CHAPTER III

.

THEORY AND PRAXIS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.[129]

There is no special theory of the textual criticism of the New Testament. The task and the method are the same for all literary productions. The task is to exhibit what the original writer intended to communicate to his readers, and the method is simply that of tracing the history of the document in question back to its beginning, if, and in so far as, we have the means to do so at our command. Diversity of treatment can only arise when the fortunes of one written work have been more chequered and complicated than those of another, or when we have more abundant means at our disposal to help us in the one case than in the other. The task is very simple when we have only one completely independent document to deal with, as in the case of several of the recently discovered papyri, but this occurs very seldom with literary texts. In this case all that we have to do is to see that we read the existing text correctly, and then by means of the so-called internal criticism to determine whether the text so received can be correct. [Sidenote: Internal Criticism.] Even when several witnesses are at our command, we cannot altogether dispense with this internal criticism in the matter of sifting and weighing their testimony, only it would be unfortunate were we left with such a subjective criterion alone. For not only in such a case would different scholars come to very different conclusions, but even one and the same scholar would not be able to avoid a certain amount of uncertainty and inconsistency in most cases. The principle laid down in the maxim, _lectio difficilior placet_, or, as Bengel more correctly and more cautiously puts it, _proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua_, is perfectly sound; that reading is correct, is the original reading, from which the origin of another or of several others can be most easily explained. But how seldom can this be established with certainty! Take an illustration:—

[Sidenote: Conclusion of the Apocalypse.]

How does the Apocalypse, and the New Testament with it, conclude? Leaving out of account additions like “Amen” or “Amen, Amen,” and variations like “The grace of the Lord Jesus,” and “our Lord Jesus,” and “the Lord Jesus Christ,” and “Christ” simply, we find that the following forms are given:—

(1) μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν (2) μετὰ πάντων ἡμῶν (3) μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων (4) μετὰ πάντων (5) μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων

How are we to decide without external evidence which is the correct form? Even supposing we know that the first two are out of the question, and why they are so, it is very difficult on internal grounds alone to decide between the other three. Lachmann, who did not know of (5), decided in favour of (4). But so does Tischendorf, Weizsäcker, and Weiss, the latter giving as his reason for doing so that (5), τῶν ἁγίων, is explanatory of (4), πάντων, which is manifestly too general, and that (3) is the result of a combination of these two. On the other hand, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort favour (5), without so much as mentioning (4) in their margin; while Bousset, the latest expositor of the Apocalypse, regards (3) as the correct reading, and thinks that in all probability both (4) and (5) are due to a transcriptional error. Who is to decide when doctors disagree? Manifestly one might argue on quite as good if not better grounds than those of Weiss to the very opposite conclusion—viz. that a later writer who wished the Apocalypse, and with it the New Testament, to conclude with as comprehensive a benediction as possible, substituted the words “Grace be with all” in place of the restricted and somewhat strange expression “Grace be with the saints.” I did not observe that Bousset still defends the third form when I said in the first edition of this work that this reading does not fall to be considered at all. But my reason for saying so was not “because this form proves to be a combination of the other two,” or “because the authorities for it are later,” but because it could be shown that its supporters follow a corrected text in other places as well as this; and I concluded with observing that the decision between (4) and (5) could not be made to depend solely on internal criteria either, but depended on the decision come to regarding the general relationship between the witnesses that support each one, in this instance between A, as supporting (4), and א, as supporting (5).

(1) It may be stated here, merely by way of comment, that the first form of the benediction, “with you all,” was clearly translated into Greek by Erasmus from his Latin Bible, without the authority of a single Greek manuscript. But in spite of this, it is still propagated in the _textus receptus_ by the English Bible Society, and even in the last revision of Luther’s German Bible it was allowed to stand without demur. The English Authorised Version had it in this form, but the Revised Version adopts the fifth form “with the saints,” and puts (4) in the margin, with a note to the effect that “two ancient authorities read ‘with all.’”

The second form, “with us all,” which was adopted by Melanchthon in his Greek Bible of 1545, published by Herwag, is just as arbitrary an alteration. The third form, “with all the saints,” is read by the Complutensian with Q, with more than forty minuscules, and the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions. The fourth, “with all,” is found in A and Codex Amiatinus, while the fifth, “with the saints,” is given by א and the Old Latin g. In the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, edited by Gwynn in 1897, a sixth form seems to have been brought to light, which Baljon, who himself decides for (5), cites as μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ: Syr^{gwynn}. But the pronoun, which in Syriac is indicated by a suffix only, is employed now and again merely to represent the Greek definite article, so that this new Syriac manuscript does not give us a sixth form but only another witness to the third. On the other hand, Gwynn mentions the omission of the entire verse in Primasius, a fact that neither Tischendorf nor Weiss takes the least notice of, and he adduces lastly that a manuscript of the Vulgate reads “cum omnibus _hominibus_.” One sees from an illustration like this what an amount of pains is required seriously to apply, even in a single point, Bengel’s principle that the smallest particle of gold is gold, but that nothing must be passed as gold that has not been proved to be such (_Introductio in Crisin Novi Testamenti_, § 1, p. 572).

(2) LITERATURE.—See especially Gebhardt (_Urt._, p. 16). Ed. Reuss, _Geschichte der h. Schriften des N. T._, Braunschweig, 1887, § 351 ff. S. P. Tregelles, _An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N.T._ (= vol. iv. of Horne’s _Introduction_, 1877). F. H. A. Scrivener (see above, p. 6); also _Adversaria Critica Sacra_, edited by Miller, Cambr. 1893. B. F. Westcott, _The New Testament_ in Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. ii., London, 1863. C. E. Hammond, _Outlines of Textual Criticism_, Oxford, 1890. Westcott-Hort, vol. ii. (see p. 21). B. B. Warfield, _Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T._, New York, 1887; London, 1893. J. W. Burgon, _Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark_, Oxford and London, 1871; also _The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels vindicated and established_, edited by Miller, London, 1896; also, _The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_, edited by Miller, London and Cambridge, 1896. _The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the N. T. held at New College on May 6, 1897_; with a preface (by Miller) explanatory of the Rival Systems, 1897, pp. xvi. 43. Ed. Miller, _The Present State of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels_ (see above, p. 152).

Martin (Abbé J. P.), _Introduction à la Critique textuelle du N.T._, in five volumes, with plates and facsimiles: vol. i. pp. xxxvi. 327, Paris, 1884, 25 fr.; vol. ii. pp. ix. 554, 1884, 40 fr.; vol. iii. pp. vi. 512, 1885, 40 fr.; vol. iv. pp. vi. 549, 1886, 40 fr.; vol. v. pp. xi. 248 and 50 pp. of facsimiles, 1886, 20 fr. Also by the same author, _Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au N.T. conservés dans les Bibliothèques de Paris_. Supplement to the foregoing, Paris, 1884, pp. xix. 205, with facsimiles, 20 fr.; _Quatre manuscrits importants du N.T. auxquels on peut en ajouter un cinquième_, Paris, 1886, pp. 62, 3 fr.; _Les plus anciens mss. grecs du N.T., leur origine, leur véritable caractère_, in the _Revue des Quest. Hist._, 1884, No. 71, pp. 62-109; _Origène et la Critique textuelle du N.T._, Paris. Reprinted from the _Rev. des Quest. Hist._ for Jan. 1885, No. 73, pp. 5-62.

Th. Zahn, _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_: vol. i., _Das N.T. vor Origenes_, Part 1, 1888; Part 2, 1889. Vol. ii., _Urkunden und Belege zum ersten und dritten Band_, Part 1, 1890; Part 2, 1892. The third vol. has not yet appeared. The order of the books of the N.T. is discussed in vol. ii. p. 343 ff., and the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel in the same vol., p. 910 ff.

Salmon (Geo.), _Some thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N.T._, London, 1897, pp. xv. 162. Blass, _Philology of the Gospels_, London, 1898, pp. viii. 250. Ada Bryson, _Recent Literature on the text of the N.T._ in the _Expository Times_ for April 1899, pp. 294-300. M. Vincent, _History of the Textual Criticism of the N.T._, 1900. G. L. Cary, _The Synoptic Gospels, with a chapter on the Textual Criticism of the N.T._, New York, 1900. See also Prof. Jannaris in the _Expositor_, vol. viii. of Series V. There is an article in the _American Journal of Theology_, 1897, iv. p. 927 ff., entitled _Alexandria and the N.T._, which I have not been able to consult.

In attempting to restore the text of the New Testament as nearly as possible to its original form, it is essential to remember that the New Testament, as we have it to-day, is not all of one piece, but consists of twenty-seven separate documents now arranged in five groups, and that every several document and every several group has had its own peculiar history. Of these groups the most complicated, perhaps, is the one with which the New Testament opens—viz. the Gospels.

[Sidenote: Gospels.]

It is quite uncertain when our four Gospels were first written together in one volume and arranged in the order that is now common. The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon[130] is defective at the beginning, but seems to imply this arrangement. It was supposed that the Gospels were written in the following order—viz. Matthew first and John last. The order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, which is found in nearly all the Greek and Syriac manuscripts, was made popular by Eusebius and Jerome. The former followed it in his _Canons_, which were afterwards adopted by Jerome in his Latin Bible. According to Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._, vi. 25),[131] Origen knew this order, though he very frequently cites the Gospels in the order Matthew, Luke, Mark.

The following arrangements are also found:—

[Transcriber’s Note: The following list begins with (2).]

(2) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, in the earlier (Curetonian) Syriac and in the Canon Mommsenianus, a catalogue of the Books of the Bible and of the works of Cyprian, originating in Latin Africa about the year 360, and first published by Mommsen.[132]

(3) Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, in the so-called Ambrosiaster and in a Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books.

(4) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke—_i.e._ the two Apostles put before the two pupils of Apostles, in the Codex Claromontanus.[133] This order occurs also in the Arabic writer Masudi’s _Meadows of Gold_.[134]

(5) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, in Codd. D and X, in the _Apostolic Constitutions_, in Ulfilas, and especially in the Old Latin Manuscripts; see Corssen, _Monarchianische Prologe_, p. 65, in _TU._ xv. 1.[135]

(6) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, in Codex k.

(7) John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, in the Vocabularies of the Egyptian versions.

(8) John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, in Tertullian and cod. 19. See Arthur Wright, _Some New Testament Problems_, p. 196 ff.[136]

This very variety shows that for a long time, perhaps till the third century, at all events much longer than the Pauline Epistles, the Gospels were propagated singly, perhaps on rolls, and only afterwards incorporated in a codex. And this makes it probable that the text of our manuscripts was not taken from a single copy of the first Tetraevangelium. More than probable we cannot call it, seeing that a copyist may have had any sort of reasons of his own for disarranging the order of the books given in his exemplar, as may still be gathered luckily from the position occupied by Hebrews in Codex B. The probability is heightened, however, by the fact that our manuscripts display a considerably greater amount of textual variation in the Gospels than in the Pauline Epistles, though not in all to the same extent as in D which contains an entirely peculiar recension, especially in Luke. One of the most remarkable indications of this is afforded by the discovery made by E. Lippelt, a pupil of Professor Blass. The order of the books in D is Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts, where it will be seen that the two portions of the book inscribed to Theophilus are separated by Mark. Now Lippelt observed that while the name Johannes is regularly spelt with two ν’s (Ἰωάννης) in Matthew, John, and Mark, it is just as regularly spelt with one (Ἰωάνης) in Luke and Acts, sundered though these two books are by Mark, where the other spelling prevails.[137] This shows an accuracy of tradition which is surprising, but till now it has only been traced in this one manuscript. The others write the name throughout with two _ν_’s and B as consistently with one. In this connection the question naturally arises whether certain liberties were not taken with the books on the occasion of their collection and arrangement. Resch, _e.g._, thinks that it was then that the second Gospel received the conclusion or appendix which is found in most of our manuscripts, and Rohrbach holds a similar opinion.[138] I have elsewhere expressed the idea that the peculiar opening of Mark is to be accounted for in this way.[139] Zahn, however, doubts whether the use of ἀρχή and τέλος for ἄρχεται and ἐτελέσθη, _incipit_ and _explicit_, can be established for early times.[140] I have found it in Greek Psalters, though not very early, I admit, where αρχη των ωδων occurs instead of ωδαι as the superscription of the Hymns at the end of the Psalter.[141] However, there is no need to dwell further on this point. Zahn (p. 174) is quite right in his contention that the usual titles κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, etc.,[142] imply a collection of the Gospels of which Εὐαγγέλιον is the general title.

If, then, for the sake of simplicity, we take as our goal the first manuscript of the Tetraevangelium, one would think it must be possible with the means at our command gradually to work back to it. Even the latest of our manuscripts is surely copied from an earlier one, and that one from another, and so on always further and further back, so that all we have to do is to establish their genealogy, pretty much as Reuss has done for the printed editions of the New Testament; and seeing we have manuscripts as old as the fourth and fifth century, that means that the entire period of a thousand years prior to the invention of printing is bridged over at once, so that the task would appear to be simply that of throwing a bridge over the first few centuries of the Christian era. And by going on comparing the witnesses and always eliminating those that prove unreliable, it must be possible, one would suppose, in this way to arrive at the original. But a little experience will shortly moderate our expectations.

At the outset it is very much against us that we have no really serviceable text for comparison. The text of our present critical editions is a patchwork of many colours, more wonderful than the cloak of Child Roland of old. In fact it is a text that never really existed at all. In the preparation of my _Supplement_, which I undertook with the object of making the text of Codex Bezae easily accessible to every one, I compared the text of that manuscript with that of Tischendorf-Gebhardt’s edition, and I saw clearly that my work would necessarily present a very confused appearance indeed. I also issued an interleaved edition of my Stuttgart New Testament with a similar object—viz. to furnish a convenient means of comparing the text of manuscripts and of Patristic quotations, but that, too, labours under the same disadvantage. Whoever intends really to further the textual criticism of the New Testament will have to issue a copy of a single manuscript printed in such a way as will make it practically convenient for the comparison of different texts, something like Tischendorf’s edition of Codex Sinaiticus (_Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum_, 1863), which, however, is of little use for other purposes, or like Schjøtt’s edition of the New Testament (see above, p. 24). But as these are in the hands of very few, there is nothing for it at present but to take one of our most common texts, always bearing in mind its composite character. This feature of the text appears at the very outset in the title. In א B (D) it is κατα Μαθθαιον. Codex D is defective at the beginning down to c. i. 20, but κατ Μαθθαιον is found regularly as the title at the top of the pages, a fact which Tischendorf has overlooked. Most other manuscripts, C E K M etc., have Ευαγγελιον κατα Ματθαιον. If this latter is held as incorrect, then all these manuscripts should for the future be dropped out of account and א B D alone be regarded as authoritative.

Again, in verse 2, א* has Ισακ twice, while the others have Ισαακ, so that א too would drop out, leaving B standing alone. But then in verse 3 our editors forthwith reject B, which reads Ζαρε, and decide in favour of the others which have Ζαρα. Whether this may not be a little premature, seeing that there are other places where ε is found for final ח,[143] and that one manuscript, 56, has deliberately corrected Ζαρα into Ζαρε in Gen. xxxviii. 30, where a third has Ζαρε, we do not pause to determine. The point is simply this, that in these first three verses there is no manuscript that is always right in the judgment of our editors. True, the cases we have been considering are trifling, the differences being of an orthographical nature merely, and one must not be too particular in such matters, though at the same time the oft-quoted maxim, _minima non curat praetor_, is nowhere less applicable than in textual criticism. But the same state of things reappears immediately where we have differences involving important matters of fact. What is the fact in verse 11? Did Josias beget Jechoniah, or did he beget Joachim and Joachim Jechoniah? Verse 16 has already been referred to: in this case our oldest Greek manuscripts would give no occasion to mention the verse. But in verse 25 we have again to ask which is correct, ἔτεκεν υἱόν or ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον? [Sidenote: Dogmatic influence.] And when we hear Jerome say—Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres, we learn already how dogmatic motives may have some influence upon the form of the text. And, moreover, when we call to mind the words of Luke ii. 7, we are made aware of another thing that may exert a disturbing influence in the Gospels—viz. the tendency to alter the text in conformity with the parallel passage. [Sidenote: Parallel passages.] Apart from the stylistic peculiarities of Codex D, we meet with no materially important variants in our Greek manuscripts of Matthew till we come to the Sermon on the Mount. The only thing is in iii. 15, where two Latin witnesses have an addition which is evidently taken from a Greek source: et cum baptizaretur, lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant (congregati erant). This interpolation, however, does not concern the criticism of the text of the New Testament, seeing that it is derived from some source outside the Canon.

On the other hand, there is a great question as to the order of the first three Beatitudes in Matthew v. 3-5, whether they are to be read in the order given in the common text, πτωχοί ... πενθοῦντες ... πραεῖς ..., or as our recent editors prefer πτωχοί ... πραεῖς ... πενθοῦντες.[144] The latter arrangement is attested by only two Greek manuscripts—D and 33. Now, if their evidence is accepted here in spite of its apparent weakness, how can we justify the refusal to acknowledge the authority of D in other similar cases? Verse 22, but a short way down, is a case in point. Here D, with most authorities, exhibits the sorely-contested εἰκῇ. But our modern critics will have nothing to do with it, going by א B, Origen, Jerome, and Athanasius. Merx (_Die vier kanonischen Evangelien_, pp. 231-237) has recently come forward as a strong supporter of it, on the ground that Syr^{sin} also has it,[145] but how is its omission, especially by Jerome, to be explained? The Vulgate itself shows that it was easier to insert it than to omit it, because out of twenty-four manuscripts collated in W.-W. three have it, though it certainly does not belong to the text of the Vulgate.[146]

In view of these illustrations, which serve to show the somewhat haphazard way in which the text of our editions hitherto has been arrived at, the question becomes very important how the original text is to be restored in disputed or doubtful cases.

[Sidenote: Conjectural emendation.]

The first case, or, if we like to call it, the last, but at all events the one most easy of settlement, is when the correct reading is no longer found in any of our witnesses, neither in Greek manuscript, version, nor patristic quotation. Here we must simply have recourse to =conjecture=. Not long ago philologists evinced such a fondness for conjectural emendation that the question might not unreasonably be asked why they did not rather themselves write the text that they took in hand to explain. At the same time, the aversion to this method of criticism which till recently prevailed and still to some extent prevails, especially in the matter of the New Testament text, is just as unreasonable. Tischendorf, _e.g._, did not admit a single emendation of this nature into his text, while Westcott and Hort consider it to be necessary in only a very few cases, such as Colossians ii. 18, though they also decline to adopt any conjectural readings in their text. For ΑΕΟΡΑΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ in this passage, which Weizsäcker renders “pluming himself upon his visions,” they would read ΑΕΡΑ ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ, which is obtained by the omission of a single letter and a different division of the words. In Holland conjectural criticism is freely indulged in,[147] the example of Cobet and his school being followed by such critics as S. A. Naber, W. C. van Manen, W. H. van de Sande-Bakhuyzen, van de Becke Callenfels, D. Harting, S. S. de Koe, H. Franssen, J. M. S. Baljon, J. H. A. Michelsen, and J. Cramer.[148] Baljon has adopted a great number of such conjectural emendations in his edition of the text published in 1898 (see above, p. 24). In place of πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι, _e.g._, in James iii. 1, Lachmann would read πῶλοι δύσκολοι, Naber πλανοδιδάσκαλοι, while Junius, de Hoop-Scheffer, and Bakhuyzen prefer πολυλάλοι on the ground that m^{64} has _nolite multiloqui esse_.[149] So far, therefore, this last is not pure conjecture. For κρινέτω in Col. ii. 16 Lagarde wished to read κιρνάτω, because the verb דוד found in the Peshitto at this place is elsewhere used to translate θροεῖν (Matt. xxiv. 6), ταράσσειν (John xiv. 1, 27), ἐγκόπτειν (Gal. v. 7), and also διαστρέφειν (Eccl. vii. 18; xii. 3). My proposal to read ἐπὶ πόντον in Apoc. xviii. 17, a reading adopted by Baljon in his text, instead of ἐπὶ τόπον or ἐπὶ πλοίων as given in our manuscripts, was a pure conjecture, but it has the support of _super mare_ in Primasius.[150] There is therefore no objection on principle to the method of conjecture, nor to the adoption of conjectural readings in the text, though it is only to be resorted to as the _ultima ratio regis_ and with due regard to all the considerations involved, transcriptional, linguistic, and otherwise.[151] There is no essential difficulty in supposing, _e.g._, that κιρνάτω in Col. ii. 16 was first corrupted into κρινάτω and then into κρινέτω. Such a transposition of the liquid is quite common in all languages.[152] But we must see if κιρνάτω has the sense required in the passage. There is no doubt a reference to drinking here, and so far, therefore, the word seems to suit the context better. It is also true that evidence is not wanting of the metaphorical use of the word proposed to be inserted. Passow, _e.g._, gives τὸ τῆς φύσεως σκληρὸν κιρνᾶν from Polybius iv. 21, 3, and τὴν πόλιν κιρνᾶν from Aristophanes i. 1. In spite of this, however, I have considerable misgivings whether this sense of the word is in harmony with Pauline usage and is suitable to the context of the passage. If it is sought to justify a conjectural reading on transcriptional grounds, then, as has been observed (p. 82), a strict account must be taken of the manner of writing prevalent at the time when the corruption is supposed to have originated. Luke’s handwriting must have been very bad indeed if we are to suppose that the scribe of D or the parent manuscript mistook ἠρνήσασθε for the enigmatical ἐβαρύνατε in Acts iii. 14, though it is quite conceivable how he came to write δόξῃ instead of δεξιᾷ in v. 31, or conversely wrote ἐδέξαντο instead of ἐδόξασαν in xiii. 48, or that ΚΑΙΤΟΥΤΩΣΥΝΦΩΝΟΥΣΙΝ was made into ΚΑΙΟΥΤΩΣΣΥΝΦΩΝΗΣΟΥΣΙΝ or _vice versa_.[153] A slight experience in the reading of ancient manuscripts shows how easy it is to make mistakes of this sort. And if we wish to see what mistakes of this sort actually do occur in Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Ephraemi, we have only to look into Morrish’s _Handy Concordance of the Septuagint_,[154] though of course the examples there are all from the Old Testament. We have, _e.g._, ἀγαπάω for ἀπατάω; ἀγάπη for ἀπάτη; ἁγιάζω for ἀγοράζω; ἅγιος for αἴγειος, ἀγγεῖον, ἀγρός, γῆ; ἀδιάλυτος for διάλυτος; βάλλω and its compounds for λαμβάνω and its compounds; λαός for ναός, etc.

[Sidenote: Eclectic method.]

It is more difficult to answer the question how the text is to be restored in cases where there is no lack of external evidence. We have already seen that critics have hitherto adopted an =eclectic= mode of procedure. In general, whenever Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree, editors, Tischendorf as well as Westcott and Hort, give the preference to their testimony. But if they do not agree, what is to be done? And what if a third reading seems on internal grounds to be better than either? In his _Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, Salmon very pungently, but not altogether incorrectly, describes Westcott and Hort’s method on the lines of an anecdote told of Cato by Cicero: “To the question what authorities should be followed, Hort answers, Follow B א. But if B is not supported by א? Still follow B, if it has the support of any other manuscript. But suppose B stands quite alone? Even then it is not safe to reject B unless it is clearly a clerical error. But suppose B is defective? Then follow א. And what about D? What about killing a man!” Lagarde has said that the gag is the modern equivalent of the stake. Codex D has not been gagged outright, to be sure, but it has been shoved aside, and only now and then with remarkable inconsistency has its evidence been accepted as trustworthy. For one must surely call it inconsistent to follow one side as a rule and then all at once to take sides with that which is diametrically opposed to the first. In his _Introduction_, Hort, in the most brilliant manner one must admit, has established the principle that the restoration of the text must be grounded on the study of its history, and no one has studied that history as carefully as Hort has done. But the question remains whether he has not interpreted the history wrongly, whether what he calls the Neutral text is really the original, and whether that which he rejects as a Western Corruption is really to be regarded as such.

[Sidenote: History of transmission.]

I cannot presume to judge; but I have the feeling that the history of the transmission of our New Testament text must be studied in quite another way from that in which it has been done hitherto, and in a twofold direction:—

(1) The manuscripts and their relation to each other must be subjected to a still more searching investigation, and

(2) The works of the ecclesiastical writers, especially the Commentaries and the Catenæ, must be thoroughly explored for any information they may have to give regarding the history of the text of the New Testament, and these two results must then be set in relation with each other.

With regard to the former task, it might not be essential to make such a minute collation of the manuscripts as Ferrar, Hoskier, and other investigators deemed necessary, and as is certainly the right thing to do in the case of the oldest documents. With such a mode of procedure, the task could not be accomplished in any conceivable time. But suppose the work was organised the way that Reuss did with the printed editions, by selecting say a thousand passages for comparison, it would be possible, and in a very short time we should be much better informed than we are at present as to the state of the text in our manuscripts, and especially in the minuscules.

Such a task, moreover, must be preceded by a fresh scientific statement of the way in which the text was propagated previous to the invention of printing, on the lines laid down by Hort in the first fourteen paragraphs of his _Introduction_.[155] A necessary preliminary to this is the study of genealogy, in which we have an excellent guide in Ottokar Lorenz’s _Lehrbuch der gesamten wissenschaftlichen Genealogie_ (Berlin, 1898). See especially the first chapter of Part I. on the distinction between Genealogical Tree (Table of genealogy) and Table of Ancestors, and the third chapter of Part II. on the problem of Loss of Ancestors.

All the ideas pertaining to the genealogy of living creatures, such as crossing, heredity, and so forth, fall to be considered also in the genealogy of manuscripts, the only difference being that in the latter case new features make their appearance. It has been asserted somewhere that if an Englishman, a Dutchman, a German, a Frenchman, and an American meet in a company, the nationality of each is at once recognisable, but it is impossible to determine their exact genealogical relationships, and that the same impossibility exists in the case of the manuscripts of the New Testament. That is perhaps an exaggeration, but it is certainly a surprising fact that so few even of our latest manuscripts can be proved with certainty to be copies of manuscripts still in existence, or at least to be derived from a common original.

[Sidenote: Analogous works.]

It will be a very great help, particularly to those beginning work in this field, to compare the method and results of investigations pursued in similar and perhaps easier departments of study. Apart from the works of classical philologists, or works like the new edition of Luther’s writings, a great deal of most valuable research has been carried on of late years in the matter of textual criticism, some of it very extensive, some of it less so. Ed. Wölfflin, _e.g._, devoted his attention to the Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, who died some time after the year 542. [Sidenote: Rule of Benedict.] His Rule, which extends only to eighty-five pages of the Teubner size, is extant in manuscripts dating as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries. By a comparison of these, Wölfflin was convinced that we still possess the Rule essentially in the identical wording of the original vulgar Latin, that Benedict himself had afterwards made certain alterations and additions, and that we have therefore to distinguish several (fortasse tres) editions.[156] Wölfflin purported to give the text of that recension which he took to be the earliest. But we had no more than time to congratulate ourselves on the satisfactory result arrived at by this experienced philologist, when behold, another totally different conclusion was announced by a younger worker in the same field. Wölfflin had done little more than compare the manuscripts, but Lud. Traube applied also the external evidence afforded by the history of the text, and discovered that certain manuscripts that Wölfflin had thrown aside possessed a greater claim to originality.[157]

[Sidenote: De Viris Illustribus.]

Similarly, E. C. Richardson gave several years to an examination of all the accessible manuscripts of the _De Viris Illustribus_ of Jerome and Gennadius, a work not much larger than the Rule of Benedict. These manuscripts, about 120 in number, he grouped, and then framed his text in accordance with them.[158] While his work was in the press, an edition was published by C. A. Bernoulli, based on some of the manuscripts that Richardson also had used.[159] But from the very first sentence onwards, the two editors follow contradictory authorities, so that while one gives _parvam_ as the correct reading, the other reads _non parvam_. But more than that, the same Part of _Texte und Untersuchungen_ that gave us Richardson’s laborious work contained a second piece of work on the same material—viz., O. v. Gebhardt’s edition of the so-called Greek Sophronius, which is an old version of Jerome’s book. And the last chapter of this version, which is autobiographical, contains indications, according to v. Gebhardt’s Introduction, that Jerome issued two editions of his book, so that, if this be so, an entirely new grouping of the manuscripts becomes necessary.

[Sidenote: Julian’s Letters.]

In the case of Holl’s researches on the _Sacra Parallela_ of John Damascene, published in the same Collection,[160] matters are too complicated for beginners in textual criticism, but of non-biblical texts mention may be made of the _Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des lettres de l’Empereur Julien_ by S. Bidez and Fr. Cumont (Brussels, 1898), as showing how much can be attained by combining the internal and external history of the transmission of literary texts.[161] [Sidenote: Latin New Testament.] In the field of Biblical texts, and particularly of the New Testament, the study of Wordsworth and White’s _Epilogus_ to the first volume of their _Novum Testamentum Latine_ is to be specially recommended, particularly c. iv. _De Patria et Indole Codicum nostrorum_, c. v. _De Textus Historia_, and c. vi. _De Regulis a nobis in Textu constituendo adhibitis_. As was said before, Jerome undertook his revision of the Gospels in the year 383; his work was of an entirely uniform texture, apart from a few passages where a correction may have occurred even in the original manuscript; and there is a sufficiency of manuscripts extant, some of them going back to the sixth century. One of these, which formerly belonged to the Church of St. Willibrord at Echternach, contains a note dated 558, and copied into it from the parent manuscript, to the effect: proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca Eugipi presbyteri, quem ferunt fuisse sancti Hieronymi. (See above, p. 122.) In these circumstances it must surely be possible, one would think, to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. And yet, in spite of all this, and in spite of long years of labour, many a problem remains to perplex the editor of the Vulgate. To begin with, there is one striking circumstance. Jerome executed his work at Rome, in obedience to the commission of Pope Damasus. One would therefore expect to find the best manuscripts in Rome, or at least originating from Rome. But that is by no means the case: “praeter expectationem accidit ut pauci vel nulli ex codicibus optimis et antiquissimis originem Romanam clare ostendant.” The manuscript that editors consider the best—viz. Codex Amiatinus, now at Florence—was certainly at Rome for a long time, but it was sent there as a present from beyond the Alps; indeed, it came from England. And on the other hand it was not from Rome that the Latin Bible came to England, or to Canterbury in particular, although Augustine was sent thither by Pope Gregory the Great, but from the South of Italy; in fact, it was from Naples. Codex Fuldensis, which may have been brought to Fulda by Boniface, formerly belonged to Bishop Victor of Capua; the Echternach manuscript referred to above came from the Lucullan Monastery at Naples, while the manuscript from which Codex Amiatinus was copied was written by Cassiodorus of Vivarium, and therefore came from Calabria. The history of the transmission of the Latin Bible reveals many other facts as strange as these in connection with the locality to which manuscripts belong. We must be prepared, therefore, for similar surprises in the case of Greek manuscripts also, and need not be astonished to hear that the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae, so much decried as “Western,” takes us back to Smyrna or Ephesus by way of Lyons and by means of Irenæus.[162]

It is also very instructive to observe that after long years of the most thorough study of their manuscripts, Wordsworth and White refrain from constructing =stemmata= or genealogies of these. All they venture to do is to distinguish certain large classes or =families=, and within these again to bring certain manuscripts into somewhat closer relationship with each other. They distinguish two main classes. In the first they reckon five, or it may be four, Italian-Northumbrian manuscripts, A Δ H* S Y, two Canterbury O X, three Italian J M P, the two mentioned already from Capua-Fulda F and Lucullan-Echternach EP, and the Harleian Z, so called from a former possessor and now in the British Museum. To the second class belong five Celtic D E L Q R, three French B BF G, and two Spanish C T. After these come the witnesses to the history of the text in the stricter sense of the term, the recensions made by Theodulf (H^c Θ) and Alcuin (KV M̅), and, for the form which the text assumed in the later manuscripts and in the printed editions, the Salisbury Codex W. We should have great reason to congratulate ourselves, could we arrive at like certain results in the region of the far older and more diversified history of the transmission of the Greek text, but there too we shall encounter the same general features—viz., a form of the text in the printed editions, in the later manuscripts, in the Recensions, the dates of which are still to be determined (Lucian, Hesychius?, Pamphilus), and in the families, which are only to be classified in a general way.

It is also instructive to find that in the case of several manuscripts, Wordsworth and White are obliged to observe that they seem to have been corrected from the Greek, H* (p. 709), M (p. 711), EP* (p. 712), D R L (pp. 714, 716), which suggests the possibility of Greek manuscripts also having been influenced by one of the versions, be it Latin or Syriac.

Finally, when we enquire as to the relationship between Jerome and the Greek manuscript or manuscripts used by him, we find that that manuscript must have been most nearly related to the Sinaiticus, while it had no sort of connection with Codex D. Whether this result tells in favour of א or the reverse, we will not pronounce at present: Jerome certainly avers that he made use of a Graecorum codicum emendata conlatione ... sed veterum (p. 108), only _veterum_ is a comparative term, and it might quite well happen that to Jerome that form of text appeared to be the best which was most recent or most widely circulated in his neighbourhood, and that he would have nothing to do with such a singular form of text as D exhibits, even supposing he was acquainted with it, a point we cannot decide. The intimate connection in various passages between his text and that of the cursive 473 (2^{pe}) is remarkable, and especially the many points of resemblance between the Irish manuscripts (D L R) and the members of the Ferrar Group.

And this brings us back from our survey of the history of the Latin text to that of the Greek, where we seem to have got at least one fixed point to begin with in this perplexing chaos, for that is the first impression we gain on glancing at the mass of Greek manuscripts before us. But here again our too sanguine hopes are likely to be disappointed, and we shall learn only too soon that even this is no Archimedean point from which we are able to regulate this world of disorder.

[Sidenote: Ferrar Group.]

If we find that in a certain number of manuscripts the passage usually indicated as John vii. 53-viii. 11 occurs in Luke, and in exactly the same place in each one—viz. after Luke xxi. 38—we must needs conclude that the manuscripts exhibiting this common peculiarity are intimately connected with each other. This is the case with the cursives 13, 69, 124, 346, 624, 626. Whether the others that are reckoned in this group have this same peculiarity, I am not perfectly sure. Now one would naturally expect that these manuscripts would also coincide in the other peculiarities characteristic of this group. [Sidenote: Variation.] But on the contrary, they part company over the very first and most conspicuous of these—viz. Matthew i. 16. Here, unfortunately, 13 and 69 are defective, but we can compare 124 and 346. And we find that whereas the former has the usual text, the latter, with the support of 556, 624, 626, exhibits in place of τὸν ἄνδρα ... Χριστός, the reading already mentioned, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν. Which of these readings is right, or whether both of them may not be wrong, we need not enquire at present. It is sufficient to point out that one and the same mother may give birth to very different children. The specific difference will be inherited from the other of the two parents, in this case represented by the copyist, and will depend on whether he is painstaking, careless, violent, arbitrary, well-informed, or the reverse. But the mother herself has a great number of hereditary or acquired peculiarities which, the latter no less than the former, may be transmitted to the children in a variety of ways. There is perhaps no manuscript in existence which is entirely free from corrections, while, on the other hand, there are many so overlaid with corrections that the original writing is scarcely now recognisable. Codex B, on the whole, is in a very good state of preservation, but it was supposed lately (see _ThLz._, 1899, col. 176) that its first hand wrote in John viii. 57, “and Abraham saw thee” instead of “and hast thou seen Abraham,” as all our editors read in that passage.[163] The supposition proved to be incorrect, but if that could possibly happen with B, what must have happened in the case of manuscripts that are so full of corrections as א and D, if they came to be copied in later times? Suppose that one scribe took the trouble to copy the text of the first hand, while another thought it his duty to follow the corrections, the result would be two manuscripts whose common origin would be scarcely recognisable. And in the course of centuries how often may not this process have been repeated. No wonder, therefore, that so few manuscripts have as yet been clearly made out to be the descendants of our oldest codices, so as to permit of their being removed from the board with one sweep, as having no independent testimony to contribute, as is the case with E_{3} which is merely a bad copy of D_{2} (p. 77), or that scholars cannot agree as to the relationship existing between two manuscripts like F_{2} and G_{3} (p. 77).[164] Nor need we be surprised to find that some of our most peculiar witnesses seem to have remained absolutely childless, while a less valuable race is perpetuated in many copies. The words of Homer—οἵη περ φύλλων γενεή, τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν—may be applied conversely to the leaves to which we entrust our immortality: habent sua fata libelli. The only unfortunate thing is that we are so little able to follow the course of these fates by means of external testimony.

[Sidenote: External testimony.]

When the Emperor Constantine _e.g._ asks Eusebius to supply him with fifty copies of the Scriptures at once, we cannot but suppose that these became authoritative over a large area. But in which of the classes into which our manuscripts have hitherto been divided are we to look for these now?[165] And conversely if, in another locality, heathen persecution was directed specially against the Bibles of the Christians, this cannot have been without some effect. According to C. Hülsen (_Bilder aus der Geschichte des Kapitols_, Rome, 1899), even the Roman Bishop Marcellinus, with his deacons Strabo and Cassianus, in the year 304, burned, in front of the temple of Juno Moneta, those Gospels which ten years later were made the law of Christian Rome by the Emperor Constantine. These scattered notices must be much more carefully collected and considered than hitherto, and combined with the results obtained from the collation of the manuscripts.

[Sidenote: Recensions.]

Most of our information with respect to the =recensions= of the Bible comes from the Syrian Church, and is concerned rather with the Old Testament than with the New; but the recensions of the former may throw some light on those of the latter.

[Sidenote: Lucian.]

(_a_) As the result of their researches, Westcott and Hort have made it very probable, on internal grounds, that a recension of an official nature was undertaken in Syria, perhaps at Antioch, about the fourth century, and that to this recension are due the origin and propagation of that form of the text of the New Testament which was widely disseminated in the Byzantine Empire, now represented in our later minuscules, and made the _textus receptus_ by means of the first printed editions.

=Lucian=, the celebrated founder of the Antiochean school of exegesis, suffered martyrdom in the year 311 or 312, most probably the latter. Of all the names that we know, none has a better claim than his to be associated with such a recension, and the conjecture derives some support from the passage of Jerome cited above (p. 85).[166] It is, perhaps, even better supported by what we know of Lucian’s recension of the Old Testament. In his preface to the Chronicles, Jerome wrote: “Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat, mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinae (_v.l._ Palaestinos) codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt; totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.” Now it is true that the words of a man like Jerome must not be pressed too far, and what may have been true in his day might be quite different in a comparatively short time—think _e.g._ of the fifty copies of the Bible that Eusebius Pamphili had sent to Constantine, or the Bible or Bibles sent by Athanasius to Constans[167]—at the same time it has been established beyond all doubt by Field and Lagarde, that it is to Lucian we must refer a peculiar recension of the Greek Old Testament preserved in a good many manuscripts, the one found in the unfortunately small remnant of the Gothic Old Testament and especially in the numerous Biblical quotations of the famous theologian John of Antioch, better known as Chrysostom of Constantinople, who was a pupil of Lucian. The probability, therefore, is very great that the same thing will hold good of the New Testament portion of the Bible of Ulfilas and Chrysostom. As regards the former, Kauffmann has expressed a decided opinion to this effect in his work on the Gothic Bible cited above (p. 139). The supposition would be converted into something like certainty if it could be proved on palæographic grounds that this or that New Testament manuscript belongs to this or that Old Testament manuscript of Lucianic derivation as part of what was originally one and the same complete Bible. This is a point which I am not in a position personally to investigate, and I must therefore content myself with throwing out this suggestion, and with adding in support of it that we have the express testimony of the Menologies for saying that Lucian bequeathed to his pupils a copy of the Old _and New_ Testaments written in three columns with his own hand.

There is a statement in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis,[168] which seems, however, to refer only to the Old Testament portion, to the effect that it was discovered in a concealed cupboard (πυργίσκος) in the house of a Jew at Nicomedia in the time of Constantine. Long ago Hug and Eichhorn attributed the “Asiatic” or “Byzantine” recension to Lucian, and no decided objection can be established to the view of Hort, which Gregory also is inclined to accept (_TiGr._, p. 814).[169]

[Sidenote: Hesychius.]

(_b_) It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to make out how matters stand with regard to the recension of =Hesychius=. Jerome commends it with that of Lucian for the Old Testament, but contemptuously rejects it for the New; and accordingly, in the decree of Pope Gelasius, we hear of Gospels “quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha, evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha” (c. vi. 14, 15). Considering the important position of Alexandria and Egypt, and the vast number of manuscripts referred with more or less certainty to that locality, it is the more remarkable that so few unmistakable traces have as yet been discovered of the recension of which “Alexandria et Aegyptus ... Hesychium laudat auctorem,” and that till the present moment the most divergent views have been held with regard to it. And this is true of the Old Testament no less than of the New. One view, for which a good deal can be said, has already been referred to (p. 61 f.)—viz. that we have the recension of Hesychius in Codex B. [Sidenote: Codex B.] Rahlfs, who was the first to connect B with the Canon of Athanasius, says (_lib. cit._, p. 78, note 7); “If we care to trust ourselves to pure hypothesis, we might hazard the conjecture that our superb Codex, manifestly written for one of the principal churches of Egypt, was prepared at the instigation of St. Athanasius himself. The locality in which the manuscript was produced supports this conjecture, while the time is not inconsistent with it.” I am not aware if Rahlfs knew that Athanasius had executed πυκτία τῶν θείων γραφῶν for Constans, and I am not sufficiently acquainted with the minutiæ of the ecclesiastical history of that time, and with the life of Athanasius in particular, to hazard the assertion that Codex B was prepared by Athanasius for the Emperor Constans. It is certainly the case, as every Church History records, that Constans was Prefect of Illyricum and Italy, and that Athanasius fled to Rome to Julius II., which would help to explain how Codex B comes to be in that city.[170] I cannot ascertain however from the books at my command, whether any particular resemblance has been observed between the text of this manuscript and the Biblical quotations found in those writings of Athanasius that belong to this period of his life, that is, prior to the year 350. And, besides, one has always to take into consideration how very little reliance can be placed as yet on the text of the Biblical quotations in our editions of the Fathers. In the Book of Judges B certainly exhibits quite a peculiar form of text which is not used by the earlier Egyptian teachers, Clement and Origen, nor even by Didymus (d. 394 or 399), but was employed first by Cyril of Alexandria, and which is the basis of the Sahidic version. This fact may have an important bearing on the question as to the text of the New Testament as well.[171] As early as 1705 Grabe expressed the opinion that the Sahidic version was the work of Hesychius, but we have very little information indeed regarding that Church Father, and in

## particular as to his connection with the lexicographer of that name.

Here also, the evidence afforded by palæography would need to be examined with a view to ascertaining whether or not any of the manuscripts agreeing with B in the Book of Judges—viz. G (Brit. Mus., 20,002), 16, 30, 52, 53, 58, 63, 77, 85, 131, 144, 209, 236, 237, Catena Nicephori—has a counterpart in some manuscript of the New Testament. On Codex G see Rahlfs (p. 35, n. 2), and compare v. Dobschütz (_ThLz._, 1899, 3, 74) on the two New Testament manuscripts Λ and 566^{evv.} (Greg).[172] According to the latter, the difference in size precludes the supposition that Λ and 566 are the New Testament portion of the manuscript described by Rahlfs (_loc. cit._). But if they are not written by the same scribe, they both undoubtedly come from the same school of copyists. At most, however, Λ-566 would only possess importance for the recension of Hesychius if the text they, or rather it, follows were different from that with which it was collated. Its subscription shows that it belongs to those exemplars which were collated with the Codex of Pamphilus. This fact has an important bearing on the Gospel of the Hebrews. See Zahn, _GK._ ii. 648.

[Sidenote: Eusebius-Pamphilus.]

(_c_) We have nearly as little certain information regarding the third, and perhaps most important, of the recensions mentioned by Jerome in connection with the Old Testament, that of =Eusebius= and =Pamphilus=, which goes back to Origen.[173] [Sidenote: Origen.] So far as I know, the references which Origen makes in his extant writings to his own labours in the field of textual criticism, relate only to the Old Testament. At the same time his complaint as to the evil condition of the manuscripts of his day refers to the New Testament, and to the Gospels in particular. Νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι, he says, in his _Commentary on Matthew_, Bk. xv. 14, πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.[174] He tells us in the same place how, θεοῦ διδόντος, he found ways and means of remedying the evil by the employment of the critical symbols of Homeric commentators, the obelus and asterisk, τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι. According to his own express declaration, supposing it to have been correctly preserved, for it is only extant in Latin, his work in textual criticism at that time at least was confined to the Old Testament: in exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi. Von Gebhardt consequently says (_Urt._, 25) that this statement from Origen’s own mouth should have kept anyone from ascribing a formal recension of the New Testament text to him, alluding to Hug’s system of recensions; but at the same time he will not deny that the works of Origen, who was a man of conspicuous critical accuracy, are of the highest importance for the criticism of the text of the New Testament. As a matter of fact, later church teachers appeal chiefly to Origen’s manuscripts of the Old Testament, but several references are also found to his New Testament manuscripts. On Gal. iii. 1, Jerome remarks (ii. 418): legitur in quibusdam codicibus, Quis vos fascinavit non credere veritati? Sed hoc (meaning, of course, the last three words only) quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus. The words are a gloss interpolated from ch. v. 7, but they are also found in Origen, though only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, and they appear, among our Greek manuscripts, in C D^c E K L P, and likewise in most codices of the Vulgate (see Wordsworth and White, p. 659). The same writer says on Matthew xxiv. 36 (ii. 199): in quibusdam latinis exemplaribus additum est “neque filius,” quum in Graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur additum; sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur (W. and W., p. 658). Pierius is no doubt the Presbyter of Alexandria who lived at Rome after the Diocletian persecution. He was styled “the younger Origen” on account of his learning, and was perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus (Jerome, _Viri Ill._, 76; Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, vii. 32). Adamantius, like Chalkenteros, is a surname of honour given to Origen. Here again, it is a strange fact that the words which Jerome says were omitted in Origen’s exemplar are found in a certain passage of his works also extant only in Latin, and there expounded so fully that there cannot be the slightest doubt that he had them in his text, and, moreover, had no conception of their omission in other copies. What explanation, if any, can be given of this fact we need not pause to enquire. Nor need we take up the question where Jerome obtained access to the exemplars of Pierius. I suppose it would be in Caesarea, where he also saw the (Bible?) volumes of Origen transcribed by Pamphilus with his own hand, and actually obtained possession of his copy of the commentary on the Minor Prophets.[175] Even supposing that what is meant by _exemplaria Adamantii_ is not really a recension of the text of the Bible but simply the copy that Origen used most or used last, that copy might have been authoritative for Pamphilus if not for Eusebius, and so far, therefore, it becomes necessary for us to try and discover the Origenic text in the New Testament as well as in the Old. At all events a good many of our manuscripts go back to Pamphilus, and particularly H of the Pauline Epistles. In addition to a very practical suggestion as to the lending of books,[176] and a notice of its preparation and of the original writer, this manuscript has also the following note: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον (αὐτοῦ). From this subscription Field (_Hexapla_, i. p. xcix) has concluded that the library of Pamphilus was still in existence in the sixth century, but it is doubtful whether the subscription may not have been found in the original of H and copied into it along with the text, as is the case with a similar note copied into the minuscules 15, 83, 173. [Sidenote: Euthalius.] In any case this manuscript is our principal witness for the recension of Pamphilus, or, as it used to be called, the recension of =Euthalius=.[177] I have no intention of discussing the question whether it should be Euthalius or Evagrius: Von Dobschütz (_Euthaliusstudien_, p. 152 n. 1) has promised to give us further particulars as to the Syriac texts relating to the subject. I would merely call attention to two facts, viz.—

[Sidenote: Harklean.]

(1) That the subscription testifying to a collation with the exemplar of Pamphilus is found also at the end of the Harklean Syriac published by Bensly (see above, pp. 79, 106).

[Sidenote: Evagrius.]

(2) That the name =Evagrius=, which Ehrhard proposes to read in place of Euthalius in Codex H, is actually found associated with the library of Pamphilus in another manuscript of the Old Testament. In his _Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici_ (Lipsiæ, 1860), pp. 73-122, Tischendorf published “Ex Codicibus Insulae Patmi, Ineditum Diodori Siculi; Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis.” The latter he took from a manuscript which, according to H. O. Coxe’s _Report ... on the Greek MSS. yet remaining in the Levant_ (1858, p. 61), professed to contain “Origenis Hexapla cum Scholiis” after the Philocalia. In reality they are Origen’s Scholia on the Proverbs which Angelo Mai had published in a different form from the Vatican Catena 1802, in the _Nova Patrum Bibliotheca_, 1854. In the Patmos manuscript the scholia proper are prefaced by two (or three) explanatory notes on the use of the obelus and the asterisk, and on the different arrangement of the chapters in the Hebrew and Greek texts, followed by another explanation of the same sort under the title Εὐαγρίου σχόλιον.[178] Who they are that are referred to in the scholion as having collated the book (τῶν ἀντιβεβληκότων τὸ βιβλίον) we learn from the subscription, which says: μετελήφθησαν ἀφ’ ὧν εὕρομεν ἑξαπλῶν καὶ πάλιν αὐτὰ χειρὶ (_leg._ αὐτόχειρι) Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώσαντο. This subscription, which Oikonomos published fully fifty years ago from that Patmos manuscript,[179] should be added to those usually cited—viz. those appended to Ezra and Esther in א, to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Codex Marchalianus, to 3 and 4 Kings in the Syriac Hexapla, and to Ezekiel in Codex Chisianus 88.

With what has been said the student should compare what Von der Goltz tells us of a critical work upon the text of the New Testament belonging

## partly to the tenth and partly to the sixth century.[180] This, too,

goes back to Origen, and in a scholion on James ii. 3, the greater part of which is unfortunately erased, the work mentions “a manuscript written by the hand of St. Eusebius.” As Zahn elsewhere shows, the writer of the Athos manuscript did not base his own work on this Codex of Eusebius, and in one passage he expressly contrasts it with the text of Origen which he follows. In spite of this, however, this Athos manuscript must be taken into account in dealing with the recension of Pamphilus. Still more so must the Armenian and Syriac texts, according to Conybeare and von Dobschütz.[181] Even the Latin manuscripts may contain traces of this recension. E. Riggenbach has shown that the table of chapters in Hebrews given in Codex Fuldensis and in a manuscript indicated as Cod. Vat. Reg. 9, is nothing but a translation of the corresponding part of “Euthalius.”[182] Unfortunately the relics of the literary activity of Pamphilus, that devoted student of the Scriptures,[183] are exceedingly scanty, and what little is left is extant only in a Latin translation. In these circumstances the attempt to specify more closely than hitherto his manuscripts of the Bible by means of his quotations does seem rather hopeless.

[Sidenote: Later revisers.]

(_d_) As we are now dealing with the question how to arrive at the oldest form of the Greek text, it is unnecessary to take account of the labours of any later individuals in the formation of the Greek New Testament. Among these were Emperors and Empresses like Constantine and Constans, who exerted themselves in the dissemination of the Scriptures, and perhaps even made copies of them with their own hands, but these we may disregard.[184] The work of _Andreas_ and _Arethas_ on the Apocalypse will be noticed when we come to speak of that book. One naturally turns here to Krumbacher’s _History of Byzantine Literature_, but the index to the first edition of that work contains only two references to the New Testament, neither of them bearing on our present subject. The matter is one which may be commended to those who have the time and the opportunity and the willingness to investigate it, and considering the ardour with which the study of Byzantine antiquities is being prosecuted at present, it may suffice merely to throw out this hint.

[Sidenote: Pre-Origenic texts.]

(_e_) So far as we have gone, therefore, it appears that much uncertainty prevails regarding the text formations we have already considered—those of Lucian, Hesychius, Pamphilus, and the Ferrar Group. Considering the amount of evidence at our command—how the external testimony points in the same direction as the manuscripts themselves, and, indeed, how probable is the whole nature of the operation in question—one would expect these to be the most easily distinguishable of all. Indeed, even so cautious an enquirer as Zahn speaks without any hesitation of “the official recensions originating subsequent to the time of Origen” (_ThLbl._, 1899, 180). The vagueness of our conclusions with respect to these recensions does not look very promising for the result of our investigation of the text prior to the time of Origen, when activity in this field was more disconnected and might be said to run wild and unrestrained. And there is this further difficulty that some of the writers who fall to be considered in this period came in later times more or less justly under the imputation of heresy, with the consequence that the results of their labours were less widely disseminated, if not deliberately suppressed. In circumstances like these any attempted revision of the text must have been equally mischievous, whether it proceeded from the orthodox side or from the opposite. That there were διορθωταί who were supposed to correct the text in the interests of orthodoxy we have already learned from Epiphanius. Indeed, from our point of view the action of the orthodox correctors must be thought the more regrettable of the two, since the books without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid, strange, and even fantastic traits of language. Even in the matter of style it seems to me incontestable that it was at their hands that the Gospels received that reserved and solemn tone which we would not now willingly part with, and which can be compared to nothing so much as to those solemn pictures of Christ that we see painted on a golden background in Byzantine churches. For myself, at least, I have not the slightest doubt that the Gospel, and the Gospel particularly, was originally narrated in a much more vivacious style. Just consider this, for example. In all our present authorities—Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, Syriac, Egyptian, and so forth, and in all the Church Fathers without exception, so far as I am aware—we read the beautiful words: “your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him,” πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν (Matt. vi. 8). Compare with this what we find singly and solely in Codex D and the Old Latin h, πρὸ τοῦ ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα, antequam os aperiatis, “before ever you open your mouth.” To me it is a striking indication to what an extent the instinctive sense of originality is wanting, that a reading like this is not inserted by Westcott and Hort among their Noteworthy Rejected Readings, nor even cited by Baljon in his critical apparatus, and that our commentators have not a single syllable about it, so that our students and preachers know nothing whatever of this form of the words of Jesus. If my edition of the New Testament did no more than bring such things to the notice of those who previously were unacquainted with them, I should consider it had done no small service. But take another illustration from the parable of the Barren Fig Tree. “Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground,”—that is how our ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant husbandman in Luke xiii. 7: ἔκκοψον αὐτήν· ἱνατί καὶ τὴν γῆν καταργεῖ. Here again, the great majority of our witnesses of every sort exhibit no variation worth mentioning, except that a good many (A L T etc.) insert a very prosy οὖν after the imperative, while B 80 read τὸν τόπον for τὴν γῆν. And in the answer of the vine-dresser (verse 8), “till I shall dig about it and dung it,” there is again no various reading in our ordinary witnesses of all kinds except the insignificant interchange of (βάλω) κόπρια, κοπρίαν, and κόπρον. What a difference do we find here also in the text of D: “bring the axe,” φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην, adfers securem; and, “I will throw in a basket of dung,” βάλω κόφινον κοπρίων, mittam qualum (= squalum) stercoris d, or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff^2 i l q, from which it was taken into the Codex of Marmoutier, a copy of the Alcuinian recension of the Vulgate written in gold.[185] Here again, our editors and commentators for the most part take no notice. “Bring the axe” is omitted by Weiss, father and son, Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, and also by Baljon, while Holtzmann ignores both variants. It stands to reason, of course, that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual proof of greater originality. But the whole question is raised as to the principles by which we are to be guided in estimating the comparative value of the witnesses. One might be inclined to regard such peculiarities as due to the caprice of some scribe by whom D or its parent manuscript was written. As a matter of fact, Westcott and Hort, and most recent editors with them, do so regard them, seeing they cite the reading of D neither in Matt. vi. 8 nor in Luke xiii. 7. In the latter passage one might be inclined to take that view of the case, because as yet we have no other testimony to φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην than D d. But it is not so likely in the case of Matt. vi. 8, seeing that here the testimony of D is supported by that of h. To justify our neglect of these witnesses, we should require to prove either that h is derived from D or D from h.[186] So far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet maintained the latter view. The derivation of h from D is an impossibility, for this reason alone that h belongs either to the fourth, or, what is perhaps more likely, to the fifth century (see p. 113).[187] The truth is, rather, that we have in h a second and independent witness to the fact that at a very early date the text of Matt. vi. 8 read, “before you open your mouth.” But it is quite impossible to ignore the evidence of D in Luke xiii. 8 (κόφινον κοπρίων). Here too, of course, one might take exception and say that as D is bilingual, its Greek text might be derived from the Latin. Fortunately, however, it happens that the Latin of D, that is, d, differs from all the other eight Latin witnesses in reading not _cophinus_ but _qualus_, and it is _cophinus_ that is a loan word from the Greek[188]; so that this objection, actually raised against D in the case of other readings, does not apply to this one. There is this to be observed, moreover—a point not given in Tischendorf, but noticed in Westcott and Hort—viz., that Origen also seems to have read “basket.” The passage is again one that is extant only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, and Tischendorf cites Or. 3, 452 among the witnesses supporting κόπρια; but Westcott and Hort expressly mention that Origen’s context appears to support the reading κόφινον (“Lev. lat. Ruf., 190, apparently with context”).

Here, then, we have these three stages:—

(1) D d alone, φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην—_i.e._ one solitary Greek manuscript.

(2) D supported by h, ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα—_i.e._ the same solitary Greek manuscript with the addition of one representative of a version.

(3) D supported by eight Latin manuscripts and Origen, κόφινον κοπρίων—_i.e._ the same solitary Greek manuscript with the addition of eight representatives of one version and one not absolutely certain quotation.

What then? Can it be allowable to judge a reading’s claim to be mentioned and considered from the number of the witnesses supporting it, and like Westcott and Hort and Baljon to mention the third only, and take no notice of the other two? I think not. For just as in certain circumstances the correct reading may no longer appear in any manuscript, but must be determined by conjecture, so in another case the truth may have only one solitary representative left to support it against a whole world of adversaries (Heb. xii. 3), and this solitary witness either a manuscript, a version, or a quotation. On the other hand, it may have a whole cloud of witnesses accompanying it and supporting it. In matters of this kind numbers have nothing to do with the case whatever. To speak of majorities is nonsense. The true man is willing and able to stand alone, and to many a witness of this sort we must apply the words of Socrates: ἃ μὲν συνῆκα γενναῖα· οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ἃ μὴ συνῆκα. If we have been able to verify the word of a witness once, several times, frequently, then we shall be willing to trust him even in cases where we cannot check his evidence. Of course we must make allowance for human fallibility—quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus; least of all in matters of this kind must we look for inerrancy. A manuscript whose testimony was decisive on every point would be even a greater miracle than a book printed without a single error at the time of the Incunabula, which the printers of that age would have regarded as an eighth wonder of the world. But how to estimate the character of such a witness, seeing that the subjective feeling, the instinctive perception of what is original, is as little to be trusted as the number of the witnesses—that is the difficulty. And what is the point that our discussion has brought us to? From the “official recensions of the text” made in the later centuries, we sought to get back to similar works of earlier times, and we found that the original text may have suffered as much at the hands of orthodox revisers and correctors, who toned down and obscured the fresh colouring of the ancient records, as at the hands of heretics who inserted foreign and extraneous elements.[189]

Unfortunately very little definite information has come down to us from those early times, and as that relates more to the history of the canon than of the text, reference must be made here to the monumental work of Zahn.[190] Two figures, however, emerge from this chaos who have left their traces on the history of the text as well, =Tatian= and =Marcion=, the former chiefly in connection with the Gospels, the latter with the Pauline Epistles. Both have been already referred to more than once in the chapter on the “Materials” (Tatian, p. 97 f.; Marcion, pp. 76, 87), and both will require careful consideration here in our treatment of the principles involved in the reconstruction of the text. How much would be achieved could we but restore the original work of Tatian upon the Gospels, or the _Gospel_ and the _Apostle_ of Marcion!

[Sidenote: Heretics.]

(_f_) Before speaking of their work, however, there are still a few less important notices to be gleaned from their own and the preceding time.

Nearly all the =heretics= were in turn accused of falsifying the Scriptures. In this sense, also, the Dutch proverb is true, “jedere ketter heeft zijn letter” (every heretic has his letter, his text of the Scriptures). In early times Justin charged the Jews with such falsification in the Old Testament, and Lagarde was sometimes inclined to suspect that the Massoretic numbers in Genesis had been manipulated by the opponents of Christianity. Such complaints were most frequently made against the Gnostics, particularly the Valentinians, and when we glance over the long lists of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings,[191] it is abundantly evident that at various times there was a good deal of falsification—_i.e._, a good deal written under false names. At the same time it cannot be denied that alterations were also made on early Christian works and the books of Scripture in the interests of dogma. These alterations are of all sorts, ranging from quite harmless changes made in all innocence to supposed corrections, and, it may be, even wilful corruptions.[192] But most assuredly the heretics are not alone in being chargeable with this offence: Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra.

As Jülicher (_Einl._, 378) points out, the orthodox Church teachers were very fond of making this charge against the heretics: παραλλάσσειν, παραχαράσσειν, ῥᾳδιουργεῖν, διαφθείρειν, ἐξαιρεῖν, ἀφανίζειν, κατορθοῦν (ironically), ἀποκόπτειν, παρακόπτειν, περικόπτειν, μετατιθέναι, προστιθέναι, interpolare, adulterare, violare, corrodere, dissecare, auferre, delere, emendare (ironically), eradere, subvertere, extinguere, these are some of the expressions we hear in this connection. Marcion gave occasion to the reproach by his edition of the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, but against the rest of the Gnostics, especially the Valentinians, against the Artemonites, Novatians, Arians, and Donatists, and against the Nestorians, the same accusation is made as was formerly brought against the Jews. Even within the pale of the Church one party attributed such practices to the other. Ambrosiaster, _e.g._, believed that in the case of important discrepancies between the Greek and Latin manuscripts, the variations were due to the presumption of the Greek writers who had interpolated spurious matter. Jerome was afraid this would be said of him if he ventured to make the slightest alteration: quis doctus pariter vel indoctus non statim erumpat in vocem, me falsarium, me, clamans, esse sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere! The curse in Apoc. xxii. 18 f. was also referred to the “falsifiers,” who thought it more convincing and more reverent to observe the rules of grammar and logic than to abide by all the peculiar expressions in the Scriptures. At a meeting of Cyprian bishops, about the year 350, when one of them, in quoting the verse John v. 8, substituted for κράβαττος the better Greek word σκίμπους, another shouted to him in the hearing of all the multitude, “Art thou better than he who said κράβαττος that thou art ashamed to use his words?”[193] And it is a well-known fact that in the time of Augustine there was very nearly an uproar in an African congregation over Jonah’s “gourd” (cucurbita) or Jonah’s “ivy” (hedera). A few references at least may be collected here:—

(1) On a certain Sunday[194] in the year 170 or thereabouts, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church at Rome through their Bishop Soter, of which Eusebius has preserved the following among other passages (_Eccl. Hist._, iv. 23):—Ἐπιστολὰς γὰρ ἀδελφῶν ἀξιωσάντων με γράψαι ἔγραψα. Καὶ ταύτας οἱ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπόστολοι[195] ζιζανίων γεγέμικαν, ἃ μὲν ἐξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ προστιθέντες. Οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ κεῖται.[196] Οὐ θαυμαστὸν ἄρα,[197] εἰ καὶ τῶν Κυριακῶν ῥᾳδιουργῆσαί τινες ἐπιβέβληνται γραφῶν, ὁπότε καὶ ταῖς οὐ τοιαύταις ἐπιβεβουλεύκασι. The κυριακαὶ γραφαὶ are in all likelihood the Gospels (the Syriac renders “the writings of our Lord”), but may also include the Pauline Epistles and the O.T. If we are to take the words of Dionysius in their strict sense, it would appear that these writings, like his own letters, had been corrupted by means of “additions” and “omissions.” The last sentence, if it is put correctly, and if it has been faithfully transmitted, leads us to infer that in his letter to Corinth Soter had expressed his surprise that the writings of the Lord should have been falsified. To which Dionysius replies that certain letters of his own had been falsified also, and that it was therefore no wonder if they did the same to the writings of the Lord, seeing they tampered also (or, _even_) with those that were inferior to them. The simplest explanation of the words is, undoubtedly, that Dionysius sought to console himself over the fate that had befallen his letters, by reflecting that it was not surprising that they had falsified his letters of less importance, seeing they had presumed to do the same _even_ to the writings of the Lord. On the first interpretation, one would certainly expect Dionysius to use a stronger expression to describe his feelings at the manipulation of the sacred writings than the mere οὐ θαυμαστόν. Who are meant by τινές? One most naturally thinks of Marcion. According to a later account, Soter, whom Jerome does not mention among the writers, composed a book against the Montanists.

[Sidenote: Artemonites.]

(2) In the last chapter of the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastical History (c. xxviii.), entitled Περὶ τῶν τὴν Ἀρτέμωνος αἵρεσιν ἐξαρχῆς προβεβλημένων· οἷοί τε τὸν τρόπον γεγόνασι καὶ ὅπως τὰς ἁγίας γραφὰς διαφθεῖραι τετολμήκασιν, Eusebius quotes the following complaint from an earlier source, entitled the _Little Labyrinth_ (± 235):—Γραφὰς μὲν θείας ἀφόβως ῥερᾳδιουργήκασιν, πίστεως δὲ ἀρχαίας κανόνα ἠθετήκασι, Χριστὸν δὲ ἠγνοήκασιν, οὐ τί αἱ θεῖαι λέγουσι γραφαὶ ζητοῦντες, but occupying themselves with Logic, Geometry, Euclid, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Galen, ταῖς τῶν ἀπίστων τέχναις, τὴν ἁπλῆν τῶν θείων γραφῶν πίστιν καπηλεύοντες ... διὰ τοῦτο ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἀφόβως ἐπέβαλον τὰς χεῖρας, _λέγοντες αὐτὰς διωρθωκέναι_. Καὶ ὅτι τοῦτο μὴ καταψευδόμενος αὐτῶν λέγω, ὁ βουλόμενος δύναται μαθεῖν. Εἰ γάρ τις θελήσει συγκομίσας αὐτῶν ἑκάστου _τὰ ἀντίγραφα_ ἐξετάζειν πρὸς ἄλληλα, κατὰ πολὺ ἂν εὕροι διαφωνοῦντα. Ἀσύμφωνα γοῦν ἔσται τὰ Ἀσκληπιάδου τοῖς Θεοδότου· Πολλῶν δὲ ἔστιν εὐπορῆσαι διὰ τὸ φιλοτίμως ἐγγεγράφθαι τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτῶν τὰ ὑφ’ ἑκάστου αὐτῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ καλοῦσι _κατωρθωμένα_ τουτέστιν ἠφανισμένα. Πάλιν δὲ τούτοις τὰ Ἑρμοφίλου οὐ συνᾴδει. Τὰ γὰρ Ἀπολλωνίδου οὐδὲ αὐτὰ ἑαυτοῖς ἐστι σύμφωνα. Ἔνεστι γὰρ συγκρῖναι τὰ πρότερον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν[198] κατασκευασθέντα τοῖς ὕστερον πάλιν ἐπιδιαστραφεῖσι, καὶ εὑρεῖν κατὰ πολὺ ἀπᾴδοντα. Ὅσης δὲ τόλμης ἐστὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἁμάρτημα, εἰκὸς μηδὲ ἐκείνους ἀγνοεῖν. Ἢ γὰρ οὐ πιστεύουσιν Ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι λελέχθαι τὰς θείας γραφὰς, καί εἰσιν ἄπιστοι· ἢ ἑαυτοὺς ἡγοῦνται σοφωτέρους τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὑπάρχειν, καὶ τί ἕτερον ἢ δαιμονῶσιν; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀρνήσασθαι δύνανται ἑαυτῶν εἶναι τὸ τόλμημα, ὁπόταν καὶ τῇ αὐτῶν χειρὶ ᾖ γεγραμμένα, καὶ παρ’ ὧν κατηχήθησαν μὴ τοιαύτας παρέλαβον τὰς γραφάς· καὶ δεῖξαι ἀντίγραφα, ὅθεν αὐτὰ μετεγράψαντο, μὴ ἔχωσιν. Ἔνιοι δὲ αὐτῶν οὐδὲ παραχαράσσειν ἠξίωσαν αὐτὰς, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς ἀρνησάμενοι τόν τε νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας ἀνόμου καὶ ἀθέου διδασκαλίας προφάσει χάριτος, εἰς ἔσχατον ἀπωλείας ὄλεθρον κατωλίσθησαν.

The passage is very instructive. We learn that copies of the writings of these heretics were to be found in abundance, because their disciples eagerly inserted their emendations in their texts, “each one’s emendations, as they style them, but in reality they are corruptions,” as the Syriac has it. At the same time, it is not quite certain that κατωρθωμένα really means corrected manuscripts of the Bible, and not the heretics’ own works—_i.e._, whether we should understand ἀντίγραφα τῶν θείων γραφῶν after τὰ Ἀσκληπιάδου, τὰ Θεοδότου, τὰ Ἑρμοφίλου, τὰ Ἀπολλωνίδου and not rather γράμματα or συντάγματα. In the former case we shall have to search for a recension of Asclepiades, of Theodotus, of Hermophilus, and in the case of Apollonides for a double recension, an earlier and a later. This interpretation of the words does certainly receive support from the positive way in which the historian argues from the conduct of these heretics, that they either did not believe in any inspiration of the holy Scriptures, or thought they could write better themselves, and also from his remark that they did not receive τὰς γραφάς in that form (τοιαύτας) from their (Christian) instructors, and were not able to show any older copies from which their own were transcribed. From the mention of the Law and the Prophets, we may conclude that the reference is mainly to the O. T. Epiphanius mentions the Theodotians as appealing to Deut. xviii. 15, Jer. xvii. 9, Isa. liii. 3, Matt. xii. 31, Luke i. 35, John viii. 40, Acts ii. 22, 1 Tim. ii. 5; while Hippolytus argues against them on the ground that in John i. 14, it is not τὸ πνεῦμα but ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο. No sure traces, however, can be discovered in any of these N. T. passages of their supposed trenchant criticism of the text. The most probable instance is Luke i. 35. “If we may trust the statement of Epiphanius,” says Harnack (_Monarchianismus_, PRE^3, x. 188), “Theodotus wished to separate the second half of the sentence from the first (διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς Θεοῦ),[199] as if the words διὸ καὶ were wanting, which makes the sentence imply that the divine Sonship of Christ rests on his approving himself. But perhaps Theodotus omitted διὸ καὶ altogether, just as he seems to have read πνεῦμα κυρίου instead of πνεῦμα ἅγιον, in order to obviate all ambiguity.” The latter reading is not mentioned in Tischendorf, and the remark of Epiphanius in my opinion amounts to this, that whereas he understood ἅγιον to be the subject of the sentence, Theodotus made it the predicate and separated it from γεννώμενον.[200]

[Sidenote: Marcosians.]

(3) Speaking of the Marcosians,[201] Irenæus says (92):—Ἔνια δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐν Εὐαγγελίῳ κειμένων εἰς τοῦτον τὸν χαρακτῆρα μεθαρμόζουσιν ... ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰρηκέναι· πολλάκις ἐπεθύμησα ἀκοῦσαι ἕνα τῶν λόγων καὶ οὐκ ἔσχον τὸν ἐροῦντα, ἐμφαίνοντός φασι δεῖν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸν ἀληθῶς ἕνα Θεόν. This seems to contain a reference to Matt. xiii. 17, but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words of Scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text itself.[202] The still earlier passage, Polycarp vii. 1, is also to be taken as referring to this practice, ὃς ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε κρίσιν [εἶναι], οὗτος πρωτότοκός ἐστι τοῦ Σατανᾶ. For the exposition of the passage see Zahn, _GK._ i. 842.

[Sidenote: Basilides.]

(4) That Basilides[203] altered the text of the Gospels as received by the Church in accordance with his own religious and ethical views, and incorporated them in their altered form in his _Evangelium_, is shown by Zahn on Matt. xix. 10-12 (_GK._ i. 771). He shows also that the form into which Basilides cast the Synoptic narrative may have prepared the way for the belief that Simon the Cyrenian was crucified instead of Jesus, if this was really his doctrine.

[Sidenote: Noëtus.]

(5) Hippolytus says of Noëtus (Lagarde’s edition, 45, 19): ὁπόταν γὰρ θελήσωσιν πανουργεύεσθαι, _περικόπτουσι_ τὰς γραφάς. He means by this, according to Zahn, that the Noetians garbled their quotations, and made selections of Scriptural sayings without paying regard to the context. But compare _ibid._, line 7 ff., αἱ μὲν γὰρ γραφαὶ ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἂν καὶ Νόητος νοῇ· οὐκ ἤδη δὲ εἰ Νόητος μὴ νοεῖ, παρὰ τοῦτο _ἔκβλητοι_ αἱ γραφαί.

[Sidenote: Valentinians.]

(6) Heracleon,[204] the Valentinian, is said to have read πέντε instead of ἕξ in John ii. 20, but whether he made the alteration himself or found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly made out. There is no notice of the variant in Tischendorf, Baljon, or in our commentaries. It is mentioned by Scrivener, _Introd._, ii. 260, n. 3, where reference is made to Lightfoot’s _Colossians_, p. 336, n. 1. Origen, commenting on John i. 28, cites Heracleon in support of the reading “Bethany,” which, he says, “is found in almost all the manuscripts.”

In contrast to the Marcionites and their practice of mutilating the Scriptures, Irenæus says of the Valentinians (iii. 12, 12): scripturas quidem confitentur, interpretationes vero convertunt, quemadmodum ostendimus in primo libro. There we read (i. 3, 6): καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν πειρῶνται τὰς ἀποδείξεις ποιεῖσθαι παρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξηγήσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν. But in i. 11, 9 he says of them: Illi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere gloriantur quam sint ipsa evangelia, siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim scriptum est, “veritatis evangelium” titulent, in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evangeliis, ut nec evangelium sit apud eos sine blasphemia. For the continuation and discussion of the passage, see Zahn, _GK._ ii. 748. See also Westcott, _Canon_, p. 298 ff.

Zahn (_GK._ ii. 755) endeavours to show that they corrected the text of the manuscripts, by the omission of ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, _e.g._, in 1 Cor. xv. 29, and the insertion of θεότητες in Col. i. 16.

In i. 8, 1, Irenæus accuses them of ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον ἐξ ἄμμου σχοίνια πλέκεις ἐπιτηδεύοντες. The proverb is from Ahikar.

The well-known charge made by Celsus (_Orig. con. Cels._, 2, 27; Koetschau, i. 156) and the answer of Origen refer partly to the re-writing of manuscripts and partly to their alteration: Μετὰ ταῦτά τινας τῶν πιστευόντων φησὶν (Celsus) ὡς ἐκ μέθης ἥκοντας εἰς τὸ ἐφεστάναι αὑτοῖς _μεταχαράττειν_ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γραφῆς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τριχῇ καὶ τετραχῇ καὶ πολλαχῇ, ἵν’ ἔχοιεν πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἀρνεῖσθαι. Μεταχαράξαντας δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἄλλους οὐκ οἶδα ἢ τοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Λουκιάνου. Τοῦτο δὲ λεγόμενον οὐ τοῦ λόγου ἐστὶν ἔγκλημα ἀλλὰ τῶν τολμησάντων ῥᾳδιουργῆσαι τὰ εὐαγγέλια. Καὶ ὥσπερ οὐ φιλοσοφίας ἔγκλημά εἰσιν οἱ σοφισταὶ ἢ οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι ἢ οἱ Περιπατητικοὶ ἢ οἵτινές ποτ’ ἂν ὦσιν οἱ ψευδοδοξοῦντες, οὕτως οὐ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ ἔγκλημα οἱ μεταχαράττοντες τὰ εὐαγγέλια καὶ αἱρέσεις ξένας ἐπεισάγοντες τῷ βουλήματι τῆς Ἰησοῦ διδασκαλίας.

[Sidenote: Gnostics.]

(7) Clement (_Strom._, iii. 39) complains that the Gnostics corrupted the sense of the Scriptures both by arbitrarily misplacing the emphasis (in oral delivery) and by altering the punctuation (in copying manuscripts?); see Zahn, _GK._ i. 424. On Tertullian’s complaint as to the way in which Marcion construed Luke xx. 35, see below, p. 276.

(8) Clement (_Strom._, iv. 41) quotes Matt. v. 10_a_, to which he annexes the reason found in verse 9_b_, and then goes on to say, ἢ ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὲρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι. Zahn (_GK._ i. p. 411) makes the surmise that when Clement spoke of certain persons who “transposed” or altered the Gospels—_i.e._, took liberties with the text, he may have been thinking of Tatian, whose personal intercourse he may have enjoyed for a length of time, and with whose Greek writings he shows himself to be familiar.

[Sidenote: Simon Magus and the Marcionites.]

(9) In an Arabic Introduction to a collection of alleged Nicene Canons particular stress is laid upon the falsification of the Scriptures by heretics. The Emperor Constantine is represented as addressing the Fathers at Nicæa, and enjoining them, in dealing with heretics, to distinguish between those who reject and falsify the holy Scriptures and those who merely interpret them falsely. The arch-heretic Simon Magus already appears as a fabricator of spurious Scripture. His sect possessed an Evangelium in four books, to which they gave the title “Liber quatuor angulorum et cardinum mundi.” The Phocalites (Kukiani) retained the Old Testament, but in place of the Church’s New Testament they had one manufactured by themselves, in which the twelve Apostles bore barbaric names. It is said of the Marcionites: Sacras scripturas quibusdam in locis commutarunt addideruntque Evangelio et Epistolis Pauli apostoli quibusdam in locis, quaedam vero loca mutilarunt. Apostolorum Actus e medio omnino sustulerunt, alium substituentes Actorum librum, qui faveret opinionibus ac dogmatibus, illumque nuncuparunt “Librum propositi finis.” See Zahn, _GK._ ii. 448, where reference is made to Mansi, _Conc. Coll._, ii. (Flor., 1759), 947-1082; Hefele, _Conciliengeschichte_, 2nd. ed., i. 361-368, 282 f.; Harnack, _Der Ketzer-Katalog des Bischofs Maruta von Maipherkat_, _TU._ (New Series), iv., 1899; _ThLz._, 1899, 2.

[Sidenote: Arians.]

(10) Ambrose says on John iii. 6 (_De Spiritu_, iii. 10): Quem locum ita expresse, Ariani, testificamini esse de Spiritu, ut eum de vestris codicibus auferatis. Atque utinam de vestris et non etiam de Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis. Eo enim tempore quo impiae infidelitatis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque occupaverat, vel a Valente atque Ursatis nutantibus sacerdotibus suis incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegium vestrum in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum est. Et fortasse hoc etiam in oriente fecistis.

[Sidenote: Greeks.]

(11) Ambrosiaster has the following note on Rom. v. 14 (Migne, xvii. 100 f.): Et tamen sic (_i.e._ μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντες) praescribitur nobis de graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod facit studium contentionis. Quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suis quasi verba legis asserat, ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur. Constat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus graecis translatos (esse) codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit et probat: postquam autem a concordia animis discedentibus et haereticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus coeperunt, multa immutata sunt ad sensum humanum, ut hoc contineretur in litteris quod homini videretur, unde etiam ipsi Graeci diversos codices habent. Hoc autem verum arbitror, quando et ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur: nam hodie quae in latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur a veteribus posita, Tertulliano, Victorino, et Cypriano. The correction “hodie quae” for “hodieque” in the last sentence is due to Haussleiter, _Forschungen_, iv. 32. The passage is also interesting as being the earliest instance known to me of the collocation of _ratio_ and _auctoritas_ as the two arbiters in theological disputes. Compare the frequent combination of the two by Luther in his earlier polemics—_e.g._ against Prierias, and also later in his protest at Worms.

Again, Ambrosiaster says on Gal. ii. 1, with reference to Acts xv. 20, 29: Quae sophistae Graecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a sanguine abstinendum _adulterant_ scripturam, quartum mandatum addentes “et a suffocatis observandum,” quod puto nec ne Dei nutu intellecturi sunt, quia iam supra dictum est, quod addiderunt.

[Sidenote: Marcion.]

(_g_) =Marcion.=—We have more exact information in regard to Marcion’s great undertaking than to these slender attempts at textual criticism. Here there is a fuller stream of testimony both in the Greek and Latin Fathers. It must be confessed, however, that hitherto attention has been directed more to his position in the matter of the Canon generally than to his work on the text of the New Testament. Here again, the works of Zahn throw most light upon the subject; in other works, like the PRE _e.g._, this side of Marcion’s activity is very superficially treated. Several points have already been referred to here and there in the previous part of this work, but the question must now be treated as a whole.[205]

In the opening sentence of his examination of Marcion’s New Testament, Zahn avers that no church teacher of the second century occupies such an important position in the history of the ecclesiastical canon as does that early writer. If this is really so, it becomes all the more important for us to inquire whether traces of his influence may not be discoverable also in our witnesses to the text of the New Testament.

[Sidenote: His New Testament.]

Marcion’s New Testament, which was at the same time his entire Bible, consisted of two books of moderate compass—viz. a _Gospel-Book_, which he seems to have called Εὐαγγέλιον simply, and a collection of _ten Pauline Epistles_ called, probably by himself, τὸ Ἀποστολικὸν (_sc._ βιβλίον). The Epistles were arranged in an order which was evidently thought to correspond to that of their composition—viz., Gal., 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodicenos (= Ephes.), Col., Phil., Phm. He was unanimously accused by the Church teachers of having mutilated the ecclesiastical Bible in the manufacture of his own, and also of having corrupted the text here and there by means of interpolations,

## particularly in the case of Luke, which was the only Gospel he admitted.

They complained that he used not the pen but the knife (only he used it for a purpose the opposite of that for which the scissors are employed nowadays), and the sponge, and also that he deleted not words merely but whole pages. They compared his work upon the manuscripts to that of a mouse.[206] And as for his disciples! Every day they were improving their Gospel. Seeing that he himself had not gone so far as to erase the writings of Paul altogether, his disciples continued his work, and removed whatever did not concur with their views.[207] But according to testimony extending over a long stretch of time, their text of the Scriptures seems to have undergone fewer alterations during that period than that of the Catholic Church (Zahn, _GK._ i. 613). In comparing the text of these two collections “it should be clearly understood that the Church’s text, whose treatment by Marcion is in question, is not to be identified with that of our Bible Societies, or of Tischendorf, or of Epiphanius, but was such a text as Marcion found in the Catholic Church or in the Roman community about the year 150. The text of the ecclesiastical exemplar on which Marcion based his labours can no longer be restored in every word, but sufficient means are at our command to give us a general idea of the form which the text of the Pauline Epistles presented in the second century, and at the same time to ascertain in many separate instances what text Marcion had before him. It turns out in many cases that what seems strange in Marcion’s text to one who compares it with the _textus receptus_, or with one of our modern critical editions, without knowing much about the history of the text, is by no means peculiar to Marcion, but was pretty common in the West in early times. Now it is quite inconceivable, in view of the implacable hostility of the Church to Marcion, that his text, condemned as it was unceasingly as being heretical and spurious, should have exerted any positive influence on that of the Church.[208] It follows, accordingly, that all those things in Marcion’s Bible that seem to the uninitiated to be peculiar to it alone, but which are attested by Catholic manuscripts, versions, and Patristic writers, were not invented by Marcion, but taken by him from the Church’s Bible of that time, or from one such Bible at all events, and were only gradually ousted from the text used by the Church.”[209] All this, which is taken word for word, with the exception of a slight change in the last sentence, from Zahn’s dissertation of the year 1889 (p. 636), should even at that time have been self-evident, but, like Zahn’s further statements in the same place, has not yet been sufficiently attended to, especially in our commentaries on Luke and the Pauline Epistles. He points out, _e.g._, that Tertullian, in speaking of the change of the address “ad Ephesios” to “Laodicenos,” credits Marcion with the intention of being “et in isto diligentissimus explorator,” so that it is possible that he compared several manuscripts in order to discover the original wording.[210] In such cases, therefore, the question may be asked whether Marcion may not really have preserved the original text, and whether his text, so far as it is corroborated by any independent tradition, should not be estimated much higher than it is by the textual critics of the present.[211] Zahn deserves all the more credit for giving such careful attention to questions relating to the text, seeing that the subject of his investigation was merely the history of the canon. He has dealt chiefly with those passages in which Marcion’s intentional alterations have been preserved. [Sidenote: His “Emendations.”] Reference may be made, _e.g._, to the pages in the first volume of his History, entitled _Minor Emendations_, wherein it is shown how Marcion, in his hostility to the Old Testament with its God of Righteousness, omitted the quotations from the Old Testament altogether, or dropped the introductory formula of quotation in Rom. i. 17, xii. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 13; excluded all the references to Abraham in Galatians except in iv. 22; altered ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην in Rom. x. 3 to ἀγνοοῦντες τὸν θεόν; removed the words γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικὸς, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον from Gal. iv. 4; changed the active construction into the passive in 1 Cor. iii. 17; and elsewhere strove after greater condensation, lucidity, and brevity of expression. Marcion, says Zahn, had good grounds for believing that the text of the Scriptures had not remained unchanged during the century that had elapsed since their composition, though that might be said with more truth of the Gospels and the Acts than of the Epistles; but to attempt to rid the Apostle’s text of all supposed corruptions with no regard to any sort of critical material whatever, but depending simply and solely on his own instinctive sense of what was genuinely Christian and apostolic, was the undertaking of a giant, as Irenæus calls Marcion. And his disciples, in a blind veneration of his authority, seem to have exceeded the intention of the master and editor, “just as many Lutherans at the present day look upon Luther’s translation, with all its faults, as the very word of God, and hardly capable of improvement.”

In the Appendices to his second volume Zahn has gone still more carefully into the questions relating to the criticism of the text.[212] His main conclusions will hardly be contested. Among these are the following:—

[Sidenote: Marcion and the Western Text.]

1. That Marcion based his Gospel on that of Luke, although his text displays various elements belonging to Matthew and Mark;

2. That this mixture is found in those passages wherein the ecclesiastical texts, and especially the Western, exhibit the same or similar features;

3. That Marcion’s text shows[213] none of those small “apocryphal additions” which we find combined with the contents of our Gospels in Justin and Tatian.

Zahn also calls attention frequently to the different manuscripts which still exhibit a text agreeing with that credited to Marcion, and which are precisely the Western witnesses, the Old Latin manuscripts, and D of the Greek.[214] Compare, _e.g._, on Luke v. 14, 34, 39; vi. 25 f., 31, 37; viii. 45; ix. 6, 16, 22; x. 22, 25; xi. 20, 41; xii. 14, 31, 58 f.; xviii. 35; xx. 36; xxi. 27, 30; xxiv. 6, 26, 37. But there are also passages where Marcion parts company with D and its associates—_e.g._, vi. 22, 26, 29; xi. 4. In Paul, too, the number of passages displaying agreement between Marcion and D_{2} G_{2} preponderates: Gal. ii. 5; iii. 14_b_; v. 1, 14, 24; 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Eph. i. 9, 13; iii. 10; iv. 6; v. 28 ff. The agreement between Marcion’s text and that of the minuscule 157 was previously emphasised by Zahn—_e.g._, in Luke xvi. 12, where the reading τὸ ἐμόν instead of τὸ ὑμέτερον (ἡμέτερον B L) is supported as yet by this Greek manuscript alone and three old Latin (e i l), and in xxi. 30, where only one other of the minuscules collated by Scrivener supports D 157 in reading προβάλωσιν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν.[215] In Luke xxiv. 26, D and Marcion are our only witnesses for the reading ὅτι instead of οὐχί. How is this to be explained? Zahn, _e.g._, holds that it is a mere coincidence that Marcion’s reading, “prophetas suos,”[216] in 1 Thess. ii. 15 agrees with τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας read by D_{2} E_{2} K_{2} L_{2}, _i.e._, the representatives of the Antiochean recension, with which Marcion elsewhere very seldom agrees, seeing he founds throughout upon a Western text. In the great majority of cases the explanation seems to be simple enough. Marcion began his career at Rome, so that we may naturally expect him to give us a Western text. So far, therefore, one might be tempted simply to ignore that text as hitherto, although a text attested by Marcion and the Church in common is surely entitled, even in respect of its antiquity, to much more consideration than has been paid to it heretofore. The importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of the problem is increased by the fact that we find the same text as his, or at all events one of a similar sort, represented in a totally different quarter—viz. in Tatian.[217]

[Sidenote: Tatian.]

(_h_) =Tatian=[218] has already been referred to in a general way above (p. 97 ff.): we shall now give the testimony of the early church regarding him verbatim. If we leave out of account the somewhat doubtful reference in Hegesippus (p. 96), and an equally uncertain allusion to the title of his Harmony in Origen,[219] the testimony from purely Greek sources is confined to a few sentences in Eusebius,[220] a notice in Epiphanius,[221] and a scholion in a manuscript of the Gospels.[222]

For more exact information we are indebted solely to the Syrian church. The Greek writer Theodoret gives us most details.[223] The notices contained in Syriac and Arabic sources are more numerous than the Greek, but they are shorter and must be omitted here.[224] It becomes necessary, therefore, to consider very carefully whether any vestiges of Tatian’s work are preserved in our witnesses for the text, and how these may, and indeed must, be used in its criticism. I assume as having been demonstrated by Zahn, that Tatian’s Diatessaron was a Syriac work, and I take it as very probable that the Curetonian Syriac and the Lewis Syriac present us with two works based on, or at least influenced by, that of Tatian. To what extent the same is true of the Peshitto as well need not be considered here, the main problem being to elucidate the connection between Tatian and the _Western_ witnesses. And here we are at once confronted with a matter of great uncertainty—viz., whether there might not also have been a _Greek_ Harmony of the Gospels either antecedent to the Diatessaron or contemporary with it, which Tatian himself made or employed. Zahn thinks not, mainly because from the side of the Greek Church we have almost no notice whatever of the existence of anything of this sort, nor of Tatian’s own work either. Harnack seems not to be convinced of the correctness of Zahn’s position.[225] He even declares that Harris’s _Preliminary Study_[226] has only confirmed his “conviction that Tatian composed a Greek Harmony of the Gospels.”[227] That treatise is accompanied by a facsimile of the fragment of Mark in Codex W^d, “the contents of which display an affinity with the text of the Diatessaron (with the original text?).”[228] At all events Harnack is of opinion that Harris’s conclusions with regard to a Pre-Tatian and a very early Harmony of the narrative of the Passion are very premature, and in his judgment should either not have been put forward at all in a _Preliminary Study_ or suggested with more deliberation. G. Krüger also puts “this Combined Gospel written in Syriac (Greek?)” in his _History of Early Christian Literature_, § 37. On the other hand, Hogg in § 12 of his Introduction,[229] _Non-Syriac Texts of the Diatessaron_, says nothing of a Greek text, and in § 19, where he raises the question, “In what language was it written?”, he speaks only of the “view favoured by an increasing majority of scholars, that it was written in Syriac,” and then asks, on this view, “was it a translation or simply a compilation?” and lastly, which is the main question, “what precisely is its relation to ... the Western text generally?”

In his first work, written prior to the publication of the Arabic text, Zahn very frequently pointed to the fact that the so-called =Western= witnesses—_i.e._, Codex D and the Old Latin manuscripts, agree so often with Tatian.[230] His explanation of this phenomenon is very simple—viz., that Tatian returned from Rome to his old home in Syria about the year 172, and took with him from the West his text, which was just the Western text. [Sidenote: Tatian and the Western Text.] This view would present no difficulty if it were only the case that the Diatessaron shared the peculiarities of the Western text, but is the fact not rather the converse of this—viz., that D, the leading representative of that text, shares the peculiarities of a Harmony of the Gospels, might we say, in short, of the Diatessaron? Not only are certain readings the same in both texts, but the Western text seems actually to exhibit features which can scarcely be regarded otherwise than as the outcome of a Harmony. I have given expression to this opinion ere now; it struck me forcibly when I was collating the Codex Bezae for my _Supplementum Novi Testamenti Graeci_. In order to afford a more convenient survey of the vast number of variants, I followed the paragraphing of Westcott and Hort’s edition. Now look at the variants there. Whereas the majority consist of quite separate and disconnected readings, I was obliged at the beginning of the pericopæ regularly to copy half a line or even a whole line from D, its text differed so much from that of our present editions at the beginnings of the pericopæ, and there only to the same extent. See, _e.g._, Luke v. 17, 27; vii. 1, 18; ix. 37; x. 1, 25; xi. 14; xii. 1 to the end; xxiv. 13. It is true this phenomenon is most frequently observed in Luke, where I had previously explained its appearance in another way by supposing like Blass that it was due to the author having issued two editions of that Gospel. But neither is it altogether absent from the other Gospels. It occurs most seldom, as might be expected, in Matthew, but examples may be seen in xvii. 22, 24; xx. 29. In Mark see iii. 19; iv. 1; vi. 7. There are other features besides this which are difficult of explanation on any other grounds. For these I may briefly refer to the second of the works relating to this part of the subject, _The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels_, by F. H. Chase,[231] in which a special chapter is devoted to the question of “Harmonistic Influence” (pp. 76-100). The writer calls attention there to three points, viz.:—

1. “The text of Codex Bezae shows constant indications of harmonistic influence.” This, however, is nothing new. Jerome, _e.g._, complains of amalgamations of this sort. But then,

2. “In such harmonized passages readings occur which we are justified by other evidence in considering as Tatianic readings.”

3. “There are other signs of the influence of Syriac phraseology in, or in the neighbourhood of, such readings due to harmonistic influence.”

I waive consideration of this last point, but as regards the second it is noteworthy, and bears out what I have said above, that Chase in this connection goes almost entirely by passages from Luke with the exception of Matt. xxi. 18; xxiv. 31 f.; xxvi. 59 ff.; and Mark viii. 10; xiii. 2; x. 25 ff. From Luke he instances iii. 23-38; iv. 31; v. 10 f., 14 f.; vi. 42; viii. 35; xi. 2; xx. 20; xxi. 7; xxiii. 45 ff.; xxiv. 1.

I should like, however, to call attention here to one passage to which Chase refers in another connection—viz., the extensive interpolation after Matt. xx. 28 (Chase, pp. 9-14). It is true, as Zahn expressly points out,[232] that neither Ephraem nor Aphraates, who were our only sources for the Diatessaron prior to 1881, “shows any traces of this long and in part apocryphal interpolation, nor yet of Luke xiv. 7-10, from which the most of it is taken.” But in the Arabic Tatian,[233] Luke xiv. 1-6 and xiv. 7-11, 12-15 are found after Matt. xx. 1-16 at the end of § 29 and the beginning of § 30 respectively. The verse Matt. xx. 28, regarding which Zahn was uncertain whether it was in Tatian or not, seeing that neither Ephraem nor Aphraates mentions it, is found in § 31, 5 between Mark x. 44 and Luke xiii. 22, while Matt. xx, 29_a_ (+ Mark x. 46_a_) follows a little further down in § 31, 25. So far, indeed, this result is not favourable to our theory. But I ask myself in vain how else this interpolation is to be explained except as an attempt at harmonising. Now, seeing that its text is found in one Syriac, two Greek, and half a dozen Latin witnesses (the particulars are given in the critical note, p. 255), the further question arises, Whence comes it? The most ready answer will be, “it comes from the Greek, whence it passed to the Latin on the one side and to the Syriac on the other.” As for the Latin, it is certain that the majority, perhaps even all, of the Latin forms are derived from the Greek. But are the Syriac as well? Or is not rather the converse true, however strange it may seem at the first glance, that the Greek is a translation of the Syriac? There is the word δειπνοκλήτωρ, _e.g._, which strikes me as it did Chase, as being particularly strange. I admit that I should not care to build a hypothesis of this magnitude on this one word and this one passage alone. I would merely submit it generally as a question to be kept in view in further investigations. And I would supplement it by another question whether, in the case of the first being negatived, it may not be true after all, _pace_ Zahn, that there was a Greek Harmony alongside the Syriac and probably going back to the same author. May not the close resemblances traceable between Tatian and the Western text be also accounted for on the supposition that instead of Tatian being influenced by the latter, it really goes back to Tatian?

I would ask this question specially in regard to the Western text of the _Pauline Epistles_. What is meant by the statement of Eusebius cited above as to Tatian’s treatment of these Epistles? Μεταφράσαι may certainly mean to translate, but then one translates an entire text and not φωνάς τινας merely, and, moreover, one does not translate ὡς ἐπιδιορθούμενος αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν “with a view to improving the phraseology and syntax.” Do not our Western witnesses present us with a work of this description? I am well aware that such hypotheses are like that regarding the author of the _Nibelungenlied_ where there was a great poem without a name and one or two great names without poems, and so various combinations were made, for each of which something could be said, while none of them could be said to be proved. That may be the case here too. But at present I feel disposed to attribute a considerable share in this peculiar “Western” text to Tatian. [Sidenote: Syro-Latin.] And as this name “Western,” the inappropriateness of which has long been recognised, becomes on this supposition more inappropriate still, I am inclined to recommend the freer adoption of the nomenclature familiarised by the work of Chase, I mean that of “Syro-Latin.” In his preface Chase puts in a plea for its use, citing a sentence from the _Dublin Review_ of July 1894, p. 52, in which H. Lucas says: “The time is, we hope, not far distant, when the term Western will give place to the term Syro-Latin, the only one which truly represents, in our opinion, the facts of the case.” Just as when we wish to indicate those languages and tribes that extend from the Indian to the German and Keltic we say Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Keltic, if we wish to be more exact and avoid wounding the sensibilities of the French, so the term Syro-Latin would be the best designation for a form of text whose characteristics are as distinctly traceable among the Syrians in the East as among the Greeks in the centre and the Latins in the West. But be that as it may, one thing is clear, that many problems here await solution. But they will not for ever defy methodical investigation.

The foregoing was all written before I saw the analysis given by Zahn in his _Geschichte des Kanons_, i. 383 ff. Reading it, I am surprised that his conclusions have not been followed up by a thorough investigation of the subject long ere now. Personally, I am precluded at this moment from even making an attempt in this direction. Zahn says: “The quotations of Aphraates frequently presuppose a different Greek text (of the Pauline Epistles) than that lying at the foundation of the Peshitto. The repeated resemblances to Western texts, Claromontanus, Boernerianus (D G), Tertullian, and other Latin witnesses are particularly striking. In the earliest Syriac Gospel the same phenomenon appears even more conspicuously. How is it to be explained? Shall we suppose that this type of text was dispersed equally throughout _all_ parts of the Church during the second century? In that case we should have to regard it as the earliest form at which we can arrive, on the principle laid down by Tertullian: quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum. But,” says Zahn, “even those who venerate the Western tradition of the text—_i.e._ those who, like myself, are of opinion that it does not get nearly its due share of attention from present-day critics—will decline to assent to this proposition. Because the result of this view would be to establish the rule that the so-called Western tradition _invariably_ deserves the preference over those others, even over our oldest Greek manuscripts themselves. Even if we limited it to those elements of the text in which the furthest East agrees with the furthest West, the result would still be a text to which no cautious critic would pin his faith. A more natural explanation of this striking condition of things is required.” Zahn finds this in the supposition that there was formerly a close intimacy between the Syrian Church and Rome. “Just as the Princes of Edessa had much direct intercourse with Rome, so to all appearance had the Church there.” In proof of this, he points to the early intrusion of Marcion’s doctrines and Bible into Mesopotamia, to the participation of the Church of Edessa in the Easter controversy and its agreement in that matter with Victor of Rome, and to the Abgar Legend which connects Edessa with Zephyrinus of Rome (199-216) by way of Antioch, and represents Peter as sending the Epistles of Paul from Rome to Edessa. “Considering the anachronisms that legends usually exhibit, may we not take this to be the expression of an historical fact, viz. that a text written in the West formed the basis of the earliest Syriac version of the Pauline Epistles? This supposition is confirmed by the earliest history of the Gospel among the Syrians—viz. by the Diatessaron.”[234] After a most thorough discussion of all the questions relating to that book (pp. 387-422), Zahn discovers in this part also (the Gospels) an intimate connection between the text on which it is based, and the form assumed by the text of the Gospels in the West during the second century. And he believes that it will be difficult to find a more feasible explanation of the remarkable agreement evidenced by these two texts in the very matter of their textual corruption and licence than this, that this text came from Rome to Syria. And so the final question arises, “whether a connection does not exist between the first Gospel and the first text of Paul and the Acts in the Syriac, and whether the _entire_ N. T., as the _Doctrine of Addai_ says, was not a present which Tatian brought with him from Rome to his countrymen, and adapted for their use by means of a free translation and revision?” Zahn thinks that a positive answer cannot be given, but he refers pointedly to what Eusebius says regarding Tatian’s treatment of the Pauline Epistles, and is led to suppose that those changes were introduced on the occasion and in the form of a translation from the Greek into Syriac, and that the reason why Eusebius had such hazy notions regarding it as well as the Diatessaron, is most likely that both the books were in Syriac, and used only in the Syrian Church. A closer investigation of the Pauline Epistles in the Syriac is needed to decide these questions.

To these propositions of Zahn I have but the one objection stated above, that the expressions used by Eusebius point far too plainly to a revision of the phraseology of the Pauline Epistles, which could have been done only on the original Greek.[235] Zahn himself points out that the words of Eusebius remind us of what is elsewhere said of the Theodotians (_Eccl. Hist._, v. 28, 15. 18; see above, p. 200).[236]

[Sidenote: Western Text.]

(_i_) =The Western Text.=—We thus find ourselves face to face with what has been called the only burning question of the textual criticism of the New Testament—the question, namely, of the place to be assigned to the so-called Western text. Our treatment of the external testimony has led us back through Lucian, Pamphilus, Hesychius, and Origen, to Marcion and Tatian, that is, into the middle of the second century. But the question is now whether we must stop here, or whether it is not possible to ascend with certainty even somewhat higher by means of an investigation of the material afforded by the manuscripts themselves. The “Higher Criticism,” _e.g._, seeks to get behind the Synoptic Gospels to the documents which the authors or editors used in their composition; is it not possible for the “Lower Criticism” to recover with certainty at least the primitive text of the New Testament books? And is that not most readily found in the so-called Western text? We have been obliged to make frequent reference to it already; the question for us now is, “What is the value of Codex Bezae and its associates?”

It was observed by Theodore Beza himself, the scholar whose name the Codex justly bears, that the text of this manuscript differed in so many respects from that of others, especially in Luke and Acts, that he could give no explanation of it satisfactory to himself. He was not led to suppose that the alterations were due to heretics; nevertheless, like a cautious man, he thought it more advisable to preserve the Codex than to publish it. Eight hundred years before, Bede was similarly impressed by the Codex which we now know by the name of Laudianus, E_{2}. He indicated “quaedam quae in Graeco sive aliter seu plus aut minus posita vidimus.” He was uncertain “utrum negligentia interpretis omissa vel aliter dicta, an incuria librariorum sint depravata sive relicta ... namque graecum exemplar fuisse falsatum suspicari non audeo.” When the manuscripts began to be more systematically collated, Bengel declared that the criticism of the text would be much simplified if one were not bound to trouble himself with these codices, which, as being written in Greek and Latin, he called _vere bilingues_. Old students of the Maulbronn College have told me that Ephorus Bäumlein the most distinguished philologist of our Institute in this century, and editor of _Disquisitions on the Greek Particles_ and similar works, was always referring to the Codex Cantabrigiensis, though they themselves never rightly understood about this Codex, or indeed about such things at all. I do not know who it was from whom I myself first heard of it; certainly there was no particular importance attributed to it in my student days or at the college where I was. On the other hand, Tischendorf admitted its claims in opposition to all the other Greek manuscripts in several passages, such as Mark ii. 22; xi. 6; Luke xxiv. 52, 53, etc. In other places he did so at first, but changed his opinion afterwards—_e.g._, in Acts xi. 12, while in others again, like Acts xiii. 45, he was inclined to accept its testimony, asserting expressly: Ceterum D quantopere passim inter omnes testes excellat constat. One of the things for which Westcott and Hort deserve credit is the attention they have directed to Codex Bezae and its associates. Some of their remarks upon it will be found in the note below.[237]

[Sidenote: Lagarde.]

That peerless scholar, P. de Lagarde, has even greater claims to honourable mention in this connection, though but little regard was paid to his representations during his lifetime. As early as 1857, he said of Codex Cantabrigiensis: facile patet, quum similibus libris careamus et ultra Evangelia et Actus nondum cogitem, totius editionis meae quasi fundamentum futurum esse hunc codicem Cantabrigiensem, sed eum eis librarii vitiis purgatum quae vitia esse agnita fuerint (_Gesam. Abh._, p. 98). His chief merit, however, lies not in his having estimated Cantabrigiensis so highly, but in having assigned a lower value to the other manuscripts. By comparing D with the earlier versions, and

## particularly by relying on the testimony of Epiphanius, he recognised in

it a representative of an “editio emendatorum orthodoxorum temeritate corrupta” (_ibid._, p. 96). Compare also his _Übersicht über die Bildung der Nomina_, p. 213, where he instances ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν of the “emendati” for παρήγγειλαν ἀναβαίνειν of D.[238]

[Sidenote: Blass.]

General attention was first directed to the question of the Western text, when Blass came forward with his view that it was quite wrong to present the problem in the shape of an alternative between D and A B, because both groups were right, D and its associates representing a first edition of the Acts and a second of Luke, and the other group conversely. I hailed this solution of the difficulty at once as a veritable Columbus Egg, and to this day I am firmly persuaded that Blass’s theory is nearer the mark than the previous estimate of the Western text. [Sidenote: Zahn.] Readers may, perhaps, be struck by the fact, which Zahn has since made public (_Einl._, ii. 348), that in his practical class at Erlangen, in the winter of 1885-6, he set as the subject of the prize essay an “Investigation of the materially important peculiarities of Codex D in the Acts,” and made a note at the time of the result which he hoped to see the investigation arrive at—viz., “either the author’s first draft before publication or his hand copy with his own marginal notes inserted afterwards.” Zahn himself got no further, but he was not surprised when Blass came forward with his clearly-defined and thoroughly-elaborated hypothesis. In one point, certainly, Zahn does not agree with Blass, and that is in the application of the hypothesis to Luke. He holds that the text which Blass restored as the Roman form or second edition of Luke is essentially nothing but a bold attempt to restore what is called the Western text; that the question to which such different answers have been made as to the value of this type of text—for it is not to be spoken of as a recension in the proper sense of that term—is by no means confined to the Third Gospel, but touches the others as well and the Pauline Epistles also; that the reason why the divergence of the Western text from that exhibited in the oldest manuscripts and the great majority of Greek witnesses is more conspicuous in Luke, is simply that we have the additional testimony of Marcion for that Gospel, but the question is essentially the same in all the cases; that whereas in Acts we have two parallel texts both possessing equal authority, in Luke the case is different, where in determining what the evangelist actually wrote, we have to choose one or the other of two mutually exclusive propositions; that this verdict on the text of Luke, however, in no way invalidates the conclusion come to as regards the text of the Acts. But further, Zahn, who even before this had avowed himself an “admirer of the Western text,” stands up determinedly for the view that this same Western text, which I shall, like Zahn and Blass, indicate henceforward as β, contains much that is original. He says that just as we must beware of a superstitious idolatry of what are styled the best manuscripts,[239] which goes hand in hand with a disparagement of much older tradition (Marcion, Irenæus), so we have equally to be on our guard against a morbid preference for every interesting and fanciful excrescence of the riotous tradition of the second and third centuries. Such a preference would logically imply that the scholars who took in hand to revise the text about the beginning of the fourth century simply corrupted it, somewhat after the fashion of those who set themselves to “improve” our Church hymns in the age of Rationalism. More than twenty years ago, when I was a Tutor at Tübingen, I had the impression to which I frequently enough gave utterance in debate with my colleagues, that modern textual criticism is going altogether on the wrong tack. The textual study of the New Testament was out of my province at that time, and is really so still, were it not that, as Augustine says, it is necessary for everyone who devotes himself to the holy Scriptures to take up such studies. Nor am I inclined thus far to fall foul of the system to which Westcott and Hort devoted the labours of a lifetime, and in the building up of which they had at their command such an apparatus as is far beyond the reach of a German, especially of one who is not attached to any University. And as for the results of Zahn’s researches, I prefer to look upon myself here as a mere learner and admirer. In the presence of such doughty warriors I feel like a spectator upon the battlefield of New Testament textual criticism, and I would beg that what follows, as well as what has been already said, be regarded as but suggestions, the acceptance or rejection of which by others may perchance serve to bring a younger generation nearer to the goal. In this spirit I have in my _Philologica Sacra_ (1-15th March 1896) taken as a starting-point the reading in Luke xxii. 52, λαοῦ = ναοῦ = ἱεροῦ, which is not mentioned at all by Tischendorf, and have sought by means of one or two analogous cases to show “how frequently D preserves the correct reading.” I have instanced ἑπταπλασίονα, Luke xviii. 30; φάντασμα, xxiv. 37; δέρριν καμήλου, Mark i. 6 ; ἠνοιγμένους, i. 10, which might, however, be inserted from Matt. iii. 16, Luke iii. 21 ; ὀργισθείς, Mark i. 40; ὁμοιάζει, Matt. xxvi. 73.

In the first sketch of this Introduction, written in the year 1895, I referred to the addition found in Matt. xxvii. 49, which is manifestly taken from John xix. 34, and is read by many authorities, among these being א B C.[240] I said then: “Only two possibilities are conceivable. Either the passage stood here originally, and was removed at an early date on account of its variance with John xix. 34, or it is an interpolation. In the latter case, it must have been inserted at a very early date, and all the witnesses containing it, which elsewhere are so frequently and so widely divergent, must then go back to one and the same exemplar. Because the third possibility—viz. that the same sentence was inserted in different copies in the same place quite independently of each other, no one will consider to be at all likely. But if the second supposition is to be held as correct, then we see just what amount of importance is to be attached to the concurrence of our oldest witnesses, particularly our chief manuscripts א B C L. They are not streams flowing independently from the same fountain of Paradise: they flowed together for a good part of their course, and were considerably polluted before they parted company.”

[Sidenote: Salmon.]

Two years later, when the first edition was issued, I added: “This too must now be asserted with far greater emphasis, that the concurrence of B א, on which so much stress has been laid hitherto by almost all textual critics, proves nothing at all. In Sirach the common archetype of B א was younger than the origin of the Latin version, manifestly a good deal younger, because it already contained errors that had not yet made their appearance in our other manuscripts (or in their sources). Salmon (p. 52) is of opinion that the text which Westcott and Hort have restored is one that was most in favour in Alexandria in the third century, and that came there, perhaps, in the century previous. This is not far from Bousset’s view that B perhaps contains the recension of Hesychius. Salmon calls the results of Westcott and Hort ‘an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has been stolen.’ Burgon’s paradox, that the reason why B and א have survived is that they were the worst, seemed to Salmon at first to be a joke, but he now thinks it not improbable that they were set aside on account of their divergence from the form of text that acquired ascendancy _at a later time_. If that be so, then they met the same fate that they themselves prepared for the primitive form they supplanted; and just as they, with the help of Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, dislodged the _Textus Receptus_ of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from the hands of theologians, and made themselves the _Textus Receptus_ of the end of the nineteenth century, so perchance will Codex D, which the builders despised, become the foundation-stone of a new structure. In _Urtext_, p. 54, Oscar v. Gebhardt alludes to the objections raised partly against the entire method of Westcott and Hort, partly against their particular estimate of Codex Vaticanus, and partly also against the position they have assigned to what they call the Western text, and he too says: ‘If these objections are valid, then the sure foundation which they seemed at last to have secured for the text of the New Testament begins once more to totter.’”

Since this was written, my impressions have been greatly confirmed,

## particularly by Zahn’s _Einleitung_; only I must admit that I am now

less in a position than ever to make any definite proposals as to the way in which the goal of the textual criticism of the New Testament is to be reached. To follow one witness or one group of witnesses through thick and thin, which would really be the only consistent course, will seemingly not do.[241] And the “eclectic method” to which Bousset was led in his work on the Apocalypse as the only possible one, is surely the opposite of the genealogical, which we must acknowledge to be in theory the only correct method. But first of all, a fresh application of it would require to be made. And as the task is too great for any single worker, might it not be well if, in the exegetical classes of our Theological Faculties, the separate witnesses were either examined anew, or, conversely, selected passages of the text, quite small passages—a single chapter, or a single epistle like 2 or 3 John or Philemon—were given out to different students to examine thoroughly all the witnesses for each passage, and the results then compared with one another? Furthermore, the critical apparatus would require at once to be lightened of all those manuscripts which are unmistakably recognised to be the representatives of a definite recension, and the Lucianic recension printed separately with or without an apparatus, just as was done by Lagarde himself for half of the Old Testament. Finally, the Western text would require to be much more thoroughly examined than has hitherto been the case. It is true that Weiss has given a special part of _Texte und Untersuchungen_ to an examination of Codex D in Acts, but without prejudice one may be quite sure that a solution of the problem is not to be found in the way in which Weiss seeks it. No doubt he establishes among other things the fact, that in the Speeches of Peter β displays almost no variation, but then he makes no attempt to explain this fact or make any use of it. It is an indication of considerable progress to find Zahn going so carefully into matters of the text in an Introduction to the New Testament, and his appreciation of the Western text is most gratifying. [Sidenote: Luke and Acts in D.] At the same time the reader will naturally ask whether Zahn’s verdict on the β text in Luke is not fatal to his own conclusions with regard to Acts. Is it not true in this connection that “he who says A must also say B”? If you admit that there were two editions of Acts, you must make the same admission in the case of Luke. And conversely, if there was no second edition of the Gospel, must you not then look for some other explanation of the variations in Acts? For it seems quite certain that the variants in Luke xxiv. are most closely related to the text of Acts i. Or how else are the readings in Luke xxiv. 51-53 to be explained? Westcott and Hort have one way of explaining them. They say that καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν “was evidently inserted from an assumption that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel must be the Ascension. The Ascension apparently did not lie within the proper scope of the Gospels, as seen in their genuine texts; its true place was at the head of the Acts of the Apostles as the preparation for the Day of Pentecost, and thus the beginning of the history of the Church.” That is all very well, and it may also be the case that προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν in v. 52 is the natural result of the insertion of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. But how then are we to account for the interchange of εὐλογοῦντες and αἰνοῦντες in the next verse, which is found in precisely the same groups of witnesses?[242]

If this explanation then is insufficient on account of verse 53, it may be confidently asserted that the omission of the Ascension and the Worship of the Exalted Lord by any later scribe is all but inconceivable from the moment that Luke was separated from Acts and placed among the Gospels. If such a thing were possible at all, it would be in the case of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν, as there is no express mention in Acts i. of the disciples worshipping. On the other hand, the omission becomes quite conceivable as soon as the author added a δεύτερος λόγος to the πρῶτος. So far these variants appear to me to fit in very well with Blass’s theory and with no other. Zahn, as far as I can see, has nowhere expressed any opinion regarding them, certainly he says nothing of the variation between αἰνοῦντες and εὐλογοῦντες, which is the one of most importance critically, though it is of least consequence materially.

Graefe, following on the lines of Birt and Rüegg, supposes that the shorter form was due to want of space, that Luke was glad to get the shorter form all into his roll at the foot the first time he wrote it out, and sent off the book to Theophilus in that form, hoping to deal with the Ascension in the second of his books. In the second edition he had sufficient space to admit of the insertion of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, then of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν, and finally of εὐλογοῦντες.[243] These additions he made, feeling, rightly enough, that there could be no more fitting conclusion to his Life of Jesus than a brief allusion to the Ascension, which he had already described more particularly in the Acts. At the same time he substituted ἕως εἰς for ἔξω πρὸς. Graefe thinks that all these changes are connected with the alterations made also in the introduction to the Acts, though he omits to say what the connection is.

Weiss, father and son, omit the words καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν as “a gloss derived from Acts i.,” and “likewise” the words προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν in verse 52 (is this also a gloss from Acts i.?). Which text they hold to be correct in verse 53 they do not say.[244]

Αἰνεῖν[245] is the specifically Lucan word for “to praise,” while εὐλογεῖν in this sense does not occur in Acts at all, and only in the first two chapters of Luke. Further, as any concordance will show, αἰνεῖν is the regular equivalent of הלל and εὐλογεῖν of ברך, while αἰνεῖν is rarely used for ברך or εὐλογεῖν for הלל. This confirms the supposition that αἰνοῦντες, which is preferred by Tischendorf but rejected by Westcott and Hort, is the original reading.

In order to show the full extent of the difficulty of the problem, we shall take along with this passage from the end of the Gospel a single instance from the Acts. How does the Apostolic Decree read in ch. xv.? “To judge any matter before knowing the facts of the case is inadmissible.” So Hilgenfeld says in his magazine, adding that the matter of the Apostolic Council, as it is called, and the Decree have been so judged. He himself restores the whole text in this passage to the form that Blass has adopted as the _Forma Romana_—_i.e._, to confine ourselves to this point of main importance, he omits “things strangled.”[246] On the other hand, Harnack, in the article to which reference will be made below, comes to the conclusion that the Eastern, _i.e._ the common, text is the original, and the Western a later correction made subsequent to the _Didache_, and not earlier than the first decade of the second century.[247] The same conclusion is reached by Zahn in his extremely careful discussion of the question (_Einl._, ii. 344 ff.): “The two texts are here mutually exclusive, and therefore cannot both be derived from the same author (xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25).” But he immediately adds: “The fact that Blass, in this important point, as in many another of less consequence, declares a certain thing to be an original element of the text which turns out to be simply an early corruption in no wise detracts from the correctness of his hypothesis.” That is quite true and must be borne in mind in connection with the objection raised by Wendt, that “manifest clerical errors are found in the actual β text.” The passages are also used by Corssen as an argument against Blass. The remarks of the latter in reply to the strictures of Corssen (_Evang. sec. Lucam_, p. xxvi) seem to me to be not without reason, but in any case it is strange that alterations should have been made in an official document like the Decree in Acts xv., no matter whether these were due to the writer himself or a later intermediary. That there was some method in the alteration is shown by its recurrence in three places. But again I must emphasise the superiority of Codex D. Whereas in ch. xv. 20, 29 the shorter text is represented by other witnesses as well, in ch. xxi. 25 it is supported by D with the sole addition of Gigas Holmiensis.[248] I have not to decide the question here; I simply commend it to a searching investigation, in which attention must be paid to the apparently meaningless differences in the use of particles and synonyms, of simple and compound words, and such-like seeming minutiæ. I can only repeat how frequently the thought occurred to me when I was comparing Scrivener’s edition with that of v. Gebhardt for my _Supplement_, that here was no alteration of a later scribe, and what then? The simplest explanation was that both readings were due to the author himself, who on the one occasion purposely set down the one reading and on the other the other.

There is another question in connection with the Western text which has been even more neglected than the former—viz. the amount of importance to be attached to it in the case of the Pauline Epistles. What about Eusebius’s reference to Tatian’s work on these Epistles? I frankly confess that not till the printing of this work was begun did I become aware, mainly from Zahn’s _Einleitung_, how many problems are here waiting to be solved, and for this reason as well as others I must for the present forbear making any attempt in this direction.

Here I can only indicate a few of the most general rules of textual criticism, and thereafter adduce a number of New Testament passages which are of interest from a critical point of view.

[Sidenote: Rules of criticism.]

(_k_) =General Rules of Textual Criticism.=—In its essence the task of the textual critic resembles that of the physician, who must first of all make a correct diagnosis of the disease before attempting its cure. Manifestly the first thing to do is to observe the injuries and the dangers to which a text transmitted by handwriting is liable to be exposed. A correct treatment must be preceded by a correct diagnosis.

The injuries which a text receives will vary according as it is multiplied by =Dictation= or by =Copying=. The fifty Bibles which Eusebius prepared at once for Constantine would be written to dictation. In the early times of the Church, copying, as has been already mentioned, would doubtless be the more usual method of multiplication. Here, however, we must make a single exception in the case of Paul, who for the most part did not write his Epistles with his own hand. He evidently dictated them. He certainly did not have them simply written out from his own rough draft.

[Sidenote: Illegibility.]

(1) In the case of copying, errors originate first of all, though not most frequently, in a word or group of letters being =illegible=, or in their being read for some psychological reason otherwise than as they were intended. However attentive the copyist may be, he may still be in doubt as to the way in which a word or passage should be read, and may decide wrongly. Proper names, _e.g._, are often very doubtful.[249] More frequently however the mistake will be due to inattention. The context may lead the copyist to expect a certain word; he sees one like it, and inserts the former in its place.

[Sidenote: Homoioteleuton.]

(2) It frequently happens, particularly in copying the old _scriptio continua_, that the eye of the scribe jumps from one word or group of letters to another the same or similar to it, either before or after it. In the former case the intervening words will be repeated, in the latter they will be omitted. Scholars designate these errors as =dittography= and =elision= respectively; printers know them under the name of a marriage and a funeral. The former mistake is not so serious, because it is at once detected on reading over the copy. A peep into any manuscript will show how frequently this error occurs, the repeated words being enclosed in brackets or surmounted with dots.[250] In Codex B such passages give us an opportunity of observing the beauty of the original writing, because the painstaking man who retraced the old writing with fresh ink in the eighth, or tenth, or eleventh century, or whenever it was, adding at the same time accents and punctuation marks, left these untouched. This kind of mistake very often happens in passages where a group of characters catches the eye for any reason, such as the occurrence of the abbreviation mark, Θ̅Σ̅, Ι̅Λ̅Η̅Μ̅, Α̅Ν̅Ο̅Σ̅, etc., and at the transition to a new page or leaf. The omission of a piece of the text of various length by homoioteleuton is as common, and is more serious.[251] Any critical apparatus will show the frequency of its occurrence. We often find there the note “a voce alterutra ... ad alterutram desunt” or “a voce 1^o ad vocem 2^o (3^o) transilit,” or “vox ... alterutra et intermedia desunt.” Compare, _e.g._, Codex D, Matt. xviii. 18 from γῆς to γῆς; x. 23; xxiii. 14-16. The result is worst when the mistake is not discovered till afterwards and the two fragments are patched together in some way with more or less success. Lacunæ that have not been doctored are very helpful in determining the relationship between different texts.[252]

[Sidenote: Confusion.]

(3) As errors of the tongue and the memory[253] rather than of the eye may be reckoned the =Transposition= and =Confusion= of particular combinations of letters or entire words. The former occurs so frequently in connection with a liquid, that in some cases it ceases to be a mistake. Thus we have on the one hand the confusion of κορκοδειλος with κροκοδειλος, Καρχηδων with Carthago, and on the other, εβαλον with ελαβον, βηθαραβα with βηθαβαρα, John i. 28; κιρνατω with κρινετω, ποντον with τοπον, בכרין, _talent_, Matt. xxv. 14-30, with כרכין, _cities_, Luke xix. 17, 19. Akin to this is the confusion of vowels with a similar sound, to which are to be ascribed all cases of =itacism=, as it is called—ἔγειρε and ἔγειραι, —εσθε and —εσθαι, ἑταίροις and ἑτέροις, χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος and χριστὸς ὁ κύριος, 2 Cor. xii. 1; φορέσωμεν and φορέσομεν, ἔχωμεν and ἔχομεν, Rom. v. 1; μετὰ διωγμῶν and μετὰ διωγμόν. Manifestly mistakes of this sort would occur more readily in dictation than in copying.

A third class of errors of a more conscious or semi-conscious description is due to the =substitution= of words or forms of similar meaning. Thus, for λέγει we may have εἶπε or ἔφη or ἀπεκρίνατο, or the simple form may be replaced by the compound or _vice versa_, or one preposition may be substituted for another.[254] Separate words are very frequently transposed without seriously affecting the sense. Thus, in Acts iv. 12, we find nearly all the possible permutations of the three words ονομα εστιν ετερον actually represented—viz., in addition to this (2) ονομα ετερον εστιν; (3) ετερον ονομα εστιν; (4) εστιν ετερον ονομα; (5) εστιν ονομα ετερον.[255] On Luke xvii. 10, Merx says (_Die vier kanonischen Evangelien_, p. 246): “Let it be observed that the position of ἀχρεῖοι fluctuates between (1) δοῦλοι ἀχρεῖοί ἐσμεν; (2) δοῦλοί ἐσμεν ἀχρεῖοι D, and (3) ἀχρεῖοι δοῦλοί ἐσμεν. Such fluctuations are due to the different arrangement of a word that did not originally belong to the text, but was appended as a note and afterwards incorporated with the text. Such fluctuations point to the interpolation of the fluctuating word.” This judgment has to be accepted with caution. For one thing, it is not at all clear which word it is that fluctuates. In this particular case, one might say that δοῦλοι fluctuates as much as ἀχρεῖοι, and the copula still more. Moreover such an interpolation becomes at once an integral part of the text, and its insertion is no longer visible. Only if several copies were made of that exemplar in which the interpolation was first introduced could fluctuation of this sort originate. Such transpositions are much more frequently of a harmless order, as each one may perceive for himself. The writer’s thoughts fly faster than his pen and anticipate a word that should not come in till later. One of the most frequent cases of transposition is that of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός and Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς in the Pauline Epistles.

[Sidenote: Additions.]

(4) Akin to this last is a class of mistakes originating in the border region between the unconscious and the conscious or intentional—viz. that of =Additions=. One can readily understand how easy it was to insert a κύριος or ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, a μου after πατήρ on the lips of Jesus, the subject at the beginning of a sentence, especially of the first sentence of a pericope, or the object in the form of a pronoun. Bengel proposed to omit the name of Jesus in some twenty-five places, for which he was ridiculed by Wettstein, as may be learned from my work on Bengel, p. 74. Now, everyone admits that Bengel was right. Under the head of “Interpolationes breviores,” Wordsworth and White first give examples “de nomine Jesus,” then of “Christus, Dominus, Deus,” and then of “Pronomina.” It is evident that in this way the wrong word may be supplied now and again. Perhaps one of the most interesting cases is Luke i. 46. All our present Greek witnesses make Mary the composer of the Magnificat, but Elisabeth’s name is attached to it in three Old Latin manuscripts, in the Latin version of Irenæus, according to the best manuscripts, and in some manuscripts known to Origen (or to his translator, Jerome: the passage, unfortunately, is found as yet only in the Latin).[256]

[Sidenote: Corrections.]

(5) To the category of conscious alterations belong first of all =grammatical corrections=, then =assimilations= to parallel passages, =liturgical changes= introduced from the Evangeliaria, as, _e.g._, the addition at the close of a pericope of the words ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκουέτω which occurs in all sorts of manuscripts in the most diverse passages, or indications of time, such as ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ at the beginning of a pericope,[257] and lastly, alterations made for =dogmatic= reasons, if any such can be established. It is impossible to deny that dogmatic conceptions had some influence on the propagation of certain readings if not on their origin—as, _e.g._, on the form assumed by the words in Matt. xix. 17, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν, or on the omission of the words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός in Mark xiii. 22; compare also above, p. 106. On the whole, however, there is no real ground for the scepticism that was for a time entertained with respect to our texts in this connection. A sober criticism will be able in most cases to restore the correct form. Its conditions will be apparent from what has been said in the foregoing.

[Sidenote: Canons of Criticism.]

Gerhard von Maestricht laid down forty-three Critical Canons, and Wettstein set forth in his New Testament his _Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum Novi Testamenti necessariae_ (vol. ii. 851-874). In 1755 J. D. Michaelis added to his _Curae in versionem Syriacam Act. Apost._ his _Consectaria critica de ... usu versionis Syriacae tabularum Novi Foederis_.[258] Bengel reduced all the rules to a single one. Quite recently Wordsworth and White comprehended the rules they followed in the preparation of the text of their Latin New Testament in four sentences. Of these the first two apply to a version only, and therefore do not concern us here;[259] while the fourth (_brevior lectio probabilior_) is but another form of Bengel’s canon. The third alone may be regarded as new and deserving of attention—viz., _vera lectio ad finem victoriam reportat_. That is to say, if a phrase is repeated in several passages in the same or similar terms, and displays variants in the earlier passages, the reading of the later passage will, as a rule, be the correct one, the reason being that copyists are apt to consider a certain reading to be an error the first time it occurs, and therefore to alter it, but come in the end to admit it as correct.

I would once more briefly emphasize the following propositions:—

(1) The text of our manuscripts must not be regarded as homogeneous, but must be examined separately for each part of the New Testament. A manuscript that exhibits a very good text in one book does not necessarily do the same in the others. The same thing holds good of versions and quotations.

(2) The text is preserved with less alteration in the versions than in the manuscripts.[260]

(3) In the Gospels that reading is the more probable which differs from that of the parallel passages.

(4) The influence of the ecclesiastical use of the Scriptures on the text must be more carefully attended to than heretofore.

(5) One of the most valuable aids in estimating the importance of the witnesses is the proper names, particularly those of less frequent occurrence.

(6) “Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.”

[Sidenote: Proper names.]

Of these propositions only the last two need be illustrated further,

## particularly the second last. For it is really remarkable to what extent

this consideration has been neglected hitherto. To the best of my knowledge there is as yet no monograph in which the =proper names= are treated from a critical point of view. And yet these are for the critic frequently the only points of light in vast regions of darkness. They are to him what the lighthouse is to the mariner or the fossil to the geologist. This makes their neglect all the more strange. Had there been a systematic examination of the proper names of the New Testament, Lippelt’s important discovery with regard to the spellings Ἰωάνης and Ἰωάννης might have been made long ere now (see above, p. 162 f.). Weiss’s critical studies in Acts deserve honourable mention in this connection. But Westcott and Hort, who have paid attention to these things with their usual exactitude, were simply on the wrong tack in this case when they asked whether the various persons who bore this name might not have spelt it differently, as in the case of Smith, Smyth, Smythe, etc. Similarly the genealogies give rise to a whole host of problems of which no account has been taken hitherto. See above, p. 165, for the reading Ζαρέ exhibited by B in Matt. i. 3; and compare Sela, given by Syr^{sin} in verses 4 and 5, with Σαλά in Luke iii. 32. Tischendorf omits the testimony in Matt. i. 5, while Baljon passes over both the variants, though they are certainly of more importance than the variation in the spelling of Βοές, Βοός, Βοόζ. In Luke iii. 27 the word רֵאשָׁא is converted into a proper name Ῥησά. From this fact some very interesting conclusions might be drawn with regard to the sources of Luke’s Gospel, but this is a matter lying outside the scope of this chapter. On the other hand, the fact that in the fourth Gospel the traitor is called not Ἰσκαριώτης, or anything like it, but ἀπὸ Καρυώτου by א in ch. vi. 71, where his name first occurs, and by D in every other place in that Gospel (xii. 4; xiii. 2, 26; xiv. 22), raises a very strong presumption in favour of these two manuscripts and indeed of the fourth Gospel. On this see my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 14, and my notes, with Chase’s unconvincing replies, in the _Expository Times_ for December 1897, and January, February, and March 1898. I am very glad to see that Zahn now inclines to the same view (_Einl._, ii. 561). Considerable weight is given to it by the fact that these two manuscripts seem to be the only ones that have preserved the correct reading in the case of other names as well.

What is Apollos called in Acts? He is mentioned by D only in ch. xviii. 24, where he is called Ἀπολλώνιος. א* calls him Ἀπελλῆς in xviii. 24 and xix. 1. This reading is supported in the former passage by the minuscules 15 and 180, and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees with Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Acts was Ἀπελλῆς, which was altered in the main body of manuscripts in conformity with 1 Corinthians, just as ἀπὸ Καρυώτου in John was accommodated to Ἰσκαριώτης given by the Synoptics. But what about D? I must ask with Salmon. Even Weiss says in this connection (_Codex D_, p. 18): “The most that can be said for Ἀπολλώνιος is that this form, differing as it does from that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the presumption of originality, seeing that there was always a temptation for the scribes to accommodate it to the latter.”[261] In his earlier work on the text (p. 9) he seems not to have considered this point.

I cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain Ἰωνάθας, which is found in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of Ἰωάν(ν)ης read by the other witnesses, as a “clerical error,” whereas now (_Cod. D_, p. 108) he deems it more natural to suppose that a corrector inserted the name of the son of Annas and the successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus (_Antiq._ xviii. 4, 3) in place of that of the entirely unknown John, than that the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the copyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned along with him, was replaced by John, which was a very common name, the name of the Apostle so frequently mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a purely accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John (Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 676) seems to know nothing of all this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page of the aforesaid book that the mistake of Johanan and Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and remembering Bengel’s principle, considers that Ἰωνάθας is the _scriptio ardua_, and, therefore, the _praestantior_.[262]

In 2 Peter ii. 15 the father of Balaam is called Βοσόρ, which is quite peculiar. Westcott and Hort and Weiss, in their fondness for B, write Βεώρ. But this is most certainly a correction which is combined with the original to form βεωρσόρ in א. The only thorough discussion of the passage that I know is in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, ii. 109. The only thing that might be added to his data in the LXX. is that, according to Holmes-Parsons, the Georgian version has υἱὸν τοῦ βοσόρ in Jos. xiii. 22. Σεπφώρ, as the name of Beor, has crept into various manuscripts in several places from Jos. xxiv. 9—_e.g._ into the Armenian in Gen. xxxvi. 32, Codex 18 in Num. xxii. 5, Codex 53 in Num. xxiv. 15, where Cod. 75 has Σεβεώρ, and into Lucian in 1 Chr. i. 43. There seems to me to be a confusion between Gen. xxxvi. 32 (= 1 Chr. i. 43) and the following verse, in which Bosra occurs. In Gen. xxxvi. 33 one manuscript observes, ἡ βοσὸρ πόλις τῆς Ἀραβίας ἡ νῦν καλουμένη βόσρα. Jerome also renders “ex Bosor.”[263] Βοσόρ also occurs as the name of a place in Deut. iv. 43; 1 Sam. xxx. 9; 1 Macc. v. 26. On this last passage see _ZdPV._, 12, 51; 13, 41. For other interpretations (Hebrew pronunciation of the Aramaic פתורה)[264] see Pole’s _Synopsis_ on 2 Peter ii. 15.

It is worth observing that minuscule 81 displays a close agreement with B in other places as well as this.

On the names in the catalogue of the Apostles, see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 263; on Ἱερουσαλήμ and Ἱεροσόλυμα, ii. 310; on Jesus Barabbas, ii. 294; on Barachias in Matt. xxiii. 35, i. 454, ii. 308. On the confusion between Isaiah and Asaph in Matt. xiii. 35, and between Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Isaiah in other passages, compare Ambrosiaster’s note on 1 Cor. ii. 9 cited above, p. 148.

“He who seeks in the wild fir wood, will still find many a cudgel good.”

[Sidenote: Textus brevior.]

The rule that the =shorter text= is the more original is a subdivision of Bengel’s canon. It is specially the case when two longer forms are opposed to it which are mutually exclusive and whose origin can be explained from the shorter. As examples of this Zahn adduces, in addition to the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, the following:—

John vi. 47: πιστεύων, א B L T, + “in God,” Syr^{cu. sin}, + εἰς ἐμέ A C D Γ Δ Λ Π....

John vii. 39: πνεῦμα, א K T Π, + ἅγιον L X Γ Δ Λ, + δεδομένον it vg^{cle}, + ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς, D f goth, + ἅγιον δεδομένον, B 254 Syr^{sin. hark}....

James v. 7: πρόϊμον, B 31, pr. ὑετὸν A K L P, pr. καρπὸν א 9 ff etc.

It is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves to be a mixture of two others (=conflate readings=). The respective claims of these others must be adjudged on other considerations. Thus we have—

Luke xxiv. 53: αἰνοῦντες, D a b e. εὐλογοῦντες, א B C* L. αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, A C^2 X Γ Δ Λ Π. εὐλογοῦντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες, Ethiop. Acts vi. 8: πλήρης χάριτος, א A B D. πλήρης πίστεως, H P. πλήρης χάριτος καὶ πίστεως, E.

In general that reading will have the best claim to originality which stands first in the combination. Further illustrations are unnecessary.

In order to fulfil the promise of the title of this chapter, the foregoing exposition of the Theory of New Testament criticism should be succeeded by a further part dealing with its Praxis. Such a part would contain particular illustrations of the way in which the criticism of the text has been handled by our authorities hitherto and the way in which it must be treated in accordance with the foregoing principles. The following notes do not and cannot claim to be a complete fulfilment of this great task, more especially as in the preceding part we were unable to arrive at a finished system of textual criticism. I have therefore contented myself with bringing together a series of passages of interest from a critical point of view. In doing so I have freely drawn upon Zahn’s Introduction. For this I feel sure the reader will thank me, while at the same time I trust that the author will pardon the liberty I have taken. I have made use, as far as possible, of the additional material afforded by editions later than those of Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, particularly of the Sinai-Syriac. This collection may therefore serve in some degree to supplement our commentaries, which, though their merits in other directions are to be freely conceded, still leave much to be desired in the matter of textual criticism. A purely critical commentary on the New Testament is a great desideratum. The following notes are to be regarded not as the commencement of such a work, but simply as a stimulus thereto. I myself felt it to be a defect in the small Stuttgart edition of the New Testament that want of space obliged me to omit all references to the origin and significance of the various readings selected from manuscripts. For many of these an Annotatio Critica in an Appendix like that in the larger edition of v. Gebhardt would scarcely have been sufficient. What information, _e.g._, would it have imparted to a reader to have given the numbers of the two minuscules 346, 556 after the reading in Matt. i. 16? What he needs is an Apparatus Criticus or a Commentarius Criticus such as Bengel appended to his edition, or like that which Burk published separately in his second issue. Ed. Miller has promised to give us one for the Gospels, only it will proceed on principles which very few of us will be able to accept.

Footnote 129:

I could desire no better motto for this third section than the words of Augustine: Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia eorum qui scripturas nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati cedant (_De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 14, 21, where the saying about the interpretum numerositas, cited on page 108, is also found). Or if not these words, then those of our Lord himself, γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται, which Origen applied to the verification of the canon, but which, taken in the sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, are equally applicable to the work of the “lower” criticism. Apollos, the pupil of Marcion, also vindicated the right of Biblical criticism with these same words. Epiphanius, _Haeres._, xliv. 2 (Zahn, GK., i. 175).

Footnote 130:

The fragment was edited by Tregelles with a facsimile in 1867. It is given in Westcott’s _Canon of the N. T._, Appendix C, where also see the section on the Muratorian Canon, Part i. c. ii. It will be found also in Preuschen’s _Analecta, Kürzere Texte ..._ pp. 129-137 (the eighth number of G. Krüger’s _Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften_, Freib. and Leipzig, 1893).

Footnote 131:

Quoted in Westcott, _Canon_, part ii. c. ii. § 1, and in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, ii. 179.

Footnote 132:

Given in Preuschen. In the manuscripts it is entitled “Indiculum Veteris et Novi Testamenti et Caecili Cipriani.” It was first made known from a MS. at Cheltenham in 1886. As it is mostly assigned to the year 365 (see also Jülicher, _Einleitung_, p. 336) the words of W.-W. may be repeated here: “S. Berger tamen aliter sentit, rationibus commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videtur. Concordant enim numeri in Veteri Testamento cum codicibus Hieronymianis, e.g. in libris Regum quattuor, Esaiae, Jeremiae, et duodecim Prophetarum, Tobiae, et Macchabeorum secundo. Indiculus tamen sine dubio antiquus est” (p. 736).

Footnote 133:

Catalogus Claramontanus given in Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D, p. 563.

Footnote 134:

Translated into French, _Prairies d’or_, i. 123: one volume into English by Sprenger, 1841; Sayous, _Jésus Christ d’après Mohammed_, p. 34.

Footnote 135:

See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 176; _GK._, ii. 364-375, 1014.

Footnote 136:

See _Addenda_, p. xvi.

Footnote 137:

The numbers are as follows:—

-ν- -νν- Matthew, 2 24 John, 7 17 Luke, 27 1 Mark, 2 24 Acts, 21 2

See Blass, _Lucae ad Theophilum liber prior_, p. vi. f., _Philology of the Gospels_, p. 75 f., where three of Lippelt’s numbers are corrected with the help of Harris. See also _Expository Times_, Nov. 1897, p. 92 f. I cannot understand why Wendt, in the new edition of his Commentary on the Acts, should take not the slightest notice of this far-reaching discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts, see W.-W., _Epilogus_, 776.

Footnote 138:

_Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon, und die kleinasiastischen Presbyter_ (Berlin, 1894).

Footnote 139:

_Expositor_, Dec. 1894.

Footnote 140:

_Einleitung_, ii. 221.

Footnote 141:

See Coxe’s _Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library_, 1854.

Footnote 142:

On _cata_ or _kata_ in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of Latin manuscripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable phrase _cata tempus_, which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of _secundum tempus_ in the other manuscripts.

Footnote 143:

See Field, _Hexapla_, i. p. lxxii.

Footnote 144:

The order, πραεῖς ... πτωχοί ... πενθοῦντες, in Baljon is due to a strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

Footnote 145:

To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add Clement, _Hom._ η 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), ια 32 (118, 31).

Footnote 146:

Codex D and Syr^{sin} also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is probably no more than a remarkable coincidence.

Footnote 147:

See _Urt._, 55 ff., where works on this subject are cited.

Footnote 148:

See also Linwood, _Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament_, 1873.

Footnote 149:

On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.

Footnote 150:

The converse occurs in Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, iv. 15, in the address of Polycarp’s _Martyrium_. There the reading κατὰ Πόντον, which is also found in the Syriac, should, according to Harnack’s _Chronologie der altchristl. Lit._, i. 341, be replaced by κατὰ πάντα τόπον, or rather by κατὰ τόπον which is found in 1 Macc. xii. 4; 2 Macc. xii. 2. Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor. x. 15 between κοποις, πονοις, and τοποις, and between ποτος and τοπος in Judith vi. 21. See also Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, v. 15, 23.

Footnote 151:

The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244: “It is now agreed among competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty”; and he quotes from Roberts (_Words of the New Testament_): “conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field ... simply because there is no need for it.” With this, however, he does not quite agree. He admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we should be glad of more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2, where Ephes. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12; Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Krüger expresses himself to the same effect. He would have no conjecture, however well founded, received into the text. See his notice of Koetschau’s Origen in the _L. Cbl._, No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete has had no objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second edition of the last volume of the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3). If such a thing is permissible in the case of Enoch, why should it not be allowable in the New Testament? As clever suggestions maybe noted ἐκολάφισαν for the hapax legomenon ἐκεφαλίωσαν, Mark xii. 4 (Linwood, Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and λανθάνουσι for μανθάνουσι, 1 Tim. v. 13 (Hitzig). Lagrange (_Revue Biblique_, 1900, p. 206) cautions us against “prêter de l’esprit à l’Esprit Saint.”

Footnote 152:

Compare my conjecture of מִפַתְרֹם for מִתְרַפֵם, Ps. lxviii. 31, and see below, p. 236.

Footnote 153:

Meyer-Wendt^8, p. 51. For an example of Σ repeated by mistake, _cf._ ΕΙΣΣΤΕΛΟΣ in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common.

Footnote 154:

Bagster, London, 1887.

Footnote 155:

See Isaac Taylor’s _History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times_ (1827); and compare also the text-books on Hermeneutics, _e.g._ in I. v. Müller’s _Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_.

Footnote 156:

_Benedicti regula monachorum. Recensuit Ed. Wölfflin_, Lipsiae, Teubner, 1895, pp. xv. 85, 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity of Benedict in the _Arch. f. Lat. Lexikogr._ ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521.

Footnote 157:

_Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti_ (_Abh. d. 3 Cl. d. k. Ak. d. Wiss._, vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also _The Text of St. Benedict’s Rule_ by Dom C. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the _Downside Review_, December 1899, 12 pp.

Footnote 158:

_TU._ xiv. 1, 1896.

Footnote 159:

Krüger’s _Sammlung_, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895.

Footnote 160:

_TU._, New Series, i. 1, 1897.

Footnote 161:

Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus, published by Niese and Naber.

Footnote 162:

See, however, the two articles by Lake and Brightman, _On the Italian Origin of Codex Bezae_ in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 441 ff.

Footnote 163:

See below on John viii. 57, p. 289.

Footnote 164:

An instructive discussion of the relationship between D_{2} and E_{3} is given in Hort’s _Introduction_, §§ 335-337. It is possible that one copyist in Rom. xv. 31-33 took ἵνα ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ... διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, and the other καὶ ἡ δωροφορία μου ἡ ἐν Ἱερ ... διὰ θελήματος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ—_i.e._ two entirely different recensions.

Footnote 165:

Zahn very properly remarks (_Th. Lbl._, 1899, 16, 179): “One must not, at least as regards the N. T., confound Eusebius with Pamphilus, or, if I might say so, with the firm of Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the fifty Bibles that Eusebius provided at the bidding of the Emperor for the use of the churches of the capital had contained a text of the N. T. prepared on the basis of the previous works and commentaries of Origen, the entire subsequent history of the text of the N. T. in the region of Constantinople, revealing as it does the extensive propagation of the Antiochean text, would be perfectly incomprehensible. As in the matter of the canon so also of the text of the N. T., Eusebius emancipated himself from the school of Origen, and attached himself to that of Antioch, at least in this particular instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of the Bible.”

Footnote 166:

See Hort, _Introduction_, §§ 188, 189.

Footnote 167:

Athanasius, writing to Constans, says in his first Apology: τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου οὐκ ἔγραψα ἢ μόνον ὅτε ... καὶ ὅτε πυκτία τῶν θείων γραφῶν κελεύσαντος αὐτοῦ μοι κατασκευάσαι, ταῦτα ποιήσας ἀπέστειλα.

Footnote 168:

It is given in Syriac in Abbé Martin’s _Introduction à la critique textuelle du N. T._, Plate XX. No. 35 (1883), from the MS. de Paris, 27, f 88 b, and also in Lagarde’s _Bibliotheca Syriaca_, 259, 22-27. From the Greek πυργίσκος, which becomes פרדוסקא in the Semitic, the Syriac forms another diminutive פרדסקזנא, which is still omitted in the _Thesaurus Syriacus_, 3240; _cf._ Bar Bahlul, 1606, 9 (App. p. 64). In place of πυργίσκῳ, Oikonomos would read the genitive πυργίσκου (περι των ὀ ερμηνευτων, iv. 500).

Footnote 169:

Not only does the Old Testament promise to shed some light upon an obscure problem in the New, but the converse may also be true—viz. that the history of the text of the New Testament may contribute to a better understanding of that of the Old. It was long observed that many peculiarities of the Lucianic revision of the Septuagint occur also in the witnesses to the Old Latin version (see especially Driver, _Notes on Samuel_, p. li; _Urt._, 78). No proper explanation of this phenomenon could be given so long as the Old Latin version of the Old Testament was looked upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity. But the New Testament, for which we have far more Old Latin manuscripts than for the Old, shows that the Old Latin pre-Jeromic version had a chequered history, and in particular that at a certain time a revision was undertaken, the result of which is found especially in Codex Brixianus (f, see p. 112), and which “non solum interpretationem veterem stilo elegantiori emendabat, sed etiam lectiones novas protulit. Notatu certe dignum est, in ista emendatione Itala eminere lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum Graecorum apparent, _quas Recensioni Syrae vel Antiochenae adiudicant Westcott et Hort_.” So say Wordsworth and White, p. 654. If the same thing holds good of the Old Testament, then the relationship between the Old Latin and Lucian at once becomes evident, and the supposition is not so absurd that the marginal glosses of Codex Legionensis (called Codex Gothicus in Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, iii. p. 50_b_.) which are particularly striking on this view of the case, may have been translated into Latin from Lucian. These considerations, moreover, may possibly throw fresh light on the question that I have raised elsewhere (_Urt._, p. 78), whether Lucian may not also have used the Peshitto in his recension of the Old Testament. I see that it has been taken up by J. Méritan, in his little book, entitled, _La Version grecque des Livres de Samuel, précédée d’une Introduction sur la critique textuelle_ (Paris, 1898). On pp. 96-113 he discusses the same question—whether Lucian knew and used the Peshitto. He answers the question in the affirmative: “It is therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the Books of Samuel, in his work of revision, or rather of correction, Lucian did not follow the Hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide, but availed himself of others also, and that one of those principal authorities was the Syriac version.” We often enough find ὁ Σύρος cited as an authority in the Greek Commentaries on the Old Testament. Whether it is also mentioned for the New Testament is a point that seems not yet to be looked into.

I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the _Zeitschrift für kath. Theol._, iii. 467-469, entitled, “Die Lucianische Septuagintabearbeitung nachgewiesen,” by saying: “In establishing the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for the Septuagint, we may be held as settling the question whether traces of these may not also be found in the New Testament.”

In his _Einleitung_, ii. 240, Zahn says: “Without a doubt many readings which had a considerable circulation in the second and third centuries, some of them being of no small importance and extent, were gradually ousted from their place in the text from the fourth century onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later tradition altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were current in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But whatever our judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a position to support it with extant documents.”

Footnote 170:

Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing that he regards Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon of Athanasius, which was not written till the year 367.

Footnote 171:

See especially Lagarde, _Sept.-Studien_, 1892, and Moore’s _Commentary on Judges_, 1895, p. xlvi.

Footnote 172:

See above under Λ, p. 72.

Footnote 173:

There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome in his letter of the year 403 to the Gothic priests Sunnia and Fretela, seeing that these relate only to the Old Testament. But the words themselves may be quoted: “Breviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores κοινήν, id est communem appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur, aliam septuaginta interpretum quae in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis ecclesiae (so Lagarde, _Librorum V. T. can. pars prior_, p. xiii. from _Vallarsi_, i. 635?) decantatur ... κοινή autem ista, hoc est communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest inter utramque quod κοινή pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum translatio reservatur” (_ibid._, 637). For Λουκιανός Oikonomos (iv. 499) would read Λουκιανίς.

Footnote 174:

A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading εἴτε ἀπὸ μοχθηρίας τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα (_Leiden. Theol. Tijdschr._, vii., 1873, 233).

Footnote 175:

What he says is (_Viri Illust._, c. 75): Pamphilus presbyter, Eusebii Caesariensis episcopi necessarius, tanto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit, quae usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca habetur. Sed et in duodecim prophetas vigintiquinque ἐξηγήσεων Origenis volumina manu eius (_i.e._ Pamphili) exarata repperi, quae tanto amplector et servo gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est unam epistulam habere martyris, quanto magis tot milia versuum, quae mihi videntur suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis. The above is Richardson’s text. Bernoulli (Krüger’s _Sammlung_, Heft xi. 1895) reads _habentur_, _Sed in_, and _videtur_, and also omits _volumina_.

Footnote 176:

Προσφώνησις· κορωνίς εἰμι δογμάτων θείων διδάσκαλος· ἄν τινί με χρήσῃς ἀντίβιβλον λάμβανε, οἱ γὰρ ἀποδόται κακοί· Ἀντίφρασις· θησαυρὸν ἔχων σε πνευματικῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ποθητὸν ἁρμονίαις τε καὶ ποικίλαις γραμμαῖς κεκοσμημένον—νὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν—οὐ δώσω σε προχείρως τινὶ οὐδ’ αὖ φθονέσω τῆς ὠφελείας, χρήσω δὲ τοῖς φίλοις ἀντίβιβλον λαμβάνων. The last seven words, which are erased in H, are supplied by the minuscule 93^{paul} and the Armenian version. On ἀντίβιβλον = “borrowing-receipt” or “voucher,” see _ThLz._, 1895, 283, 407. See also Robinson, _Euthaliana_, _Texts and Studies_, iii. 3.

Footnote 177:

To the literature referred to on p. 79 should be added the second section of Bousset’s _Textkritische Studien_ (_TU._ xi. 4, 1894), entitled, _Der Codex Pamphili_, pp. 45-73. Bousset affirms the close connection between the Corrector of Sinaiticus indicated by Tischendorf as ^c and Codex H. I have established the connection of this corrector in the Psalter with Eusebius by means of the latter’s Commentary on the Psalms (see above, p. 58). As yet no one appears to have examined the New Testament quotations in Eusebius. _Cf._ however Bousset, _ThLz._, 1900, 22, 611 ff.

Footnote 178:

It runs: Εἰσὶν ὅσα προτεταγμένον ἔχουσι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὧδε, ὅσα Ὠριγένην ἐπιγεγραμμένον ἔχει τούτῳ τῷ μονοσυλλάβῳ Ρ/Ω· εἰσὶ δὲ μάλιστα ἐν τῷ Ἰώβ· ὅσα δὲ περὶ διαφωνίας ῥητῶν τινῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐδαφίῳ ἢ ἐκδόσεών ἐστιν σχόλια, ἅπερ καὶ κάτω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, τῶν ἀντιβεβληκότων τὸ βιβλίον ἐστίν· ὅσα δὲ ἀμφιβόλως ἔξω κείμενα ῥητὰ ἔξω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, διὰ τὰ σχόλια προσετέθησαν κατ’ αὐτὰ τοῦ μεγάλου εἰρηκότος διδασκάλου ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ κατὰ κενοῦ τὸ σχόλιον φέρεσθαι, ἐν πολλοῖς μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων τῶν ῥητῶν οὕτως ἐχόντων, ἐν τούτῳ δὲ μὴ οὕτως κειμένων ἢ μηδ’ ὅλως φερομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο προστεθέντων.

Footnote 179:

Περι των ὀ ερμηνευτων, iv. 904. Athens, 1844-1849.

Footnote 180:

_Texte und Untersuchungen_, xvii. (N. F. ii.) 4. See above, p. 90.

Footnote 181:

_Euthaliusstudien_, pp. 111-115; 115 ff.

Footnote 182:

_Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp. 360-363. Compare also von Dobschütz, _lib. cit._, 111.

Footnote 183:

μάλιστα δὲ παρὰ τοὺς καθ’ ἡμᾶς πάντας διέπρεπε τῇ περὶ τὰ θεῖα λόγια γνησιωτάτῃ σπουδῇ. Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, viii. 11.

Footnote 184:

See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and compare Zahn, _ThLbl._, 1899, 181: Would that some one with the time and opportunity to work in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied himself to the Codex written in the year 800 by the unhappy Empress Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since the above was written the manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltz.

Footnote 185:

On κόφινον κοπρίων, see Chase, _Syro-Latin Text_, p. 135 f. It may be observed in passing how variously καταργεῖ is rendered in the different Latin manuscripts—viz. by _evacuat_ in b ff^2 l q, by _detinet_ in ff^{2c} i r, by _intricat_ in e, and by _occupat_ in d and the Vulgate.

Footnote 186:

The evidence of d in this passage cannot be had, unfortunately, as eight leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2, and the Latin of vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing.

Footnote 187:

Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might simply have referred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware if what Wordsworth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript is still true: Codex hodie, ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana inveniri non potest.

Footnote 188:

See Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 751.

Footnote 189:

At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and Acts, but in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to present the alternative “original or later alteration” or even forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly stated. Blass was not the first to express the opinion, “Lucam bis edidisse Actus.” De Dieu did so before him, and by an examination of those passages of the Gospels in which the original text has been preserved in purely “Western” witnesses Hort (§ 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non-Western texts may have “started respectively from a first and a second edition of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.” Similarly Wordsworth and White are unable to explain the origin and propagation of several readings in the manuscripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing that the primitive document itself contained certain variants (corrections) in the passages in question.

Footnote 190:

_Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_ (Erlangen): I. Band, _Das N. T. vor Origenes_, 1 and 2 Hälfte, 1888-89; II. Band, _Urkunden und Belege zum ersten und dritten Band_, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that the third volume will not be long in making its appearance. Along with this we must take his _Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur_, of which six volumes have been published (1881-1900). Meanwhile Zahn’s _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (Leipzig, I., 1898; II., 1899, 2nd ed., 1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. It contains a great deal of valuable material for the criticism of the text. Needless to say, textual criticism is the basis on which all sound exegesis rests.

Footnote 191:

A small selection will be found in Preuschen, _Analecta_, pp. 152-157.

Footnote 192:

Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring to the history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon.

Footnote 193:

Jülicher, _loc. cit._, from Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 11. On the Latin form _grabattum_, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, σκίμπους occurs as early as Clem. Al. _Paed._, 1, 2, 6. In the parallels to Mark ii. 6, Matthew has κλίνη (ix. 6), and Luke κλινίδιον (v. 24). _Cf._ the passage cited by Lagarde (_De Novo Test._, 20 = _Ges. Abh._, 118) from Lucian’s _Philopseudes_, 11; ὁ Μίδας αὐτὸς ἀράμενος τὸν σκίμποδα ἐφ’ οὗ ἐκεκόμιστο ᾤχετο εἰς ἀγρὸν ἀπιών.

Footnote 194:

Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν· ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν.

Footnote 195:

_Cf._ Matt. xiii. 27, δοῦλοι τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου, and also the superscriptions of the N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul, where δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is varied by ἀπόστολος Ἰ. Χ.

Footnote 196:

“is reserved”—Syr.

Footnote 197:

“but”—Syr.

Footnote 198:

This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ read by Christophorson and Savil.

Footnote 199:

The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation. Bengel punctuates ἅγιον, κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ, and Westcott and Hort ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in citing Bengel along with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of Tertullian (see Bengel’s _Gnomon_). It will be difficult to prove that Tertullian’s construction is impossible “on account of the position of κληθήσεται.” Westcott and Hort surely know Greek, and Tertullian knew it better than any of us.

Footnote 200:

It seems worth while to quote here Harnack’s words on these notices of the earliest attempts at textual criticism. He says (_ibid._, p. 189): “The charge preferred against the disciples of that erudite Tanner (Theodotus) by the author of the Little Labyrinth is threefold. He complains of their formal and grammatical exegesis of Scripture, of their arbitrary system of textual criticism, and of the extent to which they were engrossed in Logic, Mathematics, and empirical Science. At the first glance, therefore, it would appear that these people had no interest to spare for Theology. But the very opposite is the case. The complainant himself has to confess that they employed the method of grammatical exegesis ‘with the object of establishing their godless conclusions,’ and textual criticism in order to correct the manuscripts of the holy Scriptures. In place of the allegorical method of exposition, the grammatical is the only right one, and we have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the original instead of simply accepting the traditional form. How inimitable and charming really are these notices!... These scholars had to be generals without an army, because their grammar and textual criticism and logic might only discredit in the eyes of the churches that christological method which long tradition had invested with admiration and respect.... As ‘genuine’ scholars—this is an exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them—they also took a jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his conjectures and emendations. No remnants have been preserved of the works of these the first scholarly exegetes of the Christian Church (the Syntagma knows of the existence of such; _cf._ Epiph. lv. c. 1).” So writes Harnack. Nothing, however, is said in the text of Eusebius of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures. In the sentence which Harnack renders “for their disciples have with an ambitious zeal recorded what each one has corrected as they call it, that is corrupted (deleted?),” φιλοτίμως ἐγγεγράφθαι is to be understood simply of a diligent record of “corrections” undertaken solely out of an interest in their contents. According to the Syriac ἠφανισμένα is not to be rendered by “deleted,” but as Harnack translates it: _cf._ the various Syriac versions in Matthew vi. verse 16 (Syr^p), verses 19 and 20 (Syr^{pc}). On the validity of the charge of inventing false Scriptures, see Zahn, _GK._ 1, 296 f.

Footnote 201:

Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. § 8, p. 308 ff.

Footnote 202:

Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. p. 310.

Footnote 203:

_Ibid._, p. 291.

Footnote 204:

_Ibid._, p. 303 ff. Cf. _Texts and Studies_, vol. i. 4: _The Fragments of Heracleon_, by A. E. Brooke, M.A.

Footnote 205:

On the literature of the subject, _cf._ Zahn, _GK._ i. 585-718, _Das N. T. Marcions_; ii. 409-529, _Marcions N. T._ All other works are superseded by this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, _Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt_ (1823); Thilo, _Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti_ (1832: for this work Hahn attempted to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486); A. Ritschl, _Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas_ (1846); Hilgenfeld, in the _Z. f. hist. Theol._, 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday, _The Gospels in the Second Century_, c. viii.

Footnote 206:

The proof passages will be found in Zahn, _GK._ i. 620, 626, 663: machaera non stilo: erubescat spongia Marcionis (Tert., v. 4, p. 282. Is it permissible to infer from this that minium was already used in manuscripts of the Bible at that time?—_cf._ Augustine, _Con. Jul._, iii. 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo convertatur in minium): non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumque subducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit (_con. Marc._, i. 1): tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique circumrosus (Adamantius).

Footnote 207:

See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (_sc._ evangelium), prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius (_Pseudo-Origenes_, de la Rue, i. 887 = Lat. in _Caspari Anecdota_, i. 57) in Zahn, _GK._ i. 613.

Footnote 208:

_Cf._ also _GK._ p. 681.

Footnote 209:

_Cf._ Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. § 9, Marcion: “Some of the omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they do to a time anterior to all other authorities in our possession” (p. 315). See also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings peculiar to Marcion are cited.

Footnote 210:

_Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 684, and see below, p. 313.

Footnote 211:

_Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 682: “I repeat that readings which are proved to be earlier than Marcion by their simultaneous occurrence in his text and that of the several Catholic witnesses deserve greater consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles than has generally been accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain whether a certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however, the critical notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion, not to speak of their doing so systematically.”

Footnote 212:

Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources; pp. 449-529, the restoration of the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the earlier works of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction.

Footnote 213:

Zahn interjects “as yet.”

Footnote 214:

We have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly Marcion’s text. The chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the hatred with which Marcion was pursued. But when the libelli of certain libellatici have been found, and also a great part of the Gospel of Peter, we need not despair of finding other lost works as well. Codex 604 is interesting as exhibiting the Marcionite reading, ἐλθέτω τὸ πνεῦμά σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς, in the Lord’s Prayer, Luke xi. 2. The same manuscript omits με λέγετε εἶναι in Luke ix. 20, and λέγουσα in verse 35. Compare also Jülicher, _Gleichnisreden Jesu_, ii. 5: “Marcion, who perhaps created the Roman text of Luke xxi. 30.”

Footnote 215:

On this passage W.-W. observe: “D ex Latinis forsan correctus.”

Footnote 216:

“Licet _suos_ adiectio sit haeretici.” Tertullian.

Footnote 217:

In the critical notes at the end of this