, " they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish." . . . Yet may 
the fact not be overlooked that those who sup as The Word 
approves may partake besides of "honeycomb." The fittest 
food, in a word, we consider to be that which requires no 


cooking : next, as I began by explaining, cheap and 
ordinary articles of diet 1 .' Shall I be thought unreasonable 
if I insist that so far from allowing that Clemens is ' silent ' 
concerning the 'honeycomb,' I even regard his testimony 
to the traditionary reading of St. Luke xxiv. 42 as express? 
At the end of 1700 years, I am as sure that 'honeycomb' 
was found in his copy, as if I had seen it with my eyes. 

Origen, who is next adduced, in one place remarks 
concerning our SAVIOUR ' It is plain that after His 
Resurrection, He ate of a fish V The same Father else- 
where interprets mystically the circumstance that the 
Disciples 'gave Him a piece of a broiled fish 3 . 5 Eusebius 
in like manner thrice mentions the fact that our LORD 
partook of 'broiled fish 4 ' after His Resurrection. And 
because these writers do not also mention 'honeycomb,' 
it is assumed by Tischendorf and his school that the 
words KOL cnro /mcAio-cnou Krjpiov cannot have existed in their 
copies of St. Luke 5 . The proposed inference is plainly 
inadmissible. Cyril, after quoting accurately St. Luke 
xxiv. 36 to 43 (' honeycomb ' and all) 6 , proceeds to remark 
exclusively on the incident of the ' fish ' 7 . Ambrose and 
Augustine certainly recognized the incident of * the honey- 
comb': yet the latter merely remarks that 'to eat fish 
with the LORD is better than to eat lentiles with Esau 8 ;' 
while the former draws a mystical inference from 'the 
record in the Gospel that JESUS ate broiled fishes*! Is it 

1 Upoi TOVTOIS ovof Tpafrjuarow Krjpioav dpupovs irtpiopaTcov TOVS otiirvovvTas 
Kara \o-yov. p. 174. 

2 i. 384. 3 iii. 477. * Apud Mai, iv. 294, 295 bis. 

5 ' Ibi TO Kripiov praeterire non poterat [sc. Origenes] si in exemplis suis 
additamentum reperisset.' (From Tischendorf's note on Luke xxiv. 42.) 

6 iv. noSbc. 

7 K.aTf8rj5oK yap TO irpoKop.ioO\v i\6voiov, fjroi TO f avTov fiepos. Ibid. d. 
Similarly in the fragments of Cyril's Commentary on St. Luke, he is observed 
to refer to the incident of the piece of broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442, 
443, which reappears in P. Smith, p. 730.) 

8 iii. P. i. p. 51. Fur the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a : viii. 472 d. 


not obvious that the more conspicuous incident, that of 
the ' broiled fish' being common to both repasts, stands 
for all that was partaken of on either occasion ? in other 
words, represents the entire meal ? It excludes neither 
the ' honeycomb ' of the upper chamber, nor the ' bread ' 
which was eaten beside the Galilean lake. Tertullian 1 , 
intending no slight either to the ' broiled fish ' or to the 
' bread,' makes mention only of our Lord's having ' eaten 
honeycomb' after His Resurrection. And so Jerome, 
addressing John, bishop of Jerusalem, exclaims, ' Why 
did the Lord eat honeycomb ? Not in order to give thee 
licence to eat honey, but in order to demonstrate the truth 
of His Resurrection 2 .' To draw inferences from the rhetorical 
silence of the Fathers as if we were dealing with a mathe- 
matical problem or an Act of Parliament, can only result 
in misconceptions of the meaning of those ancient men. 

As for Origen, there is nothing in either of the two 
places commonly cited from his writings 3 , where he only 
mentions the partaking of * fish,' to preclude the belief that 
Origen knew of the ' honeycomb ' also in St. Luke xxiv. 42. 
We have but fragments of his Commentary on St. Luke 4 , 
and an abridged translation of his famous Commentary 
on Canticles. Should these works of his be hereafter 
recovered in their entirety, I strongly suspect that a certain 
scholium in Cordier's Catena on St. Luke 5 , which contains 
a very elaborate recognition of the ' honeycomb,' will be 
found to be nothing else but an excerpt from one or other 
of them. At foot the learned reader will be gratified by 
the sight of the original Greek of the scholium referred to 6 , 

1 ' Favos post fella gustavit.' De Corona, c. 14 (i. p. 455). 

2 ii. 444 a. a i. 384 ; iii. 477. 

* Opp. iii. 932-85 : with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and 

5 Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from ' Venet 494' (our 'Evan. 466'). 

6 What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo, the 
learned librarian of St. Mark's, from the Catena on St. Luke's Gospel at 
Venice (cod. 494 = 0111 Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628) translated into 


which Cordier so infelicitously exhibits in Latin. He will 
at least be made aware that if it be not Origen who there 
speaks to us, it is some other very ancient father, whose 
testimony to the genuineness of the clause now under con- 
sideration is positive evidence in its favour which greatly 
outweighs the negative evidence of the archetype of B-K. 
But in fact as a specimen of mystical interpretation, the 
passage in question is quite in Origen's way 1 has all his 
fervid wildness, in all probability is actually his. 

Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be seen at p. 622 of his 
badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The first part of it (awtfpaye . . . 
(vaTToypdipovTai) is occasionally found as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 
27 (our Evan. 2io\ and is already known to scholars from Matthaei's N. T. 
(note on Luc. xxiv. 42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the 
first time) I exhibit for the reader's convenience parallel with a passage of 
Gregory of Nyssa's Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of what is 
found in the second column is not quoting what is found in the first, it is at 
least certain that both have resorted to, and are here quoting from the same 
lost original: 

2,vvt<payV ot teal TO> OTTTO> IxQva) (sic) TO Ktjpiov TOV /zeAtros* or)\wv w? ol 
8id TTJS Qeias evavOpojirrjafas teal fj,(Tao~xovTs OVTOV TTJS OeoTrjros, ws 
e-ni6vp.ias ras (vroXas avrov Trapaotovrai' KT)pa> uiffirep TOVS vop.ovs 
s' on o plv TOV iraoxa 

d'pTOS Tl TTlKpioOJV l]o~Ot(TO KCLt O .... dpTOS .... OVKCTl 67TI TTlKplScUV 

5lfKf\(VTO' t00l6fJ.(VOS, <1>S O VOU.OS StaK\VTat' 

trpus yap TO irapov 57 irifcpia' Trpos yap TO irapov eo~Tiv 77 iriKpis' 

6 St. fj.fTa Tr t v dvaaraatv dpTos T> ( .... 6 /itrct TT)V dvdaTaniv TOV 

TOV /ue'Atros rjovvtTO' tcvpiov Trpoo~(paveis ToTs ujaOrfrais dpTos 

tOTi, TO) Krjpica TOV pe\nos iJSi/i'o/KJ/os.) 

p eavTOts TO /xt'Xi iroirj(j6u.fOa y dXA.' oif/uv lat/ro) TO /xcAt Trotou/xei/os, 

(v TO> idica Krjpat 6 Kapnos TTJS OTav kv TO) ibly fcaipy 6 Kapiros TTJS 
KaTay\v/caivt TO. TIJS fax?)* dpfrfjs ar ay \vfcaivrj TO. TTJS if/vx^js 
pia. aloOrjTrjpta. 

ANON, apiid Corderium (fol. 58) : GREG. NYSS. in Cant. (Opp. i. a) ; 
see above. the sentence in brackets being trans- 


Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa, HESYCHIUS (or whoever 
else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection) had the same 
original before him when he wrote as follows: oAA' firfidrj 6 irpo TOV Tr^a\a. 
OITOS o d'^y/xos, oifov TTJV -niKpioa %x Cl > 'tiwfJ.ti' TIVI rjOLfffjiaTi 6 ptTa Trjv dvdaraaiv 
dpTos r)ovv(Tai. opds TOV HTpov d\i(vovTos cv TCtiV \fpol TOV tevp'iov dpTOV Kat 
KTjpiov ^f'AtTO? VOTJO-OV TI aoi % iTiKpio. TOV &iov KaTaatcfvafaot. OVKOVV dva- 
o~TavTts KOI rl^fis fK TTJs Tuv \6ycav dAct'as, rjor) TO> dprta Trpoaopdfj.ojfifv, by 
KaTay\VKaiv(t TO Krjpiov TTJS dyaOrjs (\irioos. (ap. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.) 
1 So Matthaei : ' Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.' (N.T. iii. 498.) 


The question however to be decided is clearly not 
whether certain ancient copies of St. Luke were without 
the incident of the honeycomb ; but only whether it is 
reasonable to infer from the premisses that the Evangelist 
made no mention of it. And I venture to anticipate that 
readers will decide this question with me in the negative. 
That, from a period of the remotest antiquity, certain dis- 
turbing forces have exercised a baneful influence over this 
portion of Scripture is a plain fact : and that their combined 
agency should have resulted in the elimination of the 
incident of the ' honeycomb ' from a few copies of St. Luke 
xxiv. 42, need create no surprise. On the other hand, this 
Evangelical incident is attested by the following witnesses : 

In the second century, by Justin M. 1 , by Clemens 
Alexandrinus 2 , by Tertullian 3 , by the Old-Latin, and 
by the Peshitto Version : 

In the third century, by Cureton's Syriac, and by the 
Bohairic : 

In the fourth century, by Athanasius 4 , by Gregory of 
Nyssa 5 , by Epiphanius 6 , by Cyril of Jerusalem 7 , by 
Jerome 8 , by Augustine 9 , and by the Vulgate : 

In the fifth century, by Cyril of Alexandria 10 , by 
Proclus n , by Vigilius Tapsensis 12 , by the Armenian, 
and Ethiopic Versions : 

In the sixth century, by Hesychius and Cod. N 13 : 

In the seventh century, by the Harkleian Version. 

Surely an Evangelical incident attested by so many, 
such respectable, and such venerable witnesses as these, is 
clearly above suspicion. Besides its recognition in the 

1 Kat (<f>fiyf Krjpiov nal l\6vv, ii. 240. From the fragment De Resurrectione 
preserved by John Damascene, ii. 762 a. 

2 See above, note I, p. 247. 3 See above, note T, p. 248. 

4 i. 644 (see above, p. 244, n. 7). 5 i. 624 (see above, p. 242, n. 3). 

6 pp. 210, 431 (see above, p. 243^. 7 i. 652 d (see above, p. 247). 

8 i. 825 a ; ii. 444 a. 9 See above, note i, p. 245. 

10 iv. 1 108. " Apud Galland. ix. 633. 

13 Varim. i. 56. 13 Apud Greg. Nyss. iii. 399. 


ancient scholium to which attention has been largely 
invited already l . we find the incident of the ' honeycomb ' 
recognized by 13 ancient Fathers, by 8 ancient Versions, 
by the unfaltering Tradition of the universal Church. 
above all, by every copy of St. Luke's Gospel in existence 
(as far as is known), uncial as well as cursive except six. 
That it carries on its front the impress of its own genuine- 
ness, is what no one will deny 2 . Yet was Dr. Hort for 
dismissing it without ceremony. ' A singular interpolation 
evidently from an extraneous source, written or oral,' he 
says. A singular hallucination, we venture to reply, based 
on ideal grounds and 'a system [of Textual Criticism] 
hopelessly self-condemned 3 ;' seeing that that ingenious 
and learned critic has nothing to urge except that the 
words in dispute are omitted by B-N, by A seldom found 
in the Gospels in such association, by D of the sixth 
century, by L of the eighth, by n of the ninth. 

I have been so diffuse on this place because I desire 
to exhibit an instance shewing that certain perturbations 
of the sacred Text demand laborious investigation, have 
a singular history of their own, may on no account be 
disposed of in a high-handed way, by applying to them 
any cut and dried treatment, nay I must say, any arbitrary 
shibboleth. The clause in dispute enjoys in perfection 
every note of a genuine reading: viz. number, antiquity, 
variety, respectability of witnesses, besides continuity of 
attestation : every one of which notes are away from that 
exhibition of the text which is contended for by my 
opponents 4 . Tischendorf conjectures that the ' honeycomb ' 

1 See above, p. 248, note 6. 

2 ' The words could hardly have been an interpolation.' (Alford, in fac ) 
* Scrivener's Introd. II. p. 358. 

4 It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, tf , and D to lie bad 
manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for not 
following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts convinced me that he 
was right and I was wrong. We came together upon independent investigation. 


may have been first brought in from the ' Gospel of the 
Hebrews.' What if, on the contrary, by the Valentinian 
' Gospel of Truth,' a composition of the second century, 
the ' honeycomb ' should have been first thrust out ] ? The 
plain statement of Epiphanius (quoted above 2 ) seems to 
establish the fact that his maimed citation was derived 
from that suspicious source. 

Let the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury 
occasionally sustained by the Evangelical text in a very 
remote age from the evil influence of the fabricated narra- 
tives, or Diatessarojis, which anciently abounded. The 
genuineness of the clause /cat anb fxeAto-o-tov KTJPLOV, it is 
hoped, will never more be seriously called in question. 
Surely it has been demonstrated to be quite above 
suspicion 3 . 

I find that those MSS. in disputed passages are almost always wrong mainly r 
if not entirely, the authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of 
them ? And nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view. 
Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry before 
a vast array of facts. E. M. 

1 Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c) ut supra (Haer. xxx. c. 19) with Irenaens 
(iii. c. ii, 9): 'Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in tantum processerunt 
audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est Veritatis Evangelium 

2 See above, p. 243. 

3 There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian reading. 
Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as honeycomb. See 
above, p. 150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it may be remembered 
that it restricts St. John Baptist's food to locusts ' and the honey of the 
mountain.' E. M. 


[The Dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers.] 

WHEN He had reached the place called Golgotha, there 
were some who offered to the Son of Man (tbibow ' were for 
giving ' Him) a draught of wine drugged with myrrh 1 . He 
would not so much as taste it. Presently, the soldiers gave 
Him while hanging on the Cross vinegar mingled with 
gall 2 . This He tasted, but declined to drink. At the end 
of six hours, He cried, ' I thirst ' : whereupon one of the 
soldiers ran, rilled a sponge with vinegar, and gave Him 
to drink by offering the sponge up to His mouth secured 
to the summit of the reed of aspersion : whereby (as 
St. John significantly remarks) it covered the bunch of 
ceremonial hyssop which was used for sprinkling the 
people 3 . This time He drank; and exclaimed, 'It is 

Now, the ancients, and indeed the moderns too, have 
hopelessly confused this pathetic story by identifying the 
1 vinegar and gall ' of St. Matt, xxvii. 34 with the ' myrrhed 
wine ' of St. Mark xv. 23 ; shewing therein a want of critical 
perception which may reasonably excite astonishment ; for 

oivov, Mark xv. 23. 

2 "Oo$ fj-ercL x^ s nefuyufvov, Matt, xxvii. 34 ( = Luke xxiii. 37). 

3 n\r)ffavTfs airoyyov oovs, KOI iaawna TrfpiOfVTfs, John xix. 29. 


4 wine ' is not ' vinegar,' neither is ' myrrh ' * gall.' And 
surely, the instinct of humanity which sought to alleviate 
the torture of crucifixion by administering to our Saviour 
a preliminary soporific draught, was entirely distinct from 
the fiendish malice which afterwards with a nauseous potion 
strove to aggravate the agony of dissolution. Least of all 
is it reasonable to identify the leisurely act of the insolent 
soldiery at the third hour *, with what ' one of them ' (evi- 
dently appalled by the darkness) ' ran ' to do at the ninth 2 . 
Eusebius nevertheless, in his clumsy sectional system, 
brackets 3 together these three places (St. Matt, xxvii. 34, 
St. Mark xv. 23, St. John xix. 29) : while moderns (as the ex- 
cellent Isaac Williams) and ancients (as Cyril of Jerusalem) 4 
alike strenuously contend that the two first must needs 
be identical. The consequence might have been foreseen. 
Besides the substitution of ' wine ' for ' vinegar ' (oivov for 
oo?) which survives to this day in nineteen copies of 
St. Matt, xxvii. 34, the words c and gall ' are found im- 
properly thrust into four or five copies of St. John xix. 29. 
As for Eusebius and Macarius Magnes, they read St. John 
xix. 29 after such a monstrous fashion of their own, that 
I propose to invite separate attention to it in another 
place. Since however the attempt to assimilate the fourth 
Gospel to the first (by exhibiting ofo? \j.tra xoArjs in St. John 
xix. 29) is universally admitted to be indefensible, it need 
not occupy us further. 

I return to the proposed substitution of olvov for ofo9 in 
St. Matt, xxvii. 34, and have only to point out that it is as 

1 Matt, xxvii. 34 ( = Luke xxiii. 37). 

a Kat eiQfcus ^>pa/j.uv (is avrwv, Matt, xxvii. 48 ( = Mark xv. 36). 

3 Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies 
(i) Matt, xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23 ; and (2) Matt, xxvii. 48 with Mark xv. 36 
and Luke xxiii. 36 ; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John xix. 29 parallel with 
these last three. 

4 The former, pp. 286-7: the latter, p. 197. The Cod. Fuld. ingeniously 
' Et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum ' (Ranke, p. 154). 


plain an instance of enforced harmony as can be produced. 
That it exists in many copies of the Old-Latin, and lingers 
on in the Vulgate: is the reading of the Egyptian, Ethiopic, 
and Armenian Versions and the Lewis Cod.; and survives 
in BNDKLn, besides thirteen of the cursives 1 ; all this 
will seem strange to those only who have hitherto failed 
to recognize the undeniable fact that Codd. B-X DL are 
among the foulest in existence. It does but prove how 
inveterately, as well as from how remote a period, the error 
under discussion has prevailed. And yet, the great and old 
Peshitto Version, Barnabas 2 , Irenaeus 3 , Tertullian 4 , 
Celsus 5 , Origen 6 , the Sibylline verses in two places 7 
(quoted by Lactantius), and ps.-Tatian 8 , are more ancient 

Evann. i, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513. 


Pp. 526,681 (Mass. 212, 277). 

De Spect. written A.D. 198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413"), c. xxx. i. p. 62. 

' " Et dederunt ei bibere acetum et fel." Pro eo quod dulci suo vino eos 
laetificarat, acetum ei porrexerunt ; pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio 
amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.' Evan. Cone. p. 245. 

6 Celsus TO oos KOI T^V \o^r}v waSifa TO> 'Irjaov, writes Origen (i. 416 cde), 
quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and refuting it, but accepting 
the reference to the Gospel record. This he does twice, remarking on the 
second occasion (i. 703 b c) that such as Celsus are for ever offering to JESUS 
* gall and vinegar' (These passages are unknown to many critics because they 
were overlooked by Griesbach.) Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921 b) 
recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting the record in 
Matt, xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way which shews that he accounted 
the places parallel : ' Et hoc considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem 
Jesus accipicns acetum ctim felle permixtum gustavit, et noluit bibere : 
secundum Marcum autem, cum daretur et myrrhatum vinum, non accepit.' 
iii. 921 b. 

7 Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of Antoninus 
Pius), ap. Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (tis 8 TO Ppa/m xokrjv, KOI els 
tityav oos eSoaKav ,} is also found in Montfaucon's Appendix (Palaeogr. 246). 
Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i. 346 a els 8( TO ^pupa xoA^i/, at tfs TTOTOV vos dttpaTov ; 
ibid. viii. 303, 395 c . . . meiv ooy !oami/ ; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c. 18, 
A.D. 320, Gall. iv. 300 a . . . tls 8tyav oos (Scutcav, which is the way the line is 
quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon's Appendix (Pal. Grace. 246). Lactantius 
a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had said, ' Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et mis- 
cuerunt ei aceti potionem.' 

8 Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the statement is 
repeated. Evan. Cone. p. 245. See above, note 5. 


authorities than any of the preceding, and they all yield 
adverse testimony. 

Coming down to the fourth century, (to which B-K 
belong,) those two Codexes find themselves contradicted by 
Athanasius 1 in two places, by another of the same name 2 
who has been mistaken for the patriarch of Alexandria, 
by Eusebius of Emesa 3 , by Theodore of Heraclea 4 , by 
Didymus 5 , by Gregory of Nyssa G , and by his namesake 
of Nazianzus 7 , by Ephraem Syrus 8 , by Lactantius 9 , 
by Jerome 10 , by Rufinus n , by Chrysostom 12 , by 
Severianus of Gabala 13 , by Theodore of Mopsuestia 14 , by 
Cyril of Alexandria 15 , and by Titus of Bostra 16 . Now 
these are more respectable contemporary witnesses to the 
text of Scripture by far than Codexes B-N and D (who 
also have to reckon with A, <|>, and 2 C being mute at the 
place), as well as outnumber them in the proportion of 
24 to 2. To these (8+16 = ) 24 are to be added the 

1 Apud Montf. ii. 63 ; Corderii, Cat. in Luc. p. 599. 

2 The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum (Ath. ii. 
301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and which the editor 
pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II. viii-ix). 

3 Opusc. ed. Angusti, p. 1 6. 

* Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393. 

5 Cord. Cat. in. Ps. ii. 409. 

6 Ov ffVOyytJL X^V Tf Ka ^ fl 8m/3/)oxos, oiav ol 'lot/Safot rS> (vfpycrr) rrjr 
<pi\oTT]aiav fv8iKVVfj.voi 8ia rov KaXapov irporeivovai. i. 624 b (where it should 
be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in Matt, xxvii) are confused). 

7 i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e, f^ias TTJS x^V> *" s 
oovs, 81' S)v TJJV irtfcpav ytvaiv i6epairevdr)(Jifv ( = Cat. Nic. p. 7^8). 

* ii. 48 c, 284 a. 

9 Lib. iv. c. 1 8. See above, last page, note 7. 

10 vii. 236 cd, quoted next page. 

11 ' Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est amarius 
felle.' Rufinus, in Symb. 26. 

12 vii. 8i9ab ( = Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage ascribed 
to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2. 

13 'Jesus de felle una cum aceto amaritudinis libavit.' (Horn, translated by 
Aucher from the Armenian, Venice, 1827, p. 435). 

" Apud Mai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455. 

15 Apud Mai, ii. 66 ; iii. 42. Is this th same place which is quoted in Cord. 
Cat. in Ps. ii. 410? 

16 Apud Galland. v. 332. 


Apocryphal ' Gospel of Nicodemus V which Tischendorf 
assigns to the third century ; the 'Acts of Philip 2 ,' and the 
Apocryphal 'Acts of the Apostles 3 ,' which Dr. Wright 
claims for the fourth; besides Hesychius 4 , Amphilochius 5 , 
ps.-Chrysostom 6 , Maximus 7 , Severus of Antioch 8 , and 
John Damascene 9 , nine names which far outweigh in anti- 
quity and importance the eighth and ninth-century Codexes 
KLIT. Those critics in fact who would substitute ' wine ' 
for ' vinegar ' in St. Matt, xxvii. 34 have clearly no case. 
That, however, which is absolutely decisive of the question 
against them is the fact that every uncial and every cursive 
copy in existence^ except the very few specimens already 
quoted, attest that the oldest known reading of this place 
is the true reading. In fact, the Church has affirmed in 
the plainest manner, from the first, that ofo? (not olvov) is 
to be read here. We are therefore astonished to find her 
deliberate decree disregarded by Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in an attempt on their part 
to revive what is a manifest fabrication, which but for 
the Vulgate would long since have passed out of the 
memory of Christendom. Were they not aware that 
Jerome himself knew better? 'Usque hodie' (he says) 
' Judaei et omnes increduli Dominicae resurrectionis, aceto 
et felle potant Jesum ; et dant ei vinum myrrhatum ut eum 
consopiant, et mala eorum non videat 10 :' whereby he both 
shews that he read St. Matt, xxvii. 34 according to the 
traditional text (see also p. 233 c), and that he bracketed 
together two incidents which he yet perceived were essen- 
tially distinct, and in marked contrast with one another. 
But what most offends me is the deliberate attempt of the 
Revisers in this place. Shall I be thought unreasonable 

1 Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286. 2 p. 85. 8 p. 16. 

4 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410. 5 p. 87. 6 x. 829. 

7 ii. 84, 178. 8 Cramer, Cat. i. 235. 

9 i. 228, 549. 10 vii. -236 cd. 



if I avow that it exceeds my comprehension how such 
a body of men can have persuaded themselves that it is 
fair to eject the reading of an important place of Scripture 
like the present, and to substitute for it a reading resting 
upon so slight a testimony without furnishing ordinary 
Christian readers with at least a hint of what they had 
done ? They have considered the evidence in favour of 
'wine* (in St. Matt, xxvii. 34) not only 'decidedly prepon- 
derating,' but the evidence in favour of 'vinegar' so slight 
as to render the word undeserving even of a place in the 
margin. Will they find a sane jury in Great Britain to be 
of the same opinion ? Is this the candid and equitable 
action befitting those who were set to represent the Church 
in this momentous business ? 



THE eternal Godhead of CHRIST was the mark at which, 
in the earliest age of all, Satan persistently aimed his most 
envenomed shafts. St. John, in many a well-known place, 
notices this ; begins and ends his Gospel by proclaiming 
our Saviour's Eternal Godhead 1 ; denounces as 'deceivers,' 
' liars,' and * antichrists,' the heretical teachers of his own 
day who denied this 2 ; which shews that their malice was 
in full activity before the end of the first century of our 
era ; ere yet, in fact, the echoes of the Divine Voice had 
entirely died out of the memory of very ancient men. 
These Gnostics found something singularly apt for their 
purpose in a famous place of the Gospel, where the blessed 
Speaker seems to disclaim for Himself the attribute of 
' goodness/ in fact seems to distinguish between Himself 
and GOD Allusion is made to an incident recorded with 
remarkable sameness of expression by St. Matthew (xix. 
16, 17), St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St. Luke (xviii. 18, ig), 
concerning a certain rich young Ruler. This man is 
declared by all three to have approached our LORD with 
one and the same question, to have prefaced it with one 
and the same glozing address, ( Good Master ! ' and to 

1 St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31. 

2 I St. John ii. 18, 22, 23 ; iv. i, 2, 3, 15 ; v. 10, n, 12, 20; 2 St. John ver. 
7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4. 

S 2 


have been checked by the object of his adulation with one 
and the same reproof; 'Why dost thou [who takest me 
for an ordinary mortal like thyself 1 ] call me good ? No 
one is good [essentially good 2 ] save one,' that is ' GOD.' 
. . . See, said some old teachers, fastening blindly on the 
letter, He disclaims being good : ascribes goodness ex- 
clusively to the Father : separates Himself from very and 
eternal God 3 . . . . The place was accordingly eagerly fas- 
tened on by the enemies of the Gospel 4 : while, to vindicate 
the Divine utterance against the purpose to which it was 
freely perverted, and to establish its true meaning, is found 
to have been the endeavour of each of the most illustrious 
of the Fathers in turn. Their pious eloquence would fill 
a volume 5 . Gregory of Nyssa devotes to this subject the 
eleventh book of his treatise against Eunomius 6 . 

In order to emphasize this impious as well as shallow 
gloss the heretic Valentinus (A. D. 120), with his 

1 So Athanasius excellently : 6 Of 6s avvapiOfjcqaas (avrov pera rwv dvdpwirow, 
Kara rrjv ffdprea avrov rovro fine, /eal irpos rov vovv rov irpoa (\06vros avrw' 
(Kewos yap dvOpairov avrov (vop.t^( p.ovov leal ov 6(ov, nal rovrov e^ei rov vovv -f) 
diroKpiais. Et p*v yap dvOpcairov, (prjfft, vo^i^eis p. Kal ov 6(6v, yd] /*e Ae-ye 
dyaOov ovStis yap dya06s' ov yap 8ia<p(pci [is not an attribute or adornment of] 
dvOpumvT] <pv<r(i ro dyaOov, dAAct 0(>. i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13. 
See also below, note 2, p. 262. 

2 So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer's Thesaurus ; see Pearson on the 
Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17. 

3 So Marcion (ap. Epiph.), cure ns irpos avrov 8i5ao-Ka\t dyaOt, ri iroirjaas 
^UT)J/ alujviov K\r]povofj.rjaca ; 6 8c, M pe \fyere dyaOuv, (Is canv dyaOus, o Q(us 
o narfjp [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii. 
18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254, Tt /te \yre dyaOuv (is effnv dyaOos. 

* So Arius (ap. Epiphanium), dra -na\iv <pr)ai o fjtaviworjs 'Ape/os, TTWS (Jirev 
6 Kvpios, Tt fie \(y(is dyaOov (Is (anv dyaOos o &(6s. ws avrov upi'ovfj.(i-ov 
rriv dyaOur-qra [i. 742 b]. From this, Arius inferred a separate essence : Kal 
d<pwpia(v eavrov VT(vO(v dirb rfjs rov TLarpos otxrias re Kai v-nocfrdafcas. ro 5^ 
irdv (cm y(\oiwoes [i. 780 c], Note, that this shews how St. Luke's Gospel 
was quoted by the Arians. 

5 E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Cone. 173, 174. Ambrose, ii. 473 6-476 d. 
Gregory Naz. i. 549. Didymus, Trin. 50-3. Basil, i. 291 c. Epiphanius, 
i. 780-1. Macarius Magnes, 12-14. Theodoret, v. 930-2. Augustine is very 
eloquent on the subject. 

6 ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281. 


disciples, Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, the Marcosians, the 
Naassenes, Marcion (A.D. 150), and the rest of the Gnostic 
crew, not only substituted ' One is good ' for ' No one 
is good but one,' but evidently made it a great point 
besides to introduce the name of the FATHER, either in 
place of, or else in addition to, the name of 'GOD 1 .' So 
plausible a depravation of the text was unsuspiciously 
adopted by not a few of the orthodox. It is found in 
Justin Martyr 2 , in pseudo-Tatian 3 , in the Clementine 
homilies 4 . And many who, like Clemens Alex., Origen, 
the Dialogus, and pseudo-Tatian (in five places), are careful 
to retain the Evangelical phrase ' No one is good but one 
[that is] GOD,' even they are observed to conclude the 
sentence with the heretical addition ' THE FATHER 5 .' I am 
not of course denying that the expression is theologically 
correct : but only am requesting the reader to note that, 

1 Thus, Valentinus (ap. Clem. Alex.), ds 8t kariv dyaOos, ov irapovala q 
otd rov vlov <t)av(p<uo~is . . . . o povos dyaOos Harrjp [Strom, ii. 409]. Heracleon 
(ap. Orig.), o yap ne^as avrbv Harrfp, .... ovros KO.I povos dyaOos, ical pdfav 
rov ir(n<pO(vros [iv. I39b]. Ptolemaeus to Flora (ap. Epiphanium), KOI t o 
r(\(ios 0<js dyaOos (art Kara rty tavrov (pvcriv, ucrnep nal ZCTTIV (va yap u,ovov 
(ivai dfaOuv Q(6v, rov tavrov Ilarepa, 6 'Sovrfjp TIUMV djrf>rjvaTo, bv avros ((f>av(- 
pojofv [i. 221 c]. The Marcosian gloss was, els larlv dyaOos, u Ilarf/p iv rots 
ovpavois [ap. Irenaeum, p. 92]. The Naassenes substituted, (is forlv dya&6s, 
6 Tlarrjp pov o Iv rots ovpavois, os dvarc\ei rov ij\iov avrov K.r.\. [ap. Hippolyt. 
Philosoph. 102]. Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St. Luke's 
Gospel, els earlv dyaOos, 6 &eos 6 Ilarrjp [ap. Epiphan. i. 339 d, and comp. 

2 Efs o~riv dyaOus, 6 Harrjp uov o \v rots ovpavois. Tryph. c. IOI [vol. ii. 


3 ' Unus tantum ' (ait) ' est bonus, Pater qui in coelis est? Evan. Cone, 
p. 173 and on p. 169, ' Unus tantum" 1 (ait) ' est bonus': ast post haec non 
tacuit, sed adjecit ' Pater? 

* MT? f* \cye dyaOov 6 yap dyaOos (is (ffnv (ap. Galland. ii. 752 d). And 
so at p. 759 a and d, adding 6 TIirr)p o (v rois oupavois. This reference will 
be found vindicated below : in note 8, p. 269. 

5 For the places in Clemens Alex, see below, note 3, p. 263. The places 
in Origen are at least six: Tt fj.( \(y(is dyaOov ; ovods dyaOos tt /XT) (is, o @(os 
o narrjp [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a ; iv. 41 d: and the last nine words, iv. 65 d, 
147 a]. For the places in ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p. 263. The place in 
the Dialogus is found ap. Orig. i. 804 b : \(yovros rov Xpiarofr ovdels dyaOos 
el p.r) (Is o Harrjp words assigned to Megethius the heretic. 


on the present occasion, it is clearly inadmissible ; seeing 
that it was no part of our Saviour's purpose, as Didymus, 
Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret point out, to reveal 
Himself to such an one as the rich young ruler in His 
own essential relation to the Eternal Father 1 , to pro- 
claim in short, in this chance way, the great mystery of 
the Godhead : but only (as the ancients are fond of point- 
ing out) to reprove the man for his fulsomeness in address- 
ing one of his fellows (as he supposed) as 'good 2 .' In the 
meantime, the extent to which the appendix under dis- 
cussion prevails in the Patristic writings is a singular illus- 
tration of the success with which, within 60 or 70 years of 
its coming into being, the text of Scripture was assailed ; 
and the calamitous depravation to which it was liable. 
Surprising as well as grievous to relate, in every recent 
critical recension of the Greek text of St. Matthew's 
Gospel, the first four words of the heretical gloss (et? eo-nz/ 
6 ayaOos) have been already substituted for the seven words 
before, found there (ovdets ayaOos ei jur) ei?, 6 0os); and 
(more grievous still) now, at the end of 1700 years, an 
effort is being made to establish this unauthorized formula 
in our English Bibles also. This is done, be it observed, in 
opposition to the following torrent of ancient testimony: 
viz., in the second century, the Peshitto Version, Justin 

1 Didymus, OVK el-nev u.ev ovftels dyaOos el /XT) els o UaTTjp' d\\' ovSds dyaOos 
el u.^ els & &eos [p. 51]. And Ambrose,' Circumspect! one coelesti non dixit, 
Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater, sed Aewo bonus nisi unus Dens' 1 \\\. 474 b]. 
And Chrysostom, errrjya-^ev, el /n) 6ts o Qe6s. Kal OVK elrrev, el pf) u narrjp pov, 
J>a pdOys OTI OVK eena.\v\f;ev eavrov T> veaviaKu [vii. 628 b : quoted by Victor, 
Ant. in Cat. p. 220]. And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii 392, 
396), OVK eiprjrcu, OvSels ufaOos, el ft?) eis, o Uarrjp. dAA', OvSels uyaOvs, el pf) 
els, 6 cos [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the references above, in note I, p. 261] 
expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition (to Luke xviii. 18) was the 
work of the heretic Marcion. 

2 ' Dicendo autem " Quid me vocas bonum" opinionem eius qui interrogaverat 
suo response refutavit, quid iste ftitabat Christum de hCic terrd et sicut nnnm 
ex magistris Israelitarum esse," ps.-Tatian, Evan. Cone. p. Jfj. ' Dives per 
adulationem honoravit Filium . . . sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare 
volunt? Ibid. p. 168. 


Martyr 1 , ps.-Tatian (5 times) 2 , Clemens Alex, (twice) 3 : 
in the third century, the Sahidic Version, ps.-Dionysius 
Areopag. 4 : in the fourth century, Eusebius (3 times) 5 , 
Macarius Magnes (4 times) , Basil 7 , Chrysostom 8 : 
Athanasius 9 , Gregory Nyss. (3 times) 10 , and Didymus 
apparently (twice) 11 : in the fifth century, Cod. C, 
Augustine in many places 12 , Cyril Alex. 13 , and Theodoret 
(8 times) 14 : in the sixth century, Antiochus mon. 15 , the 
Opus imperf}^ with theHarkleian and the Ethiopic Version. 
. . . When to these 21 authorities have been added all the 
known copies, except six of dissentients, an amount of 
ancient evidence has been adduced which must be held to 
be altogether decisive of a question like the present 17 . 

For what, after all, is the proper proof of the genuine- 
ness of any reading, but the prevailing consent of Copies, 

1 Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42!, quoted below in note 2, p. 265. 

2 ' Cui respondit, " Non est aliquis bonus" ut tu putasti, "nisi tantum umis 
Deus Pater" .... " JVemo" (sit) " bonus, nisi tantum unus, Pater qui est in 
coelis" [Evan. Cone. p. 169]. "Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus" [Ibid.]. 
" Non est I/onus, nisi tantum unus qui est in coelis " [p. 170]. " Non est bonus 
nisi tantum unus '" [p. 173]. 

3 Ou IJ.TJV dX\d Kal 6iTT]vif{a 8iappr)8r)V Ae-yef Ov8fls a-yaOos, 6i pr) o narrjp pov, 
6 ev rots ovpavois [p. 141]. And overleaf, dAAd cu oue? cryatfos, ct ft?) 6 

avrov [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the reference, 
i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p. 269. 
Praep. Evan. 542 b ; Ps. 426 d ; ap. Mai, iv. 101. 
Ou5as dyaOos ei /*T) els, 6 (=)eos (p. 12). 
ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.) 

vii. 628 b, ov ydp fine, ri fie \eyets dyaOov ; OVK ct/it dyaOos' d\\', ouSfls 
dya&us . . . . et /XT) els 6 0e6s. See also vii. 329. 

9 i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21) by all 
that follows. 
10 ii. 691 d; 694 be. See below, note 10, p. 267. u Trin. 50, 51. 

12 ' Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus':\v. 383 c ; v. 488 b ; viii. 770 d, 772 b. 

13 v. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a ( = 672 b). 

14 v. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all four 
hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark that is common to 
all four, quoted above in note i, last page. There is nothing to shew from 
which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the words ouSei? dya06s, el ^ tl; 6 eus. 

15 p. 1028, unequivocally. l6 Ap. Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b. 

17 Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently as it is 
given in St. Mark and St. Luke, but with no special reference. Surely some of 
these must refer to St. Matthew I 


Fathers, Versions? This fundamental truth, strangely 
overlooked in these last days, remains unshaken. For 
if the universal consent of Copies, when sustained by a free 
appeal to antiquity, is not to be held definitive, what in 
the world is? Were the subject less solemn there would 
be something diverting in the naivete of the marginal note 
of the revisers of 1881, ' Some ancient authorities read . . . 
" None is good save one [even] God." ' How many 
' ancient authorities ' did the Revisers suppose exhibit 
anything else? 

But all this, however interesting and instructive, would 
have attracted little attention were it not for the far more 
serious corruption of the Sacred Text, which has next to 
be considered. The point to be attended to is, that at the 
very remote period of which we are speaking, it appears 
that certain of the Orthodox, with the best intentions 
doubtless, but with misguided zeal, in order to counteract 
the pernicious teaching which the enemies of Christianity 
elicited from this place of Scripture, deliberately falsified 
the inspired record 1 . Availing themselves of a slight 
peculiarity in St. Matthew's way of exhibiting the words 
of the young Ruler, (namely, ' What good thing shall 
I do,') they turned our LORD'S reply, * Why callest thou 
me good?' in the first Gospel, into this, ' Why askest thou 
me concerning the good '?' The ensuing formula which the 
heretics had devised, ' One there is that is good! with 
some words of appendix concerning God the Father, as 
already explained, gave them no offence, because it occa- 
sioned them no difficulty. It even suited their purpose 
better than the words which they displaced. On the other 
hand, they did not fail to perceive that the epithet 'good/ 
* Good Master,' if suffered to remain in the text, would 
witness inconveniently against them, by suggesting our 

1 For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II. 


LORD'S actual reply, viz. * Why callest thou me good ? ' 
Accordingly, in an evil hour, they proceeded further to 
erase the word dya#e from their copies. It is a significant 
circumstance that the four uncial Codexes (BNDL) which 
exclusively exhibit ri /xe epwras Trept rov ayadov ; are exclu- 
sively the four which omit the epithet ayadL 

The subsequent history of this growth of error might 
have been foreseen. Scarcely had the passage been pieced 
together than it began to shew symptoms of disintegration ; 
and in the course of a few centuries, it had so effectually 
disappeared, that tokens of it here and there are only to 
be found in a few of the earliest documents. First, the 
epithet (dya#e) was too firmly rooted to admit of a sentence 
of perpetual banishment from the text. Besides retaining 
its place in every known copy of the Gospels except eight 1 , 
it survives to this hour in a vast majority of the most 
ancient documents. Thus, aya&t is found in Justin Martyr 2 
and in ps.-Tatian 3 : in the remains of the Marcosian 4 , 
and of the Naassene 5 Gnostics; as well as in the Peshitto, 
and in the Old Latin versions : in the Sahidic, and the 
Bohairic version, besides in the Clementine Homilies 6 , in 
Cureton and Lewis, and in the Vulgate: in Origen 7 , in 

1 BNDL. i, 22, 479, Evst. 5. 

2 Kcu TrpoaeXOovTos aura) TIVOS Hal (ITTOVTOS' AtSaotcaXf ayaOe, arreKpivaro 
Xtycav OvSeis ayaOos ti /XT) povos u eo? 6 iroirjaas ra iravra. Apol. I. c. 1 6 
[vol. i. p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. 101 [vol. ii. p. 344], \tyovros aura) 
TWOS' AioaffKaXe ayaOe' K.T.\. 

3 ' Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus? (The 
reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew's Gospel : which is further proved by 
the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 1 7 : also by the inquiry, 
' Quid adhuc mihi deest ? ') ' Ille dives bonum eum vocavit.' ' Dives 
Uomimim ' Magistrum bonum " vocaverat sicut unum ex donis magistris? 
Evan. Cone. 168, 169. 

4 Ap. Irenaeum, p. 92. See below, note 2, p. 267. 

5 Ap. Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p. 267. 

6 MT; ^e \eyt dyaOuv (ap. Galland. ii. 759 d : comp. 752 b). For the 
reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p. 269. 

7 Comment, in Matt. xv. (in loc.). 


Athanasius 1 , and in Basil 2 , and in Cyril of Jerusalem 3 : 
in Ephraem Syrus 4 , and in Gregory of Nyssa 5 : in 
Macarius Magnes 6 , and in Chrysostom 7 : in Juvencus 8 , 
Hilary 9 , Gaudentius 10 , Jerome 11 , and Augustine 12 ; 
lastly in Vigilius Tapsensis 13 : in Cyril Alex. 14 , in Theo- 
doret 15 , in Cod. C, in the Harkleian Version, and in the 
Opus impcrfectttm. So that, at the end of 1700 years, 
6 witnesses of the second century, 3 of the third, 14 of 
the fourth, 4 of the fifth, 2 of the sixth, come back 
from all parts of Christendom to denounce the liberty 
taken by the ancients, and to witness to the genuineness 
of the traditional text. 

So much then, (i) For the unauthorized omission of 
ayafle, and (2) For the heretical substitution of els- eorii; 
6 dyaOos in the room of ouSet? dyaOos d f/r) els 6 eo'j. We 
have still to inquire after the fate of the most conspicuous 
fabrication of the three : viz. (3) The substitution of 
Tt p. epcora? 7T6/H TOV dyaOov ; for rt j/e Aeyeis dyaOov ; What 

1 i. 875 a, clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18, 19, 

2O, 21. 

2 Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e, dya& 5i5a<r/caAe, aKovaas. Again in ii. 242 c, and 
2796, expressly. See also iii. 361 a. 

3 Ka0cls aireKfivaro TO) Trpofff \.6uvn KOI elnovTi, At5aaaAc ayaOt, ri iroirjaoj "iva. 
an)v aiwviov X& I Catech. 299. 

4 iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew). 

5 TLpoarjti Ocairfixav rrf rov dyadov irpoffrjyopiq TJ Kvpiov .... At5acrKa\ov 
i^aOov bvonafav. Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also irpos rov VZOVIOKOV a.'yaQjv 
GVTOV Trpoaayopfvaavra' Tt p* \eytis aya.9ov ; (ap. Mai, iv. 12). 

6 'O vfaviffKOS Kfivos .... irpu0(\0a.v dL(\fytro tyaaituv' Ai8affKa\ aya.6e, 

p. 12. 

7 vii. 628 b. 8 lib. iii. 503. 

9 994 c. 10 Ap. Sabatier. 

11 vii. 147-8. 

12 iii. 1 761 d; iii. 2 82 d [ibi enim et bonum nominavit] ; iv. 1279 g; v. 
196 g. 

13 Ap. Sabatier. 

11 v. P. i. 34') a ( = 672 b), irpoafpxfTai TIS Iv TOIS (vayyc\iots, KCLI <f>T)<ri .... 

15 Tt fj. \tytts dyaOuv ; v. 931. See note I, p. 262. 

16 Magister bone, qtiid boni faciam ut vitatn aeternam possideam ? 
Chrysost. vi. I37d, 


support do the earliest witnesses lend to the inquiry, 
' Why askest thou me concerning the good?' . . . That 
patent perversion of the obvious purport of our Saviour's 
address, I answer, is disallowed by Justin Martyr 1 
(A.D. 140), by the Marcosians 2 , and the Naassenes 3 
(A. D. 150), by the Clementine homilies 4 , and ps.- 
Tatian 5 (third century) ; by the Peshitto and the Thebaic 
version ; by Macarius Magnes 6 , Athanasius 7 , and 
Basil 8 ; by Hilary 9 , Gregory of Nyssa 10 ; by Chrysos- 
tom 11 , by Cyril Alex. 12 , by Theodoret 13 , by the Opus 
imperfecium l \ by the Harkleian, and the Armenian 
versions. I have produced 18 witnesses, 4 belonging to the 
second century : 3 to the third : 6 to the fourth : 5 to the 
fifth. Moreover they come from every part of ancient 
Christendom. Such an amount of evidence, it must be 
again declared, is absolutely decisive of a question of this 

avrw TWOS, AtSda/mAe dyaOf, dtrftcpivaTO' Tt fJLf \eyets dyaOov fls 
eo~nv dyados, u Tlarrjp JJLOV 6 iv TOIS ovpavois [Tryph. c. 101, vol. it. 344]. And 
see the place (Apol. i. 16^ quoted above, note 2, p. 265. 

2 Marcosians (ap. Irenaeum), Kcu TO> ditovrt avra>, AiSaattaXe dyade, ruv 
d\r)6ws dyaOuv eov ajfj.o\oyr)Kvai tiirovTa, Tt pf \tyfis dyaOov ; ets tanv 
dyaOos, 6 TlaT-rjp iv rots ovpavois [p. 92]. No one who studies the question will 
affect to doubt that this quotation and the next are from St. Matthew's 

3 The Naassenes (a,p. Hippolytum), To virb TOV Somjpos Xtyo/jievov' Tt fie 
Xeyfis uyaOuv ; ds \anv dya&os, o Harifp JJ.QV 6 ev n?s ovpavois, bs dvar\i rov 
rfXiov avrov eirl oiitaiovs feat doiKovs, Kal @pf-%i firl oaiovs xal a^aprcaXots 
[Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former note 5, p. 265. 

4 See below, note 8, p. 269. 

5 ' Cur vocas me bonum, qtium in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus sim?' 
Evan. Cone. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3, p. 265. 

6 This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been raised by the 
heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. Tt /*e \tycis dya06v ; pp. 
12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p. 263. 

7 i. 875 a. See last page, note 9. 8 ii. 279 e. 

9 Quid me vocas bonum ? 703. 

10 ii. 692 d. Also ap. Mai, iv. 7, 12 (irpus TOV vfdviffKov}. 

11 vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note i, p. 262. 

rj v. 346 a (TrpoatpxTai TIS tv TOIS tvay)t\iois /c.r.A.) =p. 672 b. 

13 v. 931, which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom 
(vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole page. 

14 Ap. Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b. 


nature. Whether men care more for Antiquity or for 
Variety of testimony ; whether Respectability of witnesses 
or vastly preponderating Numbers, more impresses the 
imagination, they must needs admit that the door is here 
closed against further debate. The traditional text of 
St. Matt. xix. 16, 17 is certainly genuine, and must be 
allowed to stand unmolested. 

For it is high time to inquire, What, after all, is the 
evidence producible on the other side ? The exhibition of 
the text, I answer, which recommends itself so strongly to 
my opponents that they have thrust it bodily into the 
Gospel, is found in its entirety only with that little band 
of witnesses which have already so often come before us ; 
and always with false testimony. I am saying that Origen 1 
in the third century, Codd. B-tf in the fourth, Cod. D 
in the fifth, Cod. L in the eighth, besides a couple of 
cursive Codexes (Evann. i and 22), are literally the whole 
of the producible evidence for the Revisers' text in its 
entirety. Not that even these seven so-called consentient 
witnesses are in complete accord among themselves. On 
the contrary. The discrepancy between them is perpetual. 
A collation of them with the traditional text follows : 

Kcu idou eij Trpo(T\6a)v i7Ti> (D \itot Orig. BNL] Aeyet) 
auro> (Btf [not Orig. DL] aura) eiTre), AiSao-xaAe ayatfe (Orig. 
BtfDL aya0), rt ayaOov Troirjo-a) (NL [not Orig. BD] -rroir]- 
<ras) u a x<a (Orig. BD [not NL] ^x) C Mr l v auaviov (Orig. 
GG4b tfL [not Orig. 6G4a BD] farjv a^viov KArjpoz/o/xrjo-a)) ; 
o be eiTttv auro>, Tt jxe Xeyeiy ayaQov (Orig. 66t " 5 BNDL 
rt fxe pa>ras [Orig. C66b 7repa)ras] -rre/H rou (Orig. 664c D 
[not Orig. 665 ' 666b BNL] TOW) ayaOov); ovoety aya6os ei /ur? 
as o 0eoj (BNDL tts ea-nv o (D [not Orig. BtfL] o) aya^os). 

1 Kat I5ov, fis irpofffXOwv (Tircv aura)* Ai5a<?Ka\(, rt ayaOov Troirjaoj, iva ax^> 
faty alwviov ; (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits (like the five 
authorities specified in note 8, next page) 'iva fafjv alwviov K\ijpovop.i]aoj ;) . . . Tt 
fif cpwras 7T/)t TOV (but rov six lines lower down) ayaOov ; eis kariv o 
in Matt. iii. 664 a b. And so p. 665 c. Cf. 666 b. 


Can it be possibly reasonable to avow that such an amount 
of discrepancy between witnesses which claim to be con- 
sentient, inspires confidence rather than distrust in every 
one of them ? 

The reader is next to be told that there survive, as 
might have been expected, traces in sundry quarters of 
this threefold ancient fraud (as it seems to be rather 
than blunder) ; as in Justin 1 , and the Marcosian 2 , and 
Naassene heretics 3 ; the Latin Versions 4 ; the Bohairic 5 ; 
the Cureton and Lewis 6 ; pseudo-Dionysius 7 , the Clementine 
homilies 8 and Eusebius 9 ; Cyril Alex. 10 and Antiochus the 
monk 11 (A.D. 614); Hilary 12 , Jerome 13 , and Augustine 14 ; 

I See above, note 2, p. 261. 2 See above, note 2, p. 261. 

3 See above, note 2, p. 261. 

4 a e ff 1 omit bone ; b c f ff 2 g 1 - 2 h-q Vulg. insert it ; a b c e ff u 2 g l h 1 Vulg. 
write de bono, f q bonum ; a b c ff 1 ' 2 1 Vulg. write units ; f g 1 h m q nemo. 

5 See above, p. 149. 

6 This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p. 277'. 
Cureton renders the text thus : ' Why askest thou me concerning good ? for 
One is good, GOD.' And Mrs. Lewis thus : 'Why askest thou me concerning 
the good ? for One is the good one.' 

7 Ti (* fpouTas irepl TOV dyaOov ; ovoels dyaOos, (I ft?) (tuvos 6 Qeos. i. 315 b. 

8 AVTOS 6 oiodaftaXos rjnuv TO) tliruvn ^apioaica, Ti iroirjcras ^carjv alwviov 
K\rjpovofJLr}0-Q} ; irp&rov <f>r], MT? uf ^76 dyaOov. 6 yap dyaOos et? fanv, o 
HaTyp o v TOIS ovpavois (ftp. Galland. ii. 759 d e). Note, the reference is 
certainly to St. Matthew's Gospel, as all that follows proves: the inquiry in 
ver. 1 6 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18) being similarly exhibited in 
N, L, Irenaeus, Int. p. 241 ; Orig. iii. 664 b; Cyril, Alex, v. 1 310 d; Basil, 
ii. 2796; and Chrysostom, iii. 182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234. 

9 Eusebius Tt p.e ipcarqs vepl TOV d-yaOov ; OuSet? dyaOos, cl ^77 cf? o eoy, 
Praep. Evan. 542 b. The last seven words are also found in Ps. (ed. Montf.) 
426 d; and ap. Mai, iv. 101. 

10 AiSdatcaXe, ri dyaOov Troirjffas, fa^v aluviov K\rjpovo/j.-^aca ; o 8% dirty aura), 
Ti fjif (pcaras irepl TOV dyaOov ovSels dyaOos cl ^ els 6 &e6s. (Note, that all 
but the last seven words exactly =K, L, and Basil, ii. 2796.) V. 1 310 d. But 
elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril exhibits 8t5aovraAe dynde . . . TI 
fjLC \fyas dyaOov ov8els dyaBbs d JAT) fls 6 &(6s. Ibid. p. 346 a ( = p. 672 b). 

II Ti pf (pojTqs vtpl TOV dyaOov ; ovotis dya06s, ti fir) ef? 6 Qeos. p. 1028. 

12 Magister, quid boni faciam, ut habeani vitam aeternam. Cui Dominus, 
Quid me vocas bomim (703) : Umis enim bonus est, ait Dominus (489). But 
elsewhere, Maguter bone, quid boni faciam (994 c\ 

13 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeatn vitam aeternam ? Qui dicit 
ei, Quid me interrogas de bono ? Unus est bonus Deus. vii. 147-8. 

u For ' bone' see above, note 12, p. 266 : for ' nemo' &c., see note 12, p. 263. 


besides in Evann. 479 and 604, and Evst. 5. But the 
point to be attended to is, that not one of the foregoing 
authorities sanctions the text which Lachmann, Tischen- 
dorf, Tregelles, W.-Hort, and the Revisers of 1881 unani- 
mously adopt. This first. And next, that no sooner are 
these sixteen witnesses fairly confronted, than they set 
about hopelessly contradicting one another : so that it 
fares with them as it fared with the Philistines in the days 
of Saul : ' Behold, every man's sword was against his 
fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture 1 .' This 
will become best understood by the reader if he will allow 
' (I),' to represent the omission of the epithet ayadt : '(II),' 
the substitution of rt /xe epcoras- nepi rou ayaOov : and '(III)/ 
the substitution of els ZVTIV 6 ayaOos with or without 
appendix. For it will appear that, 

(a) Evan. 479 and Evst. 5, though they witness in favour 
of '(I), yet witness against (II) and (III): and that, 

(b) The Latin and the Bohairic Versions, with Jerome 
and Evan. 604, though they witness in favour of (II) and 
(III), yet witness against (I). 

Note, that Cureton and Lewis do the same : but then the 
Cureton stultifies itself by omitting from the introductory 
inquiry the underlined and clearly indispensable word, 
' What good [thing] must I do ? ' The same peculiarity is 
exhibited by the Thebaic Version and by Cyril of Jer. 2 
Now this is simply fatal to the testimony of Cureton's 
Syr. concerning '(II),' seeing that, without it, the pro- 
posed reply cannot have been spoken. It appears further 

(c) Augustine, though he witnesses in favour of (II), yet 
witnesses against both (I) and (III) : and that, 

(d) Hilary, though he witnesses in favour of (III), and 
yields uncertain testimony concerning (I), yet witnesses 
against (II) : and that, 

1 i Sam. xiv. 20. 2 p. 200. 


(e) Justin M. (in one place) and the Marcosian and 
Naassene heretics, together with the Clementine homilies, 
though they witness in favour of (III), yet witness against 
(I) and (II) : and that, 

(/) ps.-Dionysius, Eusebius, and Antiochus mon. (A.D. 
614), though they witness in favour of (II), yet witness 
against (III). 

(g) Cyril also, though he delivers uncertain testimony 
concerning (I) and (II), yet witnesses against (III). 

The plain fact is that the place before us exhibits every 
chief characteristic of a clumsy fabrication. No sooner had 
it with perverse ingenuity been pieced together, than the 
process of disintegration set in. The spurious phrases rt /me 
epcoras ircpl rov ayaOov, and ets ZCTTLV ayaflos, having no lawful 
dwelling-place of their own, strayed out of the first Gospel 
into the third as soon as they were invented. Cureton 
in St. Luke xviii. 19 has both phrases, Lewis neither, 
Marcion, in his heretical recension of St. Luke's Gospel 
(A.D. 150), besides the followers of Arius, adopt the latter 1 . 
* The key of the whole position,' as Scrivener points out, 
'is the epithet "good" before "Master "in ver. 16 : for if 
this be genuine, the only pertinent answer is contained in 
the Received Text 2 .' Precisely so : and it has been proved 
to be genuine by an amount of continuous attestation 
which is absolutely overwhelming. We just now analyzed 
the inconsistent testimony of sixteen ancient authorities ; 
and found that only the two cursive copies favour the 
omission of a'yafle, while nine of the oldest witnesses are for 
retaining it. Concerning the expression rt /^.e e/xoras Trept 
TOV ayaOov, these inconsistent witnesses are evenly divided, 
seven being for it, seven against it. All, in fact, is error, 

1 Epiphanius [i. 339 d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion so 
read Luke xviii. 19. Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the words 
above, in notes 3, 4, p. 260. 

2 Six Lectures on the Text (1875), p. 130. 


confusion, discord, the instant we get outside the tradi- 
tional text. 

The reason of all this contrariety has been assigned 
already. Before Christianity was a hundred years old, two 
opposite evil influences were at work here : one, heretical 
which resulted in (III): the other, orthodox. which 
resulted in (II) and (I). These influences, proceeding from 
opposite camps, were the cause that copies got indepen- 
dently propagated of two archetypes. But the Church, in 
her corporate capacity, has declined to know anything of 
either. She has been careful all down the ages that the 
genuine reading shall be rehearsed in every assembly of 
the faithful on the I2th Sunday after Pentecost; and 
behold, at this hour it is attested by every copy in the 
world except that little handful of fabricated documents, 
which it has been the craze of the last fifty years to cry up 
as the only authentic witnesses to the truth of Scripture, 
viz. Codd. BNDL and Origen. Now, as to the first two 
of these, Dr. Scrivener has pronounced l that (BN), ' subse- 
quent investigations have brought to light so close a relation 
as to render it impossible to regard them as independent 
witnesses ; ' while every page of the Gospel bears emphatic 
witness to the fact that Codd. BNDL are, as has been said, 
the depositaries of a hopelessly depraved text. 

But how about Origen? He, in A.D. 250, commenting 
on the present place of St. Matthew's Gospel, has a great 
deal to say concerning the grievously corrupt condition of 
the copies hereabouts. Now, the copies he speaks of must 
have been older, by at least 100 years, than either Cod. B 
or Cod. tf. He makes this admission casually in the course 
of some remarks which afford a fair sample of his critical 
method and therefore deserve attention : He infers from 
Rom. xiii. 9 that if the rich young ruler really did ' love his 

1 Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329. 


neighbour as himself,' which, according to the three Evan- 
gelists, he virtually said he did 1 , he was perfect 2 ! Yet our 
Saviour's rejoinder to him is, '//"thou wilt be perfect,' go 
and do such and such things. Having thus invented a diffi- 
culty where none exists, Origen proposes, as a way out of it, 
to regard the precept (in St. Matt. xix. 20, ' Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself) as an unauthorized accretion 
to the Text, the work of some tasteless scribe 3 . The 
reasonableness of suspecting its genuineness (he says) is 
heightened by the fact that neither in St. Mark's nor yet 
in St. Luke's parallel narrative, are the words found about 
'loving one's neighbour as oneself.' As if that were not 
rather a reason for presuming it to be genuine ! To be 
sure (proceeds Origen) it would be monstrous to regard 
these words, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' 
as an interpolation, were it not for the existence of so 
many other discrepancies hereabouts. The copies of St. 
Matthew are in fact all at strife among themselves. And 
so are the copies of the other Gospels. Vast indeed, and 
with this he concludes, is the discrepancy in St. Matthew 4 : 
whether it has proceeded from the carelessness of the 
scribes ; or from criminal audacity on the part of cor- 
rectors of Scripture; or whether, lastly, it has been the 
result of licentiousness on the part of those who, pretending 
to ' correct ' the text, have added or omitted according to 
their own individual caprice 5 . 

1 Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21. 

2 iii. 669 cd. 

3 Hp6ffXs ovv ft 8vvd/j,fOa irpos TTJV TrpoKd^vrjv rjTr]ffiv . . . ourcus diravTrjffai, 
OTI p,r}iTOT TO' dya-jTrjafis TOV ir\ovaiov aov ws eavrov. virovoeTffOat Svvarai, d>s 
ovx UTTO TOV 2<wT?7pos tvTavQa TTa.pi\7J(p9at, d\\' VTTO Ttvos T^V dfepifietav /IT) 
vorjcravTos TWV \cyonevcav, TrpoaTeOfiadai. iii. 670 a b. 

4 Kai fl fj.ev /IT) ical irfpl a\\cav TTO\\SJV SicKpajvia r\v irpos a\\ij\a TUV O.VTI- 
ypacpcav wffTf iravra TO. ard Marflafoi' ft?) avvqdeiv aAAr/Xots, ojuot'cws oe /eat Td 
AoiTTa tucryyeAta, K.T.\. iii. 671 b. 

5 Nvw 5 SrjXovoTi TroAAr} yeyovev 77 TWV dvTiypdtpcuv 8ta(/)0pd, eiT 
TIVWV ypacptow, C/LTC diro ToXprjs TIVWV f^oxOrjpds TTJS Siopdwffecas TWV 



Now all this is very instructive. Here is the most 
famous Critic of antiquity estimating the genuineness of 
a clause in the Gospel, not by the amount of external 
attestation which it enjoys, but by his own self- evolved 
fancies concerning it. As a matter of fact, no extant copy, 
Father, or Version is without the clause under discussion. 
By proposing therefore that it shall be regarded as spurious, 
Origen does but convict himself of rashness and incom- 
petency. But when this same Critic, who, by his own 
shewing, has had the evil hap to alight on a collection 
of singularly corrupt documents, proceeds to handle a 
text of Scripture which has demonstrably had a calamitous 
history from the first days of the Gospel until now ; two 
inconvenient questions force themselves on our attention : 
The first, What confidence can be reposed in his judge- 
ment? The second, What is there to conciliate our 
esteem for the particular Codex from which he happens 
to quote ? On the other hand, the reader has been already 
shewn by a more open appeal to antiquity than has ever 
before been attempted, that the reading of St. Matt. xix. 16,17 
which is exclusively found in BNDL and the copy from 
which Origen quotes, is deficient in external attestation. 

Now, when it is considered that BN confessedly represent 
one and the same archetype, which may very well have been 
of the date of Origen himself, how is it possible to resist 
the conviction that these three are not independent voices, 
but echoes of one and the same voice? And, What if 
certain Codexes preserved in the library of Caesarea in 
Palestine 1 ; Codexes which were handled in turn by Origen, 
by Eusebius, by Jerome, and which also furnished the 
archetype from which B and K were derived ; what, I say, 
if it shall some day come to be generally admitted, that 

fire nal OTTO TWV rd eavrois loKovvra \v TJ? SiopOuati TrpoaTiOtVTOJV rj d(pcupovv- 
v. iii. 671 c. 
1 See above, pp. 152-4. 


those Caesarean Codexes are most probably the true fens et 
origo of much of our past perplexity and of our present 
trouble? Since 'coincidence of reading infallibly implies 
identity of ancestry 1 ,' are we not even led by the hand 
to see that there must have existed in the famous library 
of Caesarea a little nest of copies credited, and justly so, 
with containing every ' last new thing ' in the way of 
Textual Criticism, to which Critics of the type of Origen 
and Jerome, and perhaps Eusebius, must have been only 
too fond of resorting? A few such critically corrected 
copies would furnish a complete explanation of every 
peculiarity of reading exhibited exclusively by Codexes 
B and N, and [fondled, perhaps with some critical cynicism, 
by] those three Fathers. 

Yet it is to be remembered, (with reference to the place 
before us,) that ' Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome ' are not in 
accord here, except in reading rt jne epcoras irepl TOV ayadov ; 
for Eusebius differs from Origen and Jerome in proceeding 
with the traditional text o8et? ayatfo? et JUT) tj: while Jerome 
and even Origen concur with the traditional text in recog- 
nizing the epithet ayafle, a circumstance which, as already 
explained, may be regarded as fatal to the formula rt jue 
e/xora? /c.r.A. which follows. 

This however by the way. That so ill-supported a fraud 
should have imposed upon Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischen- 
dorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers 
of 1 88 1, including Scrivener, is to me unintelligible. The 
substituted reading is an impossible one to begin with, 
being inconsistent with its context. And although I hold 
the introduction of intrinsic probability into these inquiries 
to be unlawful, until the truth has been established on 
grounds of external evidence ; yet, when that has been 
accomplished, not only do internal considerations claim 

1 W.-Hort, p. 287. 
T 2 


a hearing, but their effect is often, as in the present case, 
entirely to sweep the field. It is impossible, so at least 
it seems to me, to survey the narrative by the light of 
internal probability, without being overcome by the inco- 
herence and essential foolishness of the reading before us. 
This is a point which deserves attention. 

i. That our LORD actually did remonstrate with the 
young ruler for calling Him ' good,' is at least certain. 
Both St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St. Luke (xviii. 18, 19) record 
that fact, and the text of neither is disputed. How grossly 
improbable then is the statement that He also reproved 
the young man for inviting Him to a philosophical dis- 
cussion concerning TO ayaOov, which yet the young man 
clearly had not done. According to two out of the three 
Evangelists, if not to the third also, his question had not 
been about the abstract quality ; but concerning the 
concrete thing, as a means to an end : * What good work 
must I do in order that I may inherit eternal life?'- 
a purely practical question. Moreover, the pretended 
inquiry is not touched by the proposed rejoinder, ' One 
there is who is good,' or ' There is none good but one, 
that is GOD.' Does not the very wording of that rejoinder 
shew that it must needs have been preceded by the inquiry, 
' Why callest thou Me good ?' The young man is told 
besides that if he desires to ' inherit eternal life ' he must 
keep God's commandments. The question and the answer 
in the genuine text are strictly correlative. In the fabri- 
cated text, they are at cross purposes and inconsistent with 
one another in a high degree. 

2. Let it however be supposed for an instant that our 
LORD'S reply actually was, ' Why askest thou Me con- 
cerning abstract goodness?' Note what results. Since 
it cannot be thought that such an interrogation is sub- 
stantially equivalent to ' Why callest thou Me good?' the 
saying, if uttered at all, must have been spoken in 


addition. Was it then spoken to the same man ? * Yes,' 
replies the author of Cureton's Syriac : ' the rejoinder ran 
thus, "Why callest thou Me good?" and, "Why askest 
thou Me respecting the good 1 ?" : 'Not exactly,' remarks 
the author of Evan. 251, ' The second of those two inquiries 
was interposed after the word " Which?" in ver. 18.' 'Not 
so,' cries the author of the Gospel to the Hebrews. ' The 
men who came to our Lord were two in number 2 .' There 
is reason for suspecting that certain of the early heretics 
were of the same opinion 3 . Will not every candid reader 
admit that the more closely we look into the perplexed 
tangle before us, the more intolerable it becomes, the 
more convinced we feel of its essential foolishness ? And 
Is it too much to hope that after this deliberate exposure 
of the insufficiency of the evidence on which it rests, no 
further efforts will be made to bolster up a reading so 
clearly indefensible? 

Nothing more, I suppose, need be added. I have been 
so diffuse concerning the present place of Scripture because 
I ardently desire to see certain of the vexatae quaestiones 
in Textual Criticism fairly threshed out and settled. And 
this is a place which has been famous from the earliest 
times, a OpvXhovfjitvov Kt(j)d\aLov as Macarius Magnes (p. 1 2) 
calls it, in his reply to the heathen philosopher who had 
proposed it as a subject for discussion. It is (in the opinion 
of modern critics) ' quite a test passage V Tischendorf 
made this the subject of a separate dissertation in i84O 5 . 
Tregelles, who discusses it at great length 6 , informs us 

1 So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19. 

2 ' Scriptum est in evangelic quodam quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, .... 
Dixit ei alter divitum : Magister quid boni faciens vivam ? ' (Orig. Vet. 
Interp. iii. 670.) I suppose the mention of eh irpoof\9&v, in ver. 16, suggested 

3 The Marcionite Gospel exhibited Miy /te Ae^cre dyaOuv (Hippol. Phil. 254 ; 
Epiph. i. 315 c). Comp. the Clement. Horn. (ap. Galland. ii. 752 b, 759 a d). 

4 Hammond, quoted approvingly by Scrivener, I. 328 (ed. 4). 

5 C. R. Gregory's Prolegomena, p. 7. 6 Printed Text, pp. 133-8. 


that he even 'relies on this one passage as supplying an 
argument on the whole question' which underlies his 
critical Recension of the Greek Text. It has caused all 
the Critics Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
Alford, W.-Hort, the Revisers, even Scrivener 1 , to go 
astray. Critics will spend their strength in vain if they 
seek any further to establish on a rational basis alterations 
made on the strength of testimony which is both restricted 
and is at variance with itself. 

Let it be noted that our persistent appeal concerning 
St. Matt. xix. 17, 1 8 has been made to Antiquity. We 
reject the proposed innovation as undoubtedly spurious, 
because of the importance and overwhelming number of 
the witnesses of the second, third, and fourth centuries 
which come forward to condemn it ; as well as because of 
the plain insufficiency and want of variety in the evidence 
which is adduced in its support. Whenever a proposed 
correction of the Sacred Text is insufficiently attested, and 
especially when that attestation is destitute of Variety, 
we claim that the traditional reading shall stand. 

1 Introduction (1883), pp. 573-6. [Also Vol. II. (1894), pp. 327-9. I did 
not as Editor think myself entitled to alter Dr. Scrivener's expressed opinion. 
E. M.] 



ST. MARK'S Gospel opens as follows : c The beginning 
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD.' The 
significancy of the announcement is apparent when the 
opening of St. Matthew's Gospel is considered, c The book 
of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.' 
Surely if there be a clause in the Gospel which carries 
on its front the evidence of its genuineness, it is this 1 . 
But in fact the words are found in every known copy but 
three (K, 28, 255) ; in all the Versions ; in many Fathers. 
The evidence in its favour is therefore overwhelming. Yet 
it has of late become the fashion to call in question the 
clause Tlov rov 0eoi>. Westcott and Hort shut up the 
words in brackets. Tischendorf ejects them from the text. 
The Revisers brand them with suspicion. High time is it 
to ascertain how much of doubt really attaches to the 
clause which has been thus assailed. 

Tischendorf relies on the testimony of ten ancient 
Fathers, whom he quotes in the following order, Irenaeus, 
Epiphanius, Origen, Basil, Titus, Serapion, Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, Severianus, Victorinus, Jerome. But the learned 

1 It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently. ' Videtur illud 
huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.' He can only bring himself to admit 
that the text had been 'jam Irenaei tempore nobili additamento auctum.' He 
insists that it is absurd, as well as at variance with the entire history of the 
sacred text, to suppose that the title ' SON OF GOD ' has here been removed by 
unscrupulous Unbelief, rather than thrust in by officious Piety. 


critic has to be reminded (i) that pro hac vice, Origen, 
Serapion, Titus, Basil, Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem are 
not six fathers, but only one. Next (2), that Epiphanius 
delivers no testimony whatever on the point in dispute. 
Next (3), that Jerome 1 is rather to be reckoned with the 
upholders, than the impugners, of the disputed clause : 
while (4) Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness 
in its favour. All this quite changes the aspect of the 
Patristic testimony. The scanty residuum of hostile 
evidence proves to be Origen and three Codexes, of which 
two are cursives. I proceed to shew that the facts are 
as I have stated them. 

As we might expect, the true author of all the mis- 
chief was Origen. At the outset of his commentary on 
St. John, he writes with reference to St. Mark i. i, c Either 
the entire Old Testament (represented by John Baptist) is 
here spoken of as " the beginning " of the New ; or else, 
only the end of it (which John quotes) is so spoken of, on 
account of this linking on of the New Testament to the 
Old. For Mark says, " The beginning of the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, 
I send my messenger, &c. The voice of one, &c." I can 
but wonder therefore at those heretics/ he means the 
followers of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdon, Marcion, and 
the rest of the Gnostic crew, 'who attribute the two 
Testaments to two different Gods ; seeing that this very 
place sufficiently refutes them. For how can John be " the 
beginning of the Gospel," if, as they pretend, he belongs 
to another God, and does not recognize the divinity of the 
New Testament ? ' Presently, c In illustration of the 
former way of taking the passage, viz. that John stands 
for the entire Old Testament, I will quote what is found 
in the Acts [viii. 35] " Beginning at the same Scripture of 

1 v. 10 ; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and 
vi. 969) Jerome omits the clause. 

ST. MARK I. I. 281 

Isaiah, He was brought as a lamb, &c., Philip preached to 
the eunuch the Lord Jesus." How could Philip, beginning 
at the prophet, preach unto him Jesus, unless Isaiah be 
some part of " the beginning of the Gospel 1 ?" ; From the 
day that Origen wrote those memorable words [A. D. 230], 
an appeal to St. Mark i. 13 became one of the common- 
places of Theological controversy. St. Mark's assertion 
that the voices of the ancient Prophets, were ' the beginning 
of the Gospel' of whom John Baptist was assumed to 
be the symbol, was habitually cast in the teeth of the 

On such occasions, not only Origen's reasoning, but often 
Origen's mutilated text was reproduced. The heretics in 
question, though they rejected the Law, professed to hold 
fast the Gospel. ' But ' (says Serapion) ' they do not 
understand the Gospel ; for they do not receive the 
beginning of it : " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet 2 .'" What 
the author of this curt statement meant, is explained by 
Titus of Bostra, who exhibits the quotation word for word 
as Serapion, following Origen, had exhibited it before him ; 
and adding that St. Mark in this way ' connects the Gospel 
with the Law ; recognizing the Law as the beginning of 
the Gospel V How does this prove that either Serapion 
or Titus disallowed the words vlov TOV eou ? The simple 
fact is that they are both reproducing Origen : and besides 
availing themselves of his argument, are content to adopt 
the method of quotation with which he enforces it. 

Next, for the testimony of Basil. His words are, ' Mark 
makes the preaching of John the beginning of the Gospel, 

1 In Joan. iv. 15, 16. See also contra Gels. i. 389 d e f , where Origen says 
the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv. 125 and 464. 

2 OVT eirtaTTjjJirjv TOV (vayyf\iov *x ovcri > T ty T & v fvayyeXiow dpx^v HTJ irapa- 
\al36vTfs' dpx^j r v fvayyf\iov 'Irjaov Xpiarov. KaOois yfypairrat kv 'Hercu'a TO) 
irpo<priTr). adv. Manichaeos (ap. Galland. v. 61). 

3 ap. Galland. v. 329. 


saying, " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . 
as it is written in Isaiah the prophet . . . The voice of one 
crying in the wilderness 1 ."' This certainly shews that 
Basil was treading in Origen's footsteps ; but it no more 
proves that he disallowed the three words in dispute in 
ver. i, than that he disallowed the sixteen words not in 
dispute in ver. 2, from which it is undeniable that he 
omits them intentionally, knowing them to be there. As 
for Victorinus (A.D. 290), his manner of quoting the 
beginning of St. Mark's Gospel is identical with Basil's 2 , 
and suggests the same observation. 

If proof be needed that what precedes is the true account 
of the phenomenon before us, it is supplied by Cyril of 
Jerusalem, with reference to this very passage. He points 
out that * John was the end of the prophets, for " All the 
prophets and the Law were until John ;" but the beginning 
of the Gospel dispensation, for it says, " The beginning of 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ," and so forth. John was bap- 
tizing in the wilderness : V Cyril has therefore passed 
straight from the middle of the first verse of St. Mark i. 
to the beginning of ver. 4 : not, of course, because he 
disallowed the eight and thirty words which come in 
between ; but only because it was no part of his purpose 
to quote them. Like Serapion and Titus, Basil and Cyril 
of Jerusalem are in fact reproducing Origen : but unlike 
the former two, the two last-named quote the Gospel ellip- 
tically. The liberty indeed which the ancient Fathers 
freely exercised, when quoting Scripture for a purpose, 
of leaving out whatever was irrelevant ; of retaining just 
so much of the text as made for their argument, may 
never be let slip out of sight. Little did those ancient 
men imagine that at the end of some 1500 years a school 
of Critics would arise who would insist on regarding every 

1 i. 250. 2 ap. Galland. iv. 55. 3 p. 42. 

ST. MARK I. I. 283 

irregularity in such casual appeals to Scripture, as a deli- 
berate assertion concerning the state of the text 1500 years 
before. Sometimes, happily, they make it plain by what 
they themselves let fall, that their citations of Scripture 
may not be so dealt with. Thus, Severianus, bishop of 
Gabala, after appealing to the fact that St. Mark begins 
his Gospel by styling our Saviour Tto? @eo, straightway 
quotes ver. i without that record of Divine Sonship, 
a proceeding which will only seem strange to those who 
omit to read his context. Severianus is calling attention 
to the considerate reserve of the Evangelists in declaring 
the eternal Generation of Jesus Christ. ' Mark does indeed 
say "Son of God"; but straightway, in order to soothe 
his hearers, he checks himself and cuts short that train of 
thought ; bringing in at once about John the Baptist : 
saying, " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . 
as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold," &c. No 
sooner has the Evangelist displayed the torch of Truth, 
than he conceals it V How could Severianus have made 
his testimony more emphatic ? 

And now the reader is in a position to understand what 
Epiphanius has delivered. He is shewing that whereas 
St. Matthew begins his Gospel with the history of the 
Nativity, * the holy Mark makes what happened at Jordan 
the introduction of the Gospel : saying, The beginning of 
the Gospel ... as it is written in Isaiah the prophet . . . The 
voice of one crying in the wilderness V This does not of 
course prove that Epiphanius read ver. i differently from 

1 A.D. 400. De Sigill. a,p. Chrys. xii. 412 : 6 /wzdptoj Mdpitos, Ka9els tavrov (Is 
TO tvayylXiov, KO.L Oaporjaas rots Trpoyeyv/jLvaffufvois, \tyct ntv ft vlov 0eo5," d\\.' 
fvOtcas cvviarfi\( TOV \6yov, ai 4oAo/3<wae TTJV fvvoiav, i'va fjia\ari rov a.tcpoa.rr]V. 
e-ndyfi ovv evdecas rd Hard rov Ea-rrnarrjv, \4ycav, " dpx^ rov cvayye\iov 'Irjaov 
Xpiarov, KaOws yfypairrai kv 'Hacua TO) irpotyrjTTi tSou" K.r.X. !8fte rr^v Aa//7ra5a 
rfjs d\r)0das, at (vOeus dnfapv^e. 

2 i. 427 : dpx^l rov fvayyf\iov . ... us ytypanrai ev 'Haai'a TO) irpo<j>rjTri 
.... (fxuv?i POWVTOS (v 


ourselves. He is but leaving out the one and twenty words 
(5 in ver. i : 16 in ver. 2) which are immaterial to his 
purpose. Our Lord's glorious designation ('Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God,') and the quotation from Malachi which 
precedes the quotation from Isaiah, stand in this writer's 
way : his one object being to reach ' the voice of one crying 
in the wilderness/ Epiphanius in fact is silent on the 
point in dispute. 

But the most illustrious name is behind. Irenaeus 
(A.D. 170) unquestionably read Tlov TOV 0eoi) in this place. 
He devotes a chapter of his great work to the proof that 
Jesus is the Christ, very God as well as very Man ; and 
establishes the doctrine against the Gnostics, by citing the 
Evangelists in turn. St. Mark's testimony he introduces 
by an apt appeal to Rom. i. 1-4, ix. 5, and Gal. iv. 4, 5 : 
adding, ' The Son of God was made the Son of Man, in 
order that by Him we might obtain the adoption : Man 
carrying, and receiving, and enfolding the Son of God. 
Hence, Mark says, " The beginning of the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the 
prophets 1 .'" Irenaeus had already, in an earlier chapter, 
proved by an appeal to the second and third Gospels that 
Jesus Christ is God. 'Quapropter et Marcus,' (he says) 
' interpres et sectator Petri, initium Evangelicae conscrip- 
tionis fecit sic : " Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi Filii Dei, 
quemadmodum scriptum est in Prophetis," &c. 2> This at 
all events is decisive. The Latin of either place alone 
survives : yet not a shadow of doubt can be pretended as 
to how the man who wrote these two passages read the 
first verse of St. Mark's Gospel 3 . 

1 i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi). 2 {.461 (lib. in. cap. x). 

3 Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the four 
Gospels may be severally identified with the four living creatures described in 
the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John, who says : ' In the beginning 

ST. MARK I. I. 285 

Even more interesting is the testimony of Victor of 
Antioch ; for though he reproduces Origen's criticism, he 
makes it plain that he will have nothing to say to Origen's 
text 1 . He paraphrases, speaking in the person of the 
Evangelist, the two opening verses of St. Mark's Gospel, 
as follows ! ' I shall make " the beginning of the Gospel " 
from John : of the Gospel, I say " of the Son of God : " 
for so " it is written in the prophets," viz. that He is the 
Son of God. . . . Or, you may connect " as it is written in 
the prophets" with "Behold, I send my messenger": in 
which case. I shall make "the beginning of the Gospel of 
the Son of God" that which was spoken by the prophets 
concerning John.' And again, ' Mark says that John, 
the last of the prophets, is "the beginning of the Gospel" : 
adding, " as it is written in the prophets, Behold," &c., &c. 2 ' 
It is therefore clear how Victor at least read the place. 

was the Word: and .... all things were made by him : and without him was 
not anything made:"* the flying eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his 
gospel with an appeal to ' the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men 
from on high ; saying, " The beginning of the Gospel . ... as it is written in 
the prophets" Hence the Evangelists' concise and elliptical manner, which is a 
characteristic of prophecy' (lib. iii. cap. xi. 8, p. 470). Such quotations as 
these (18 words being omitted in one case, 5 in the other) do not help us. I 
derive the above notice from the scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei's e, N. T. 
ii. 21); Curzon's ' 73. 8.' 

The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by Grabe from 
a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita) in the Bodleian (Barocc. 
206, fol. 7T/3). It is the solution of the 144^1 Quaestio. But it is to be found in 
many other places besides. In Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost 
words of Irenaeus are found : viz. Ovrf ir\(iova TOV dpiOfjLov, OVTC (kdrrova 
li/o'exfTcu ttVcu rd (vayyeXia- eird yap .... Germanus also (A.D. 715, ap. 
Gall. xiii. 215) quoting the place, confirms the reading 4i> TOIS TT/HK^TCUS, 
which must obviously have stood in the original. 

1 Note, that he actually reads ' The beginning of the Gospel of the Son of 
God,' omitting the words ' JESUS CHRIST': not, of course, as disallowing 
them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the Divine Sonship of 

2 'Eyoj (j)T)o~i (sc. 6 Ma/j/cos) TT\V dp\rfv TOV Evayyt\iov diro 'ladwov iroirjaoftai' 
~Evayy\iov 8e TOV viov &fov, OVTOJ yap ev TOIS irpotyrjrais yiypatiTOi, on vws kan 
cow .... Svvaaat 8 TO, ws ytypanrai kv TOIS irpo^rjTais, o~vvdif/at TO>, iSov cycu 
dTroo'TeA.Aa; TUV ayye\6v fjiov' 'iva TTJV dpx^v iroirjcrofjuii TOV ~Evayyf\iov TOV viov 
Qeov TO TOIS irpotyrjTais irfpl '\wdvvov dprjfj.fvov. This is the first scholium in 


It is time to close this discussion. That the Codexes 
which Origen habitually employed were of the same type 
as Cod. tf, and that from them the words Tlov rov 0ou 
were absent, is undeniable. But that is the sum of the 
evidence for their omission. I have shewn that Serapion 
and Titus, Basil and Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem, do 
but reproduce the teaching of Origen : that Epiphanius 
delivers no testimony either way: while Irenaeus and 
Severianus bear emphatic witness to the genuineness of 
the clause in dispute. To these must be added Porphyry 
(A.D. 270) 1 i Cyril of Alexandria 2 , Victor of Antioch, 
ps.-Athanasius 3 , and Photius 4 , with Ambrose 5 , and 
Augustine 6 among the Latins. The clause is found 
besides in all the Versions, and in every known copy of 
the Gospels but three ; two of which are cursives. On 
what principle Tischendorf would uphold the authority of 
N and Origen against such a mass of evidence, has never 
been explained. In the meantime, the disappearance of 
the clause (TtoS roi; 0eoi5) from certain of the earliest copies 
of St. Mark's Gospel is only too easily accounted for. So 
obnoxious to certain precursors of the Gnostic sect was the 
fundamental doctrine which it embodies, that St. John 
(xx. 31) declares it to have been the very purpose of his 
Gospel to establish 'that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God.' What more obvious than that the words at some 
very remote period should have been fraudulently removed 
from certain copies of the Gospel ? 

the Catena as edited by Possinus, p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium 
of the same Catena, (the first in Cramer's ed.), which C. F. Matthaei (N. T. ii. 
20) prints from six of his MSS. : 'Icodvvrjv ovv rov re \evratov rwv irpofprjruv 
tivai rov ~Evayyc\iov fprjalv o Maptcos, tiTL<}>pajv " us ytypaTTrai tv rots 

o^rjrair 'I5ov K.T.\." 

1 Ap. Hieron. vii. 17. 2 vi. 330 diserte. 3 ii. 413. 

4 A. D. 890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum, a/. Galland. xiii. 667. 

5 i. 1529 d. 6 Cons. 39. 



THE sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. 
affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and 
the Origenistic school. Instances found in these Codexes 
may be classed thus : 

Note i. The following instances are professedly taken from the 
Gospels. Only a few are added from elsewhere. 

Note 2. Other Uncials are also added, to indicate by specimens 
how far these two MSS. receive countenance or not from other 
sources, and also in part how far the same influence enter them. 

I. Passages detracting from the Scriptural acknowledge- 
ment of the Divinity of our Lord : 

O TOV Qfov omitted St. Mark i. i (&*) 
'O X/HOTOS 6 Ytos . . . roO &VTOS omitted St. John vi. 69 

omitted St. Mark ix. 24 (NABC*DL). 
ToO Kvpi'ov 'Irjvov omitted St. Luke xxiv. 3 (D). 
6eov changed into Kupi'ov Acts xx. 28 (AC*DES). 
Omission of faith in CHRIST, els >e St. John vi. 47 (NBLF). 
Slur on efficacy of prayer through CHRIST : 

Insert / St. John xiv. 14 (SBEHUFA). 

Transfer eV TV ovo^arl p.o\> St. John xxi. 23 (fr$BC*LXVA). 
Omission of u&W in the cure St. Mark vii. 35 
Cf. St. Mark ii. 12. 


Judgement-seat of GOD instead of CHRIST Rom. xiv. 10 

(N*ABC*D &c.). 

'O &v ev TO> ovpavu omitted St. John iii. 13 (NBLF b ). 
Omission of Kvpie in penitent thief's prayer St. Luke xxiii. 42 

the Ascension in St. Luke, dvcfa'pero el? TOV ovpavov 

St. Luke xxiv. 51 (N*D). 
Insertion of ovfe 6 Yio? from St. Mark xiii. 32 in St. Matt. xxiv. 

36. Cf. Basil to Amphilochius, iii. 360-2 (Revi- 

sion Revised, p. 210, note). 
Omission of Qeos in reference to the creation of man St. Mark 

x. 6 (NBCIA). Cf. St. Matt. xii. 30 (BD). 

eVafo) TrdvTW eoriv St. John iii. 31 (fr$*D). 

,, 6 Ytos fJLcvfi els TOV alava St. John viii. 35 (frSXF). 

,, ,, dif\6u>v oia p.o~ov avTQ)v } fcai miprjyfv OVTCCS St. John 

viii. 59 (NBD). 

TOV Yi'6i> TOV avBptoTtov for r. Y. T. Geou St. John ix. 35 (^BD). 

Kvpiov for 6cov 2 Pet. i. I (fr$). 

Omission Of on eyo> UTTU-yco irpus TOV TlaTtpa St. John xvi. 6 

Kvpios i Cor. xv. 47 (N*BCD*EFG). 
"Os for es i Tim. iii. 16 (^, Revision Revised, pp. 431-43). 
"O for "Os Col. ii. 10, making the Fulness of the GODHEAD the 
head of all principality and power (BDEFG). 

II. Generally sceptical tendency: 
N.B. Omission is in itself sceptical. 

Hvevpa 0eoO instead of TO Uvevp-a TOV Qeov Matt. iii. 1 6 
Cf. Acts xvi. 7, TO IIi/eyza 'l^o-oC for TO 

(WABC'DE, 1 ). 

TeVeo-ts for yewrjo-ts, slurring the Divine Birth Matt. i. 18 

Omission of the title of 'good' applied to our LORD Matt. 

xix. 16, 17 (NBDL). 
,, the necessity of our LORD to surfer. KO.\ OVT&S 

e'Sft St. Luke xxiv. 46 (NBC*DL). 
last Twelve Verses of St. Mark (NB). 

1 2 of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) in the Bodleian Library at 
Oxford, of the sixth century. 


Omission of passages relating to Everlasting Punishment (closely 

Origenistic) : 

tucttviav d/MapT^fiaroff for atcoi/. K/jtVeeoy St. Mark iii. 
29 (NBLA). 

apaprias (D) ibid. 

OTTOU 6 <rK<i>\r) auT&v ov reXeura, KOI TO Trvp ov 

v&vvvTai St. Mark ix. 44, 46 (NBCLA). 
,, the danger of rejecting our Lord St. Matt. xxi. 

44 (D). 
,, KCU Traa-a 6vaia aXi dXio-^o-erat St. Mark IX. 49 (NBLA). 

the condemnation of Pharisaic treatment of widows 
St. Matt, xxiii. 14 (NBDLZ). 

KOI TO /3a7TTr/*a 6 eyob a7TTi'b/iat panTi(r6r)vai St. Matt. 

XX. 22, 23 (NBDLZ). 
,, avTrjs TOV npuroTOKov St. Matt. i. 25 (fcSBZ). 

,, the verse about prayer and fasting St. Matt. xvii. 21 

the words giving authority to the Apostles to heal 

diseases St. Mark iii. 15 (NBC*). 
the forgiveness of sins to those who turn St. Mark 

iv. 12 (NBCL). 
condemnation of cities and mention of the Day of 

Judgement St. Mark vi. n (NBCDLA). 
fasting St. Mark ix. 29 (N*B). 
taking up the Cross St. Mark x. 21 (NBCDA). 
,, the danger of riches St. Mark x. 24 (NBA). 
the danger of not forgiving others St. Mark xi. 26 


,, ,, fv\oyr)/j.fvr) o~v ev yvvaiiv St. Luke i. 28 (NBL). 

a\X' 7rt vraj^rt pjj/nari Qeov St. Luke iv. 4 (NBL). 

6 5tdj3oXos els opos v\lfr)\6v St. Luke iv. 5 (NBL). 
vnaye OTriVa) p.ov, Sarava St. Luke iv. 8 (NBDLH). 

,, reference to Elijah's punishment, and the manner of 

spirit St. Luke ix. 55, 56. 

the saving effect of faith St. Luke xvii. 19 (B). 
the day of the Son of Man St. Luke xvii. 24 (BD). 
the descent of the Angel into Bethesda St. John v. 

3, 4 (NBC*D). 
rjv eyo> foot St. John vi. 51 (NBCLA). 



III. Evincing a 'philosophical' obtuseness to tender 
passages : 

Omissions in the records of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament : 

$ayere ... TO ... icaivqs St. Mark xiv. 22-24 

mays St. Matt. xxvi. 27 (NB). 

Xa/3ere, (pdyfTf .... K\a>pfvov I Cor. xi. 2-4 

Omission of Agony in the Garden and strengthening Angel 

St. Luke xxii. 43, 44 (ABRT, first corrector). 
First Word from the Cross St. Luke xxiii. 34 

Mutilation of the LORD'S Prayer St. Luke xi. 2-4 : i.e. 

Omission of fjn&v 6 ev rols ovpavois (NBL). 

,, ,, yevr)6r)Ta> TO 6e\r)fj.d o~ov, o>s v ovpavw, KOI cnl Ti)y 

W (BL). 

,, ,. aXXa pvcrai fjfjLas OTTO TOV irovrjpov ft$ BL). 

Omission of fluf) Matt. v. 22 (NB). 

., the verse telling of our LORD'S coming to save what 
was lost St. Matt, xviii. 1 1 (NBL*). 

,, ,, fvXoyf'tTf roiis KaTapo3fj.evovs vp.ds, KuAci)? TroteTre TOVS 

fjuo-ovvras St. Matt. V. 44 (NB). 

the prophecy of being numbered with the transgressors 
St. Mark xv. 28 (^ABC*^ t3 DX). 

j, ev TW <pavcpa> St. Matt. vi. 6 (^BDZ). 

,, reference to the last cry St. Mark xv. 39 (fc$BL). 

striking on the face St. Luke xxii. 64 (^BLMTIT). 

triple superscription (y/aa/w/i. f EXX?;j/. K. 'PCO/Z. <. e E/3pak.) 
St. Luke xxiii. 38 (BCL). So N* in St. John xix. 

KOI drro TOV p-f^iaa-iov Kripiov St. Luke xxiv. 42 


KOI e'^row CLVTOV aTTOKreTi/ai^St. John V. 15 (SBCDL). 

\vaavri for Xovo-airi Rev. i. 5 (NAC). 
8iKaioo-vvT)v for e\T)fjioo-vvrjv Matt. vi. I (^* etb BD). 

IV. Shewing attempts to classicize New Testament 

These attempts have left their traces, conspicuous 
especially for omissions, all over B and N in a multiplicity of 


passages too numerous to quote. Their general character 
may be gathered in a perusal of Dr. Hort's Introduction, 
pp. 223227, from which passage we may understand how 
these MSS. may have commended themselves at periods 
of general advancement in learning to eminent scholars 
like Origen and Dr. Hort. But unfortunately a Thucy- 
didean compactness, condensed and well-pruned according 
to the fastidious taste of the study, is exactly that which 
does not in the long run take with people who are versed 
in the habits of ordinary life, or with scholars who have 
been exercised in many fields, as was shewn by the falling 
into disuse of Origen's critical manuscripts. The echoes 
of the fourth century have surely been heard in the 

U 2 


[The Rev. C. H. WALLER, D.D., Principal of St. John's Hall, Highbury.] 

A CAREFUL collation of the Curetonian Syriac with the 
Peshitto would I think leave no doubt on the mind of 
any one that the Curetonian as exhibited by Cureton him- 
self is the later version. But in order to give full effect to 
the argument it would be necessary to shew the entire 
Curetonian fragment side by side with the corresponding 
portions of the Peshitto. Otherwise it is scarcely possible 
to realize (i) how entirely the one version is founded upon 
the other (2) how manifestly the Curetonian is an attempt 
to improve upon the other; or (3) how the Curetonian 
presupposes and demands an acquaintance with the Gos- 
pels in general, or with views of Gospel history which 
belong to the Church rather than to the sacred text. 

Even in those brief passages exhibited by Dr. Scrivener 
from both editions this can be made out. And it is 
capable of still further illustration from almost every page 
of Dr. Cureton's book. 

To take the fragments exhibited by Dr. Scrivener first. 
(a) In St. Matt. xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto simply translates 
the Textus Receptus (not altered by our Revisers), saying 
that the disciples were hungry ' and began to pluck ears of 
corn and to eat/ the Curetonian amends thus: 'and the 
disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and 
break them in their hands, and eat,' introducing (as it fre- 
quently does, e.g. St. Matt. iv. n, 'for a season' ; St. Matt. 


iv. 21, Maying his hand'; St. Matt. v. 12, 'your fathers'; 
St. Matt. v. 47, 'what thank have ye? J ) words borrowed 
from St. Luke vi. i. 

But in the next verse of the passage, where the words 
' on the Sabbath,' are absolutely required in order to make 
the Pharisees' question intelligible to the first readers of 
St. Matthew, ' Behold, thy disciples do what is not lawful 
to do on the Sabbath ' (Textus Receptus and Peshitto ; not 
altered by our Revisers), the Curetonian must needs draw 
on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibit- 
ing the question thus, e Why are thy disciples doing what 
is not lawful to do ? ' an abbreviated reading which leaves 
us ignorant what the action objected to might be ; whether 
to pluck ears in another man's field, or to rub the grain 
from them on the Sabbath day ? On what possible ground 
can such emendations as this have the preference of an- 
tiquity in their favour ? 

Again, the shewbread in ver. 4 of this passage is, not as 
we have it in the Peshitto, ' the bread of the table of the 
Lord,' |U^D> oijol^s? l*x-^, a simple phrase which every- 
one can understand, but the Old Testament expression, 
' face-bread,' rdAn:' pa.4*A , which exhibits the translator's 
knowledge of the earlier Scriptures, as do his emendations 
of the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew, 
and, if I mistake not, his quotations also. 

(b) Or, to turn to St. Mark xvi. 17-20 (the other passage 
exhibited by Dr. Scrivener). Both the Peshitto and Cure- 
tonian shew their agreement, by the points in which they 
differ from our received text. ' The Lord Jesus then, after 
He had commanded His disciples, was exalted to heaven 
and sat on the right hand of GOD ' is the Curetonian 
phrase. The simpler Peshitto runs thus. ' Jesus the Lord 
then, after He had spoken with them, ascended to heaven, 
and sat on the right hand of GOD.' Both alike introduce 
the word c Jesus ' as do our Revisers : but the two slight 


touches of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and 
belong to that aspect of the matter which finds expression 
in the Creed, and in the obedience of the Church. Who 
can doubt which phrase is the later of the two ? A similar 
slight touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17 
of ' them that believe on Me ' instead of simply ' them that 

The following points I have myself observed in the 
collation of a' few chapters of St. Matthew from the two 
versions. Their minuteness itself testifies to the improved 
character of the Curetonian. In St. Matt. v. 32 we have been 
accustomed to read, with our Text Received and Revised 
and with all other authorities, ' Whosoever shall put away 
his wife, except for the cause of fornication? So reads the 
Peshitto. But whence comes it that the Curetonian Syriac 
substitutes here adultery for fornication, and thereby sanc- 
tions, not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the 
interpretation almost universally placed iipon it ? How is 
it possible to contend that here the Curetonian Syriac has 
alone preserved the true reading? Yet either this must 
be the case, or else we have a deliberate alteration of 
a most distinct and precise kind, telling us, not what our 
Lord said, but what He is commonly supposed to have 

Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, * Whosoever 
shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two other si 
Our Lord said 'go with him twain/ as all Greek MSS. 
except D bear witness. The Curetonian and D and some 
Latin copies say practically ' go with him three' Is this 
again an original reading, or an improvement ? It is no 
accidental change. 

But by far the most striking ' improvements ' introduced 
by the Curetonian MS. are to my mind, those which 
attest the perpetual virginity of our Lord's Mother. The 
alterations of this kind in the first chapter form a group 



quite unique, 
follows : 

In the Peshitto and our Greek Text 
without any variation. 

Ver. 1 6. 'Jacob begat Joseph 
the husband of Mary of whom 
was born Jesus, who is called 

ver. 1 8. ' Now the birth of 
Jesus Christ was on this wise 
(Peshitto, and Textus Receptus : 
Revised also, but with some 

ver. 19. 'Joseph her husband 
being a just man/ &c. 

ver. 20. ' Fear not to take 
unto thee Mary thy wife' 

ver. 24. 'Joseph ... did as the 
Angel of the Lord had bidden 
him, and took unto him his wife! 

ver. 25. 'And knew her not 
until she brought forth [her first- 
born] a son/ 

Beginning with ver. 18, we read as 

In the Curetonian. 

'Jacob begat Joseph to whom 
was espoused Mary the virgin, 
which bare Jesus the Messiah? 

{ The birth of the Messiah was 

ver. 19. ' Joseph, because he 
was a righteous man/ &c. [there 
is no Greek or Latin authority 
with Cn. here]. 

. . . ' Mary thine espoused' 
(Cn. seems to be alone here). 

' and took Mary ' 

(Cn. seems alone in omitting 
' his wife '). 

'And purely dwelt with her 
until she bare the son ' (Cn. 
here is not alone except in 
inserting the article). 

The absolute omission from the Curetonian Syriac of all 
mention of Joseph as Mary's husband, or of Mary as his 
wife is very remarkable. The last verse of the chapter 
has suffered in other authorities by the loss of the word 
' firstborn/ probably owing to a feeling of objection to the 
inference drawn from it by the Helvidians. It seems to 
have been forgotten (i) that the fact of our Lord's being 
a * firstborn ' in the Levitical sense is proved by St. Luke 


from the presentation in the temple (see Neh. x. 36) ; and 
(2) that His being called a ' firstborn ' in no way implies that 
his mother had other children after him. But putting this 
entirely aside, the feeling in favour of Mary's perpetual 
virginity on the mind of the translator of the Curetonian 
Syriac was so strong as to draw him to four distinct and 
separate omissions, in which he stands unsupported by any 
authority, of the word ' husband ' in two places, and in two 
others of the word * wife/ 

I do not see how any one can deny that here we have 
emendations of the most deliberate and peculiar kind. 
Nor is there any family of earlier readings which contains 
them, or to which they can be referred. The fact that the 
Curetonian text has some readings in common with the 
so-called western family of text (e.g. the transposition of 
the beatitudes in Matt. v. 4, 5) is not sufficient to justify 
us in accounting for such vagaries as this. It is indeed 
a ' Western ' superstition which has exalted the Virgin 
Mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in 
God her Saviour. But the question here suggested is 
whether this way of regarding the matter is truly ancient ; 
and whether the MS. of an ancient version which exhibits 
such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy to be 
set above the common version which is palpably its basis. 
In the first sentence of the Preface Dr. Cureton states that 
it was obtained from a Syrian Monastery dedicated to 
St. Mary Deipara. I cannot but wonder whether it never 
occurred to him that the cidtus of the Deipara, and the 
taste which it indicates, may partly explain why a MS. of 
a certain character and bias was ultimately domiciled there. 
[See note at the end of this Chapter.] 

Shall I be thought very disrespectful if I say that the 
study which I have been able to devote to Dr. Cureton's 
book has impressed me with a profound distrust of his 


scholarship ? ' She shall bare for thee a son/ says he on the 
first page of his translation ; which is not merely bald 
and literal, but absolutely un-English in many places. 

In Matt. vi. in the first verse we have alms and in the third and 
fourth righteousness. An explanation. 

In ver. 1 3 the Cn. has the doxology, but with power omitted, the 
Peshitto not. 

In ver. 17. Cn. wash thy face and anoint thy head instead of our 

In ver. 19. Cn. leaves out /SpSo-ty 'rust' and puts in ' where falleth 
the moth/ 

In x. 42. The discipleship instead of disciple. 

In xi. 2. Of Jesus instead of Christ. 

In xiii. 6. Parable of Sower, a Targum-like alteration. 

ver. 1 3 a most important Tar gum. 

ver. 33 a wise woman took and hid in meal. 

xiv. 13 leaves out 'by ship/ and says 'on foot/ where the 
Peshitto has ' on dry land/ an odd change, of an opposite kind to 
some that I have mentioned. 

In St. John iii. 6, Cn. has : ' That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh, because of flesh it is born ; and that which is born of the 
Spirit is spirit, because God ts a spirit, and of God it is born' 
And in ver. 8 : ' So is every one that is born of water and of the 
Spirit/ This is a Targum-like expansion : possibly anti-Arian. 
See Tischendorf's Gr. Test, in loco. All the above changes look 
like deliberate emendations of the text. 

[It is curious that the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian 
both break off from the Traditional account of the Virgin- 
birth, but in opposite directions. The Lewis Codex makes 
Joseph our Lord's actual Father : the Curetonian treats the 
question as described above. That there were two streams 
of teaching on this subject, which specially characterized 
the fifth century, is well known : the one exaggerating the 
Nestorian division of the two Natures, the other tending in 
a Eutychian direction. That two fifth-century MSS. shoidd 
illustrate these deviations is but natural ; and their survival 
not a little remarkable.] 



IT would be a manifest defect, if a book upon Textual 
Criticism passing under the name of Dean Burgon were to 
go forth without some reference to the present state of the 
controversy on the subject, which first made him famous 
as a Textual critic. 

His argument has been strengthened since h wrote in 
the following ways : 

j. It will be remembered that the omission of the verses 
has been! rested mainly upon their being left out by B and K, 
of which circumstance the error is mutely confessed in B by 
the occurrence of a blank space, amply sufficient to contain 
the verses, the column in question being the only vacant one 
in the whole manuscript. It has been generally taken for 
granted, that there is nothing in K to denote any con- 
sciousness on the part of the scribe that something was 
omitted. But a closer examination of the facts will shew 
that the contrary is the truth. For 

i. The page of N on which St. Mark ends is the recto of 
leaf 29, being the second of a pair of leaves (28 and 29), 
forming a single sheet (containing St. Mark xiv. 54-xvi. 8, 
St. Luke i. 1-56), which Tischendorf has shewn to have 
been written not by the scribe of the body of the New 
Testament in this MS., but by one of his colleagues who 
wrote part of the Old Testament and acted as diorthota 
or corrector of the New Testament and who is further 


identified by the same great authority as the scribe of B. 
This person appears to have cancelled the sheet originally 
written by the scribe of tf, and to have substituted for it 
the sheet as we now have it, written by himself. A cor- 
rection so extensive and laborious can only have been 
made for the purpose of introducing some important 
textual change, too large to be effected by deletion, inter- 
lineation, or marginal note. Thus we are led not only 
to infer that the testimony of X is here not independent 
of that of B, but to suspect that this sheet may have been 
thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its con- 
tents to those of the corresponding part of B. 

ii. This suspicion becomes definite, and almost rises to 
a certainty, when we look further into the contents of this 
sheet. Its second page (28 v) exhibits four columns of 
St. Mark (xv. i6-xvi. i) ; its third page (29 r), the two 
last columns of St. Mark (xvi. 2-8) and the first two of 
St. Luke (i. 1-18). But the writing of these six columns' 
of St. Mark is so spread out that they contain less matter 
than they ought ; whereas the columns of St. Luke that 
follow contain the normal amount. It follows, therefore, 
that the change introduced by the diorthota must have 
been an extensive excision from St. Mark : in other words, 
that these pages as originally written must have contained 
a portion of St. Mark of considerable length which has 
been omitted from the pages as they now stand. If these 
six columns of St. Mark were written 1 as closely as the 
columns of St. Luke which follow, there would be room 
in them for the omitted twelve verses. More particularly, 
the fifth column (the first of page 29 r) is so arranged as to 
contain only about five-sixths of the normal quantity of 
matter, and the diorthota is thus enabled to carry over 
four lines to begin a new column, the sixth, by which 
artifice he manages to conclude St. Mark not with a blank 
column such as in B tells its own story, but with a column 


such as in this MS. is usual at the end of a book, exhibit- 
ing the closing words followed by an ' arabesque ' pattern 
executed with the pen, and the subscription (the rest being 
left empty). But, by the very pains he has thus taken 
to conform this final column to the ordinary usage of 
the MS., his purpose of omission is betrayed even more 
conclusively, though less obviously, than by the blank 
column of B 1 . 

iii. A further observation is to be noted, which not only 
confirms the above, but serves to determine the place 
where the excision was made to have been at the very 
end of the Gospel. The last of the four lines of the sixth 
and last column of St. Mark (the second column of leaf 
29 r) contains only the five letters TO yap ([tyofiovv] yap), 
and has the rest of the space (more than half the width 
of the column) filled up with a minute and elaborate 
ornament executed with the pen in ink and vermilion, 
the like of which is nowhere else found in the MS., or 
in the New Testament part of B, such spaces being in- 
variably left unfilled 2 . And not only so, but underneath, 
the usual c arabesque ' above the subscription, marking the 
conclusion of the text, has its horizontal arm extended 
all the way across the width of the column, and not, 
as always elsewhere, but halfway or less 3 . It seems hardly 
possible to regard these carefully executed works of the 
pen of the diorthota otherwise than as precautions to guard 
against the possible restoration, by a subsequent reviser, 
of a portion of text deliberately omitted by him (the 

1 This observation is due to Dr. Salmon ; see the Note appended to Lecture IX 
of his Historical Introduction to the New Testament (5th edition, p. 147). 

2 This fact was first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn in a memorandum com- 
municated by him to Dr. Scrivener, who inserted it in his Plain Introduction 
to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, p. xii; cp. 4th edition, 
vol. I, p. 94), and I am indebted to the same source for this admirable 
amplification of part of that memorandum. 

3 A sufficient facsimile of the page in question (297) is given by Dean 
Burgon in his Last Twelve Verses, reproduced from a photograph. 


diorthota) from the end of the Gospel. They are evidence 
therefore that he knew of a conclusion to the Gospel which 
he designedly expunged, and endeavoured to make it 
difficult for any one else to reinsert. 

We have, therefore, good reason to believe that the 
disputed Twelve Verses were not only in an exemplar 
known to the scribe of B, but also in the exemplar used 
by the scribe of K ; and that their omission (or, more 
properly, disappearance) from these two MSS. is due to 
one and the same person the scribe, namely, who wrote 
B and who revised tf, or rather, perhaps, to an editor by 
whose directions he acted. 

2. Some early Patristic evidence has been added to the 
stores which the Dean collected by Dr. Taylor, Master of 
St. John's College, Cambridge. This evidence may be 
found in a book entitled ' The Witness of Hermas ' to the 
Four Gospels, published in 1892, of which 12 in the 
Second Part is devoted to ' The ending of St. Mark's 
Gospel,' and includes also quotations from Justin Martyr, 
and the Apology of Aristides. A fuller account is given 
in the Expositor of July 1893, and contains references 
to the following passages : Irenaeus iii. 1 1 . 6 (quoting 
xvi. 19) ; Justin Martyr, Trypho, 138 ; Apol. i. 67 ; Trypho, 
85 ; Apol. i. 45 ; Barnabas, xv. 9 ; xvi. 7 ; Quarto-deciman 
Controversy (Polycarp)? and Clement of Rome, i. 42. The 
passages from Hermas are, i. (xvi. 12-13) Sim. ii. i, Vis. 
i. i, iii. i, iv. i, and v. 4 ; 2. (xvi. 14) Sim. ix. 141 and 20. 4, 
Vis. iii. 8. 3, iii. 7. 6 ; 3. (xvi. 15-16) Vis. iii, Sim. ix. 16, 25 ; 
4. (xvi. 17-18) Vis. iv, Mand. i, xii. 2. 2-3, Sim. ix. i. 9, iii. 7, 
ix. 26, Mand. xii. 6. 2 ; 5. (xvi. 19-20) Vis. iii. i. Some 
of the references are not apparent at first sight, but 
Dr. Taylor's discussions in both places should be read 

3. In my own list given above, p. 109, of the writers 
who died before A.D. 400, I have added from my two 


examinations of the Ante-Chrysostom Fathers to the list 
in The Revision Revised, p. 421, the Clementines, four 
references from the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, 
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Apocryphal 
Acts of the Apostles, and two references to the four of 
St. Ambrose mentioned in ' The Last Twelve Verses,' p. 27. 
To these Dr. Waller adds, Gospel of Peter, 7 (TrtvQovvres 
Kai KAato^re?), and 12 (*Xalopep KOL tXviroviJitOa), referring 
to the a7ra \eyontvov, as regards the attitude of the Twelve 
at the time, in xvi. 10. 

4. On the other hand, the recently discovered Lewis 
Codex, as is well known, omits the verses. The character 
of that Codex, which has been explained above in the 
sixth chapter of this work, makes any alliance with it 
suspicious, and consequently it is of no real importance 
that its testimony, unlike that of B and tf, is claimed to 
be unswerving. 

For that manuscript is disfigured by heretical blemishes 
of the grossest nature, and the obliteration of it for the 
purpose of covering the vellum with other writing was 
attended with circumstances of considerable significance. 

In the first chapter of St. Matthew, Joseph is treated 
as the father of our Lord (vers. 16, si, 24) as far as His 
body was concerned, for as to His soul even according to 
teaching of Gnostic origin He was treated as owing His 
nature to the Holy Ghost (ver. 20). Accordingly, the 
blessed Virgin is called in the second chapter of St. Luke 
Joseph's 'wife/ fxe/x^o-rei^err? being left with no equi- 
valent 1 : and at His baptism, He is described as ' being as 
He was called the son of Joseph ' (St. Luke iii. 23). Ac- 
cording to the heretical tenet that our Lord was chosen 
out of other men to be made the Son of God at the 
baptism, we read afterwards, ' This is My Son, My chosen ' 

1 On the contrary, in Tatian's Diatessaron yvvaiKi is left out and ftf^vrjffTev- 
is translated. For the Curetonian, see above, p. 295. 


(St. Luke ix. 35), 'the chosen of God' (St. John i. 34), 
'Thou art My Son and My beloved' (St. Matt. iii. 17), 
' This is My Son Who is beloved ' (St. Mark ix. 7) ; and 
we are told of the Holy Ghost descending like a dove 
(St. Matt. iii. 16), that It ' abode upon Him.' Various 
smaller expressions are also found, but perhaps the most 
remarkable of those which have been left upon the manu- 
script occurs in St. Matt, xxvii. 50, ' And Jesus cried with 
a loud voice, and His Spirit went tip' After this, can we 
be surprised because the scribe took the opportunity of leav- 
ing out the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark which contain 
the most detailed account of the Ascension in the Gospels, 
as well as the KOL avtcfxEpero ets TOV ovpavov of St. Luke ? 

Again, at the time when the manuscript was put out of 
use, and as is probable in the monastery of St. Catherine 
so early as the year 778 A. D. (Introduction by Mrs. Lewis, 
p. xv), the old volume was pulled to pieces, twenty-two 
leaves were cast away, the rest used in no regular order, 
and on one at least, as we are told, a knife was employed 
to eradicate the writing. Five of the missing leaves must 
have been blank, according to Mrs. Lewis : but the seventeen 
remaining leaves contained passages of supreme importance 
as being expressive of doctrine, like St. John i. 1-24, 
St. Luke i. 16-39, St. Mark i. 1-11, St. Matt, xxviii. 8-end, 
and others. Reading the results of this paragraph in con- 
nexion with those of the last, must we not conclude that 
this manuscript was used for a palimpsest, and submitted 
to unusual indignity in order to obliterate its bad record ? 

It will be seen therefore that a cause, which for un- 
challenged evidence rests solely upon such a witness, cannot 
be one that will commend itself to those who form their 
conclusions judicially. The genuineness of the verses, as 
part of the second Gospel, must, I hold, remain unshaken 
by such opposition. 

5. An ingenious suggestion has been contributed by 


Mr. F. C. Conybeare, the eminent Armenian scholar, 
founded upon an entry which he discovered in an 
Armenian MS. of the Gospels, dated A.D. 986, where 
' Ariston Eritzou ' is written in minioned uncials at the 
head of the twelve verses. Mr. Conybeare argues, in 
the Expositor for October, 1893, that 'Ariston Eritzou' 
is not the copyist himself, who signs himself Johannes, 
or an Armenian translator, Ariston or Aristion being 
no Armenian name. He then attempts to identify it 
with Aristion who is mentioned by Papias in a passage 
quoted by Eusebius (H. E. Hi. 39) as a disciple of the 
Lord. Both the words ' Ariston Eritzou ' are taken to be in 
the genitive, as ' Eritzou ' certainly is, and to signify * Of 
or by Aristion the presbyter,' this being the meaning of 
the latter word. The suggestion is criticized by Dr. Ad. 
Harnack in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 795, where 
Dr. Harnack pronounces no opinion upon the soundness 
of it : but the impression left upon the mind after reading 
his article is that he is unable to accept it. 

It is remarkable that the verses are found in no other 
Armenian MS. before uco. Mr. Conybeare traces the 
version of the passage to an old Syrian Codex about the 
year 500, but he has not very strong grounds for his 
reasoning; and even then for such an important piece of 
information the leap to the sub-Apostolic age is a great 
one. But there is another serious difficulty in the inter- 
pretation of this fragmentary expression. Even granting the 
strong demands that we may construe over the expression 
of Papias, ApurrUiv KCU 6 7rpe(7/3vTe/jos 'Icadvvris, and take 
Aristion to have been meant as a presbyter, and that 
according to the parallel of Aristion in Eusebius' history 
having been transliterated in an Armenian version to 
Ariston, Aristion ' the disciple' may be the man mentioned 
here, there is a formidable difficulty presented by the word 
' Ariston ' as it is written in the place quoted. It ought at 


least to have had a long 6 according to Dr. Harnack, and 
it is not in the genitive case as ' Eritzou ' is. Altogether, 
the expression is so elliptical, and occurs with such isolated 
mystery in a retired district, and at such a distance of 
years from the event supposed to be chronicled, that the 
wonder is, not that a diligent and ingenious explorer should 
advocate a very curious idea that he has formed upon 
a very interesting piece of intelligence, but that other 
Critics should have been led to welcome it as a key to 
a long-considered problem. Are we not forced to see in 
this incident an instance of a truth not unfrequently 
verified, that when people neglect a plain solution, they 
are induced to welcome another which does not include 
a tenth part of the evidence in its support ? 

Of course the real difficulty in the way of accepting 
these verses as the composition of St. Mark lies in the 
change of style found in them. That this change is not 
nearly so great as it may appear at first sight, any one 
may satisfy himself by studying Dean Burgon's analysis of 
the words given in the ninth chapter of his Last Twelve 
Verses of St. Mark.' But it has been the fashion in some 
quarters to confine ancient writers to a wondrously narrow 
form of style in each case, notwithstanding Horace's rough 
Satires and exquisitely polished Odes, and Cicero's Letters 
to his Friends and his Orations and Philosophical Treatises. 
Perhaps the recent flood of discoveries respecting early 
Literature may wash away some of the film from our sight. 
There seems to be no valid reason why St. Mark should 
not have written all the Gospel that goes by his name, 
only under altered circumstances. The true key seems to 
be, that at the end of verse 8 he lost the assistance of 
St. Peter. Before e$o/3owro yap, he wrote out St. Peter's 
story : after it, he filled in the end from his own acquired 
knowledge, and composed in summary. This very volume 
may supply a parallel. Sometimes I have transcribed Dean 



Burgon's materials with only slight alteration, where 
necessary imitating as I was able his style. In other 
places, I have written solely as best I could. 

I add two suggestions, not as being proved to be true, 
because indeed either is destructive of the other, but such 
that one or other may possibly represent the facts that 
actually occurred. To meet the charge of impossibility, 
it is enough to shew what is possible, though in the 
absence of direct evidence it may not be open to any one 
to advocate any narrative as being absolutely true. 

I. Taking the story of Papias and Clement of Alex- 
andria, as given by Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), that St. Mark 
wrote his gospel at the request of Roman converts, and 
that St. Peter, as it seems, helped him in the writing, 
I should suggest that the pause made in tyofiovvro yap, 
so unlike the close of any composition, of any paragraph 
or chapter, and still less of the end of a book, that I can 
recollect, indicates a sudden interruption. What more 
likely than that St. Peter was apprehended at the time, 
perhaps at the very moment when the MS. reached that 
place, and was carried off to judgement and death ? After 
all was over, and the opportunity of study returned, 
St. Mark would naturally write a conclusion. He would 
not alter a syllable that had fallen from St. Peter's lips. 
It would be the conclusion composed by one who had lost 
his literary illuminator, formal, brief, sententious, and com- 
prehensive. The crucifixion of the leading Apostle would 
thus impress an everlasting mark upon the Gospel which 
was virtually his. Here the Master's tongue ceased : here 
the disciple took up his pen for himself. 

II. If we follow the account of Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v. 8) 
that St. Mark wrote his Gospel and did not merely 
publish it after St. Peter's death, Dr. Gwynn suggests to 
me that he used his notes made from St. Peter's dictation 
or composed with his help up to xvi. 8, leaving at the end 


what were exactly St. Peter's words. After that, he added 
from his own stores, and indited the conclusion as I have 
already described. 

Whether either of these descriptions, or any other 
solution of the difficulty, really tallies with the actual 
event, I submit that it is clear that St. Mark may very 
well have written the twelve verses himself ; and that 
there is no reason for resorting to Aristion, or to any other 
person for the authorship. I see that Mr. Conybeare 
expresses his indebtedness to Dean Burgon's monograph, 
and expresses his opinion that 'perhaps no one so well 
sums up the evidence for and against them ' as he did 
(Expositor, viii. p. 241). I tender to him my thanks, and 
echo for myself all that he has said. 

X 2 



A BOOK representing Dean Burgon's labours in the 
province of Sacred Textual Criticism would be incomplete 
if notice were not taken in it of the influence exercised 
by him upon the production of editions of the two chief 
Syriac Versions. 

Through his introduction of the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. 
to the late Philip E. Pusey, a plan was formed for the joint 
production of an edition of the Peshitto New Testament 
by these two scholars. On the early and lamented death 
of Philip Pusey, which occurred in the following year, 
Mr. Gwilliam succeeded to his labours, being greatly 
helped by the Dean's encouragement. He has written 
on the Syriac Canons of the Gospels ; and the nature of 
his work upon the Peshitto Gospels, now in the press, 
may be seen on consulting his article on ' The Materials 
for the Criticism of the Peshitto New Testament' in the 
third volume of Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, pp. 47- 
104, which indeed seems to be sufficient for the Prole- 
gomena of his edition. A list of his chief authorities 
was also kindly contributed by him to my Scrivener, 
and they are enumerated there, vol. II. pp. 12-13. The 
importance of this work, carried on successively by two 
such accomplished Syriacists, may be seen from and will 
illustrate the sixth chapter of this work. 


In connexion with the Dean, if not on his suggestion, 
the late Rev. Henry Deane, B.D., when Fellow of St. John's 
College, Oxford, began to collect materials for a new and 
critical edition of the Harkleian. His work was carried on 
during many years, when ill-health and failing eyesight 
put a stop to all efforts, and led to his early death for on 
leaving New College, after having been Tutor there for five 
years, I examined him then a boy at the top of Winchester 
College. Mr. Deane has left the results of his work 
entered in an interleaved copy of Joseph White's ' Sacrorum 
Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana ' named, as 
my readers will observe, from the translator Mar Xenaias 
or Philoxenus, not from Thomas of Harkel the subsequent 
editor. A list of the MSS. on which Mr. Deane based his 
readings was sent by him to me, and inserted in my 
Scrivener, vol. II. p. 29. Mr. Deane added (in a subsequent 
letter, dated April 16, 1894) : 'My labours on the Gospels 
shew that the H[arkleian] text is much the same in all 
MSS. The Acts of the Apostles must be worked up for 
a future edition by some one who knows the work.' Since 
his lamented death, putting a stop to any edition by him, 
his widow has placed his collation just described in the 
Library of St. John's College, where by the permission of 
the Librarian it may be seen, and also used by any one 
who is recognized as continuing the valuable work of that 
accomplished member of the College. Is there no capable 
and learned man who will come forward for the purpose ? 



A or Alexandrian MS., 24, 31, 57, 
76, 175, 201, 213 note 2. 

K or Sinaitic MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49> 
57, 174, 219, 235; six conjugate 
leaves, 52, 165, 233; value, B-N, 
55, 68-9; history and character, 
153, 160 &c., 233-5; sceptical 
character, App. V. 287. 

Acacius, 2, 155 ; probably the scribe 
of B, 154. 

Acta Philippi, 100-20. 

Acta Pilati, 100-20. 

Adamantius, copies of, 167. See 

Alexander Alexandrinus, 100, 113, 

Alexandria, school of, 2, 122, 234. 

Alexandrians and Egyptians, 113. 

Alford, 171. 

Ambrose, St., 101-20. 

Ammonius, n, 242. 

Amphilochius, St., 101-20. 

Anaphora Pilati, 112. 

Antioch, early Church at, 123-4. 

Antiquity, 29-31. 

Aphraates, 103-14, 213 note 4; 
witnesses to Peshitto, 130. 

Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels, 
103-15, 132. 

Apollonides, 10. 

Apostolic Canons and Constitu- 
tions, 100, 103-15, 119. 

Apostolic Fathers, 99, 118. 

Archelaus, 100, 105-13, 119, 130. 

Arius, no, in, 114, 121. 

Armenian Version, 23, 49, 136. 

Asclepiades, 10. 

Athanasius, ico, 103-15, 119, 121, 
148, 235 note i, 244. 

Athenagoras, 99, 103, 115, 119. 

Augustine, Si., on Old-Latin Texts, 
140-3; canon of, 61 note, 198. 


B or Vatican MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 

57, 174 ; number of omissions, 78 ; 

history and character, 153, 160 &c., 

233-5 ; sceptical character of, App. 

V. 287 ; B and X, their value, 55, 


Barnabas, St., 104, 107. 
Bartolocci, 157. 
Basil, St., 97, 101, 107-15, 117, 197, 


Basilides, 3. 
Bengel, 3. 

Beratinus, Codex (*), 25, 26, 175. 
Bethabara or Bethany, 88. 
Beza, 3. 
Bigg, Dr., 151. 
Birch, 157. 
Bobiensis (10, 137. 
Bohairic Version, 23, 30, 49, 136, 

149-50, and passim. 
Brixianus (f), 137. 
Burgon, Dean, Indexes of, Preface, 

94 ; addition by, to Greek MSS., 

21 note 2. 
Burkitt, Mr. F. C., 129 note i. 


C or Parisian MS., 24, 31, 51, 57, 
76, 175. 

Caesarea (Turris Stratonis), library 
of, 2, 152, 163-5, 225, 274. See 
B and X. 

Caesarea, School of, 121, 152-8. 

Caesarea Philippi, our Lord's stay 
at, 124. 

Callixtus, 99, 120. 

Candidus Arianus, 101, 113, 120. 

Canon of the N. T., 10, 13-14, 161, 
172; settlement of the Canon fol- 
lowed by that of the Text, 173. 

Celsus, 107. 



Chase, Dr. F. H., 144 176 note. 
Chrysostom, St., 31, 161, 197. 
Ciasca, Agostino, 132. 
Claromontanus (h), 137. 
Clemens Alex., 58, 62, 99, 103-15, 

117, 121, 148, 149, 150, 234, 241, 


Clemens Bom., 105. 
Clementines, 99, 105, 109, in, 119. 
Colbertinus (c), 137. 
Complutensian edition, 3. 
Concilia Carthaginiensia, 100, 108, 


Concordia discors, 17, 81-8. 
Conflation, 80-1, 206-7, 227-9. 
Consent without Concert, 17. 
Constans, 163 note 3. 
Constantine I, 160, 163 note 3. 
Constantinople, Councils of, 173. 
Constantius II, 160, 161 note i. 
Context, 61-5. 
Continuity, 58-61. 
Conybeare, Mr. F. C., 304-5, 307. 
Cook, Canon, 163 note 4, 227. 
Corbeiensis I, II, (ff 1 , ff 2 ), 137. 
Cornelius, 100, 119. 
Corruption, pre-Evangelistic, 146. 
Crawford, the Earl of, 1 29. 
Critical copies, 36 note. 
Curetonian Version, 31, 91; date 

of, 123-34; origin of text, 144 &c , 

182 note 2; 218 note n, and 

Cure Ionian and Peshitto, App. VI. 

Cursive MSS., 24, 51, 156-8, 196- 

223; in relation to later Uncials, 

199-203 ; main body of, not a single 

copy, 223; copied in part from 

papyrus, 235 ; the first extant, 200. 
Cyprian, St., 100, 103-15, 120. 
Cyril of Alexandria, St., 31, 119, 

Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 101, 103-15, 



D or Cod. Bezae, 24, 31, 51, 76, 126, 
144, 175-95; sympathy with Old- 
Latin MSS., 56. 

D and E, Codd. of St. Paul, 54, 231. 

A, Cod. Sangallensis, in St. Mark, 

Damascus, Early Church at, 122-4. 

Deane, the late Rev. H., and Hark- 
leian, App. VIII. 309. 

Decapolis, 12.4 note. 

Delicate expressions rubbed off in 
the old Uncials, 190. 

Diatessarons, formerly abounded 


Didache, 99, 103, 104. 
Didymus, 101, 103-15, 119, 120. 
Diez, Fried., 143 note. 
Diodorus (Tarsus), 101, 120. 
Diognetus, Epistle to, 99, 118. 
Dionysius Alex., 100, 107, no, 121, 

148, 234. 
Doctrine and the Text of N.T., 

connexion between, 173. 


E, Cod. of Gospels, 203. 

E of Paul = D of Paul, 54, 231. 

Edessa, 134. 

Egyptian Versions, 31. 

Elzevirs, 3. 

Ephraem Syrus, St., 103, 107, no, 
112, 132, 243; witnesses to Peshitto, 

Epiphanius, St., 101, 103-15, 117, 
120, 133, 243, 283-4. 

Erasmus, 3, 15, 

Esaias Abbas, IOT, 104, 120. 

Ethiopia Version, 23, 49, 51, 136. 

Eumenes II, 155. 

Eunomius, 101. 

Eusebian Canons, 242. 

Eusebius (Caesarea), 2, 30, 31, 100, 
103-15, I2J, 133, 152, 162; per- 
sonally favoured the Traditional 
Text, 100, 121, 153; probably not 
the scribe of B, 154; latitudinarian, 
154, 172; on St. Mark xvi., 55, 58, 
109, 242. 

Eusebius (Emesa), 107. 

Eustathius, 100, 114, 120. 

Euthalius (Sulci), 164 note 2. 

Evagrius Ponticus, 100, no, 120. 

Evan., 102 = B, 54. 


F of St. Paul, like G, 56. 

Fathers, 19, 23, 26, 50, 52 ; value of 
quotations by, 57-8, 97-8; early, 
witness of, 94-122 ; indexes to quo- 
tations in, by Dean Burgon, Pref., 


Faustinus, 101, 114, 120. 
Ferrar group, 56, 114, 200, 235-6. 
Firmicus Maternus, 100, 108, 119. 


G of St. Paul, like F, 56. 
Genealogy, 229-37. 
Genealogy, the, in St. Luke iii., 181-2. 
Giles, Mr. H. A., 156 note. 
Gothic Version, 23, 136. 



Gregory, Dr. C. R., prolegomena, 

1 60. 
Gregory Naz., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 

119, 197. 
Gregory Wyss., St., 101, 103-15, 

117, 120, 249 nole, 260. 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, St., 100, 

no, 119, 130, 152. 
Griesbach, 3, 117, 148. 
Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., Pref. ; in 

Studia Biblica, 128, 129 note I, 241 

note ; editor of Peshitto, App. VIII. 

Gwynn, Rev. Dr., App. VII. 298- 

301, 306. 


H of St. Paul, 164. 

Haddan, A. W., 174 note. 

Harkleian Version, 49, 1 33-4 ; new 
ed., App VIII. 309. 

Harnack, Dr., 304-5. 

Harris, Mr. J. Rendel, 144 note i, 

Hedybia, 244. 

Hegesippus, 99, in, 118. 

Heracleon, 10, 99, 121, 148. 

Hermophilus, 10. 

Herodotus, 155. 

Hesycliius, 243. 

Hilary, St. (Poictiers), 104-15, 117, 
119, 169. 

Hill, Rev. J. Hamlyn, 133. 

Hippolytus, St., 99, 104-15, 117, 

Hort, Dr., 4, 7, 95, 158, 176, 251, 
291, and passim', admissions of, 14; 
involuntary witness of, 90-4 ; in- 
acjurate upon the early Fathers, 
117, 121 ; fancies of, 129 note 2 ; 
B and N written at Rome, 165 ; 
W.-Hort, 208 note I x ; on the 
Traditional Text, 221-2, 236; on 
Genealogy, 230. See Conflation. 


Internal Evidence, 65-7, 214-5. 

Interpolations, 81. 

Irenaeus, St., 98, 99, 103-15, 117, 

119, 284. 

Isaias. See Esaias. 
Itala, 143. 
'IcodvvTjs or 'IcoavT)?, 87. 


Jacobites, 133. 
Jacobus Nisibenus, 132. 
Jerome, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140- 
2, 244. 

Jona and Jonah, 87. 

Julius (Pope), 100, 120. 

Julius Africanus, 100, 112, 121. 

Justin Martyr, St., 30, 99, 103-15, 

117, 119 ; ps. Justin, 108, in. 
Juvencus, 100, 105, no, 120. 


L or Regius, 4, 30, 32, 204. 

Lachmann, 4, 90, 158, 225. 

Lactantius, 100, 120. 

Laodicea, Council of, 172. 

Last Twelve Verses, i. e. of St. 
Mark, 55, 102, 232, App. VII. 298. 

Latin MSS., Old, 4, 30, 31, 49, 51, 
64, 126; do not fall strictly into 
three classes, 136-9; Wiseman's 
theory of/ false, 142 ; did not come 
from one stem, 135-46 ; influenced 
by Low- Latin dialects, 135-146; 
derived much from Syrian pre- 
Lvangelistic corruption, 144 6. 

Lectionaries, 22 and note. 

Letters in Guardian, Uean Burgon's, 
200 note 3. 

Lewis Codex, 131-2, 134 note, 144, 
3023, and flassim. 

Libraries, destruction of, 174. 

Library at Cassarea. See Caesarea. 

Low-Latin MSS., 122. See Latin 

Lucifer (Cagliari), 101, 103, 104, 
114, 120. 

Macarius Alexandrinus, 100 note. 
Macarius Magnes, 101, 106-12, 120. 
Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius, 

100, 104, no, 1 15, 120. 
Mai, Cardinal, editions of B, 75, 159. 
Manuscripts, multitude of, 24-7, 

19, 21 and note 2; six classes of, 

22 note; kinds of, 24; value of, 

53-6 ; in profane authors, 21 note i. 

See Papyrus, Vellum, Uncial, 


Marcion, 10, 97, no, in, 112. 
Mariam and Mary, 84-6. 
Maries, the, in N. T., 84-6. 
Mark, St. See Last Twelve Verses. 
Maronite use of the Peshitto, 128. 
Maunde Thompson, Sir E., Pref., 

155-6, 158. 
Melito, 131. 
Menander, 10. 
Methodius, 100, 106, no, 117, 119, 


Mico, 137. 

Migne's edition of th3 Fathers, 96. 



Mill, 3. 

Miller's Textual Guide, 3 note, 
91 note. 

Miller's Scrivener (Plain Introduc- 
tion, ed. 4], passim. 

Ministry, our Lord's, in the North 
and North- West, 123. 

Monacensis (9), 137. 

Monophysite use of the Peshitto, 

Monothelitism, condemned in 680 
A.D., 173. 


Nemesius, 101, 120. 
Neologian Text, 99, 103. 
Nestorian use of Peshitto, 128. 
Neutral Text (so-called), 4, 92. 
Nicodemus, Gospel of, 107, 257. 
Notes of Truth, seven, 29, 40-67. 
Novatian, 100, 106, 114. 


Omissions, 81, 280-1, 291. 
Optatus, 100, 108, no, 120. 
Origen, 2, 10, 31, 50, 51, 58, 100, 

104-15, 117, 121, 122, 130, l62, 

169, 242, 247, 255 note 6, 272, 
280-1, 291 ; his great influence, 
162 ; a Textual Critic, 149-54 ; 
founder of the Caesarean school, 
1 52-3, 162-5; character, 1 52; fancies, 
169 note 2 ; critical copies, 274-5. 
Origenism, condemned in 553 A.D., 

Orthodox, the, 264. 


<t>. See Beratinus. 

Pacianus, 100, 103, 120. 

Palatinus (e), 137. 

Pamphilus, 2, 100, 115, 121, 152, 

Paper, first made in China, 156 note. 

Papias, 99, 109, 118. 

Papyrus MSS., 24, 154-8, 163, 201 ; 
copying from, 2, 175, 235. 

Parisian Codex. See C. 

Paul, St., 145. 

Peshitto Version, 31, 91, 123 ; an- 
tiquity of, 125-134, 210, 224: 
Peshitto and Curetonian, texts of, 
App. VI. 292. 

Peter (Alexandria), 100, 121, 148. 

Peter, Gospel of, 99, 107, in, 119. 

Peter, St., App. VII. 306. 

Philastrius, 101. 103, 120. 

Phillips, Cod., 1 29 note. 

Philo (Carpasus or Carpasia), 101, 

103, 104, 107, no, 120. 
Philoxenian. See Harkleian. 
Poly carp, 103. 
Pontianus, 99, 120. 
Porphyry, 108. 
Prior, Dr. Alexander, 156 note. 
Pusey, P. E., Pref. and 129. 

Q, Cod., 175. 

Quaestiones ex Utroque Testa- 
mento, 101, 105-15, 120. 


R, Cod. of St. Luke (Cod. Nitriensis), 

204 note. 
Rabbula, 133. 
Recensions, phantom, 79, 91, 93, 


Rehdigeranus (1), 137. 
Respectability. See Weight. 
Revision Revised, the, 91, 102, 


Revisers, 208 note n, 212, 245. 
Romance languages, origin of, 143. 
Rossanensian Codex. See Z. 
Rulotta, 157. 


I (Rossanensian), Cod., 25, 76, 175. 

Sachau, Dr., 129 note. 

Sahidic (Thebaic) Version, 23, 136. 

Sangallensia Fragmenta (n), 137. 

Sangermanensis I (g 2 ), 137. 

Scholz, 4. 

Scrivener, Dr , Pref., 5, 32, 135, 227, 

231, 233, 272. 

Seniores apud Irenaeum, 99, 118. 
Serapion, 100, 109, 119. 
Sinaitic MS. See K. 
Slavonic Version, 136. 
Stephen, Rob., 3. 
Synodical Letter, 100, 119. 
Synodus Antiochena, 100, 105, 

113, 119, 130. 
Synoptic problem, 146. 
Syria, rapid spread of the Church in, 


Syriac Canons, 109, 254 note. 
Syriac Sections, 291. 
Syriac Versions, 49, 123-34. 
' Syrian,' an audacious nick-name, 

Syrio- Low -Latin Text, 135-47, 

225 ; intercommunication between 

Syria and Italy, 145-6. 




T, Cod., 204 note. 

Tatian, 97, 103, no. 

Tatian's Diatessaron, 126, 132-4, 
242, 302 note. 

Taylor, Rev. Dr., 300. 

Tertullian, 99, 104-15, 120. 

Testament of Abraham, 99, 104, 

Tests of Truth, seven, 24, 40-67. 

Textual Criticism, 1-5 ; importance 
of, Pref., 6 note. 

Textus Receptus, origin of the name, 
3; character of, 5, 15-16, 30 ; im- 
perfect, 5. 

Theodoret (Cyrrhus), 133, 134. 

Theodorus Heracleensis, 100, 107, 
114, 119. 

Theodotus, 10, 113, 114. 

Theognotus, 100, 121, 148. 

Theophilus Antiochenus, 99, 1 20. 

Theophylact, 49 note i. 

Tischendorf, 4, 5 note, 7, 9, 49 note, 
98, 99, 136, 158, i6onote 2; curious 
reasoning, 169 and note I, 225. 

Titus of Bostra, 101, 104-15, 119. 

Tradition, nature of, 196-9, 224. 

Traditional Text, character of, 5, 
196-9 ; founded upon the vast ma- 
jority of authorities, 1 3 ; relation to 
the Canon, 13-14, 32, 172-3, 197; 
variously attested, 29, 40-7 ; dates 
back to the earliest time, 90-147; 
settled first, 173 ; finally, 173 ; mode 
of settlement, 198; continuity of, 
224; history of, 236-7; incontro- 
vertible as a fact, 236. 


Uncials, 24, 51. 

Uncials, later, 196-223. See Cursives. 


Valentinians, 10, 30, 113. 

Valentinus, 260. 

Variety, 49-53. 

Vatican MS. See B. 

Vellum, 154-8, 174. 

Vercellensis (a), 137. 

Veronensis (b), 137. 

Versions, 19, 22, 26, 50, 52 ; value 

of, 56. 

Victor of Antioch, 284. 
Victorinus(Afer), 101, 105, 108, 113, 

114, 120. 
Victorinus (Pettau), 101, 108, 109, 

Viennensium et Lugdunensium 

Epistola, 99, 1 1 8. 
Vincentius, 109. 
Vindobonensis (i), 137. 
Vulgate, 30, 31, and passim. 


Waller, Rev.Dr.C.H., Pref., App.VI. 

292-7, App. VII. 302. 
Weight, 53-8, 77, 226. 
Westcott, Bp. of Durham, 4 ; on the 

Canon, 92. 

Westcott and Hort, 226, 232. 
Western Text, 135-47. See Syrio- 

Wetstein, 3. 

White, Rev. H. J., 139, 142. 
Wiseman, Cardinal, 135, 143. 
Woods, Rev. F. H., 130. 
Wright, Dr. W., 129 note 2. 


=, Cod. Zacynthius, 204 
Ximenes, Cardinal, 3, 236. 

Z, Cod. Dublinensis, 204 note 
Zeno, 101, 107, 114, 120. 



i. 2-16 . . . 180-2 

ST. MATTHEW (cont.) : 
xv. 35 . . . . 168 

!62 3 IO^ 

ST. MARK .>/.) 
ii. 12 . . . . 

I 3 

. 287 


1 8* . '. '^192-3, 288 
v 103, 138, 

138, 149, 
28 9 
22 .... 5=) 

17 . . . . 
27-8 . . . 
in. 16 . . . . 

. 289 

( 149, 289 

ii 23 177 

xviii ii i T 6 ' I38 ' 

XM11. 1J . ( 

26 .... 

2Q . 


. 289 

iii 16 . 288 

178 106 

iv. i . 

1 7 0-8o 

iv. ii . 203 

138 140, 

12 . 

. 289 

13 1 77 

2^9 288 

vi 1 1 . 

. 280 

172^ 2113 



21 2Q3 

28 178 

33 . 

. 80 

V. I 2 2Q3 

44 280 

vii. 31^ . . . 

. 287 

22 290 

xxiii 14 . 289 

. 168 

32, 4 I ... 294 

38 .106,138,149 
xxiv 3.6 288 

7 . . . . 

ix 24 . . 

82 n. 

. 287 

* / I4U 2QO 

20 . 

. 289 

47 . 2Q3 

34 1 4O 


. 289 

vi i . 290 

3 C J AQ 

40 . 

. 289 

6 2QO 

x 6 

. 288 

13 . I0 4 , 138, I 49 
13, 17, 19 . . 297 

vii 13 4 1 04 138 1 40 

7 I ... 190-1 

xxvii. 34 . . .253-8 

17-8 . . . 
23-4 . . . 


. 280 

viii. 5-13. . .219-20 
ix 13 104 138 149 

xxviii. 2 . 107, 138, 149 
10 ( 108 1 38 

. 38 . - . . 

209-1 i 
. 280 

x 8 . . J>i-2 

) 14O 2 I 3 n 

. 288 

42 . . 2Q7 

xiv. 22-4 . 

. 290 

XI. 2 207 

28 . . . . 

. 187 

23 63 4 


72 . 


27 . .105, 138, 149 

xii. 14 292 

( 166/279-86, 
/ 287 

xv. 23 . . . . 


. 290 

30 .. . . 288 

2 . 1 08 I 38 140 

30 . 

80, 290 

xiii. 6 13 33 207 

1 1 140 


. IQO 

36 3d. n 2 

14 2O 211 13 



xiv. 13 . 207 

28 176 

47 xvi 7 

. 184 

IQ . . 108 

45-ii. i .176 

xvi. 3. 4. 6 . 

. 187 






ST. MARK (cont.}\ 

ST. LUKE (cent.} : 

ST. JOHN (cont.']\ 

xvi 7 .187 

xix. 25 .... 189 

x 14. . us 130 mo 

( 109, 138, 

27 .... 178 

** * T~ 0) oy? o w 
xiv. 14 .... 287 

Ii 49 , 288, 
* "} 293, 298- 

37 .... 65 
42 ... 217-9 

xvi. 6 .... 288 
xvii. 24 .115,139,150 


XX. 42 ... 22O-1 

xix. 20-1 . . . 290 

xxi. 25 .... 140 

25 ... 85 n. 3 

i. 26 .... 187 

**-* HITS 

29 ... 253-4 
xxi. 5-13 . .241-4 

2 o j 109, 138, 
28 ' (149,289 

44 .... 80 
64 .... 290 

23 .... 287 
25 .115,139,150 

41 .... 187 
60 .... 187 


34 - J I49 ; 2 3 9C ; 


64 ... 176-7 

o tlXl.iaS, 

xvi. 7 .... 288 

65, 70, 7< - | JI* 

a ( 150, 290 
42 .... 288 

xx. 28 . . . . 287 
xxiv. 23 .... 146 

ii. 2 . . . 188 n. 

45 .112,13^,150 

14 . no, 138, 149 

xxiv. 3 .... 287 


39 .... 177 

13 .... 66 

xiv. 10 . ... 288 

iii. 23-38 . . 180-2 

40 .112, 139, 150 

iv. 4 . . . . 289 

4 I-3 . . 239-52 

i COR. : 

5 .... 2^9 

, 2 S"2, I 39 , 

xi. 2-4 .... 2^0 

8 .... 289 

( '5> 2 9 

xvi. 47 .... 288 

31 .... 177 

46 .... 288 

37 .... 176 

51 .... 288 

2 COR. : 

V. I-II . .211-1^ 

iii. 3 .... 65 

3 . . . . 186 


14-15 . . .176 

i. 3-4 .113,139,150 

GAL. : 

27 .... 177 

9 .... 140 

iii. i ... 166-7 

vi. i . . . . 293 

18 i "3-4' 

10 .... 176 

18 ' lT 3 9, >5o 

EPH. : 

vii. 18 .... 64 

27 .... 166 

i. i . . . . 1 66 

35 J 77 

28 . . .88,166 

v. 20 . . . 227-8 

ix. 55-6 . . .289 

43 .... 87 

x. 12 . . . .176 

iii. 6 .... 297 


25 .... 140 

\ H4, i39 

ii. 10 .... 288 

41-2 . 110,138,149 

T 3 \ 150, 288 

Xi. 2 . . . . 177 

31 .... 288 

i TIM. : 

2-4 . . 84, 2yO 

v. 3-4 . 80, 82, 289 

iii. 16 .... 288 

4 .... 166 

15 .... 290 

xiv. 8-10 . . .178 

vi. 47 .... 287 


22 .... 191 

51 .... 289 

iv. 2 . . . 48-9 

xvi. 9 ... 215-6 

69 .... 287 

xvii. 2 ... 194-5 

viii. 35 .... 288 

2 PET. : 

19 .... 289 

38-9 . . 170-1 

i. i .... 288 

24 .... 289 

59 .... 288 

xviii. 14 . 189, 193-4 

ix. 35 .... 288 

REV. : 

18-19 -259-78 

36 .... 191 

i. . 5 . . . .290 





The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel 
According to St. Mark, 



Demy 8vo, 6s. 1871. 

' Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph . . . has thrown a stream of 
light upon the controversy; nor does the joyous tone of his book 
misbecome one who is conscious of having maintained a cause 
which is precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions 
have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very 
able counter-plea of Dr. Hort.' DR. SCRIVENER. 

Oxford and London: JAMES PARKER & Co. 

The Revision Revised. 

Three Articles reprinted from the Quarterly Review. 
To which is added a reply to BISHOP ELLICOTT's 
PAMPHLET, including a vindication of the Traditional 
Reading of i Tim. iii. 16. Second Edition, Demy 8vo, 
I4J. 1883. 

Lives of Twelve Good Men. 

New Edition, Demy 8vo, with Portraits, i6.r. 1891. 

London: JOHN MURRAY, Albemarle Street, 


A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of 
the New Testament, 


By the late F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. 

Fourth Edition, 2 vols., large %vo, $2s. 1894. 

*.* Appendixes F and C, published subsequently and containing additional 
information, with corrections, may be had gratis of the Publisher or Editor by 
possessors of the earlier copies on transmission of postage. 

London: GEORGE BELL & SONS, York Street, Covent Garden, 


Two vols., Large Post 8vo, cloth, reduced price 15^. 1878. 

The History and Doctrines of Irvingism, 


' Mr. Miller has brought to his work the rare qualities of unmistakable 
fairness and candour, a thoroughly philosophical mind, untiring patience in 
research, and a calm spirit of charity, which must go far to render his 
volumes pleasant and profitable reading to the philosophically-minded 
student of religious phenomena.' Church Review. 

' Mr. Miller has done his work very thoroughly indeed.' Guardian. 

'The theological learning, philosophical insight, and calm and steady 
patience in dealing with the adverse argument, are most admirable.' 
Literary Churchman. 

London: KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., Limited. 

The Church in Relation to the State. 

Post Svo, reduced price ^s. 1880 

'To those who desire to understand the true position of the Church and 
State question . . . we would recommend an attentive perusal of the 
Rev. Edward Miller's able and thoughtful essay.' National Church. 

To be had of the Author. 

A Guide to the Textual Criticism of 
the New Testament. 

Crown Svo, ^s. 1886. 

'A vast amount of information, stated with admirable clearness and 
precision, and in a form quite intelligible even to those not previously 
familiar with the subject.' Saturday A'eview. 

London: GEORGE BELL & SONS, York Street, Covent Garden. 

A Greek Testament Primer, 


Second Edition, Extra f cap. Svo, price 3*. 6< 1893. 

' Mr. Miller has done his work with spirit, intelligence, and accuracy.'- 





This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 

on the date to which renewed. 
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 




198! i 

LD 21-100m-2,'55 

General Library 

University of California 



> ) ling |hi| If