Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


THE    TRADITIONAL    TEXT 


HOLY    GOSPELS 


HACI 
Tolc  'Api'oic  ew  Xpicrto  MHCOY 

PHIL.  i.  i 


OXFORD :    HORACE    HART 
PRINTER   TO    THE    UNIVERSITY 


THE 


TRADITIONAL  TEXT 


OF   THE 


HOLY    GOSPELS 

VINDICATED    AND    ESTABLISHED 


BY   THE   LATE 

JOHN   WILLIAM   BURGON,   B.D. 

7 

DEAN  OF  CHICHESTER 


ARRANGED,   COMPLETED,   AND    EDITED 
BY 

EDWARD   MILLER,   M.A. 

/YKEHAMICAL    PREBENDARY   OF  CHICHESTER  J    EDITOR   OF   THE  FOURTH  EDITION   OF   DR.  SCRIVENER'S 

'  PLAIN    INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    TEXTUAL    CRITICISM    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT  '  J   AND 

AUTHOR   OF    '  A   GUIDE  TO  THE  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ' 


LONDON 
GEORGE    BELL    AND    SONS 

CAMBRIDGE:    DEIGHTON,    BELL    AND    CO. 
1896 


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

CAVE'S  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. 


PREFACE 


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 

221490 


vi  PREFACE. 

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 


PREFACE.  vii 

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 


V"!  PREFACE. 

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 
volume. 

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. 


PREFACE. 

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 


x  PREFACE. 

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 


PREFACE.  xt 

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 


xii  PREFACE. 

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 


PREFACE.  xin 

'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, 


xiv  PREFACE. 

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! 


EDWARD    MILLER. 


9  BRADMORE  ROAD,  OXFORD: 
Epiphany  1896. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


PAGE 


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 

CHAPTER   I. 

PRELIMINARY  GROUNDS. 

§  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 

CHAPTER   II. 

PRINCIPLES. 

§  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 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   III. 

THE  SEVEN  NOTES  OF  TRUTH. 

PAGE 

§  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 

CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  VATICAN  AND  SINAITIC  MANUSCRIPTS. 

§  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.  2—4.  §  3.  The 
'  Marys'  of  the  Gospels.  §  4.  Jona  and  John.  §  5.  The  foregoing 
instances  typical — our  appeal  only  to  facts pp.  68-89 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 
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 


CONTENTS.  xvil 

PACK 

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 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 
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 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 
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 

b 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

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 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ALEXANDRIA  AND  CAESAREA. 

§  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 


CHAPTER   IX. 
THE  OLD  UNCIALS.     THE  INFLUENCE  OF  ORIGEN. 

§  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 


CONTENTS.  xix 

CHAPTER    X. 
THE  OLD  UNCIALS.     CODEX  D. 

PAGE 

§  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 

CHAPTER   XI. 
THE  LATER  UNCIALS  AND  THE  CURSIVES. 

§  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 

CHAPTER   XII. 
CONCLUSION. 

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 


xx  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

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 


APPENDIX  I. 

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

APPENDIX  II. 
"o£os — VINEGAR pp.  253-258 

APPENDIX  III. 
THE  RICH  YOUNG  MAN PP.  259-278 

APPENDIX  IV. 
ST.  MARK  i.  i PP.  279-286 

APPENDIX  V. 
THE  SCEPTICAL  CHARACTER  OF  B  AND  K    .       .pp.  287-291 

APPENDIX  VI. 
THE  PESHITTO  AND  CURETONIAN      .       .       .       .pp.  292-297 

APPENDIX  VII. 

THE  LAST  TWELVE  VERSES  OF  ST.  MARK'S  GOSPEL 

pp.  298-307 
APPENDIX  VIII. 
NEW  EDITIONS  OF  THE  PESHITTO-SYRIAC  AND  THE 

HARKLEIAN  VERSIONS pp.  308-309 


GENERAL  INDEX pp. 

INDEX   OF   PASSAGES   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT 

COMMENTED    ON pp. 


THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT. 


INTRODUCTION. 

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 

B 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

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  Euzoius1,  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: — Ev£otos  fniaiconos  iv  cra>naTiois  avtveuaaro,  i.e.  tran- 
scribed on  vellum  from  papyrus.  Leopold  Cohn's  edition  of  Philo,  De 
Opiticiis  Mundi,  Vratislaw,  1889. 


SCHOOLS    OF    TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  3 

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 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

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 


TRADITIONAL    TEXT.  5 

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. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY  GROUNDS. 

§1- 

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. 


NEED    OF    A    NEW    TREATISE.  7 

complete,  than  is  compatible  with  such  narrow  limits. 
Even  where  an  account  of  the  facts  was  extended  to 
greater  length  and  wras  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 


8  PRELIMINARY    GROUNDS. 

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 
attainable. 

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 


SACRED    TEXTUAL    CRITICISM.  9 

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. 

§2. 

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 


10  PRELIMINARY    GROUNDS. 

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  another1. 
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- 


EARLY    CORRUPTION.  II 

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. 

§3. 

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 
Truth2'  (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. 


12  PRELIMINARY    GROUNDS. 

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 


DIVINE    SUPERINTENDENCE.  13 

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. 

§4. 

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 


14  PRELIMINARY    GROUNDS. 

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. 


THE    TEXT    NECESSARILY    TRADITIONAL.  15 

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. 


l6  PRELIMINARY    GROUNDS. 

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 
retained. 

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. 

§5. 

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 


THE    MANY    AGAINST    FEW.  17 

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 

C 


]8  PRELIMINARY    GROUNDS. 

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  wrong1. 

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.' 


CHAPTER  II. 

PRINCIPLES. 

§1- 

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 


20  PRINCIPLES. 

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. 

§2. 

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 


MULTITUDINOUS    EVIDENCE.  21 

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  world1.  More  than  two  thousand  manu- 
script copies  are  now  (1888)  known  to  exist2. 

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 


22  PRINCIPLES. 

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 
question. 

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 
West. 

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. 


COPIES,    VERSIONS,    FATHERS.  23 

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. 


24  PRINCIPLES. 

§3. 

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. 


VARIETY    IN    COPIES.  25 

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  numbery  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 


26  PRINCIPLES. 

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. 


ORIGINAL    READINGS.  27 

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. 

§4. 

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. 


28  PRINCIPLES. 

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 


SEVEN  TESTS  OF  TRUTH.  29 

NOTES  OF  TRUTH. 

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. 

§5. 

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 


30  PRINCIPLES. 

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  overwhelming1.  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. 


VALUE    OF    REAL    ANTIQUITY.  31 

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 


32  PRINCIPLES. 

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

§6. 

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 


THE    TEXT    OF    B    AND    K    INFERIOR.  33 

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 

X> 


34  PRINCIPLES. 

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 


THE    TRADITIONAL    A    SUPERIOR    TEXT.          35 

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  variance1.'  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 


36  PRINCIPLES. 

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. 


NO    SPECIAL    AUTHORITY    IN    OLDEST    UNCIALS.    37 

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 


38  PRINCIPLES. 

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. 


THE    FIVE    OLD    UNCIALS    DEFECTIVE.  39 

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. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   SEVEN   NOTES  OF   TRUTH. 

§  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. 


ANTIQUITY.  41 

(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 


42  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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.] 


ANTIQUITY    AND    NUMBER.  43 

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 


44  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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 
minority. 

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 


NUMBER.  45 

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  be2.'  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. 


46  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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- 


NUMBER.  47 

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. 
NBD1. 

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. 


48  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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  versions1.  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. 


NUMBER    AND    VARIETY.  49 

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- 
wards. 

§  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.' 

E 


50  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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 


VARIETY.  51 

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  v€Kpovs  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, 


52  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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. 


VARIETY   AND    WEIGHT.  53 

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 
attention. 

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 


54  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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- 
montanus1     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  itself2. 

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. 


WEIGHT.  55 

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  to4 
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.  Mark6,  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,  &cv  pp.  33-69  ;  also  p.  267. 

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


56  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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  archetype1/ 
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. 


WEIGHT.  57 

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. 


58  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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 


WEIGHT    AND    CONTINUITY.  59 

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 


60  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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 


CONTINUITY    AND    CONTEXT.  6l 

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. 


62  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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  ff1  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' 


CONTEXT.  63 

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  copies4. 

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  come5,  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 
worketh.' 


64  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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 
€T€pov  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  particulars2. 

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

a  Viz.  Ver.  20,  ait€ffTti\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, 


CONTEXT  AND  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.     65 

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  impossibility1.  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 

F 


66  THE    SEVEN    NOTES    OF    TRUTH. 

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  suspicion1.  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\a£l  leapSiais  aapKivais.  In  the  Traditional  reading  (a)  7rAa£t  aapitivais 
answers  to  wAafi  XiOivais  ;  and  therefore  aapuivais  would  agree  with  ir\a£i,  not 
with  Ka.p8ia.is.  (^)  The  opposition  between  \iOivais  and  ttapSiais  oapKivais  would 
be  weak  indeed,  the  latter  being  a  mere  appendage  in  apposition  to  ir\a£i,  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  7rAa£i  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 


INTERNAL    EVIDENCE.  67 

(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 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE   VATICAN   AND   SINAITIC   MANUSCRIPTS. 

§    I- 

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 


QUESTION    PROPOSED.  69 

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 
unauthentic. 

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  it2. — 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 
Codexes? 

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. 


70     THE    VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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 


DEFECTIVE    ANTIQUITY.  71 

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. 


72     THE    VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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. 


THEIR    ARCHETYPE    NOT    VERY    OLD.  73 

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  copies1.  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.' 


74      THE    VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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 
Uncials, — 

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. 


DIFFERENT    OPINIONS    ABOUT    THEM.  75 

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. 


76       THE    VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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  to2  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. 


CONDEMNED    UNDER    THE    NOTES    OF    TRUTH.    77 

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 


78      THE   VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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  then2,  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 
text? 

Secondly,   the   same    Codex    throughout    the    Gospels 

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


OMISSIONS    IN    B.  79 

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. 


8o      THE    VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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  €K€i 
occurring  immediately  before1. 

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  came2.'  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 


CONFLATION    A    DREAM.  8l 

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 

G 


82     THE  VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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>. 

Nl.    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. 


CONCORDIA    DISCORS.  83 

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 
them? 

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 


84     THE    VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

the  Syrian,  Ambrose  (two),  Didymus,  Chrysostom  (eight), 
Nilus  (four),  Jerome,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (five),  Augustine 
(two),  and  Theodorus  Studita,  besides  the  rest  of  the 
Uncials1,  and  the  Cursives2,  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. 


§3. 

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  first4,  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 


DISCORDANCE    IN    ORTHOGRAPHY.  85 

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.) 


86     THE    VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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. 

§4. 

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. 


BLUNDERS    IN    NAMES.  87 

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  Serapion1, — Basil2, — Epiphanius3, — 
Chrysostom  4, — Asterius  5, — and  another  (unknown)  writer 
of  the  fourth  century6: — with  Cyril7  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 


88     THE    VATICAN    AND    SINAITIC    MANUSCRIPTS. 

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. 

§5. 

B.  S.  But2,  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. 


TO    BE    DECIDED    BY    FACTS.  89 

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  myself1, — 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. 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF   THE  TRADITIONAL   TEXT1. 

I.   WITNESS  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS. 

§    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 
Editor. 


INVOLUNTARY  WITNESS  OF  DR.  HORT.    91 

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. 


92     THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 


INVOLUNTARY  WITNESS  OF  DR.  HORT.  93 

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. 


94     THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS.  95 

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- 
mand. 

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. 


96      THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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, 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS.  97 

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 
readings. 

H 


98       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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  Irenaeus1  works 
in  this  respect  is  found  in  the  Latin  Translation,  which  is  of  the  fourth  century. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS.  99 

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  234 

H  2 


100       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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  I252 

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. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS.  IOI 

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. 


102       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS. 


103 


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. 

is)- 

Basil  (Adv.  Eunom.  iv.  (291) ;  in 
S.Xti.Gen.5;  1.392;  ii.599, 
600). 

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. 

n). 

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

cum). 
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. 

12.51). 

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 


104     THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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  (Cels.vi.  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(Comment.in  Ps.  cxlvi.). 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS. 


105 


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. 

15)- 

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 

loc.). 


I06       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 


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. 

7). 
Cyril  Jerus.  (Cat.  xviii.  30). 

Against : — 

Origen   (Praep.    Evan.    xi.    19; 

Comment,  in  Matt.  xv.  10. — 

bis). 
Eusebius  (Praep.  Evan.  xi.  21). 


dyafle,  and  Tre/n  TOV  ayaOov. 

Gregory  Naz.  (i.  529). 

Hilary  (Comment,  in  Matt,  ad 

loc.). 
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,  is  frequently  quoted  without  reference  to  any  one  of  the  Gospels. 
Surely  some  of  these  quotations  must  be  meant  for  St.  Matthew. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS. 


I07 


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). 


In 


ii.  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  34.     vO£os  and  oivov. 
Traditional  : — 


Gospel  of  Peter  (§  5). 

Acta  Philippi  (§  26). 

Barnabas  (§  7). 

Irenaeus. 

Tertullian. 

Celsus. 

Origen. 

Against  :— 

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


Eusebius  of  Emesa. 
Theodore  of  Heraclea. 
Didymus. 
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. 


108      THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 


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. — 

tris). 

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. 

Origen. 

Porphyry. 


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). 
Eusebius. 
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). 
Epiphanius. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS. 


I09 


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

so- 


Serapion. 

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. 

56). 

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. 

6). 
Gregory  Nyss.  (In  Christ.  Resurr. 

n.). 

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. 


110       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 


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 

Anna). 
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.). 

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


14. 

Athanasius    (De   Tit.   Pss.    Ps. 

cxlviii.). 
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 

loc.). 
Juvencus  (II.  v.  174). 


XPet'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. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS. 


Ill 


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

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 
murderers. 


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- 

bati). 

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. 


112        THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 


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. 
Tertullian. 

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


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


1  The  Revision  Revised,  pp.  61-65. 

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


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS. 


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 ; 

i7). 

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. 

xiv.). 

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

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

Div.). 
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  & 


114      THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 


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  e«cfr,  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.). 


et 


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

91). 
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. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS. 


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. — 

bis). 

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 
ingenuity. 

I  2 


Il6       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS.  117 

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  works1. 
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. 


Il8       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS.  119 

Traditional.  Neologian. 

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

Justin1    .......     ...     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. 


120       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 


WITNESS    OF    THE    EARLY    FATHERS.  121 

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 


122       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  ANTIQUITY   OF   THE  TRADITIONAL   TEXT. 

II.   WITNESS  OF  THE  EARLY  SYRIAC  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; 


124      THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 
OS2,  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. 


EARLY  GROWTH  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  SYRIA.      125 

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  asserted1  (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. 


126      THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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    AND    PESHITTO.  127 

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. 


128       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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  it1,  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- 
siastica3  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. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIAC    VERSIONS.          129 

to  the  Earl  of  Crawford,  are  from  the  British  Museum 
alone1.  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  Syria2.' 

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. 

K 


130       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIAC    VERSIONS.          131 

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 


132       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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). 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIAC    VERSIONS.          133 

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  Epiphanius3.  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  Euphrates5,  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. 


134       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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. 


CHAPTER     VII. 

THE   ANTIQUITY   OF   THE   TRADITIONAL   TEXT. 

III.    WITNESS  OF  THE  WESTERN  OR 
SYRIO-LOW-LATIN  TEXT. 

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.  Scrivener1,  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. 


136      THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIO-LOW-LATIN    TEXT.      137 

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,  g2 f£  — f 

Corbeiensis  II,  ff2    . 1JJ  =  |- 

Sangermanensis  I,  g2 fj  — f  ~~ 

Rehdigeranus,  1        ......  !££=!  + 

Vindobonensis,  i rj  — i  + 

Vercellensis,  a ™£=|  — 

Corbeiensis  I,  fF1       f£  =  i  — 

Speculum,  m -jsg  =  j  — 

Palatinus,  e      .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .  TyV=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. 


138       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  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.  Areologian. 

St.  Matt. 

1.25     .     .     .  f .  ff1.  g2.  q.     .     .     .  b.  c.  g1.  k. 

v.  44     .      (i)c.  f.h a.  b.  ff1.  g1-2.  k.  1. 

(a)  a.  b.  c.  f.  h. 

vi.  13    .     .     .  f.  g1.  q a.  b.  c.  ff1.  g2.  1. 

vii.  13  .     .     .  f.  ff2.  g1-2.  q.   .     .     .  a.  b.  c.  h.  k.  m. 

ix.  13    ...  c.  g1-2 a.  b.  f.  ff1.  h.  k.  1.  q. 

xi.  27    ...  All. 

xvii.  21      .     .'Most'a.  b.  c.  (P)g1. .  e.  ff1. 

xviii.  ii e.  ff1. 

xix.  17 

(1)  ayaBe  .      .  b.  C.  f.  ff 2.  g1-8.  h.  q.     .  a.  e.  ff1. 

(2)  ri  /ote  cparrqs  )  f  f  a.  b.  C.  C.  ff1-2.  g1.  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    .     .     .  ff2. 

xxvii.  34   .     .  c.  f.  h.  q a.  b.  ff  «.  g  L2.  1.  (Vulg.) 

xxviii.  2     .     .f.  h a.  b.  c.  ff1-2.  g1-2.  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.  ff2.  i.  1. 

xxii.  43-44     .  a.  b.  c.  e.  ff2.  g1-2. 

i.l-q f. 

xxiii.  34    .     .  c.  e.  f.  ff2.  1.     .     .     .  a.  b.  d. 
„      38    ..  All — except     ...  a. 
„      45    .     .a.  b.  c.  e.  f.  ff2. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIO-LOW-LATIN    TEXT.      139 

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.  ff2.  q. 

.,  18     .     .     .  a.b.  c.  e.  f.  ff2. 

l.q. 
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. 


140       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 


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 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIOLOW-LATIN    TEXT.      141 

(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. 


142       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIOLOW-LATIN    TEXT.      143 

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. 


144       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIOLOW-LATIN    TEXT.     145 

has  very  recently  shed  more  light  upon  the  subject  in  his 
book  called  'The  Syro- Latin  Element  of  the  Gospels1.' 
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. 

L 


146       THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  THE  TRADITIONAL  TEXT. 

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- 
cation. 

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 
books. 


WITNESS    OF    THE    SYRIOLOW-LATIN    TEXT.     147 

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 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

ALEXANDRIA  AND   CAESAREA. 

§  1.    Alexandrian  Readings,  and  the  Alexandrian 
School. 

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. 


ALEXANDRIAN    SCHOOL.  149 

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 
stated. 

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  oivov1. 

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.     41—2.   'OAryeoi/  8e  (3  omit)  earl  xPfl/a  *7  *v°s  •   l  omits 

17  evos.     2  corrected  add  '  of  them/ 

19.  „     xxii.43-4.   Omitted  by  iS1. 

20.  „     xxiii.    34.    All  omit  *. 

1  Probably  Alexandrian  readings. 


150  ALEXANDRIA    AND    CAESAREA. 

21.  Luke  xxiii.    38.   All  omit  except  5*  (?). 

22.  ,,          ,,         45.    All  have  eKAiTToi/ros  J. 

23.  „     xxiv.    40.    All  have  it. 

24.  „        ,,       42.    All  omit1. 

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. 


ALEXANDRIAN    SCHOOL.  151 

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. 


152  ALEXANDRIA    AND    CAESAREA. 

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 


CAESAREAN    SCHOOL.  153 

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. 


154  ALEXANDRIA    AND    CAESAREA. 

Constantinople  of  the  Traditional  Text1 — .  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  N2.  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. 


CAESAREAN    SCHOOL.  155 

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  country1,  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  parchments2.'  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. 


156  ALEXANDRIA    AND    CAESAREA. 

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.) 


CAESAREAN    SCHOOL.  157 

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. 


158  ALEXANDRIA    AND    CAESAREA. 

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- 
scripts1? 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 
papyri. 

2  Introduction,  p.  16.     He  began  it  in  the  year  1853,  and  as  it  appears 
chiefly  upon  Lachmann's  foundation. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

THE   OLD    UNCIALS.      THE   INFLUENCE   OF   ORIGEN. 

§   I1- 

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  i86y2:  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  Vatican3  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  Codex4. 

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>a«v8cui/,  as  Vercellone  pointed  out  in  his  Preface  to  the  octavo  ed. 
of  Mai  in  1859,  an(^  as  may  ^)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. 


160  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  3-5721  instances, 
chiefly  on  account  of  the  readings  in  his  beloved  Sinaitic 
guide. 

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  errors2.  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. 


WRITTEN    IN    UNFAVOURABLE    TIMES.  l6l 

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 
condemnation. 

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. 
M 


162  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  times1, 
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  criticism2.  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. 


ORIGEN    AND    THE    LIBRARY    AT    CAESAREA.      163 

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.  Jerome1.  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  there2.  Constantine  applied 
to  Eusebius  for  fifty  handsome  copies3,  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 
quarter5,  and  various  entries  in  MSS.  prove  that  others 
did  the  same6.  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 
Dean. 

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 


164  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  Origen1.  And  a  similar 
colophon  may  be  found  attached  to  the  book  of  Ezra. 
It  is  added  that  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  (robe  TO  T€V\.°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  Pamphilus2.'  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 
Sulci. 


B  AND    tf    PROBABLY   WRITTEN    AT   CAESAREA.    165 


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  sense1.'  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 
arguments. 

§  22. 

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. 


l66  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  Bethany3  ;  in  the  omission  of  the  second  part  of 
the  last  petition  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  St.  Luke4,  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, 
Versions6,  Fathers,  has  been  banished  from  the  sacred 
Text  by  Lachmann,Tischendorf,  W.-Hort  and  the  Revisers7. 
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  oi»X'  Tfpav  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. 


TRACES    OF    ORIGEN    IN    B    AND     tf.  167 

('that  you  should  not  obey  the  truth')  Gal.  iii.  I.  Jerome 
duly  acknowledges  those  words  while  commenting  on 
St.  Matthew's  Gospel1  ;  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  Adamantius3, 
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 
Vulgate. 

For  :- 

C  Dc  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  vii2 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  feeding5 ;  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. 


l68  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

either  miracle.  We  find  that  Hilary1,  that  Jerome2,  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.  354)... 
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  Origen5.  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  yii-  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). 


TRACES    OF    ORIGEN.  169 

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,  Satan2.5  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  thing3.' 

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  p.tv  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. 


170  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

Our  Saviour  on  a  certain  occasion  (St.  John  viii.  38)  thus 
addressed  his  wicked  countrymen: — fl  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  Devil1. 
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. 


TRACES    OF    SCEPTICISM.  171 

but  he  has  all  the  Fathers1  (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  77ot€tr€  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. 


CHAPTER    X. 

THE   OLD   UNCIALS.      CODEX   D. 

§    I1- 

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  words2  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.  23/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. 


THE  CANON  AND  THE  TEXT.         173 

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 : 


174  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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 
over-estimated. 


DELAY    IN    THE    SETTLEMENT    OF    THE    TEXT.     175 

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 
centuries. 

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. 


176  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

§  2.    CODEX  D1. 

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  ?7x0^  '  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  corrupted1.  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  plural2.  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 

N 


178  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

TO  re'Aoj  exetV  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  less1.'     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.ei£ovos  (\arrov  tivai. 
2  I.e.  abed  e  ff  U2  g1'2  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 
version1.' 

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 
ensues. 

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 


180  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  ? 

§3. 

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 
descendants1.  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 
Gospel. 

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 


182  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  with2.  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. 

§4. 

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  Icua«etfi  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 
kings. 

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. 


184  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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 
0€a)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'tj6paaav  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 
K€Kv\i(Tfji€vov  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 


186  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 


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? 
EA.to-a/3e8  (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 


l88  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  not1. 

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. 

§6. 

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  Codex1  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 
been — 

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  out3. 

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  g2  Curetonian,  Lewis. 


190  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  ? 

§7. 

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 


DELICATE    POINTS    RUBBED    OFF.  191 

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. 

§8. 

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  avvavaK€tfj.€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  (NBC2DL.  few  curs.)  for  ffaWfi/Mf 
(xv.  46):    n4ya\a  (N*etc6BD*L)   for  /^-yaAem    (St.  Luke  i.  49):    avavtauv 
(XcBC*KLXn*  few  curs.)  for  iitnreauv  (St.  John  xiii.  25)  :  &c.,  &c. 


192  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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 
K.ai  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  FAVP 
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  capitals1  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  Eusebius3,  by  Basil4,  by  Epiphanius5,  by  Chrysos- 
tom6,  by  Nestorius7,  by  Cyril8,  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,  v2.  28  a. 

8  v1.  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  understood2, 
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 

O 


194  THE    OLD    UNCIALS. 

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  unique1. 

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 — bo£ao-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 

CKCIVOS. 

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  5o£ao-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]K€v  (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  chapter1.  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 
guides. 

1  Introduction,  p.  135. 


O  2 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  LATER   UNCIALS  AND   THE   CURSIVES. 


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. 


TRADITION.  197 

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 


198      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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.  Augustine1:  '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. 


FALLACIES.  199 

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  'a«system  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 


200      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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,  century2.  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,  788  ;~ 

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. 


CHARACTER    OF    THE    CURSIVES.  2O1 

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 


202      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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 
Copies. 

But  the  point  to  which  the  reader's  attention  is  specially 
invited  is  this:  —  that  so  far  from  our  being  entirely 


SIMILARITY    TO    UNCIALS.  203 

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.' 


204      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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.  Luke1.  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 
condemned. 

§2*. 

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. 


EXCELLENCE    OF    THE    CURSIVE    TEXT.          205 

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, 


206      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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  N1. 

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. 


CURSIVE    TEXT.  207 

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. 

§3. 

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  Latin1  and  by 
Eusebius2,  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  ye4; 
and  once  he  drops  KCH  ye  entirely5.  Origen  drops  it  3  times6. 
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. 


208      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

witnessed  to  by  the  Latin,  the  Bohairic,  the  Gothic,  and 
the  Harkleian  Versions  ;  by  Irenaeus  l,  —  by  Origen2, — 
by  ps.-Tatian3, — by  Eusebius4, — by  Basil  the  Great5, — by 
Basil  of  Seleucia6, — by  Cyril7. 

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  place8.  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  once9,  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 
Revisers11.  The  Peshitto  by  the  way  omits  /cat  (TV,  and 
transposes  the  two  clauses  which  remain12.  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. 


CURSIVE    TEXT.  209 

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  witnesses1.  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  head2.  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 . 


§4. 

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. 

P 


210      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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 


CONFIRMATORY    INSTANCES.  211 

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. 


§5. 

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  explained1.  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 


212      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

moored  to  the  shore.  The  fishermen  having  '  toiled  all  the 
night  and  taken  nothing1,' — '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 
land4.'  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  signification5.  The  Translators  of  1611,  not 
understanding  the  incident,  were  content,  as  Tyndale,  fol- 
lowing the  Vulgate6,  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). 


CONFIRMATORY    INSTANCES.  213 

barbarous  HirXvvov  is  only  found  at  this  day  in  the  two 
corrupt  uncials  BD1  and  a  single  cursive  (Evan.  91) 2. 


§6. 

*  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  question4.  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 
0anTi£ovTfs)  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. 


214      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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. 

§  7. 

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 


CONFIRMATORY    INSTANCES.  215 

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  Jacob1. 

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  Irenaeus2, 
Clemens  Alex.3,  Origen  4,  Methodius5,  Basil6,  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  3l.  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, 


2l6      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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  irc£j;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  21—3),  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. 


§  8. 

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 


CONFIRMATORY    INSTANCES.  217 

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  places1,  Cyril  Jer.2,  copies  of 
the  Old  Latin3,  and  Jerome4  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 
dismissed. 

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  D8;  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](r€i  fv  rr)  d\r)6dq  irdar}. 

9  So  Cod.  b,  deducet  vos  in  veritate  omni.     Cod.  c,  docebit  vos  in  veritate 
omni. 


2l8     THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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, — Didymus1,  Epiphanius2, 
Basil3,  Chrysostom4,  Theodotus,  bp.  of  Antioch5,  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  Didymus10  once,  Origen11  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  words13.  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. 


CONFIRMATORY    INSTANCES.  2IQ 

§9. 

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 
man. 

When  we  find   /cat   disappearing   before   Kpia-Lv  (in   the 


220      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

solemn  statement  $£ovartav  e'8o>Kei>  avry  [sc.  6  Darr)/)]  KAIV 
Kpio-iv  Troieii;)1,  it  nothing  moves  us  to  discover  that  4 
Greek  Codexes  (ABL  33),  as  many  ancient  versions2,  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. 

§  10. 

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  speaks5,  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. 
235  5  v-1  5^2  ;  v.2  177,  179  (=  Cone.  iii.  310,  311)  ;  Gennadius,  Cord.  Cat.  in 
Ps  i.  69. 

0  St.  Matt.  xv.  19. 


CONFIRMATORY    INSTANCES.  221 

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 
Christ. 

§11. 

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  diction1,'  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.' 


222      THE    LATER    UNCIALS    AND    THE    CURSIVES. 

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  declare1  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. 


MATURED  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH.   223 

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. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

CONCLUSION'. 

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 


THE    ARGUMENT.  225 

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 
century. 

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 

Q 


226  CONCLUSION. 

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 


OPPOSING    PLEAS.  227 

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  Hort1,  of  Scrivener  who  said  they 
proved  nothing2,  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  Irenaeus4, —  in  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia5, — in 
Nilus  6, —  in  Chrysostom  7  more  than  four  times, —  in 
Severianus8, —  in  Theodoret9, —  in  Anastasius  Sinaita10, — 
and  in  John  Damascene11.  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. 

Q2 


228  CONCLUSION. 

Origen1  and  by  Methodius2,  Many  Latin  Fathers,  viz. 
Ambrose  3,  —  Pacian  4,  —  Esaias  abb. 5,  —  Victorinus6,  — 
Jerome7, —  Augustine8 — 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<j£r]S 

irpoff€t\r](f>6T€s'  bara  yap  ical  aaprca  2,o(pias  6  \tywv  tli/ai  ai>v«riv  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. 


CONFLATION.  229 

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 


230  CONCLUSION. 

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. 


GENEALOGY.  231 

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  authorities1.' 
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. 


232  CONCLUSION. 

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  archetype1.  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  Fr.  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*. 


B    AND    tf    CONDEMNED    UNDER    GENEALOGY.       233 

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  two1.' 

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. 


234  CONCLUSION. 

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. 


ALEXANDRIA    AND    CAESAREA.  235 

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  Alexandria1. 

Such  are  the  chief  considerations  which  incline  me  to 
suspect  that  Alexandria  contributed  largely  to  our  Textual 
troubles. 

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  above3, 
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. 


236  CONCLUSION. 

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 


GENEALOGY    AND    THE    TRADITIONAL    TEXT.       237 

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. 


238  CONCLUSION. 

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  decrees2  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. 


SOUNDNESS    AND    WIDTH.  239 

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 

STANDING  UPON   THE   ROCK. 


APPENDIX    I. 

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  chapter1. 

1  St.  John  xxi.  9-13. 


HONEYCOMB.  241 

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  scholars1  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. 

R 


242  APPENDIX    I. 

(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  way1. 

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  himself2.  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  honeycomb3': 
while  Gregory  Nyss.  points  out  (alluding  to  the  same  place) 
that  '  the  true  Bread,'  when  He  appeared  to  His  Disciples, 
'was  by  honeycomb  made  sweet4.'  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(vt  '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  €<j0i6fi€voy  .  .  .  aAX*  o^ov  (CLVT£>  TO  jj.(\t 


HONEYCOMB.  243 

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 
distributing1."'  Ephraem  Syrus  makes  the  same  mis- 
statement.  '  If  He  was  not  flesh/  he  asks,  '  who  was  it,  at 
the  sea  of  Tiberias,  who  ate2  ?  '  '  While  Peter  is  fishing,' 
says  Hesychius3,  (with  plain  reference  to  the  narrative  in 
St.  John),  *  behold  in  the  LORD'S  hands  bread  and  honey- 
comb4': 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  honeycomb5.'  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 


244  APPENDIX    I. 

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  kind1.'  From  whom  can  Jerome  have 
derived  that  wild  statement2  ?  It  is  certainly  not  his  own. 
It  occurs  in  his  letter  to  Hedibia  where  he  is  clearly 
a  translator  only3.  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  body4':  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  Disciples5.'  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  them7':  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. 


HONEYCOMB.  245 

it  has  even  established  itself  in  the  Vulgate1.  It  is  wit- 
nessed to,  besides,  by  two  ninth-century  uncials  (KF1)  and 
ten  cursive  copies2.  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 fM.ro),  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. 


246  APPENDIX    I. 

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 


HONEYCOMB.  247 

cooking :  next,  as  I  began  by  explaining,  cheap  and 
ordinary  articles  of  diet1.'  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  fish3.5  Eusebius 
in  like  manner  thrice  mentions  the  fact  that  our  LORD 
partook  of  'broiled  fish4'  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.  Luke5.  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  Esau8;' 
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. 


248  APPENDIX    I. 

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.  Tertullian1, 
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  Resurrection2.'  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.  Luke4, 
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 
91-109. 

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 


HONEYCOMB.  249 

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  way1 — 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<pay€V  ot   teal  TO>  OTTTO>  IxQva)  (sic)   TO  Ktjpiov  TOV  /zeAtros*    or)\wv  w?  ol 
8id  TTJS  Qeias  evavOpojirrjafas  teal  fj,(Tao~xovT€s  OVTOV  TTJS  OeoTrjros,  ws 
e-ni6vp.ias  ras  (vroXas  avrov  Trapaot£ovrai'    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\(V€TO'  t00l6fJ.(VOS,  <1>S  O  VOU.OS  StaK€\€V€Tat' 

trpus  yap  TO  irapov  57  irifcpia'  Trpos  yap  TO  irapov  eo~Tiv  77  iriKpis' 

6  St.  fj.fTa  Trtv  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.fOay  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/caiv€t  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- 

posed. 

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  %xCl>  'tiwfJ.ti'  TIVI  rjOLfffjiaTi  6  ptTa  Trjv  dvdaraaiv 
dpTos  r)ovv(Tai.  opds  TOV  H€Tpov  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.) 


250  APPENDIX    I. 

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 
Alexandrinus2, — by  Tertullian3, — 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 
Nyssa5, — by  Epiphanius6, —  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem7, — by 
Jerome8, — by  Augustine9, — and  by  the  Vulgate  : 

In  the  fifth  century,  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria10, —  by 
Proclus  n, — by  Vigilius  Tapsensis 12, — by  the  Armenian, — 
and  Ethiopic  Versions : 

In  the  sixth  century,  by  Hesychius  and  Cod.  N13: 

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. 


HONEYCOMB.  251 

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  deny2.  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-condemned3;'  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. 


252  APPENDIX    I. 

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  above2)  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— mainlyr 
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 
titulent.' 

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. 


APPENDIX    II. 
"O£o?  —  VINEGAR. 

[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 
people3.  This  time  He  drank;  and  exclaimed,  'It  is 
finished.' 

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  "O£o$  fj-ercL  x°^s  nefuyufvov,  Matt,  xxvii.  34  (  =  Luke  xxiii.  37). 

3  n\r)ffavTfs  airoyyov  o£ovs,  KOI  iaawna  TrfpiOfVTfs,  John  xix.  29. 


254  APPENDIX    II. 

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  ninth2. 
Eusebius  nevertheless,  in  his  clumsy  sectional  system, 
brackets3  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 
o£o?)  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). 


VINEGAR.  255 

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  cursives1; — 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, — 
Celsus5, —  Origen6, — the  Sibylline  verses  in  two  places7 
(quoted  by  Lactantius), — and  ps.-Tatian8, — are  more  ancient 

Evann.  i,  22,  33,  63,  69,  73,  114,  122,  209,  222,  253,  507,  513. 

§7- 

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  o£os  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  o£os  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  v£os  dttpaTov  ; 
ibid.  viii.  303,  395  c  .  .  .  meiv  o£oy  !oami»/ ;    quoted  by  Lactantius,  lib.  iv.  c.  18, 
A.D.  320,  Gall.  iv.  300 a  .  .  .  tls  8tyav  o£os  (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. 


256  APPENDIX    II. 

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 
Athanasius1  in  two  places, — by  another  of  the  same  name2 
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  Nazianzus7, — by  Ephraem  Syrus8, — by  Lactantius9, — 
by  Jerome  10, —  by  Rufinus  n, —  by  Chrysostom  12, —  by 
Severianus  of  Gabala 13, — by  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia14, — 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  fv8€iKVVfj.€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 
o£ovs,  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. 


VINEGAR.  257 

Apocryphal  '  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  V  which  Tischendorf 
assigns  to  the  third  century ;  the  'Acts  of  Philip2,'  and  the 
Apocryphal  'Acts  of  the  Apostles3,'  which  Dr.  Wright 
claims  for  the  fourth;  besides  Hesychius4,  Amphilochius5, 
ps.-Chrysostom 6,  Maximus 7,  Severus  of  Antioch 8,  and 
John  Damascene9, — 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  videat10:' — 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. 

S 


258  APPENDIX    II. 

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  ? 


APPENDIX    III. 


THE   RICH   YOUNG   MAN. 

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  Godhead1  ;  denounces  as  'deceivers,' 
'  liars,'  and  *  antichrists,'  the  heretical  teachers  of  his  own 
day  who  denied  this2 ; — 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 


260  APPENDIX    III. 

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  thyself1]  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  God3.  .  .  .  The  place  was  accordingly  eagerly  fas- 
tened on  by  the  enemies  of  the  Gospel4  :  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  volume5.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  devotes  to  this  subject  the 
eleventh  book  of  his  treatise  against  Eunomius6. 

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  \€y€re  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. 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  261 

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 'GOD1.'  So 
plausible  a  depravation  of  the  text  was  unsuspiciously 
adopted  by  not  a  few  of  the  orthodox.  It  is  found  in 
Justin  Martyr2, —  in  pseudo-Tatian3, — in  the  Clementine 
homilies4.  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  FATHER5.'  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  djr«f>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. 
S^c]. 

2  Efs  €o~riv  dyaOus,  6  Harrjp  uov  o  \v  rots  ovpavois.  —  Tryph.  c.  IOI    [vol.  ii. 

3441- 

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. 


262  APPENDIX    III. 

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  Father1, — 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  'good2.'  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  0€os);  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  e£ena.\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. 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  263 

Martyr1, — 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)0, —  Basil7,  —  Chrysostom8 :  — 
Athanasius9, — Gregory  Nyss.  (3  times)10, — and  Didymus 
apparently  (twice)11: — in  the  fifth  century,  Cod.  C, — 
Augustine  in  many  places12, — 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  present17. 

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   ou§e«?  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 


264  APPENDIX    III. 

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  record1.  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. 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  265 

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  eight1, 
it  survives  to  this  hour  in  a  vast  majority  of  the  most 
ancient  documents.  Thus,  aya&t  is  found  in  Justin  Martyr2 
and  in  ps.-Tatian3  : — in  the  remains  of  the  Marcosian4, — 
and  of  the  Naassene5  Gnostics;— as  well  as  in  the  Peshitto, 
—and  in  the  Old  Latin  versions  : — in  the  Sahidic, — and  the 
Bohairic  version, — besides  in  the  Clementine  Homilies6,  in 
Cureton  and  Lewis, — and  in  the  Vulgate: — in  Origen7, — 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.). 


266  APPENDIX    III. 

Athanasius1, — and  in  Basil2, — and  in  Cyril  of  Jerusalem3: 
— in  Ephraem  Syrus4,  and  in  Gregory  of  Nyssa5:  in 
Macarius  Magnes6, — and  in  Chrysostom7 : — in  Juvencus8, 
— Hilary9, — Gaudentius10, — Jerome11, — and  Augustine12; — 
lastly  in  Vigilius  Tapsensis13: — in  Cyril  Alex.14, — in  Theo- 
doret15, — 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,  At5aa«aAc  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, 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  267 

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  Martyr1 
(A.D.  140),  —  by  the  Marcosians2,  —  and  the  Naassenes  3 
(A.  D.  150),  —  by  the  Clementine  homilies4,  —  and  ps.- 
Tatian5  (third  century)  ;  —  by  the  Peshitto  and  the  Thebaic 
version  ;  —  by  Macarius  Magnes6,  —  Athanasius7,  —  and 
Basil8  ;  —  by  Hilary9,  —  Gregory  of  Nyssa10;  —  by  Chrysos- 
tom11,—  by  Cyril  Alex.12,—  by  Theodoret13,—  by  the  Opus 
imperfeciuml\  —  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)K€vai    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 
Gospel. 

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  (Trpoatpx€Tai  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. 


268  APPENDIX    III. 

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  Origen1 
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  €i7T€i>  (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°°)  CMrlv  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. 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  269 

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  Justin1,  and  the  Marcosian2,  and 
Naassene  heretics3;  the  Latin  Versions4  ;  the  Bohairic5  ; 
the  Cureton  and  Lewis6 ;  pseudo-Dionysius7,  the  Clementine 
homilies8  and  Eusebius9  ;  Cyril  Alex.10  and  Antiochus  the 
monk11  (A.D.  614);  Hilary12,  Jerome13,  and  Augustine14  ; 

I  See  above,  note  2,  p.  261.  2  See  above,  note  2,  p.  261. 

3  See  above,  note  2,  p.  261. 

4  a  e  ff1  omit  bone ;    b  c  f  ff 2  g1-2  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  ff1'2 1  Vulg.  write  units ;  f  g1  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. 


270  APPENDIX    III. 

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  discomfiture1.'  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 
that, 

(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. 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  271 

(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  latter1. 
*  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  Text2.'  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. 


272  APPENDIX    III. 

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. 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  273 

neighbour  as  himself,'  which,  according  to  the  three  Evan- 
gelists, he  virtually  said  he  did 1,  he  was  perfect2!  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  scribe3.  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.  Matthew4: 
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  Hp6ffX€s  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.p€i\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 

T 


274  APPENDIX    III. 

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 
Palestine1 ; — 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. 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  275 

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  ancestry1,'  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  o£8et?  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 


276  APPENDIX    III. 

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 


THE    RICH    YOUNG    MAN.  277 

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  number2.'  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  i84O5. 
Tregelles,  who  discusses  it  at  great  length6,  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 
this. 

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. 


278  APPENDIX    III. 

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  Scrivener1,  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.] 


APPENDIX    IV. 

ST.    MARK   I.    I. 

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  this1. 
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. 


280  APPENDIX    IV. 

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  Jerome1  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  Gospel1  ?";  From  the 
day  that  Origen  wrote  those  memorable  words  [A.  D.  230], 
an  appeal  to  St.  Mark  i.  1—3  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 
Manichaeans. 

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  prophet2.'"  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  *xovcri>  Tty  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. 


282  APPENDIX    IV. 

saying,  "  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  .  .  . 
as  it  is  written  in  Isaiah  the  prophet  .  .  .  The  voice  of  one 
crying  in  the  wilderness1."'  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's2, 
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  /wz«dptoj  Mdpitos,  Ka9els  tavrov  (Is 
TO  tvayylXiov,  KO.L  Oaporjaas  rots  Trpoyeyv/jLvaffufvois,  \tyct  ntv  ft  vlov  0eo5,"  d\\.' 
fvOtcas  cvviarfi\(  TOV  \6yov,  «ai  4«oAo/3<wae  TTJV  fvvoiav,  i'va  fjia\a£ri  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.  !8ft£e  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 


284  APPENDIX    IV. 

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 
prophets1.'"  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 
MESSIAH. 

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 


286  APPENDIX    IV. 

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  0€ou 
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)  1i  Cyril  of  Alexandria2,  Victor  of  Antioch, 
ps.-Athanasius 3,  and  Photius4,  —  with  Ambrose5,  and 
Augustine6  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. 


APPENDIX    V. 

THE   SCEPTICAL  CHARACTER   OF   B   AND  N. 

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. 


288  APPENDIX    V. 

Judgement-seat  of  GOD  instead  of  CHRIST  —  Rom.  xiv.  10 

(N*ABC*D  &c.). 

'O  &v  ev  TO>  ovpavu  omitted  —  St.  John  iii.  13  (NBLFb). 
Omission  of  Kvpie  in  penitent  thief's  prayer  —  St.  Luke  xxiii.  42 

(NBC*DLM*). 
„         „     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/e£yza  'l^o-oC  for  TO 

(WABC'DE,1). 

TeVeo-ts  for  yewrjo-ts,  slurring  the  Divine  Birth  —  Matt.  i.   18 

(NBCPSZA). 
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. 


SCEPTICAL    CHARACTER    OF    B    AND    tf.         289 

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  /3a7TT«r/*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 
(H*B). 

„         „      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 

(NBLSA). 

,,  ,,        fv\oyr)/j.fvr)  o~v  ev  yvvai£iv — 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). 

u 


290  APPENDIX    V. 

III.  Evincing    a  'philosophical'  obtuseness    to    tender 
passages  :  — 

Omissions  in  the  records  of  the  Institution  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  : 
thus— 


$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  vp.as  —  St.  Matt.  V.  44  (NB). 

„         „      the  prophecy  of  being  numbered  with  the  transgressors 
—St.  Mark  xv.  28  (^ABC*^t3DX). 

„         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.  fEXX?;j/.  K.  'PCO/Z.  <.  eE/3pak.)  — 
St.  Luke  xxiii.  38  (BCL).     So  N*  in  St.  John  xix. 

2O-2I. 
„  „        KOI     drro     TOV     p-f^iaa-iov     Kripiov  —  St.    Luke    xxiv.    42 

(HABDLJI), 

„  „        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  (^*etbBD). 

IV.  Shewing  attempts  to  classicize  New  Testament 
Greek. 

These  attempts  have  left  their  traces,  conspicuous 
especially  for  omissions,  all  over  B  and  N  in  a  multiplicity  of 


SCEPTICAL    CHARACTER    OF    B    AND    tf.         291 

passages  too  numerous  to  quote.  Their  general  character 
may  be  gathered  in  a  perusal  of  Dr.  Hort's  Introduction, 
pp.  223—227,  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 
nineteenth. 


U  2 


APPENDIX    VI. 

THE   PESHITTO  AND  CURETONIAN. 
[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. 


THE    PESHITTO    AND    CURETONIAN.  293 

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 


294  APPENDIX    VI. 

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 
believe/ 

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 
meant. 

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 


THE    PESHITTO    AND    CURETONIAN. 


295 


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 
Messiah.' 

ver.  1 8.  '  Now  the  birth  of 
Jesus  Christ  was  on  this  wise 
(Peshitto,  and  Textus  Receptus  : 
Revised  also,  but  with  some 
uncertainty)/ 

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 
thus/ 


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 


296  APPENDIX    VI. 

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 


THE    PESHITTO    AND    CURETONIAN.  297 

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 
text. 

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.] 


APPENDIX    VII. 

THE   LAST  TWELVE  VERSES   OF   ST.    MARK'S   GOSPEL. 

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 


LAST    TWELVE    VERSES.  299 

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  written1  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 


300  APPENDIX    VII. 

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  unfilled2.  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. 


LAST    TWELVE    VERSES.  301 

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 
carefully. 

3.  In  my  own  list  given  above,  p.  109,  of  the  writers 
who  died  before  A.D.  400,   I  have  added  from   my   two 


302  APPENDIX    VII. 

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. 


LAST    TWELVE    VERSES.  303 

(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 


304  APPENDIX    VII. 

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 


LAST    TWELVE    VERSES.  305 

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 

x 


306  APPENDIX  VII. 

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 


LAST    TWELVE    VERSES.  307 

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 


APPENDIX    VIII. 

NEW  EDITIONS  OF   THE   PESHITTO-SYRIAC   AND   THE 
HARKLEIAN-SYRIAC   VERSIONS. 

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. 


NEW    EDITIONS.  309 

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  ? 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


A. 

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 
Origen. 

Alexander  Alexandrinus,  100,  113, 
119. 

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. 

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, 

68-89. 

Barnabas,  St.,  104,  107. 
Bartolocci,  157. 
Basil,  St.,  97,  101,  107-15,  117,  197, 

281-2. 

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. 

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. 


312 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


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, 

246. 

Clemens  Bom.,  105. 
Clementines,  99,  105,  109,  in,  119. 
Colbertinus  (c),  137. 
Complutensian  edition,  3. 
Concilia  Carthaginiensia,  100,  108, 

119. 

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,  (ff1,  ff2),  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 

passim. 
Cure  Ionian  and  Peshitto,  App.  VI. 

292. 
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, 

247. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St.,  101,  103-15, 

282. 


D. 

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, 
204. 

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 

252 

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. 

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, 
130. 

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. 

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., 

94-5- 

Faustinus,  101,  114,  120. 
Ferrar  group,  56,  114,  200,  235-6. 
Firmicus  Maternus,  100,  108,  119. 

G. 

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. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


313 


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. 

308. 
Gwynn,  Rev.  Dr.,  App.  VII.  298- 

301,  306. 

H. 

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, 
176. 

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, 
119. 

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. 

I. 

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. 

J. 

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. 

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, 
302—3,  and  flassim. 

Libraries,  destruction  of,  174. 

Library  at  Cassarea.    See  Caesarea. 

Low-Latin  MSS.,  122.  See  Latin 
MSS. 

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, 

Cursive. 

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, 

*3«« 

Mico,  137. 

Migne's  edition  of  th3  Fathers,  96. 


3*4 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


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, 
128. 

Monothelitism,  condemned  in  680 
A.D.,  173. 

N. 

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. 

O. 

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., 

173- 
Orthodox,  the,  264. 

P. 

<t>.     See  Beratinus. 

Pacianus,  100,  103,  120. 

Palatinus  (e),  137. 

Pamphilus,  2,  100,  115,  121,  152, 
163-4. 

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. 

Pv. 

R,  Cod.  of  St.  Luke  (Cod.  Nitriensis), 

204  note. 
Rabbula,  133. 
Recensions,    phantom,    79,    91,    93, 

121. 

Rehdigeranus  (1),  137. 
Respectability.     See  Weight. 
Revision    Revised,    the,    91,    102, 

passim. 

Revisers,  208  note  n,  212,  245. 
Romance  languages,  origin  of,  143. 
Rossanensian  Codex.     See  Z. 
Rulotta,  157. 

S. 

I  (Rossanensian),  Cod.,  25,  76,  175. 

Sachau,  Dr.,  129  note. 

Sahidic  (Thebaic)  Version,  23,  136. 

Sangallensia  Fragmenta  (n),  137. 

Sangermanensis  I  (g2),  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, 

123-4. 

Syriac  Canons,  109,  254  note. 
Syriac  Sections,  291. 
Syriac  Versions,  49,  123-34. 
'  Syrian,'    an    audacious   nick-name, 

91-2. 
Syrio- Low -Latin    Text,    135-47, 

225 ;    intercommunication  between 

Syria  and  Italy,  145-6. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


315 


T. 

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, 
119. 

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. 

U. 

Uncials,  24,  51. 

Uncials,  later,  196-223.  See  Cursives. 

V. 

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, 

119. 
Viennensium    et    Lugdunensium 

Epistola,  99,  1 1 8. 
Vincentius,  109. 
Vindobonensis  (i),  137. 
Vulgate,  30,  31,  and  passim. 


W. 

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- 

Low-Latin. 
Wetstein,  3. 

White,  Rev.  H.  J.,  139,  142. 
Wiseman,  Cardinal,  135,  143. 
Woods,  Rev.  F.  H.,  130. 
Wright,  Dr.  W.,  129  note  2. 


X. 

=,  Cod.  Zacynthius,  204 
Ximenes,  Cardinal,  3,  236. 


Z,  Cod.  Dublinensis,  204  note 
Zeno,  101,  107,  114,  120. 


INDEX     II. 


PASSAGES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  COMMENTED  ON. 


ST.  MATTHEW  : 
i.  2-16    .     .     .    180-2 

ST.  MATTHEW  (cont.)  : 
xv.  35    .     .     .     .  168 

!62    3     IO^ 

ST.  MARK  .«>«/.) 
ii.  12  .     .     .     . 

I  3 

.  287 

177 

1  8*  .    '.    '^192-3,  288 
v  103,  138, 

138,      149, 
289 
22      ....       5=) 

17  .     .     .     . 
27-8    .     .     . 
in.  16  .    .     .     . 

.  289 

(  149,   289 

ii    23                                  177 

xviii    ii           i  T°6'  I38' 

XM11.    1J        .        •( 

26  .... 

2Q    . 

177-8 

.  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 

22 

66 

21                                       2Q3 

28                          178 

33    . 

.     80 

V.  I  2                                       2Q3 

44                                 280 

vii.  31^        .     .     . 

.  287 

22    290 

xxiii    14                   .  289 

.  168 

32,   4I         ...    294 

38    .106,138,149 
xxiv   3.6                       288 

7  .    .    .    . 

ix   24        .     . 

82  n. 

.  287 

*         /   I4U      2QO 

20    . 

.  289 

47    .                                2Q3 

34                             1  4O 

44-6 

.  289 

vi    i              .              290 

•3  C                                                   J    AQ 

40    . 

.  289 

6                                    2QO 

x     6 

.  288 

13    .         I04,  138,   I49 
13,    17,   19       .       .    297 

vii    13  4      1  04  138  1  40 

7I      ...     190-1 

xxvii.  34    .     .     .253-8 

17-8    .     .     . 
23-4    .     .     . 

24. 

259-78 
213-14 
.  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 

2—3                          63    4 

ST.  MARK  : 

72  . 

T87 

27    .      .105,  138,  149 

xii.    1—4                       292 

(  166/279-86, 
/  287 

xv.  23  .     .     .     . 

28 

253-4 
.    290 

30  ..          .     .  288 

2     .  1  08    I  38    140 

30   . 

80,  290 

xiii.    6   13  33             207 

1  1                              140 

43 

.    IQO 

36                     3d.  n  2 

14    2O              211     13 

d.6 

l87 

xiv.  13  .                        207 

28                               176 

47—  xvi  7 

.    184 

IQ  .                     .   108 

45-ii.  i          .176 

xvi.    3.  4.  6    . 

.    187 

INDEX    II. 

317 

PAGE 

PAGE 

PAGE 

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?    ow 
xiv.  14     ....  287 

Ii49,     288, 
*  "°}  293,    298- 

37     ....     65 
42     ...    217-9 

xvi.    6     ....  288 
xvii.  24     .115,139,150 

V307 

XX.  42       ...      22O-1 

xix.  20-1      .     .     .  290 

xxi.  25    ....  140 

25     ...  85  n.  3 

ST.  LUKE  : 
i.  26    ....  187 

**«•«-*  HITS 

29     ...    253-4 
xxi.    5-13    .     .241-4 

2o          j  109,  138, 
28    '     (149,289 

44     ....     80 
64     ....  290 

23     ....  287 
25     .115,139,150 

41     ....  187 
60    ....  187 

1111,138, 

—•34  -   JI49;239C; 

ACTS: 

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 

ROMANS  : 

39     ....  177 

13     ....     66 

xiv.  10    .     ...  288 

iii.  23-38   .     .    180-2 

40       .112,  139,  150 

iv.    4     .     .     .     .  289 

4I-3        .       .  239-52 

i  COR.  : 

5     ....  2^9 

,2                S"2,  I39, 

xi.  2-4  ....  2^0 

8     ....  289 

(  '5°>  29° 

xvi.  47     ....  288 

31     ....  177 

46   ....  288 

37    ....  176 

51  ....  288 

2  COR.  : 

V.      I-II     .       .211-1^ 

iii.    3     ....     65 

3     .     .     .     .  186 

ST.  JOHN  : 

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     '      lT39,  >5o 

EPH.  : 

vii.  18    ....    64 

27    ....  166 

i.    i     .     .     .     .  1  66 

35     •     •     •     •  J77 

28    .    .     .88,166 

v.  20     .     .     .    227-8 

ix.  55-6      .     .     .289 

43     ....     87 

x.  12     .     .     .     .176 

iii.    6     ....  297 

COL.: 

25    ....   140 

\  H4,  i39» 

ii.  10     ....  288 

41-2  .  110,138,149 

T3     •      \  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 

HEB.: 

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   END. 


Ojforfc 

HORACE   HART,    PRINTER  TO   THE   UNIVERSITY 


BY  THE  LATE  DEAN  BURGON. 

The   Last   Twelve  Verses   of  the   Gospel 
According  to  St.  Mark, 

VINDICATED  AGAINST  RECENT  CRITICAL 

OBJECTORS  AND  ESTABLISHED. 

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, 


EDITED  BY  THE  REV.  EDWARD  MILLER. 


A  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of 
the   New  Testament, 

FOR  THE  USE  OF  BIBLICAL  STUDENTS. 

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, 


BY  THE  REV.   EDWARD  MILLER. 

Two  vols.,  Large  Post  8vo,  cloth,  reduced  price  15^.      1878. 

The  History  and  Doctrines   of  Irvingism, 

OR    OF   THE   SO-CALLED    CATHOLIC  AND 
APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

'  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, 

AN  EASY  GRAMMAR  AND  READING   BOOK  FOR  THE  USE  OF 
STUDENTS  BEGINNING  GREEK. 


Second  Edition,  Extra  f cap.  Svo,  price  3*.  6<£     1893. 

'  Mr.  Miller  has  done  his  work  with  spirit,  intelligence,  and  accuracy.'- 
\xpositor. 

Oxford:   CLARENDON   PRESS;    London:    HENRY  FROWDE. 


FOURTEEN  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


INTEfc-LIB&ARY'' 


DAI 


lctlB'56 


198!  i 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(Bl39s22)476 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -U.C.  BEBKEI 


•  >    ••)••    ling    |hi|    If 

BOD083t,t,7b 


'1490