CHAPTER XII

. APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS AND PRINCIPLES TO THE

CRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

In applying to the revision of the sacred text the diplomatic materials and critical principles it has been the purpose of the preceding pages to describe, we have selected the few passages we have room to examine, chiefly in consideration of their actual importance, occasionally also with the design of illustrating by pertinent examples the canons of internal evidence and the laws of Comparative Criticism. It will be convenient to discuss these passages in the order they occupy in the volume of the New Testament: that which stands first affords a conspicuous instance of undue and misplaced _subjectivity_.

First Series. Gospels.

1. MATT. i. 18. Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ... is altered by Tregelles into Τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦ being omitted: Westcott and Hort place Ἰησοῦ between brackets, and Τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ of Cod. B in the margin: Tischendorf, who had rejected Ἰησοῦ in his fifth and seventh editions, restored it in his eighth. Michaelis had objected to the term τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Acts viii. 37 (see that verse, to be examined below), on the ground that “In the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never used as the Proper Name of a Person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus;” and although Bp. Middleton has abundantly proved his statement incorrect (Doctrine of the Greek Article, note on Mark ix. 41), and Ἰησοῦς Χριστός(335), especially in some one of the oblique cases after prepositions, is very common, yet the precise form ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός occurs only in these places and in 1 John iv. 3; Apoc. xii. 17, where again the reading is more than doubtful. Hence, apparently, the determination to change the common text in St. Matthew, on evidence however slight. Now Ἰησοῦ is omitted _in no Greek manuscript whatsoever_(336). The Latin version of Cod. D (_d_) indeed rejects it, the parallel Greek being lost; but since _d_ sometimes agrees with other Latin copies against its own Greek, it cannot be deemed quite certain that the Greek rejected it also(337). Cod. B reads τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, in support of which Lachmann cites Origen, iii. 965 _d_ in the Latin, but on very precarious grounds, as Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 189, note †) candidly admits. Tischendorf quotes Cod. 74 (after Wetstein), the Persic (of the Polyglott and in manuscript), and Maximus, Dial. de Trinitate, for τοῦ δὲ ἰησοῦ. The real testimony in favour of τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ consists of the Old Latin copies _a_ _b_ _c_ _d_ _f_ _ff_1, the Curetonian Syriac (I know not why Cureton should add “the Peshitto”), the Latin Vulgate, the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon, Wheelocke’s Persic, and Irenaeus in three places, “who (after having previously cited the words ‘_Christi autem generatio sic erat_’) continues ‘Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthaeus, _Jesu vero generatio sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait: _Christi autem generatio sic erat_’ (Contra Haeres., lib. iii. 16. 2). This is given in proof that Jesus and Christ are one and the same Person, and that Jesus cannot be said to be the receptacle that afterwards received Christ; for _the Christ was born_” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 188). To this most meagre list of authorities Scholz adds, “Pseudo-Theophil. in Evang.,” manuscripts of Theophylact, Augustine, and one or two of little account: but even in Irenaeus (Harvey, vol. ii. p. 48) τοῦ δὲ _ιυ_ _χυ_ (_tacitè_), as preserved by Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople [viii], stands over against the Latin “Christi.”

We do not deny the importance of Irenaeus’ express testimony(338) (a little impaired though it be by the fanciful distinction which he had taken up with), had it been supported by something more trustworthy than the Old Latin versions and their constant associate, the Curetonian Syriac. On the other hand, all uncial and cursive codices (אCΣEKLMPSUVZΓΔΠ: ADFGΦ &c. being defective here), the Syriac of the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Jerusalem (δέ only being omitted, since the Church Lesson begins here), the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions, Tatian, Irenaeus, Origen (in the Greek), Eusebius, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and the younger Cyril, comprise a body of proof, not to be shaken by subjective notions, or even by Western evidence from the second century downwards(339).

2. MATT. vi. 13. ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν. It is right to say that I can no longer regard this doxology as _certainly_ an integral part of St. Matthew’s Gospel: but (notwithstanding its rejection by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort) I am not yet absolutely convinced of its spuriousness [i.e. upon much less evidence than is now adduced]. It is wanting in the oldest uncials extant, אBDZ, and since ACP (whose general character would lead us to look for support to the Received text in such a case) are unfortunately deficient here, the burden of the defence is thrown on Φ and Σ and the later uncials EGKLMSUVWfΔΠ (_hiat_ Γ), whereof L is conspicuous for usually siding with B. Of the cursives only _five_ are known to omit the clause, l, 17 (_habet_ ἀμήν), 118, 130, 209, but 566 or hscr (and as it would seem some others) has it obelized in the margin, while the scholia in certain other copies indicate that it is doubtful: even 33 contains it, 69 being defective, while 157, 225, 418 add to δόξα, τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, but 422 τοῦ _πρσ_ only. Versions have much influence on such a question, it is therefore important to notice that it is found in all the four Syriac (Cureton’s omitting καὶ ἡ δύναμις, and some editions of the Peshitto ἀμήν, which is in _at least_ one manuscript), the Sahidic (omitting καὶ ἡ δόξα), the Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Slavonic, Georgian, Erpenius’ Arabic, the Persic of the Polyglott from Pococke’s manuscript, the margin of some Bohairic codices, the Old Latin _k_ (quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum), _f_ _g_1 (omitting _amen_) _q_. The doxology is not found in most Bohairic (but is in the margin of Hunt. 17 or Bp. Lightfoot’s Cod. 1) and Arabic manuscripts or editions, in Wheelocke’s Persic, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_1 _g_1 _h_ _l_, in the Vulgate or its satellites the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish (the Clementine Vulg. and Sax. add _amen_). Its absence from the Latin avowedly caused the editors of the Complutensian N. T. to pass it over, though it was found in their Greek copies: the earliest Latin Fathers naturally did not cite what the Latin codices for the most part do not contain. Among the Greeks it is met with in Isidore of Pelusium (412), and in the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, probably of the fourth century: soon afterwards Chrysostom (Hom. in Matt. xix. vol. i. p. 283, Field) comments upon it without showing the least consciousness that its authenticity was disputed. The silence of some writers, viz. Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Maximus, especially when expounding the Lord’s Prayer, may be partly accounted for by the fact of the existence of the shorter form of the Lord’s Prayer as given in St. Luke without the doxology; or upon the supposition that the doxology was regarded not so much a portion of the Prayer itself, as a hymn of praise annexed to it; yet this latter fact would be somewhat unfavourable to its genuineness, and would be fatal unless we knew the precariousness of any argument derived from such silence. The Fathers are constantly overlooking the most obvious citations from Scripture, even where we should expect them most, although, as we learn from other passages in their writings, they were perfectly familiar with them. Internal evidence is not unevenly balanced. It is probable that the doxology was interpolated from the Liturgies, and the variation of reading renders this all the more likely; it is just as probable that it was cast out of St. Matthew’s Gospel to bring it into harmony with St. Luke’s (xi. 4): I cannot concede to Scholz that it is “in interruption of the context,” for then the whole of ver. 13 would have to be cancelled (a remedy which no one proposes), and not merely this concluding part of it.

It is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case, though it ought not to be looked upon as conclusive. The Διδαχή (with variation) and the Syriac and Sahidic versions bring up the existence of the doxology to the second century; the Apostolic Constitutions in the third; Ambrose, Caesarius, Chrysostom, the Opus Imperfectum, Isidore, and perhaps others(340), attest for it in the fourth; then come the Latin codices(341) _f_ _g_1 _k_ _q_, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and lastly Codd. Φ and Σ of the fifth or sixth century, and the whole flood-tide of Greek manuscripts from the eighth century downwards, including even L, 33, with Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus in the eleventh and twelfth. Perhaps it is not very wise “_quaerere quae habere non possumus_,” yet those who are persuaded, from the well-ascertained affinities subsisting between them, that ACP, or at least two out of the three, would have preserved a reading sanctioned by the Peshitto, by Codd. _f_ _k_, by Chrysostom, and by nearly all the later documents, may be excused for regarding the indictment against the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer as hitherto _unproven_, in Dr. Scrivener’s judgement passed upon much less than the evidence in favour adduced above; and for supposing the genuineness of the clause to be proved when the additional evidence is taken into consideration.

3. MATT. xi. 19. The change of τέκνων of the Received text into ἔργων, as made by Tischendorf, Tregelles (who retains τέκνων in his margin), by Hort and Westcott, is quite destructive to the sense, so far as we can perceive, for Jerome’s exposition (“Sapientia quippe non quaerit vocis testimonium, sed operum”) could hardly satisfy any one but himself. The reading ἔργων is supported by אB* (with τέκνων in the margin by the hand B2), 124, the Peshitto Syriac (apparently; for all the older editions we know punctuate ܠܒܕܘ (or ܘܕܒܠ) “doers,” not ܠܒܕܘ (or ܘܕܒܠ) “works”), the Harkleian text (but not its margin), the Bohairic, some copies known to Jerome, Armenian manuscripts, the Ethiopic (one MS. contains both forms), and (after the Peshitto Syriac) the Persic of the Polyglott and its codices. We can hardly question that the origin of the variation arose from the difficulty on the part of translators and copyists to understand the Hellenistic use of τέκνων in this place, and modern editors have been tempted to accept it from a false suspicion that the present passage has been assimilated to Luke vii. 35, where indeed Cod. א and St. Ambrose have ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀυτῆς. As we have alleged that Jerome’s explanation is unsatisfactory in St. Matthew’s Gospel, we subjoin that of Ambrose, which is certainly no less obscure, on the parallel place of St. Luke: “Bene _ab omnibus_ quia circa omnes justitia servatur, ut susceptio fiat fidelium, rejectio perfidorum. Unde plerique Graeci sic habent: _justificata est sapientia ab omnibus operibus suis_, quod opus justitiae sit, circa uniuscujusque meritum servare mensuram.” In the face of the language of these two great Latin Fathers it is remarkable that all other Latin authorities agree with the Curetonian Syriac and the mass of Greek manuscripts in upholding τέκνων, which is undoubtedly the only true reading.

4. MATT. xvi. 2, 3. The whole passage from Ὀψίας ver. 2 to the end of ver. 3 is set within brackets by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, who holds (Notes, p. 13) that “both documentary evidence and the impossibility of accounting for omission prove these words to be no part of the text of Mt.” Yet it might seem impossible for any one possessed of the slightest tincture of critical instinct to read them thoughtfully without feeling assured that they were actually spoken by the Lord on the occasion related in the Received text, and were omitted by copyists whose climate the natural phenomena described did not very well suit, the rather as they do not occur in the parallel text, ch. xii. 38, 39. Under these circumstances, the internal evidence in favour of the passage being thus clear and irresistible, the witnesses against it are more likely to damage their own authority than to impair our confidence in its genuineness. These witnesses are אBVXΓ, 2, 13, 34, 39, 44, 84, 124 _primâ manu_, 157, 180, 194, 258, 301, 511, 575. Cod. 482 has the words, but only in a later hand at the foot of the page (Nicholson). Of these cursive codices 157 alone is of the first class for importance, and the verses are explained in the scholia of X (for ver. 3) and of 39. E and 606 have them with an asterisk; but they are wanting in the Curetonian Syriac, the Bohairic according to Mill (but not so other Coptic manuscripts and editions), and the Armenian, as unaltered from the Latin. Origen passes them over in his commentary, and Jerome, in his sweeping way, declares “hoc in plerisque codicibus non habetur.” They are recognized in the Eusebian canons (Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p. 205).

The united testimony of אB and the Curetonian version suffices to show that the omission was current as early as the second century, while the accordance of CD, of all the Latins and the Peshitto, with the mass of later codices assures us that the words were extant at the same early date. If any one shall deem this a case best explained by the existence of two separate recensions of the same work, one containing the disputed sentences, the other derived from copies in which they had not yet been inserted, he may find much encouragement for his conjecture by considering certain passages in the latter part of St. Luke’s Gospel, where the same sort of omissions, supported by a class of authorities quite different from those we have to deal with here, occur too often to be merely accidental.

5. MATT. xix. 17. For Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ Θεός, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort read Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. The self-same words as in the Received text occur in the parallel places Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19 with no variation worth speaking of; a fact which (so far as it goes) certainly lends some support to the supposition that St. Matthew’s autograph contained the other reading [?]. Add to this that any change made from St. Matthew, _supposing the common reading to be true_, must have been wilfully introduced by one who was offended at the doctrine of the Divine Son’s inferiority to the Father which it seemed to assert or imply. Internal evidence, therefore, would be a little in favour of the alteration approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and the rest; and in discussing external authority, their opponents are much hampered by the accident that A is defective in this place, while א has recently been added to the list of its supporters [though more recently Φ and Σ have come into the opposite balance]. Under these circumstances we might have been excused from noticing this passage at all, as we are no longer able to uphold the Received text with the same confidence as before, but that it seemed dishonest to suppress a case on which Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, pp. 133-8) has laid great stress, and which, when the drift of the internal evidence is duly allowed for, tells more in his favour than any other he has alleged, or is likely to be met with elsewhere(342).

The alternative reading Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ κ.τ.λ. occurs in אBD (omitting τοῦ and ὁ) L, 1 (omitting ὁ), 22, 604. In 251 both readings are given, the Received one first, in ver. 17, the other interpolated after ποίας ver. 18, prefaced by ὁ δὲ ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Excepting these seven, all other extant codices reject it, CEFGHKMSUVΓΔ (Γ omits τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; Δ omits λέγεις, Π is defective here), even Codd. 33, 69. The versions are more seriously divided. The Peshitto Syriac, the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (Oxford fragments), the Old Latin _f_ _q_, the Arabic, &c., make for the common reading; Cureton’s and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _l_, the Vulgate (the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish, of course), Bohairic and Armenian, for that of Lachmann and his followers. Several present a mixed form: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς: viz. the margin of the Harkleian, the Ethiopic, and _g_1 _h_ _m_ of the Old Latin. A few (Cureton’s Syriac, _b_ _c_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_ _m_, Jerome and the Vulgate) add ὁ θεός, as in the common text; but this is unimportant.

Tregelles presses us hard with the testimony of Origen in favour of the reading he adopts: ὁ μὲν οὖν Ματθαῖος, ὡς περὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἔργου ἐρωτηθέντος τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐν τῷ, Τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω? ἀνέγραψεν. Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς φασὶ τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρηκέναι, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ Θεός (Tom. iii. p. 644 _d_). “The reading which is _opposed_ to the common text,” Tregelles writes, “has the express testimony of Origen in its favour” (p. 134); “might I not well ask for some _proof_ that the other reading existed, in the time of Origen, in copies of St. Matthew’s Gospel?” (p. 137). I may say in answer, that the testimony of Origen applies indeed to the former part of the variation which Tregelles maintains (τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ), but not at all to the latter (εἷς ἐστιν ὁ αγαθός), and that the Peshitto Syriac version of the second, as also the Sahidic of the third century, uphold the common text, without any variation in the manuscripts of the former, that we know of. Or if he asks for the evidence of Fathers to counterbalance that of a Father, we have Justin Martyr: προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινὸς καὶ εἰπόντος (words which show, as Tischendorf observes, that St. Matthew’s is the only Gospel that can be referred to) Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα, citing loosely, as is usual with him, but not ambiguously. Or if half the variation will satisfy, as it was made to do for Origen, Tregelles’ own note refers us to Irenaeus 92 for τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, and to Eusebius for the other half in the form above quoted from the Ethiopic, &c. Moreover, since he cites the last five words of the subjoined extract _as belonging to St. Matthew_, Tregelles entitles us to employ for our purpose the whole passage, Marcos. apud Iren. 92, which we might not otherwise have ventured to do; καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι, εἰπόντα Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Jerome and Augustine (for the first clause only, though very expressly: de Consensu Evan. ii. 63) are with the Latin Vulgate, Hilary with the common Greek text, as are also Optatus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and the main body of later Fathers. Thus the great mass of manuscripts, headed by C [followed by Φ and Σ], is well supported by versions, and even better by ecclesiastical writers; yet, in virtue of the weight of internal evidence [?], we dare not hold out unreservedly against the reading of BDL, &c., now that Cod. א is found to agree with them, even though subsequent investigations have brought to light so close a relation between א and B as to render it impossible, in our opinion, to regard them as independent witnesses(343).

6. MATT. xx. 28. The extensive interpolation which follows this verse in some very ancient documents has been given above (I. 8), in the form represented in the Curetonian Syriac version. It bears the internal marks of evident spuriousness, the first sentence consisting of a rhetorical antithesis as unsuitable as can be imagined to the majestic simplicity of our Lord’s usual tone, while the sentiment of the rest is manifestly borrowed from Luke xiv. 8-10, although there is little or no resemblance in the words. The only extant Greek for the passage is in Codd. Φ and D, of which D gives the fullest text, as follows: ὑμεις δε ζητειτε; εκ μεικρου αυξησαι και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι Εισερχομενοι δε και παρακληθεντες δειπνησαι; μη ανακλεινεσθαι εις τους εξεχοντας τοπους μη ποτε ενδοξοτερος σου επελθη και προσελθων ο δειπνοκλητωρ ειπη σοι ετι κατω χωρει; και καταισχυνθηση Εαν δε αναπεσης; εις τον ηττονα τοπον και επελθη σου ηττων ερει σοι ο δειπνοκλητωρ; συναγε ετι ανω και εσται σοι τουτο χρησιμον. The codices of the Old Latin version (_a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _h_ _n_ and _and._ _em._ of the Vulgate(344)) mostly support the same addition, though with many variations: _d_, as usual, agrees with none; _g_2has not the first clause down to εἶναι, while _g_1 _m_ have nothing else. Besides the Curetonian Syriac, the margin of the Harkleian contains it in a shape much like _d_, noting that the paragraph is “found in Greek copies in this place, but in ancient copies only in St. Luke, κεφ. 53” [ch. xiv. 8, &c.]: Cureton has also seen it in one manuscript of the Peshitto (Brit. Mus. 14,456), but there too in the margin. Marshall states that it is contained in four codices of the Anglo-Saxon version, which proves its wide reception in the West. Of the Fathers, Hilary recognizes it, as apparently do Juvencus and Pope Leo the Great (A.D. 440-461). It must have been rejected by Jerome, being entirely absent from the great mass of Vulgate codices, nor is it in the Old Latin, _f_ _l_ _q_. No other Greek codex, or version, or ecclesiastical writer, has any knowledge of the passage: while the whole language of the Greek of Cod. D, especially in such words as δειπνοκλήτωρ, ἐξέχοντας, ἥττων, χρήσιμος, is so foreign to the style of St. Matthew’s Gospel, that it seems rather to have been rendered from the Latin(345), although in the midst of so much variation it is hard to say from what copy. Cureton too testifies that the Syriac of the version named from him must have been made quite independently of that in the margins of the Harkleian and Peshitto.

No one has hitherto ventured to regard this paragraph as genuine, however perplexing it may be to decide at what period or even in what language it originated. The wide divergences between the witnesses must always dismiss it from serious consideration. Its chief critical use must be to show that the united testimony of the Old Latin, of the Curetonian Syriac, and of Cod. D, are quite insufficient in themselves to prove any more than that the reading they exhibit is ancient: certainly as ancient as the second century.

7. MATT. xxi. 28-31. This passage, so transparently clear in the common text, stands thus in the edition of Tregelles: (28) Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ? ἄνθρωπος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν, Τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι. (29) ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐ θέλω; ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν. (30) προσελθὼν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ εἶπεν ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ἐγώ, κύριε; καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. (31) τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός? λέγουσιν, Ὁ ὕστερος. The above is indeed a brilliant exemplification of Bengel’s Canon, “Proclivi orationi praestat ardua.” Lachmann in 1842 had given the same reading, with a few slight and unimportant exceptions. The question is proposed which of the two sons did their father’s will; the reply is ὁ ὕστερος, the one that promised and then failed! Lachmann in 1850 (N. T., vol. ii. Praef. p. 5) remarks that had he been sure that πρῶτος (ver. 31) was the reading of Cod. C, he should have honoured it, _the only word that makes sense_, with a place in his margin: “Nihilo minus,” he naïvely adds, “id quod nunc solum edidi ... ὁ ὕστερος veri similius est altero, quod facile aliquis correctori adscribat, illud non item;” and we must fairly confess that no copyist would have sought to introduce a plain absurdity into so beautiful and simple a parable. “Quid vero,” he goes on to plead, “si id quod veri similius esse dixi ne intellegi quidem potest?” (a pertinent question certainly) “CORRIGETUR, SI MODO NECESSE ERIT:” critical conjecture, as usual, is his panacea. Conjecture, however, is justly held inadmissible by Tregelles, whose mode of interpretation is a curiosity in its way. “I believe,” he says, “that ὁ ὕστερος refers not to the order in which the two sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about the elder son, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν, _afterwards_ he repented and went.” “Which of the two did his father’s will! ὁ ὕστερος. _He who afterwards_ [repented and went]. This answers the charge that the reading of Lachmann is void of sense” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 107). I entertain sincere veneration for the character and services of Dr. Tregelles, but it is only right to assert at once that what stands in his text is impossible Greek. Even granting that instead of the plain answer “the first,” our Lord’s adversaries resorted to the harsh and equivocal reply “he who afterwards,” they would not have said ὁ ὕστερος, but ὁ ὕστερον, or (the better to point out their reference to ὕστερον in ver. 29) ὁ τὸ ὕστερον.

Why then prefer nonsense, for the mere purpose of carrying out Bengel’s canon to the extremity? The passage, precisely as it stands in Tregelles’ N. T., _is sanctioned by no critical authority whatsoever_. Cod. B indeed has ὕστερος (which is here followed by Westcott and Hort), Cod. 4 δεύτερος, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Abbott’s four), and 238, 262, 556, 604, perhaps others, ἔσχατος, one or other of which is in the Jerusalem Syriac and Bohairic, the Ethiopic (two manuscripts), the Armenian and two chief Arabic versions; but all these authorities (with _tol._ of the Vulgate _secundâ manu_, as also Isidore, the Pseudo-Athanasius, and John Damascene), transpose the order of the two sons in vv. 29, 30, so that the result produces just the same sense as in the Received text. The suggestion that the clauses were transferred in order to reconcile ὕστερος or ἔσχατος with the context may be met by the counter-statement that ὕστερος was just as likely to be substituted for πρῶτος to suit the inversion of the clauses. Against such inversion (which we do not pretend to recommend, though Westcott and Hort adopt it) Origen is an early witness, so that Cod. B and its allies are no doubt wrong: yet as that Father does not notice any difficulty in ver. 31, the necessary inference ought to be that he read πρῶτος(346). Hippolytus testifies to ἔσχατος in ver. 31, but his evidence cannot be used, since he gives no indication in what order he took the clauses in vv. 29, 30. The indefensible part of Tregelles’ arrangement is that, allowing the answers of the two sons to stand as in our common Bibles, he receives ὕστερος in the room of πρῶτος on evidence that really tells against him. The only true supporters of his general view are Cod. D αισχατος (i.e. ἔσχατος), the Old Latin copies _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_, the best codices of the Vulgate (_am._ _fuld._ _for._ _san._ _tol._ _harl._*), the Anglo-Saxon version, and Augustine, though not the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Hilary perplexes himself by trying to explain the same reading; and Jerome, although he says “Sciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi _novissimum_ sed _primum_,” has an expedient to account for the former word(347), which, however (if _am._ _fuld._, &c. may be trusted), he did not venture to reject when revising the Old Latin. On no true principles can Cod. D and its Latin allies avail against such a mass of opposing proof, whereof Codd. אCΦΣLX lead the van. Even the Curetonian Syriac, which so often favours Cod. D and the Old Latin, is with the _textus receptus_ here.

8. MATT. xxvii. 35. After βάλλοντες κλῆρον the Received text, but not the Complutensian edition, has ἵνα πληρωθτῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου, Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. Internal evidence may be about equal for the omission of the clause by homoeoteleuton of κλῆρον, and for its interpolation from John xix. 24, “with just the phrase τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ (or ἀπὸ) τοῦ προφήτου assimilated to Matthew’s usual form of citation” (Alford, _ad loc._). External evidence, however, places the spuriousness of the addition beyond doubt. It is first heard of in citations of Eusebius, and is read in the Old Latin codices _a_ _b_ _c_ _g_2 (not _g_1) _h_ _q_, the Clementine (not the Sixtine) Vulgate and even in _am._ _lux._, Harl. 2826, _lind._, in King’s Libr. 1. D. ix and the margin of 1. E. vi (but not in _fuld._ _for._ _tol._* _em._ _ing._ _jac._ _san._ nor in _f_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _l_), the Armenian (whose resemblance to the Vulgate is so suspicious), the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon, and as a matter of course in the Roman edition of the Arabic, and in the Persic of the Polyglott. The clause seems to be found in no manuscript of the Peshitto Syriac, and is consequently absent from Widmanstadt’s edition and the Antwerp, Paris, and London Polyglotts. Tremellius first turned the Greek words into Syriac and placed them in the margin of his book, whence they were most unwisely admitted into the text of several later editions (but not into Lee’s), without the slightest authority. They also appear in the text of the Harkleian, but the marginal note states that ’this passage from the prophet is not in two [“three” Codd. Assemani] Greek copies, nor in the ancient Syriac.’ All other versions and Fathers (except Eusebius and the Pseudo-Athanasius), and all Greek manuscripts reject the clause, except Δ, 1, 17, 58 (_marg._), 69, 118, 124, 262, 300, 503, 550, Evst. 55: Scholz adds “aliis multis,” which (judging from my own experience) I must take leave to doubt. Besides other slight changes (αυτοις Δ, κλήρους 69 _secundâ manu_) Codd. Δ, 61, 69, 503 and Eusebius read διά for ὑπό. The present case is one out of many that show an intimate connexion subsisting between Codd. 61 and 69.

9. Mark vi. 20. καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουε. “ ‘Did many things’ Engl. vers. I think it must have occurred to many readers that this is, to say the least, a very singular expression.” So writes Mr. Linwood, very truly, for nothing can well be more tame or unmeaning. His remedy we can say little for. “I think that for πολλὰ ἐποίει we should read πολλοῦ ἐποίει, i.e. magni faciebat. It is true that classical usage would require the middle voice, sc. πολλοῦ ἐποιεῖτο. But this rule is not always observed by the N. T. writers(348)” (Linwood, p. 11). If, instead of resorting to conjecture, he had opened Tischendorf’s eighth edition, he would have found there a reading, adopted as well by that editor as by Westcott and Hort, whose felicity, had it been nothing more than a happy conjecture, he might well have admired. Codd. אBL for πολλὰ ἐποίει(349) have πολλὰ ἠπόρει “was much perplexed,” which the Bohairic confirms, only that, in translating, it joins πολλά with ἀκούσας. This close resemblance between the Bohairic version and Codd. אB (especially Cod. B) is very apparent throughout the N. T.; a single example being their united omission of ἰσχυρόν in Matt. xiv. 30 in company with but one other authority, the great cursive Cod. 33. Hence we do not hesitate to receive a variation supported by only a few first-rate authorities, where internal evidence (Canon II, p. 248) pleads so powerfully in its favour. Although the middle voice is found elsewhere in the N. T., yet the active in this precise sense may be supported by good examples, even when used absolutely, as here: e.g. ἄλλος οἱ ἀπορέοντι ὑπεθήκατο Herod. i. 191: ὁ δ᾽ ἀπορῶν, ὥς φασι, μόλις κατενόησε τὴν πρόσχωσιν ταύτην τοῦ Ἀχελῴου Thuc. ii. 102.

Another less considerable but interesting variation, occurring just before, in chap. v. 36, παρακούσας “overhearing” instead of ἀκούσας, may be deemed probable on the evidence of א*BLΔ and the Latin _e_, which must have had the reading, though it is mistranslated _neglexit_(350). We gladly credit the same group (אBCLΔ, 473, Evst. 150, 259) with another rare compound, κατευλόγει in ch. x. 16, whose intensive force is very excellent. In ch. xii. 17 a similar compound ἐξεθαύμαζον is too feebly vouched for by אB alone.

[THIRD EDITION. It is only fair to retain unchanged the note on Mark vi. 20, inasmuch as the “Two Members of the N. T. Company” have exercised their right of claiming my assent to the change of ἐποίει into ἠπόρει. I must, however, retract that opinion, for the former reading now appears to me to afford an excellent sense. Herod gladly heard the Baptist, and _did many things_ at his exhortation; every thing in fact save the one great sacrifice which he could not persuade himself to make.]

10. MARK vii. 19. The substitution of καθαρίζων for καθαρίζον, so far from being the unmeaning itacism it might seem at first sight, is a happy restoration of the true sense of a passage long obscured by the false reading. For the long vowel there is the overwhelming evidence of אAB (_hiat_ C) EFGH LSXΔ, 1, 13, 28, 48, 50, 53, 58, 59 (_me teste_), 61**, 64, 65, 69, 122* 124, 229, 235, 244, 251, 282, 346, 435, 473, 492, 508, 515, 570, 622, Evst. 49, 259, and Erasmus’ first edition: his second reads ἐκκαθαρίζων, his third καθαρίζον of ΦΣKMUVΓΠ, 547, 558, and perhaps a majority of the cursives. The reading of D καθαρίζει (καθαρίζειν 61 _primâ manu_), as also καὶ καθαρίζει of Evst. 222 and the Latin _i_, seem to favour the termination -ον: _purgans_ of _a_ _b_ _c_ (even _d_) _f_ _ff_2 _g_1.2 _l_? _n_ _q_ and the Vulgate, is of course neutral. The Peshitto ܕܡܕܒܝܐ (or ܐܝܒܕܡܕ) (qui purgat) refers in gender to the noun immediately preceding, and would require καθαρίζοντα. Will any one undertake to say what is meant by the last clause of the verse as it stands in the Authorized English version, and as it must stand, so long as καθαρίζον is read? If, on the other hand, we follow Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, we must take the Lord’s words to end with ἐκπορεύεται, and regard καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα as the Evangelist’s comment upon them: “_This he said_, to make all things clean.” Compare Acts x. 15. This, and none other, seems to have been the meaning assigned to the passage by the Greek Fathers. It is indeed most simply expressed by Chrysostom (Hom. II. in Matt. p. 526 A): Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησίν, ὅτι καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα, ταῦτα ἔλεγεν, where Dr. Field’s elaborate note should be consulted. He rightly judges that Chrysostom was treading in the steps of Origen: καὶ μάλιστα ἐπεὶ κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτήρ, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. Hence Gregory Thaumaturgus designates the Lord as ὁ σωτὴρ ὁ πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα. I know not how Tischendorf came to overlook the passage from Chrysostom: Tregelles very seldom uses him. It is obvious how well the elliptical form of the expression suits this Evangelist’s style, which is often singularly concise and abrupt, yet never obscure.

11. MARK xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to defend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon’s brilliant monograph, “The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established” (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (_vide infra_), annexed as an alternative reading (αλλως). Out of all the great manuscripts, the two oldest (אB) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20 altogether(351). Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe’s part that something is left out, inasmuch as after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ver. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (_the only blank one in the whole volume_(352)), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which is usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No such peculiarity attaches to Cod. א. The testimony of L, that close companion of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off; then in the same hand (for all corrections in this manuscript seem _primâ manu_: _see_ p. 138), at the top of the next column we read ... φερετε που και ταυτα+ ... πάντα δὲ τα παρηνγελμενα τοῖς περι τον πετρον συντομωσ ἐξηγγιλαν+ μετα δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτος ὁ _ισ_, ἁπο ἁνατολησ καὶ ἁχρι δυσεωσ ἐξαπεστιλεν δι αὐτων το ϊἑρον καὶ ἁφθαρτον κηρυγμα+τησ αἱῶνιου σωτηριασ+ ... εστην δε και ταῦτα φερομενα μετα το ἑφοβουντο γαρ+ ... Αναστὰσ δὲ πρωï πρωτη σαββατου+κ.τ.λ., ver. 9, _ad fin. capit._ (Burgon’s _facsimile_, facing his p. 113: our _facsimile_ No. 21): as if vv. 9-20 were just as little to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement(353) which precedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices(354) and two of the Ethiopic, _k_ of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican. The Old Latin Codex _k_ puts in their room a corrupt and careless version of the subscription in L ending with σωτηρίας (_k_ adding _amen_): the same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in the two Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with ἀμήν) in the margin of 274 and the Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the Bohairic, translated by Bp. Lightfoot above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts 137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the passage with an asterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36 and others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note, where (of course) it is repeated(355). Other manuscripts contain marginal scholia respecting it, of which the following is the substance. Cod. 199 has τέλος(356) after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and before Ἀναστὰς δέ, and in the same hand as τέλος we read, ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα καταπαύει. The kindred Codd. 20, 215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not ver. 8) mark the omission in some (τισί) copies, adding ἐν δὲ τοῖσ ἀρχαίοις πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται, and these had been corrected from Jerusalem copies (_see_ pp. 161 and note, 193). Cod. 573 has for a subscription ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων κεφαλαίοις σλζ: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew’s Gospel (_see_ p. 161, note) infers that the old Jerusalem copies must have contained our twelve verses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, then add in red ink that in some copies the Evangelist ends here, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται, affixing vers. 9-20. In Codd. 1, 205 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209 is the same notice, ἄλλοις standing for πολλοῖς in 206, with the additional assertion that Eusebius “canonized” no further than ver. 8, a statement which is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian numerals beyond that verse in אALSU and at least eleven cursives, with _am. fuld. ing._ of the Vulgate. It would be no marvel if Eusebius, the author of this harmonizing system, had consistently acted upon his own rash opinion respecting the paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice presently, and such action on his part would have added nothing to the strength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really did so. These numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all parts of them, with a good deal of variation which we can easily account for. In the present instance they are annexed to ver. 9 and the rest of the passage in Codd. CEKVΠ, and (with some changes) in GHMΓΔΛ and many others: in Cod. 566 the concluding sections are there (σλδ ver. 11, σλε ver. 12, σλς ver. 14) without the canons. In their respective margins the annotated codices 12 (of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222, 237, 238, 255, 259, 299, 329, 374 (twenty-four in all), present in substance(357) the same weighty testimony in favour of the passage: παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται (thus far also Cod. 119, adding only ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα καταπαύει) ἐν τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι; ἀλλὰ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν. Now this is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch’s [v] commentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred text, and which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 12, 37, 41. Yet these very twenty-four manuscripts have been cited by critical editors as adverse to the authenticity of a paragraph which their scribes never dreamt of calling into question, but had simply copied Victor’s decided judgement in its favour. His appeal to the famous Palestine codices which had belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (_see_ p. 55 and note), is found in twenty-one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the Jerusalem copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. Λ, 20, 164, 262, 300, &c.

_All_ other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, _primâ manu_) EFwGH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXΓΔΠ, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains vv. 17-20, though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (only ver. 20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the exceptions already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all extant Old Latins except _k_ (though _a_ _primâ manu_ and _b_ are defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later manuscripts, and all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in maintaining the paragraph. It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr(358) as early as the second century; by Hippolytus (_see_ Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the third; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated A.D. 337), the Syriac Table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Ps.-Ephraem, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem(359), Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth(360). Add to this, what has been so forcibly stated by Burgon (_ubi supra_, p. 205), that in the Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly in the fourth century, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were honoured by being read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (_see_ p. 81), and as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene’s Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well as by forming the third of the eleven εὐαγγέλια ἀναστάσιμα ἑωθινά, the preceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85): so little were they suspected as of even doubtful authenticity(361).

The earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marin.), who tells that they were not ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ that τὰ ἑξῆς are found σπανίως ἔν τισιν, yet not in τὰ ἀκριβῆ: language which Jerome _twice_ echoes and almost exaggerates by saying “in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum fine non habentibus.” A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting them is μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ(362). The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which has been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not retailing to us at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations of Origen. Jerome’s recklessness in statement has been already noticed (Vol. II. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for how could he have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?

With regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that the same process might be applied—and has been applied—to prove that St. Paul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that to the Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of portions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute variations as have been made so much of in this case(363), either in his own writings, or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.

Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious task of constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty of adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9-20 to the narratives of the other Evangelists. Alford regards this inconsistency (more apparent than real, we believe) as “a valuable testimony to the antiquity of the fragment” (N. T. _ad loc._): we would go further, and claim for the harder reading the benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I. Vol. II. p. 247). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and was recited after him by Severus of Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion attributed to him. Whatever Jerome and the rest may have done, these assigned the ἀντιλογία, the ἐναντίωσις they thought they perceived, as a reason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for supposing that the Gospel ended with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Yet in the balance of probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark broke off so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient writer has noticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness(364)? This fact has driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest fancies;—namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.

We emphatically deny that such wild surmises(365) are called for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of אB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century(366); to nearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church(367).

12. LUKE ii. 14. If there be one case more prominent than another in the criticism of the New Testament, wherein solid reason and pure taste revolt against the iron yoke of ancient authorities, it is that of the Angelic Hymn sung at the Nativity. In the common text all is transparently clear:

δοξα εν υψιστοισ θεῳ, Glory to God in the highest, και επι γησ ειρηνη; And on earth peace: εν ανθρωποισ ευδοκια. Good will amongst men.

The blessed words are distributed, after the Hebrew fashion, into a stanza consisting of three members. In the first and second lines heaven and earth are contrasted; the third refers to both those preceding, and alleges the efficient cause which has brought God glory and earth peace. By the addition of a single letter to the end of the last line, by merely reading εὐδοκίας for εὐδοκία, the rhythmical arrangement is utterly marred(368), and the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the diction of which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind(369). Yet such is the conclusion of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, although Tregelles and the Cambridge fellow-workers allow εὐδοκία a place in their margins. Of the five great uncials C is unfortunately defective, but א*AB*D, and no other Greek manuscript whatever, read εὐδοκίας: yet A is so inconstant in this matter that in the primitive 14th or Morning Hymn, a cento of Scripture texts, annexed to the Book of Psalms, its reading is εὐδοκεία (Baber, Cod. Alex., p. 569), and such was no doubt the form used in Divine service, as appears from the great Zürich Psalter Od. The rest of the uncials extant (אcB3EGHKLMPSUVΓΔΛΞ, &c.), and all the cursives follow the common text, which is upheld by the Bohairic, by the three extant Syriac (the Peshitto most emphatically, the Jerusalem, and the Harkleian both in the text and Greek margin), by the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. The Vulgate, as is well known, renders “in hominibus bonae voluntatis,” and thus did all the forms of the Old Latin, and after it the Gothic. Hence it follows, as a matter of course, that the Latin Fathers, such as Hilary and Augustine, and the Latin interpreters of Irenaeus (who seems really to have omitted ἐν, as do D and a few cursives) and of the false Athanasius, adopted the reading of their own Bibles. Origen also, in a passage not now extant in the Greek, is made in Jerome’s translation of it manifestly to choose the same form. We can only say that in so doing he is the only Greek who favours εὐδοκίας, and his own text has εὐδοκία in three several places, though no special stress is laid by him upon it. But here comes in the evidence of the Greek Fathers—their virtually unanimous evidence—with an authority from which there is, or ought to be, no appeal. Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised, pp. 42-46) affords us a list of forty-seven, all speaking in a manner too plain for doubt, most of them several times over, twenty-two of them having flourished before the end of the fifth century, and who must have used codices at least as old and pure as א or B. They are Irenaeus, of the second century; the Apostolical Constitutions and Origen three times in the third; Eusebius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, Didymus, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem (who has been quoted in error on the wrong side), Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa four times, Ephraem Syrus, Philo of Carpasus, a nameless preacher at Antioch, and Chrysostom (nine times over, interpreting also εὐδοκία by καταλλαγή) in the fourth; Cyril of Alexandria on fourteen occasions, Theodoret on four, Theodotus of Ancyra, the Patriarch Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, the Eastern Bishops at Ephesus in 431, and Basil of Seleucia in the fifth; Cosmas Indicopleustes, Anastasius Sinaita, and Eulogius of Alexandria in the sixth; Andreas of Crete in the seventh; with Cosmas of Maiuma, John Damascene, and Germanus, Archbishop of Constantinople, in the eighth(370). Such testimony, supported by all later manuscripts, together with the Bohairic and Syriac versions, cannot but overpower the transcriptional blunder of some early scribe, who cannot, however, have lived later than the second century.

To those with whom the evidence of אBD and of the Latins united appears too mighty to resist, we would fain prefer one request, that in their efforts to extract some tolerable sense out of εὐδοκίας, they will not allow themselves to be driven to renderings which the Greek language will not endure. To spoil the metrical arrangement by forcing the second and third members of the stanza into one, is in itself a sore injury to the poetical symmetry of the passage, but from their point of view it cannot be helped. When they shall come to translate, it will be their endeavour to be faithful, if grammatical faithfulness be possible in a case so desperate. “Peace on earth for those that will have it,” as Dean Alford truly says, is untenable in Greek, as well as in theology: “among men of good pleasure” is unintelligible to most minds. Professor Milligan (Words of the New Testament, p. 194) praises as an interesting form “among men of his good pleasure,” which, not at all unnecessarily, he expounds to signify “among men whom He hath loved.” Again, “among men in whom He is well pleased” (compare chap. iii. 22) can be arrived at only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it. The construction adopted by Origen as rendered by Jerome, _pax enim quam non dat Dominus non est pax bonae voluntatis_, εὐδοκίας being joined with εἰρήνη, is regarded by Dr. Hort “to deserve serious attention, if no better interpretation were available” and for the trajection he compares ch. xix. 38; Heb. xii. 11 (Notes, p. 56). Dr. Westcott holds that since “ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας is undoubtedly a difficult phrase, and the antithesis of γῆς and ἀνθρώποις agrees with Rom. viii. 22, εὐδοκία claims a place in the margin” (_ibid._): no very great concession, when the general state of the evidence is borne in mind(371).

13. LUKE vi. 1. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ. Here again Codd. אB coincide in a reading which cannot be approved, omitting δευτεροπρώτῳ by way of getting rid of a difficulty, as do both of them in Mark xvi. 9-20, and א in Matt. xxiii. 35. The very obscurity of the expression, which does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its genuineness, if there be any truth at all in canons of internal evidence(372): not to mention that the expression ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ ver. 6 favours the notion that the previous sabbath had been definitely indicated. Besides אB, δευτεροπρώτῳ is absent from L, 1, 22, 33, 69 (where it is inserted in the margin by W. Chark, and should not be noticed, _see_ above), 118, 157, 209. A few (RΓ, 13, 117, 124 _primâ manu_, 235) prefer δευτέρω πρώτω, which, as the student will perceive, differs from the common reading only by a familiar itacism. As this verse commences a Church lesson (that for the seventh day or Sabbath of the third week of the new year, _see_ Calendar), Evangelistaria _leave out_, as usual, _the notes of time_; in Evst. 150, 222, 234, 257, 259 (and no doubt in other such books, certainly in the Jerusalem Syriac), the section thus begins, Ἐπορεύετο ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν: this however is not, properly speaking, a various reading at all. Nor ought we to wonder if versions pass over altogether what their translators could not understand(373), so that we may easily account for the silence of the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, of the Old Latin _b_ _c_ _l_ _q_ _f_ (_secundâ manu_) _q_, and (if they were worth notice) of the Persic and the Polyglott Arabic, though both the Roman and Erpenius’ Arabic have δεύτερῳ, and so too the Ethiopic according to Scholz; _e_ “sabbato mane,” _f_ “sabbato a primo:” the Harkleian Syriac, which renders the word, notes in the margin its absence from some copies. Against this list of authorities, few in number, and doubtful as many of them are, we have to place the Old Latin _a_ _f_* _ff_2 _g_1.2, all copies of the Vulgate, its ally the Armenian, the Gothic and Harkleian Syriac translations, the uncial codices ACDEHKMRSUVXΓΔΛΠ, all cursives except the seven cited above, and the Fathers or scholiasts who have tried, with whatever success, to explain the term: viz. Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Pseudo-Caesarius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome(374), Ambrose (all very expressly, as may be seen in Tischendorf’s note, and in Dean Burgon’s “The Revision Revised,” pp. 73-4), Clement of Alexandria probably, and later writers. Lachmann and Alford place δευτεροπρώτῳ within brackets, Tregelles rejects it, as does Tischendorf in his earlier editions, but restores it in his seventh and eighth, in the latter contrary to Cod. א. Westcott and Hort banish it to the margin, intimating (if I understand their notation aright) that it seems to contain distinctive and fresh matter, without deserving a place in the text even as well as Ἰησοῦ in Matt. i. 18. On reviewing the whole mass of evidence, internal and external, we submit the present as a clear instance in which the two oldest copies conspire in a false or highly improbable reading, and of a signal exemplification of the Canon, _Proclivi orationi praestat ardua_.

14. LUKE x. 41, 42. Ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία. This solemn speech of our Divine Master has shaken many a pulpit, and sanctified many a life. We might be almost content to estimate Cod. B’s claim to paramount consideration as a primary authority by the treatment this passage receives from the hand of its scribe, at least if the judgement were to rest with those who are willing to admit that a small minority, whereof B happens to form one of the members, is not necessarily in the right. Westcott and Hort in the margin of their published edition (1881) reduce the whole sentence between Μάρθα ver. 41 and Μαρία ver. 42 to the single word θορυβάζῃ, the truer reading in the place of τυρβάζῃ: in their privately circulated issue dated ten years earlier they had gone further, placing within double brackets μεριμνᾷς καί and from περὶ πολλά downwards. They could hardly do less on the principles they have adopted, while yet they feel constrained to concede that, though not belonging to the original Gospel, the excluded words do not, on the other hand, read like the invention of a paraphrast. They do not indeed: and it is when abstract theories such as modern critics have devised are subjected to so violent a strain, that we can best discern their intrinsic weakness, of which indeed these editors have here shown their consciousness by a change of mind not at all usual with them. For the grave omission indicated above we have but one class of authorities, that of the D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _i_ _l_, and Ambrose, the Latins omitting θορυβάζῃ too: while ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία is not found in _c_ also, and does not appear in Clement. The succeeding γάρ or δέ is of course left out by all these, and by 262, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, and Jerome. This testimony, almost purely Western, is confirmed or weakened as the case may be, by the systematic omissions of clauses towards the end of the Gospel in the same books, of which we spoke in Chap. X (_see_ p. 299, note).

We confess that we had rather see this grand passage expunged altogether from the pages of the Gospel than diluted after the wretched fashion adopted by א and B: ὀλίγων δὲ χρεία ἐστιν ἢ ἑνός; the first hand of א omitting χρεία in its usual blundering way. This travestie of a speech which seems to have shocked the timorous by its uncompromising exclusiveness, much as we saw in the case of Matt. v. 22, is further supported (with some variation in the order) by L, by the very ancient second hand of C, by 1, 33, the Bohairic, Ethiopic, the margin of the Harkleian, by Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria in the Syriac translation of his commentary(375), and by Origen as cited in a catena: ὀλίγων δὲ ἐστι χρεία is found in 38, the Jerusalem Syriac, and in the Armenian (ὧδε being inserted before ἐστιν). This latter reading is less incredible than that of אBL, notwithstanding the ingenuity of Basil’s comment, ὀλίγων μὲν δηλονότι τῶν πρὸς παρασκευήν, ἑνὸς δὲ τοῦ σκοποῦ. In this instance, as in some others, the force of internal evidence suffices to convince the unprejudiced reader (it has almost convinced Drs. Westcott and Hort, who have no note on the passage), that the Received text should here remain unchanged, vouched for as it is by AC*EFGHKMPSUVΓΔΛΠ (Χ and Ξ being defective), by every cursive except three, by the Peshitto and Cureton’s Syriac (the latter so often met with in the company of D), by the Harkleian text, by _f_ _g_1 _g_2? _q_ of the Old Latin, and by the Vulgate. Chrysostom, Augustine (twice), John Damascene and one or two others complete the list: even Basil so cites the passage once, so that his comment may not be intended for anything more than a gloss. No nobler sermon was ever preached on this fertile text than that of Augustine, De verbis Domini, in Evan. Luc. xxvii. His Old Latin copies, at any rate, contained the words “Circa multa es occupata: porro unum est necessarium. Jam hoc sibi Maria legit.” “Transit labor multitudinis, et remanet caritas unitatis” is his emphatic comment.

15. LUKE xxii. 17-20. This passage has been made the subject of a most instructive discussion by Dean Blakesley(376) (d. 1885), whose notion respecting it deserves more consideration than it would seem to have received, though it must no doubt be ultimately set aside through the overpowering weight of hostile authority. He is perplexed by two difficulties lying on the surface, the fact that the Lord twice took a cup, before and after the breaking of the bread; and the close resemblance borne by vv. 19 and 20 to the parallel passage of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. The common mode of accounting for the latter phenomenon seems very reasonable, namely, that the Evangelist, Paul’s almost constant companion in travel, copied into his Gospel the very language of the Apostle, so far as it suited his design. In speaking of the two cups St. Luke stands alone, and much trouble has been taken to illustrate the use of the Paschal cup from Maimonides [d. 1206] and other Jewish doctors, all too modern to be implicitly depended on. Dean Alford indeed (N. T. _ad loc._) hails “this most important addition to our narrative,” which “amounts, I believe, to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of the Passover rite, in both its usual divisions—the eating of the lamb, and drinking the cup of thanksgiving.” Thus regarded, the old rite would be concluded and abrogated in vv. 17, 18; the new rite instituted in vv. 19, 20. To Dean Blakesley all this appears wholly unsatisfactory, and he resorts for help to our critical authorities. He first gets rid of the words of ver. 19 after σῶμά μου, and of all ver. 20, and so far his course is sanctioned by Westcott and Hort, who place the whole passage within their double brackets, and pronounce it a perverse interpolation from 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. This much accomplished, the cup is now mentioned but once, but with this awkward peculiarity, that it precedes the bread in the order of taking and blessing, which is a downright contradiction of St. Matthew (xxvi. 26-29) and of St. Mark (xiv. 22-25), as well as of St. Paul. Here Westcott and Hort refuse to be carried further, and thus leave the remedy worse than the disease(377), if indeed there be any disease to remedy. Dean Blakesley boldly places Luke xxii. 19 (ending at σῶμά μου) before ver. 17, and his work is done: the paragraph thus remodelled is self-consistent, but it is robbed of everything which has hitherto made it a distinctive narrative, supplementing as well as confirming those of the other two Evangelists.

Now for the last step in Dean Blakesley’s process of emendation, the transposition of ver. 19 before ver. 17, there is no other authority save _b_ _e_ of the Old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac, the last with this grave objection in his eyes, that it exhibits the whole of ver. 19, including that τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν which he would regard as specially belonging of right, and as most suitable for, St. Paul’s narrative (Praelectio, p. 16), although Justin Martyr cites the expression with the prelude οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἂ καλεῖται, εὐαγγέλια. The later portion of ver. 19 and the whole of ver. 20, as included in the double brackets of Westcott and Hort, are absent from Cod. D, and of the Latins from _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_ _i_ _l_, as is ver. 20 from the Curetonian Syriac also: authorities for the most part the same as we had to deal with in our Chap. X. p. 299, note. Another, and yet more violent remedy, to provide against the double mention of the cup, is found in the utter omission of vers. 17, 18 in Evst. 32 and the _editio princeps_ of the Peshitto Syriac, countenanced by many manuscripts of the same(378). Thus both the chief Syriac translations found a difficulty here, though they remedied it in different ways(379).

The scheme of Dean Blakesley is put forth with rare ingenuity(380), and maintained with a boldness which is best engendered and nourished by closing the eyes to the strength of the adverse case. We have carefully enumerated the authorities of every kind which make for him, a slender roll indeed. When it is stated that the Received text (with only slight and ordinary variations) is upheld by Codd. אABCEFGHKLM (_hiant_ PR) SUXVΓΔΛΠ, by all cursives and versions, except those already accounted for, it will be seen that his view of the passage can never pass beyond the region of speculation, until the whole system of Biblical Criticism is revolutionized by means of new discoveries which it seems at present vain to look for.

16. LUKE xxii. 43, 44. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν. καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ, ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο; ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπι τὴν γῆν. It is a positive relief to know that any lingering doubt which may have hung over the authenticity of these verses, whose sacred words the devout reader of Scripture could so ill spare, is completely dissipated by their being contained in Cod. א(381). The two verses are omitted in ABRT, 124, 561 (in 13 only ὤφθη δὲ is _primâ manu_), in _f_ of the Old Latin, in at least ten manuscripts of the Bohairic(382), with some Sahidic and Armenian codices. A, however, whose inconsistency we had to note when considering ch. ii. 14, affixes to the latter part of ver. 42 (πλήν), “to which they cannot belong” (Tregelles), the proper Ammonian and Eusebian numerals for vv. 43-4 (ι)σπγ, and thus shows that its scribe was acquainted with the passage(383): some Armenian codices leave out only ver. 44, as apparently does Evan. 559. In Codd. Γ, 123, 344, 512, 569, (440 _secundâ manu_ in ver. 43) the verses are obelized, and are marked by asterisks in ESVΔΠ, 24, 36, 161, 166, 274, 408: these, however, may very well be, and in some copies doubtless are, lesson-marks for the guidance of such as read the divine service (_cf. sequent._). A scholion in Cod. 34 [xi] speaks of its absence from some copies(384). In all known Evangelistaria and in their cognate Cod. 69* and its three fellows, the two verses, omitted in this place, follow Matt. xxvi. 39, as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy Week: in the same place the margin of C (_tertiâ manu_) contains the passage, C being defective in Luke xxii from ver. 19. In Cod. 547 the two verses stand (in redder ink, with a scholion) not only after Matt. xxvi. 39, but also in their proper place in St. Luke(385). Thus too Cod. 346, and the margin of Cod. 13. Codd. LQ place the Ammonian sections and the number of the Eusebian canons differently from the rest (but this kind of irregularity very often occurs in manuscripts), and the Philoxenian margin in one of Adler’s manuscripts (Assem. 2) states that it is not found “_in Evangeliis apud Alexandrinos_, proptereaque [non?] posuit eam S. Cyrillus in homilia ...:” the fact being that the verses are not found in Cyril’s “Homilies on Luke,” published in Syriac at Oxford by Dean Payne Smith, nor does Athanasius ever allude to them. They are read, however, in Codd. אDFGHKLMQUXΛ, 1, and all other known cursives, without any marks of suspicion, in the Peshitto, Curetonian (omitting ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ), Harkleian and Jerusalem Syriac (this last obelized in the margin), the Ethiopic, in some Sahidic, Bohairic, and Armenian manuscripts and editions, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _g_1.2 _i_ _l_ _q_, and the Vulgate. The effect of this great preponderance is enhanced by the early and express testimony of Fathers. Justin Martyr (Trypho, 103) cites ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θόμβοι as contained ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ἅ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων (_see_ Luke i. 3, Alford) συντετάχθαι. Irenaeus (iii. 222) declares that the Lord ἵδρωσε θρόμβους αἵματος in the second century. In the third, Hippolytus twice, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Pseudo-Tatian; in the fourth, Arius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syrus, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita; in the fifth, Julian the heretic, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Paulus of Emesa, Gennadius, Theodoret, Bishops at Ephesus in 431; and later writers such as Pseudo-Caesarius, Theodosius of Alexandria, John Damascene, Maximus, Theodore the heretic, Leontius of Byzantium, Anastasius Sinaita, Photius, as well as Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Cassian, Paulinus, Facundus(386). Hilary, on the other hand, declares that the passage is not found “in Graecis et in Latinis codicibus compluribus” (p. 1062 a, Benedictine edition, 1693), a statement which Jerome, who leans much on others in such matters, repeats to the echo. Epiphanius, however, in a passage we have before alluded to (p. 270, note), charges “the orthodox” with removing ἔκλαυσε in ch. xix. 41, though Irenaeus had used it against the Docetae, φοβήθέντες καὶ μὴ νοήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὸ τέλος καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον, καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἵδρωσε, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡς θρόμβοι αἵματος, καὶ ὤφθη ἄγγελος ἐνισχύων αὐτόν: Epiphan. Ancor. xxxi(387). Davidson states that “the Syrians are censured by Photius, the Armenians by Nicon [x], Isaac the Catholic, and others, for expunging the passage” (Bibl. Critic. ii. p. 438).

Of all recent editors, before Westcott and Hort set them within their double brackets, Lachmann alone had doubted the authenticity of the verses, and enclosed them within brackets: but for the accidental presence of the fragment Cod. Q his hard rule—“_mathematica recensendi ratio_” as Tischendorf terms it—would have forced him to expunge them, unless indeed he judged (which is probably true) that Cod. A makes as much in their favour as against them. So far as the language of Epiphanius is concerned, it does not appear that this passage was rejected by the orthodox as repugnant to their notions of the Lord’s Divine character, and such may not have been at all the origin of the variation. We have far more just cause for tracing the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in St. Luke to the practice of the Lectionaries, whose principal lessons (such as those of the Holy Week would be) were certainly settled in the Greek Church as early as the fourth century (_see_ above, Vol. I. pp. 74-7, and notes). I remark with lively thankfulness that my friend Professor Milligan does not disturb these precious verses in his “Words of the New Testament:” and Mr. Hammond concludes that “on the whole there is no reasonable doubt upon the passage.” Thus Canon Cook is surely justified in his strong asseveration that “supporting the whole passage we have an array of authorities which, whether we regard their antiquity or their character for sound judgement, veracity, and accuracy, are scarcely paralleled on any occasion” (Revised Version, p. 103).

17. LUKE xxiii. 34. We soon light upon another passage wherein the Procrustean laws of certain eminent editors are irreconcileably at variance with their own Christian feeling and critical instinct. No holy passage has been brought into disrepute on much slighter grounds than this speech of the Lord upon the cross: the words from Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς down to ποιοῦσιν are set within brackets by Lachmann, within double brackets by Westcott and Hort. They are omitted by only BD*, 38, 435, among the manuscripts: by E they are marked with an asterisk (comp. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; ch. xxii. 43,44); of א Tischendorf speaks more cautiously than in the case of ch. xxii. 43, 44, “A [a reviser] (ut videtur) uncos apposuit, sed rursus deleti sunt,” and we saw there how little cause there was for assigning the previous omission to אa. In D the clause is inserted, with the proper (Ammonian) section (τκ or 320), in a hand which cannot be earlier than the ninth century (_see_ Scrivener’s Codex Bezae, facsimile 11, and Introd. p. xxvii). To this scanty list of authorities for the omission we can only add _a_ _b_ of the Old Latin, the Latin of Cod. D, the Sahidic version, two copies of the Bohairic(388), and a passage in Arethas of the sixth century. Eusebius assigned the section to his tenth table or canon, as it has no parallel in the other three Gospels. The passage is contained without a vestige of suspicion in אACFGHK (even L) M (_hiat_ P) QSUVΓΔΛΠ, all other cursives (including 1, 33, 69), _c_ _e_ _f_ _ff_2 _l_, the Vulgate, all four Syriac versions, all Bohairic codices except the aforenamed two, the Armenian and Ethiopic. The Patristic authorities for it are (as might be anticipated) express, varied, and numerous:—such as Irenaeus and Origen in their Latin versions, the dying words of St. James the Just as cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., lib. ii. cap. 23, after Hegesippus, ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης τῶν ἀποστόλων γενόμενος διαδοχῆς (Eus.), Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions twice, the Clementine Homilies, Ps.-Tatian, Archelaus with Manes, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodorus of Heraclea, Basil, Ephraem Syrus, Ps.-Ephraem, Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Ps.-Ignatius, Ps.-Justin, Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius, Antiochus Monachus, Andreas of Crete, Ps.-Chrysostom, Ps.-Amphilochius, Opus Imperfectum, Chrysostom often (sometimes loosely enough _more suo_), Hilary, Ambrose eleven times, Jerome twelve times, Augustine more than sixty times, Theodoret, and John Damascene. Tischendorf adds—_valeant quantum_—(but only a fraction of this evidence was known to Tischendorf), the apocryphal Acta Pilati(389). It is almost incredible that acute and learned men should be able to set aside such a _silva_ of witness of every kind, chiefly because D is considered especially weighty in its omissions, and B has to be held up, in practice if not in profession, as virtually almost impeccable. Vain indeed is the apology, “Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross; but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source” (Hort, Notes, p. 68). Nor can we on our part doubt that the system which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.

18. JOHN i. 18. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός... This passage exhibits in a few ancient documents of high consideration the remarkable variation θεός for υἱός, which however, according to the form of writing universal in the oldest codices (_see_ Vol. I. pp. 15, 50), would require but the change of a single letter, _ΥΣ_ or _ΘΣ_. In behalf of _ΘΣ_ stand Codd. אBC _primâ manu_, and L (all wanting the article before μονογενής, and א omitting the ὁ ὤν that follows), 33 alone among cursive manuscripts (but prefixing ὁ to μονογενής, as does a later hand of א), of the versions the Peshitto (not often found in such company), and the margin of the Harkleian (whose affinity with Cod. L is very decided), the Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers, some expressly (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Didymus “de Trinitate,” Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, &c.), others by apparent reference (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa). The Egyptian versions may have read either θεός or θεοῦ, more probably the latter, as Prebendary Malan translates for the Bohairic(390), the Sahidic being here lost. Their testimonies are elaborately set forth by Tregelles, who strenuously maintains θεός as the true reading, and thinks it much that Arius, though “opposed to the dogma taught,” upholds μονογενὴς θεός. It may be that the term suits that heretic’s system better than it does the Catholic doctrine: it certainly does not confute it. For the received reading υἱός we can allege AC (_tertiâ manu_) EFGHKMSUVXΔΛΠ (D and the other uncials being defective), every cursive manuscript except 33 (including Tregelles’ allies 1, 69), all the Latin versions, the Curetonian, Harkleian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Georgian and Slavonic, the Armenian and Platt’s Ethiopic, the Anglo-Saxon and Arabic. The array of Fathers is less imposing, but includes Athanasius (often), Chrysostom, and the Latin writers down from Tertullian. Origen, Eusebius, and some others have both readings. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes without υἱός or θεός,—ὃν ἀνθρώπων μὲν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν; ὁ μονογενὴς δὲ μόνος ἐξηγήσατο. C. 7, l. 27, p. 107, ed. Oxon., Pereira.

Tregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his critical notes, here pleads that an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον like μονογενὴς θεός(391) might easily be changed by copyists into the more familiar ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός from John iii. 16; 18; i John iv. 9, and he would therefore apply Bengel’s Canon (I. _see_ p. 247). Alford’s remark, however, is very sound: “We should be introducing great harshness into the sentence, and a new and [to us moderns] strange term into Scripture, by adopting θεός: a consequence which ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpowering, but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The ‘praestat procliviori ardua’ finds in this case a legitimate limit” (N. T., note on John i. 18). Every one indeed must feel θεός to be untrue, even though for the sake of consistency he may be forced to uphold it. Westcott and Hort set μονογενὴς θεός in the text, but concede to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός a place in their margin.

Those who will resort to “ancient evidence exclusively” for the recension of the text may well be perplexed in dealing with this passage. The oldest manuscripts, versions, and writers are hopelessly divided, so that we can well understand how some critics (not very unreasonably, perhaps, yet without a shadow of authority worth notice) have come to suspect both θεός and υἱός to be _accretions_ or spurious additions to μονογενής. If the principles advocated in Vol. II. Ch. X be true, the present is just such a case as calls for the interposition of the more recent uncial and cursive codices; and when we find that they all, with the single exception of Cod. 33, defend the reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, we feel safe in concluding that for once Codd. אBC and the Peshitto do not approach the autograph of St. John so nearly as Cod. A, the Harkleian Syriac, and Old Latin versions(392).

19. JOHN iii. 13. Westcott and Hort remove from the text to the margin the weighty and doubtless difficult, but on that account only the more certainly genuine, words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. Tischendorf rejected them (as indeed does Professor Milligan) in his “Synopsis Evangelica,” 1864, but afterwards repented of his decision. The authorities for omission are אBL (which read μονογενὴς θεός in ch. i. 18) Tb [vi], 33 alone among manuscripts. CDF are defective here: but the clause is contained in AEGHKMSUVΓΔΛΠ, and in all cursives save one, A* and one Evangelistarium (44) omitting ὤν. No versions can be cited against the clause except one manuscript of the Bohairic: it appears in every one else, including the Latin, the four Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Georgian, and the Armenian. There is really no Patristic evidence to set up against it, for it amounts to nothing that the words are not found in the Armenian versions of Ephraem’s Exposition of Tatian’s Harmony (_see_ Vol. I. p. 59, note 2); that Eusebius might have cited them twice and did not; that Cyril of Alexandria, who alleges them once, passed over them once; that Origen also (in the Latin translation) neglected them once, inasmuch as he quotes them twice, once very expressly. Hippolytus [220] is the prime witness in their behalf, for he draws the theological inference from the passage (ἀποσταλεὶς ἵνα δείξῃ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ γῆς ὄντα εἶναι καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ), wherein he is followed in two places by Hilary and by Epiphanius. To these add Dionysius of Alexandria [iii], Novatian [iii], Aphraates the Persian, Didymus, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and by John Damascene (thrice), by Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and Theodoret each four times,—indeed, as Dean Burgon has shown(393), more than fifty passages from thirty-eight ecclesiastical writers; and we then have a _consensus_ of versions and ecclesiastical writers from every part of the Christian world, joining Cod. A and the later manuscripts in convicting אBL, &c., or the common sources from which they were derived, of the deliberate suppression of one of the most mysterious, yet one of the most glorious, glimpses afforded to us in Scripture of the nature of the Saviour, on the side of His Proper Divinity.

20. JOHN V. 3, 4. ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ; ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι. This passage is expunged by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, obelized (=) by Griesbach, but retained by Scholz and Lachmann. The evidence against it is certainly very considerable: Codd. אBC*D, 33, 157, 314, but D, 33 contain ἐκδεχομένων ... κίνησιν, which _alone_ A*L, 18 omit. It may be observed that in this part of St. John A and L are much together against N, and against B yet more. The words from ἄγγελος γάρ to νοσήματι are noted with asterisks or obeli (employed without much discrimination) in SΛ, 8, 11?, 14 (ἄγγελος ... ὕδωρ being left out), 21, 24, 32, 36, 145, 161, 166, 230, 262, 269, 299, 348, 408, 507, 512, 575, 606, and Armenian manuscripts. The Harkleian margin marks from ἄγγελος to ὕδωρ with an asterisk, the remainder of the verse with obeli. The whole passage is given, although with that extreme variation in the reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion(394), in EFGHIKMUVΓΔΠ (with an asterisk throughout), and all known cursives not enumerated above(395): of these Cod. I [vi] is of the greatest weight. Cod. A contains the whole passage, but down to κίνησιν _secundâ manu_; Cod. C also the whole, _tertiâ manu_. Of the versions, Cureton’s Syriac, the Sahidic, Schwartze’s Bohairic(396), some Armenian manuscripts, _f_ _l_ _q_ of the Old Latin, _san. harl._* and two others of the Vulgate (_vid._ Griesbach) are for omission; the Roman edition of the Ethiopic leaves out what the Harkleian margin obelizes, but the Peshitto and Jerusalem Syriac, all Latin copies not aforenamed, Wilkins’ Bohairic, and Armenian editions are for retaining the disputed words. Tertullian clearly recognizes them (“piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat,” _de Baptismo_, 5), as do Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose (twice), Theophylact, and Euthymius. Nonnus [v] does not touch it in his metrical paraphrase.

The first clause (ἐκδεχ ... κίνησιν) can hardly stand in Dr. Scrivener’s opinion, in spite of the versions which support it, as DI are the oldest manuscript witnesses in its favour, and it bears much of the appearance of a gloss brought in from the margin. The succeeding verse is harder to deal with(397); but for the countenance of the versions and the testimony of Tertullian, Cod. A could never resist the joint authority of אBCD, illustrated as they are by the marks of suspicion set in so many later copies. Yet if ver. 4 be indeed but an “_insertion to complete that implied in the narrative with reference to the popular belief_” (Alford, _ad loc._), it is much more in the manner of Cod. D and the Curetonian Syriac, than of Cod. A and the Latin versions; and since these last two are not very often found in unison, and together with the Peshitto, opposed to the other primary documents, it is not very rash to say that when such a conjunction does occur, it proves that the reading was early, widely diffused, and extensively received. Yet, after all, if the passage as it stands in our common text can be maintained as genuine at all, it must be, we apprehend, on the principle suggested above, Vol. I. Chap. I. § 11, p. 18. The chief difficulty, of course, consists in the fact that so many copies are still without the addition, if assumed to be made by the Evangelist himself: nor will this supposition very well account for the wide variations subsisting between the manuscripts which do contain the supplement, both here and in chh. vii. 53-viii. 11(398).

21. JOHN vii. 8. This passage has provoked the “bark” of Porphyry the philosopher, by common consent the most acute and formidable adversary our faith encountered in ancient times [d. 304]. “Iturum se negavit,” as Jerome represents Porphyry’s objection, “et fecit quod prius negaverat: latrat Porphyrius, inconstantiae et mutationis accusat.” Yet in the common text, which Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, apparently with Professor Milligan, join in approving, ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, there is no vestige of levity of purpose on the Lord’s part, but rather a gentle intimation that what He would not do then, He would do hereafter. It is plain therefore that Porphyry the foe, and Jerome the defender of the faith, both found in their copies οὐκ, not οὔπω, and this is the reading of Tischendorf and Tregelles: Hort and Westcott set it in their margin. Thus too Epiphanius and Chrysostom in the fourth century, Cyril in the fifth, each of them feeling the difficulty of the passage, and meeting it in his own way. For οὐκ we have the support of א (AC _hiant_) DKMΠ, 17 _secundâ manu_, 389: add 507, 570, being Scrivener’s pw (two excellent cursives, often found together in vouching for good readings), 558, Evst. 234, the Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ _secundâ manu_, Cureton’s Syriac, the Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions(399), a minority of the whole doubtless, yet a goodly band, gathered from east and west alike. In this case no hesitation would have been felt in adopting a reading, not only the harder in itself, but the only one that will explain the history of the passage, had not the palpable and wilful emendation οὔπω been upheld by B: _ignoscitur isti_, even when it resorts to a subterfuge which in any other manuscript would be put aside with scorn. The change, however, from the end of the third century downwards, was very generally and widely diffused. Besides B and its faithful allies LT, οὔπω is read in EFGHSUVXΓΔΛ, in all cursives not cited above, in _f_ _g_ _q_, in some Vulgate codices (but in none of the best), the Sahidic, Gothic, and three other Syriac versions, the Harkleian also in its Greek margin. Basil is alleged for the same reading, doubtless not expressly, like the Fathers named above. It is seldom that we can trace so clearly the date and origin of an important corruption which could not be accidental, and it is well to know that no extant authorities, however venerable, are quite exempt from the influence of dishonest zeal.

22. JOHN vii. 53-viii. 11. On no other grounds than those just intimated when discussing ch. v. 3, 4 can this celebrated and important paragraph, the _pericope adulterae_ as it is called, be regarded as a portion of St. John’s Gospel. It is absent from too many excellent copies not to have been wanting in some of the very earliest; while the arguments in its favour, internal even more than external, are so powerful, that we can scarcely be brought to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings of one, who in another of his inspired books deprecated so solemnly the adding to or taking away from the blessed testimony he was commissioned to bear (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19). If ch. xx. 30, 31 show signs of having been the original end of this Gospel, and ch. xxi be a later supplement by the Apostle’s own hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case, why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the amplification in ch. v. 3, 4, and this most edifying and eminently Christian narrative? The appended chapter (xxi) would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of them might well overlook the minuter change in ch. v. 3, 4, or, from obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.

It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist chh. vii. 53-viii. 11; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors. It is entirely omitted (ch. viii. 12 following continuously to ch. vii. 52) in the uncial Codd. אA(400)BCT (all very old authorities) LX(401)Δ, but LΔ leave a void space (like B’s in Mark xvi. 9-20) too small to contain the verses (though any space would suffice to intimate the consciousness of some omission), before which Δ* began to write ch. viii. 12 after ch. vii. 52.

Add to these, as omitting the paragraph, the cursives 3, 12, 21, 22, 33, 36, 44, 49, 63 (_teste_ Abbott), 72, 87, 95, 96, 97, 106, 108, 123, 131, 134, 139, 143, 149, 157, 168, 169, 181, 186, 194, 195, 210, 213, 228, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 269, 314, 331, 388, 392, 401, 416, 453, 473 (with an explanatory note), 486, 510, 550, 559, 561, 582 (in ver. 12 πάλαι for πάλιν): it is absent in the first, added by a second hand in 9, 15, 105, 179, 232, 284, 353, 509, 625: while ch. viii. 3-11 is wanting in 77, 242, 324 (sixty-two cursive copies). The passage is noted by an asterisk or obelus or other mark in Codd. MS, 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 34 (with an explanatory note), 35, 83, 109, 125, 141, 148 (_secundâ manu_), 156, 161, 166, 167, 178, 179, 189, 196, 198, 201, 202, 219, 226, 230, 231 (_secundâ manu_), 241, 246, 271, 274, 277, 284?, 285, 338, 348, 360, 361, 363, 376, 391 (_secundâ manu_), 394, 407, 408, 413 (a row of commas), 422, 436, 518 (_secundâ manu_), 534, 542, 549, 568, 575, 600. There are thus noted vers. 2-11 in E, 606: vers. 3-11 in Π (_hiat_ ver. 6), 128, 137, 147: vers. 4-11 in 212 (with unique rubrical directions) and 355: with explanatory scholia appended in 164, 215, 262(402) (sixty-one cursives). Speaking generally, copies which contain a commentary omit the paragraph, but Codd. 59-66, 503, 526, 536 are exceptions to this practice. Scholz, who has taken unusual pains in the examination of this question, enumerates 290 cursives, others since his time forty-one more, which contain the paragraph with no trace of suspicion, as do the uncials DF (_partly defective_) GHKUΓ (with a hiatus after στήσαντες αὐτήν ver. 3): to which add Cod. 736 (_see addenda_) and the recovered Cod. 64, for which Mill on ver. 2 cited Cod. 63 in error. Cod. 145 has it only _secundâ manu_, with a note that from ch. viii. 3 τοῦτο τὸ κεφάλαιον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται. The obelized Cod. 422 at the same place has in the margin by a more recent hand ἐν τήσιν ἀντιγράφης οὕτως. Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135, 207(403), 215, 301, 347, 478, 604, 629, Evst. 86 contain the whole _pericope_ at the end of the Gospel. Of these, Cod. 1 in a scholium pleads its absence ὡς ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν ἀντιγράφοις, and from the commentaries of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia; while 135, 301 confess they found it ἐν ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις: Codd. 20, 215, 559 are obelized at the end of the section, and have a scholium which runs in the text τὰ ὠβελισμένα, κείμενα δὲ εἰς τὸ τέλος, ἐκ τῶνδε ὧδε τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ἔχει, and on the back of the last leaf of both copies τὸ ὑπέρβατον τὸ ὄπισθεν ζητούμενον. In Codd. 37, 102, 105, ch. viii. 3-11 alone is put at the end of the Gospel, which is all that 259 supplies, though its omission in the text begins at ch. vii. 53. Cod. 237, on the contrary, omits only from ch. viii. 3, but at the end inserts the whole passage from ch. vii. 53: in Cod. 478, ch. vii. 53-viii. 2 stands _primâ manu_ with an asterisk, the rest later. Cod. 225 sets chh. vii. 53-viii. 11 after ch. vii. 36; in Cod. 115, ch. viii. 12 is inserted between ch. vii. 52 and 53, and repeated again in its proper place. Finally, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (being Abbott’s group), and 556 give the whole passage at the end of Luke xxi, the order being apparently suggested from comparing Luke xxi. 37 with John viii. 1; and ὤρθριζε Luke xxi. 38 with ὄρθρου John viii. 2(404). In the Lectionaries, as we have had occasion to state before (Vol. I. p. 81, note), this section was never read as a part of the lesson for Pentecost (John vii. 37-viii. 12), but was reserved for the festivals of such saints as Theodora Sept. 18, or Pelagia Oct. 8 (_see_ Vol. I. p. 87, notes 2 and 3), as also in Codd. 547, 604, and in many Service-books, whose Menology was not very full (e.g. 150, 189, 257, 259), it would thus be omitted altogether. Accordingly, in that remarkable Lectionary, the Jerusalem Syriac, the lesson for Pentecost ends at ch. viii. 2, the other verses (3-11) being assigned to St. Euphemia’s day (Sept. 16).

Of the other versions, the paragraph is entirely omitted in the true Peshitto (being however inserted in printed books with the circumstances before stated under that version), in Cureton’s Syriac, and in the Harkleian; though it appears in the Codex Barsalibaei, from which White appended it to the end of St. John: a Syriac note in this copy states that it does not belong to the Philoxenian, but was translated in A.D. 622 by Maras, Bishop of Amida. Maras, however, lived about A.D. 520, and a fragment of a very different version of the section, bearing his name, is cited by Assemani (Biblioth. Orient, ii. 53) from the _writings_ of Barsalibi himself (Cod. Clem.-Vat. Syr. 16). Ridley’s text bears much resemblance to that of de Dieu, as does a fourth version of ch. vii. 53-viii. 11 found by Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., p. 57) in a Paris codex, with the marginal annotation that this “σύνταξις” is not in all the copies, but was interpreted into Syriac by the Abbot Mar Paulus. Of the other versions it is not found in the Sahidic, or in some of Wilkins’ and all Schwartze’s Bohairic copies(405), in the Gothic, Zohrab’s Armenian from six ancient codices (but five very recent ones and Uscan’s edition contain it), or in _a_ _f_ _l_ (text) _q_ of the Old Latin. In _b_ the whole text from ch. vii. 44 to viii. 12 has been wilfully erased, but the passage is found in _c_ _e_ (we have given them at large, pp. 362-3), _ff_2 _g_ _j_ _l_ (margin), the Vulgate (even _am. fuld. for. san._), Ethiopic, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Persic (but in a Vatican codex placed in ch. x), and Arabic.

Of the Fathers, Euthymius [xii], the first among the Greeks to mention the paragraph in its proper place, declares that παρὰ τοῖς ἀκριβέσιν ἀντιγράφοις ἢ οὐχ εὕρηται ἢ ὠβέλισται; διὸ φαίνονται παρέγγραπτα καὶ προσθήκη. The Apostolic Constitutions [iii or iv] had plainly alluded to it, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. _fin._) had described from Papias, and as contained in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the story of a woman ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, but did not at all regard it as Scripture. Codd. KM too are the earliest which raise the number of τίτλοι or larger κεφάλαια in St. John from 18 to 19, by interpolating κεφ. ι´ περὶ τῆς μοιχαλίδος, which soon found admittance into the mass of copies: e.g. Evan. 482.

Among the Latins, as being in their old version, the narrative was more generally received for St. John’s. Jerome testifies that it was found in his time “in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus;” Ambrose cites it, and Augustine (de adult. conjugiis, lib. ii. c. 7) complains that “nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei,” removed it from their codices, “_credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis_(406).”

When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile authorities, is added the fact that in no portion of the N. T. do the variations of manuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and of other documents bear any sort of proportion, whether in number or extent, to those in these twelve verses (of which statement full evidence may be seen in any collection of various readings)(407), we cannot help admitting that if this section be indeed the composition of St. John, it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine passage of Scripture whatever(408).

Second Series. Acts.

23. Acts viii. 37. Εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν(409). We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse, which all the critical editors condemn, and which seems to have been received from the margin, where the formula Πιστεύω κ.τ.λ. had been placed, extracted from some Church Ordinal: yet this is just the portion cited by Irenaeus, both in Greek(410) and Latin; so early had the words found a place in the sacred text. It is contained in no manuscripts except E (D, which might perhaps be expected to favour it, being here defective), 4 (_secundâ manu_), 13, 15, 18?, 27, 29, 36, 60, 69, 97, 100, 105, 106, 107, 163, 227, Apost. 5, 13 once; and in the margin, 14, 25 &c., in Cod. 186 alone out of Scrivener’s thirteen: manuscripts of good character, but quite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse, even though they did not differ considerably in the actual readings they exhibit, which is always in itself a ground of reasonable suspicion (_see_ pp. 361, 368, 374)(411). Here again, as in Matt. xxvii. 35, Gutbier and Schaaf interpolated in their Peshitto texts the passage as translated into Syriac and placed within brackets by Elias Hutter: the Harkleian also exhibits it, but marked with an asterisk. It is found in the Old Latin _g_ and _m_ although in an abridged form, in the Vulgate (both printed and _demid. tol._, but not in _am._ _primâ manu_, _fuld._ &c.), and in the satellites of the Vulgate, the Armenian, Polyglott Arabic, and Slavonic. Bede, however, who used Cod. E, knew _Latin_ copies in which the verse was wanting: yet it was known to Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Pacian, &c. among the Latins, to Œcumenius and Theophylact (twice quoted) among the Greeks. Erasmus seems to have inserted the verse by a comparison of the later hand of Cod. 4 with the Vulgate(412); it is not in the Complutensian edition. This passage affords us a curious instance of an _addition_ well received in the Western Church from the second century downwards (_see_ p. 164), and afterwards making some way among the later Greek codices and writers.

24. ACTS xi. 20. We are here in a manner forced by the sense to adopt, with Griesbach, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, the reading Ἕλληνας in the room of Ἑλληνιστάς of the Received text, retained by Westcott and Hort(413). Immediately after the call of the Gentiles to the privileges of the Gospel was acknowledged and acquiesced in at Jerusalem (ver. 18), we read that some of those who had been scattered abroad years ago went about preaching the word to Jews only (ver. 19). In this there was nothing new: there had been Ἑλληνισταί “Greek-speaking Jews” among the brethren long since (ch. vi. 1), and to say that they were again preached to was not at all strange: the marvel is contained in ver. 20. “But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they came to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also” (καὶ πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας: καί intimating the additional information), and that with such success in converting these heathen Greeks, that Gentile Christians first obtained at Antioch the name, no longer of Nazarenes (ch. xxiv. 5), but of Christians (ver. 26). The meaning being thus evident, we look to the authorities which uphold it, and these are few, confessedly insufficient if the sense left us any choice, but recommended to us, as the matter stands, by their intrinsic excellence: they are AD* (the latter without καί, which is, however, otherwise abundantly attested to) Cod. 184, one of the best of the cursives, but not its kindred 221, the Peshitto Syriac, the Armenian, perhaps the Ethiopic. The Vulgate, Bohairic, Sahidic, and Harkleian Syriac draw no distinction between Ἕλληνες and Ἑλληνισταί: the Peshitto unquestionably does, since it renders “Greek disciples” in ch. vi. 1, “those Jews who knew Greek” (an excellent definition) in ch. ix. 29, but “Greeks” here. Eusebius clearly reads Ἕλληνας, as does Chrysostom in his exposition (not in his text), all the more surely because he is perplexed how to expound it: his words are echoed by Œcumenius and in both commentaries of Theophylact, only that they substitute Ἑλληνιστάς for Ἕλληνας in repeating his words διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι ἑβραïστί, Ἕλληνας ἐκάλουν: they both have Ἑλληνιστάς in the text. Thus for once B is associated with E, with a later hand of D (of the seventh or eighth century), with the later uncials HLP and all cursives except one, in maintaining a variation demonstrably false. C is defective here, and the first hand of א, which presents us with the wonderful εὐαγγελιστάς, makes so far in favour of B; but אc corrects that error into Ἕλληνας.

25. ACTS xiii. 18. We have here as nice a balance between conflicting readings (differing only by a single letter) as we find anywhere in the N. T. The case is stated in the margin to our Authorized version of the Bible, more minutely than is its wont, though modern printers have unwarrantably left out the reference to 2 Macc. vii. 27 in copies not containing the Apocrypha(414). For ἐτροποφόρησεν “suffered he their manners” of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort, are cited אB, the very ancient second hand of C, D (in the Greek), HLP, 61 with almost all other cursives and the catenas: for the alternative ἐτροφοφόρησεν “fed them like a nurse” of Lachmann and Tischendorf (Tregelles placing it in his margin) we find ACE, 13, 24* (not 24** with Tischendorf), 68, 78* (margin), 93, 100, 105, 142, _d_ against its own Greek and the Vulgate jointly. Versions are in such a case of special weight, but unfortunately they too are somewhat divided. For π we find the Vulgate and a Greek note set in the Harkleian margin, for φ the Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, both Egyptian, the Armenian, and both Ethiopic, with Erpenius’ Arabic: the Arabic of the Polyglott gives both renderings. Thus the majority of the versions incline one way, the oldest and most numerous manuscripts the other. It is useless to cite Greek writers, except they show from the context which word they favour. The form with φ was doubtless read in the Apostolic Constitutions, and twice in Cyril of Alexandria, and that word is supported as well by 2 Macc. vii. 27, as by the other text cited in the margin of the Authorized English Bible, Deut. i. 31, to which the Apostle’s reference is so manifest, that we cannot but regard it as nearly decisive which expression he used. Although in Deuteronomy also Greek copies vary a little between π and φ, yet both A and B(415) read the latter, indeed the Hebrew נשא, _pace Hortii_, would admit of nothing else. For π Origen is express, both in his Greek commentary (not his text) and Latin version, but then he seems to employ it even in Deut. i. 31, where it cannot be correct. Chrysostom and Theophylact give no certain sound. Wetstein seasonably illustrates ἐτροπ. from Rom. ix. 22. Internal evidence certainly points to ἐτροφοφόρησεν, which on the whole may be deemed preferable. The Apostle is anxious to please his Jewish hearers by enumerating the mercies their nation had received from the Divine favour. God had chosen them, exalted them in Egypt, brought them out with a high hand, fed them in the wilderness, and given them the land of Promise. It would hardly have suited his purpose to have interposed, by way of parenthesis, in the midst of his detail of benefits received, the unwelcome suggestion of their obstinate ingratitude and of God’s long forbearance.

26. ACTS xiii. 32. Here for τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν ἡμῖν Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort read τοῖς τέκνοις ἡμῶν. As well from the fact that it is much the harder form (_see_ Canon I), as from the state of the external evidence, they could not act otherwise. In defence of ἡμῶν we have אABC*D, but apparently no cursives, the Vulgate version, Hilary, Ambrose, Bede (with the variant ὑμῶν in _tol._ and elsewhere), and both Ethiopic. We cannot resist the five great uncials when for once they are in harmony. The Received text is supported by the third hand of C, by EHLP, by all the cursives, by the two Syriac and Armenian versions, the catenae, Chrysostom and Theophylact. The Sahidic omits ἡμῖν, the Bohairic both pronouns. To take up ἡμῖν without αὐτῶν, the reading of a solitary cursive of the eleventh century, Cod. 76, would approach the limits of mere conjecture, yet every one can see how well it would account for all other variations. “The text, which alone has any adequate authority, and of which all or nearly all the readings are manifest corrections, gives only an improbable sense. It can hardly be doubted that ἡμῶν is a primitive corruption of ἡμῖν, τοὺς πατέρας and τοῖς τέκνοις being alike absolute. The suggestion is due to Bornemann, who cites x. 41 in illustration” (Hort, Notes, p. 95). _Optimè._

27. ACTS xiii. 33. The variation πρώτῳ for δευτέρῳ of the Received text commended itself to Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, merely from its apparent difficulty; yet there is no manuscript authority for it except D, _g_, and “quidam codices” known to Bede. Origen and Hilary indeed mention the variation, but they explain at the same time the cause, as do Eusebius and others. Tertullian and Cyprian also quote the words as from the first Psalm, and the arrangement of the two Psalms sometimes together, sometimes separate, is as old as Justin Martyr’s time. Under these circumstances Westcott and Hort are surely fully justified in abiding by the common reading, against which there is no other evidence than what has been named above.

28. ACTS xv. 34. ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σίλᾳ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ. This verse is omitted by אABEGHP, and of the cursives by 31, 61 of the first rank, by 24, 91, 184, 185, 188, 189, 221, and full fifty others. Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Cod. 4. It is wanting in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text), in the Bohairic, Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, the best manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (_am. fuld. demid._, &c.), and by Chrysostom and Theophylact in at least one copy. In C it runs εδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι αυτους, which is followed by many cursives: some of which, however, have αὐτοῦ, two αὐτοῖς, 42, 57, 69, 182, 186, 187, 219 αὐτόθι, with the Complutensian Polyglott. The common text is found in the Sahidic, Tremellius’ Syriac, in the Harkleian with an asterisk, also in Erpenius’ Arabic, Theophylact, and Œcumenius. In D we read εδοξε δε τω σειλεα επιμειναι [προς _secundâ manu_] αυτους (sustinere eos _d_) μονος δε ιουδας επορευθη, which Lachmann cites in Latin as extant _in this form_ only in one Vienna Codex (for which see his N. T., Proleg. vol. i. p. xxix): thus too _tol._, the Armenian (not that of Venice), and the printed Slavonic. The common Vulgate, Cassiodorus and Hutter’s Syriac add “Jerusalem,” so that the Clementine Latin stands thus: “Visum est autem Silae ibi remanere; Judas autem solus abiit Jerusalem.” The Ethiopic is rendered “Et perseveravit Paulus manens,” to which Platt’s copies add ’ibi.’

No doubt this verse is an unauthorized addition, self-condemned indeed by its numerous variations (_see_ p. 361). One can almost trace its growth, and in the shape presented by the Received text it must have been (as Mill conjectures) a marginal gloss, designed to explain how (notwithstanding the terms of ver. 33) Silas was at hand in ver. 40, conveniently for St. Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.

29. ACTS xvi. 7. After πνεῦμα at the end of this verse Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort most rightly add Ἰησοῦ. The evidence in its favour is overwhelming, and it is not easy to conjecture how it ever fell out of the text: compare Rom. viii. 9. It is wanting only in HLP and the mass of the cursives, even in Codd. 184, 221: Codd. 182, 219 omit the whole clause from καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν, nor does Ἰησοῦ appear in the Sahidic version, or in three Armenian manuscripts, nor is it recognized by Chrysostom or Theophylact. Ἰησοῦ is read by אABC**DE, 13, 15, 31, 33, 36, 61 (_primâ manu_), 73, Apost. 40: but Cod. 105 and a few others have τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The versions are all but unanimous for the addition, being all the known Latin except _demid._, the Bohairic, both Syriac, both Ethiopic, and three manuscripts of the Armenian: two more of its codices with one edition read χριστου, six (with Epiphanius) τὸ ἅγιον in its room, while _demid._ has κυρίου with the first hand of C. The catenae exhibit Ἰησοῦ in spite of Chrysostom, as do Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria, and the false Athanasius both in Greek and Latin.

30. ACTS xx. 28. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. This reading of the Received text, though different from that of the majority of copies, is pretty sure to be correct: it has been adopted by Alford (who once rejected θεοῦ for κυρίου), and by Westcott and Hort: Tregelles places it in his margin, though, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, he has κυρίου in the text. _ΘΥ_ is upheld by אB (the latter now for certain), 4, 22, 23, 25, 37, 46, 65, 66*(?), 68, 84, 89, 154, 162, Apost. 12, and _ex silentio_, on which one can lay but little stress, by Codd. 7, 12, 16, 39, 56, 64, together with 184 and 186, codices not now in England. “Dei” is read by all known manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate except the Complutensian, which was probably altered to suit the parallel Greek. From the Vulgate this form was taken by Erasmus, and after him by Tyndale’s and later English versions. Lee’s edition of the Peshitto has θεου, from three codices (the Travancore, a Vatican Lectionary of Adler [xi], and one at the Bodleian), and so has the Harkleian text. Τοῦ κυρίου (differing but by one letter, _see_ our Plates v. No. 13; x. No. 25) is in AC*DE (and therefore in _d_, _e_), 13, 15, 18, 36 (_text_), 40, 69, 73, 81, 95*, 130, 156, 163, 180, 182, 219, Apost. 58, some catenae, the Harkleian _margin_, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and possibly also the Roman Ethiopic, though there the same word is said to represent both _θυ_ and _κυ_. Platt’s Ethiopic, all editions of the Peshitto except Lee’s, and Erpenius’ Arabic, have τοῦ χριστοῦ, with Origen once, Theodoret twice, and four copies of Athanasius: the Old Latin _m_ reads ’Jesu Christi.’ Other variations, too weakly supported to be worth further notice, are τοῦ κυρίου θεοῦ 3, 95**, the Polyglott Arabic; τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου 47; and the Georgian τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ. The great mass of later manuscripts give τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ, viz. C (_tertiâ manu_), HLP, 24, 31, 111, 183, 185, 187, 188, 189, 221, 224, and more than one hundred other cursives, including probably every one not particularized above. This is the reading of the Complutensian editors, both in the Greek and Latin, and of some modern critics who would fain take a safe and middle course; but is countenanced by the reading of no version except the Slavonic, and by no ecclesiastical writer before Theophylact. It is plainly but a device for reconciling the two principal readings; yet from the non-repetition of the article and from the general turn of the sentence it asserts the Divinity of the Saviour almost as unequivocally as θεοῦ could do alone. Our choice evidently lies between κυρίου and θεοῦ, which are pretty equally supported by manuscripts and versions: Patristic testimony, however, may slightly incline to the latter. Foremost comes that bold expression of Ignatius [A.D. 107] ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ (ad Ephes. i), which the old Latin version renders “Christi Dei,” and the later interpolator softens into χριστοῦ: so again (ad Roman. vi), τοῦ πάθους τοῦ θεοῦ μου. It may be true that Ignatius “does not adopt it [the first passage] as a quotation” (Davidson _ad loc._), yet nothing short of Scriptural authority could have given such early vogue to a term so startling as αἷμα θεοῦ, which is also employed by Tertullian (ad uxorem, ii. 3) and Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives, 34). The elder Basil, Epiphanius (_twice_), Cyril of Alexandria (_twice_), Ibas (in the Greek only), Ambrose, Caelestine, Fulgentius, Primasius, Cassiodorus, &c., not to mention writers so recent as Œcumenius and Theophylact, expressly support the same word. Manuscripts of Athanasius vary between θεοῦ, κυρίου, and χριστοῦ, but his evidence would be regarded as hostile to the Received text, inasmuch as he states (as alleged by Wetstein) that οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα θεοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαί; Ἀρειανῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμήματα (contra Apollinar.): only that for καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς (_which even Tischendorf cites in his seventh edition_), the correct reading is δίχα σαρκός or διὰ σαρκός, a citation fatal to any such inference. In Chrysostom too the readings fluctuate, and some (e.g. Tregelles) have questioned whether the Homilies on the Acts, wherein he has θεοῦ, are of his composition. In behalf of κυρίου are cited the Latin version of Irenaeus, Lucifer of Cagliari, Augustine, Jerome, Ammonius, Eusebius, Didymus, Chrysostom (whence Theophylact), possibly Theodoret, and the Apostolic Constitutions, while the exact expression _sanguis Dei_ was censured by Origen and others. It has been urged, however, and not without some show of reason (Nolan, Integrity of Greek Vulgate, p. 517, note 135), that the course of Irenaeus’ argument proves that θεοῦ was used in his lost Greek text. After all, internal evidence—subjective feeling if it must be so called—will decide the critic’s choice where authorities are so much divided as here. It seems reasonable to say that the whole mass of witnesses for τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ vouches for the existence of θεοῦ in the earliest codices, the commonplace κυρίου being the rather received from other quarters, as it tends to point more distinctly to the Divine Person indicated in the passage. If this view be accepted, the preponderance in favour of θεοῦ, _undoubtedly the harder form_, is very marked, and when the consideration suggested above from Dean Alford is added, there will remain little room for hesitation. It has been pleaded on both sides of the question, and appears little relevant to the case of either, that St. Paul employs in ten places the expression ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, but never once ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου or τοῦ χριστοῦ.

It is right to mention that, in the place of τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, the more emphatic form τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου ought to be adopted from אA (_see_ Plate v. No. 13) BCDE, 31, 182, 184 (Sanderson), with some twenty other cursives, Didymus, &c.; while τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος is only in HLP, the majority of cursives, Athanasius, Chrysostom, &c. We must, however, protest strongly against the interpretation put upon τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου by Mr. Darby in his “New Translation,” “the blood of his own,” “le sang de son propre [fils],” as being no less unwarrantable, though more reverential, than that of Wakefield, which Bp. Middleton (Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp. 293-5) condemns so justly. Nor can we do less than repudiate unreservedly Dr. Hort’s expedient (Notes, p. 99), who would render “through the blood that was His own,” i.e. as being His Son’s. Indeed he has so little faith in it that he is constrained to say “It is however true that this general sense, if indicated, is not sufficiently expressed in the text as it stands.”

31. ACTS xxvii. 16. Καῦδα, the form which Erasmus noted as that of Cod. B, is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in preference to Κλαῦδα of Tischendorf and the Received text. Putting _Kura_ of the Peshitto, _Keda_ of Pell Platt’s Ethiopic, out of the question, we note that אc, the Vulgate and Latins (Jerome has _Cauden_, Cassiodorus Gaudem), followed by the Roman edition of the Ethiopic, alone omit the λ. In the first century Pomponius Mela wrote _Cauda_, the other Pliny _Gaudos_, and Suidas speaks of _Caudo_ as an island near Crete: it is now called Gozo, and is not to be confounded with the island of Gaulus near Malta, now bearing the same name. The λ is inserted by Ptolemy, the celebrated geographer of the second century, and by later writers: it is found in א*AHLP, in all known cursives (with a like variation in the termination as in the other form), the Bohairic, the later Syriac both in its text and in Greek letters in its margin, the Armenian, and Erpenius’, or the only trustworthy form of the Arabic. Chrysostom and Bede have the same reading, which must surely be retained unless the union of Cod. B with the Latins is to prevail against all other evidence put together.

32. ACTS xxvii. 37. In the place of διακόσιαι ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ Westcott and Hort have received into their text ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ, placing the common reading in the margin. Their form is supported by Cod. B and the Sahidic version only, and was plainly resorted to by those who were slow to believe that a corn ship, presumably heavily laden (vers. 6, 18), would contain so many souls. There is a slight variation in the other authorities, as is usual where numbers are concerned, from the ancient practice of representing them by letters, whereof many traces are yet remaining throughout Codex Sarravianus of the Septuagint, dating from the end of the fourth century, and in our present copies (Cod. D in Acts xiii. 18; 20; xix. 9) of the New Testament: even in this place Cod. 61 has σοϛ. Hence A reads πέντε for ἕξ, 31 omits ἕξ entirely, one Bohairic copy has the incredible number of 876 (ωοϛ), another 176 (ροϛ). The Ethiopic is reported by Tregelles to read ὡς διακόσιαι ἕξ, but that in the Polyglott favours the common text; Epiphanius comes nearest to B (ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα), “libere” adds Tischendorf. For the more specific number assigned by B ὡς is not so well suited.

In ordinary cases the common reading would be abided by without hesitation, upheld as it is by אCHLP, by all cursives, virtually by A, 31, completely by the Latin, both Syriac, the Armenian, and most copies of the Bohairic. It is obvious also that the writer wishes to impress upon us the fact that out of so large a party all were saved, and seventy-six would be a small number indeed. Josephus was wrecked in the Adriatic with 600 on board (Josephus’ Life, c. 3: see Whiston’s note)(416). It is right, however, to point out that, on the possible supposition that numeral letters, not words, were employed in St. Luke’s autograph, the difference between B and the Received text would consist of the insertion or the contrary of the letter ω: whether in fact it be assumed that the Evangelist wrote ωσοϛ or σοϛ, “about 76” or “276.” Surely it is more likely that ω was inserted than omitted.

In ver. 39 the first hand of B, this time favoured by C, and supported by the Bohairic, Armenian, and (in Tregelles) the Ethiopic versions, has another curious variation, also promoted into the text by Westcott and Hort, ἐκσῶσαι for the common ἐξῶσαι, which they banish into the margin. This change also is very minute, being simply the resolution of _xi_ into the two consonants for which it stands, and the reading very ingenious, unless indeed it be regarded as a mistake made _ex ore dictantis_ (_see_ p. 10), which with Madvig as cited by Mr. Hammond (Outlines of Textual Criticism, first edition, p. 13, note) we regard as a slovenly plan, such as one would be loth to impute hastily to the scribes of so noble a copy as Cod. B. Here, however, as ever, internal evidence being equiponderant, we must decide by the weight of documentary proof, and adopt ἐξῶσαι with אAHLP, all cursives (including 61), the Latin and Syriac versions.

Third Series. St. Paul.

33. ROM. v. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Here, as in 2 Cor. iii. 3, we find the chief uncials supporting a reading which is manifestly unsuitable to the context, although, since it does not absolutely destroy the sense, it does not (nor indeed does that other passage) lack strenuous defenders. Codd. אB for ἔχομεν have _primâ manu_ ἔχωμεν, and though some doubt has been thrown on the primitive reading of B, yet Mai and Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 156) are eyewitnesses to the fact, which is now settled: Tischendorf in 1866 referred ἔχομεν to the third hand of B, Codd. ACDEKL, not less than thirty cursives, including 104, 244, 257 and the remarkable copies 17, 37, also read ἔχωμεν, as do _d_ _e_ _f_ _g_, the Vulgate (“habeamus”), the Peshitto Syriac (ܢܚܘܐ ܠܢ ܫܠܡܐ or ܐܡܠܫ ܢܠ ܐܘܚܢ), Bohairic, Ethiopic (in both forms), and Arabic. Chrysostom too supports this view, and so apparently Tertullian (“monet justificatos ex fide Christi ... pacem ad Deum habere”). The case for ἔχομεν is much weaker in itself: Codd. אaB3FG (in spite of the contrary testimony of _f_ _g_, their respective Latin versions) P, perhaps the majority of the cursive manuscripts (29, 30, 47, 221, 260, 265, &c.), Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril (once), and the Slavonic. The later Syriac might seem to combine both readings (ܢܗܘܐ ܐܬ ܠܢ ܠܘܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܫܝܢܐ or ܐܢܝܫ ܐܗܠܐ ܐܘܠ ܢܠ ܬܐ ܐܘܗܢ): White translates “habemus,” but has no note on the passage(417). Had the scales been equally poised, no one would hesitate to prefer ἔχομεν, for the closer the context is examined the clearer it will appear that _inference_ not _exhortation_ is the Apostle’s purpose: hence those who most regard “ancient evidence” (Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort; Lachmann could not make up his mind) have struggled long before they would admit ἔχωμεν into the text. The “Five Clergymen” who in or about 1858 benefited the English Church by revising its Authorized version of this Epistle, even though they render “_let us have peace with God_,” are constrained to say, “An overwhelming weight of authority has necessitated a change, which at the first sight seems to impair the logical force of the Apostle’s argument. No consideration, however, of this kind can be allowed to interfere with the faithful exhibition of the true text, as far as it can be ascertained; and no doubt the real Word of God, thus faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own meaning, and need no help from man’s shortsighted preference” (Preface, p. vii). Every one must honour the reverential temper in which these eminent men approached their delicate task; yet, if their sentiments be true, where is the place for internal evidence at all? A more “overwhelming weight” of manuscript authority upholds καρδίαις in 2 Cor. iii. 3: shall we place it in the text, “leaving the real Word of God to vindicate its own meaning”? Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most ancient codices—not, in the case of Rom. v. 1, in the majority of the whole collection—must _of necessity_ be the “real Word of God, faithfully exhibited”? I see no cause to reply in the affirmative, nor do Meyer and Dr. Field(418).

We conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application of the _paradiplomatical_ canon (VII): that the itacism ω for ο, so familiar to all collators of Greek manuscripts(419), crept into some very early copy, from which it was propagated among our most venerable codices, even those from which the earliest versions were made:—that this is one out of a small number of well-ascertained cases in which the united testimonies of the best authorities conspire in giving a worse reading than that preserved by later and, on the whole, quite inferior copies.

34. 1 COR. xi. 24. I am as unwilling as Mr. C. Forster could have been to strike out from the Received text “a word which (if genuine) THE LORD GOD HAD SPOKEN!” (A new Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses, Preface, p. xvii), but I cannot censure Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott and Hort, or Dean Blakesley for deciding on the state of the evidence, as now generally taken, that it is not genuine. Yet it is with great satisfaction that I find Bp. Chr. Wordsworth able to retain κλώμενον, and to save the solemn clause τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν from being “bald and impressive without the participle.” Mr. Forster’s argument in behalf of κλώμενον, that it refers to ch. x. 16, τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, has a double edge, and might be employed to indicate the source from which the word crept in here. It is more to the purpose to urge with Bp. Wordsworth that early scribes were offended by the apparent inconsistency of the term with John xix. 36, and because there is nothing like it in the narratives of the three earlier Evangelists. If we decide to retain κλώμενον, it must be in opposition to the four chief manuscripts אABC, though אC insert it by the third hand of each. Cod. D, like its namesake of the Gospels and Acts, is somewhat inclined to paraphrases, and has θρυπτόμενον(420) by the first hand, κλώμενον by the second. Only two cursives here side with the great uncials (17, and the valuable second hand of 67), as do Zohrab’s Armenian, Cyril of Alexandria and Fulgentius in the fifth century, and Theodoret’s report of Athanasius. The word κλώμενον is found in EFGKLP, all other cursives, the Latin versions of DE (_quod frangitur_), with Ambrosiaster: G and the interlinear Latin of F, which, as has been already shown under that MS., is taken from G, prefer _quod frangetur_, with both Syriac, the Gothic, and the Armenian of Uscan. The Latin Vulgate has _tradetur_ (but _traditur_ in _harl._2, even in the parallel column of F and against its Greek, and so Cyprian); the Bohairic renders _traditur_; but the Sahidic and Ethiopic _datur_, after the διδόμενον of Zacagni’s Euthalius, derived from Luke xxii. 19. Theodoret himself knew of both forms. The main strength of κλώμενον rests on Patristic evidence. Mr. Forster has added to our previous store the “conclusive testimony” of Basil (Forster, p. xxvi) and of Athanasius himself (_ibid._ p. xvii), which is better than Theodoret’s report at second hand; and thus too Chrysostom in three places, one manuscript of Euthalius, John Damascene, the Patriarch Germanus (A.D. 715, _ibid._ p. xix), Œcumenius and Theophylact. Mr. Forster is perfectly justified also in pressing the evidence of the Primitive Liturgies, in all of which κλώμενον occurs in the most sacred words of Institution (_ibid._ pp. xx, xxi). Whatsoever change these services have received in the course of ages, they have probably been little altered since the fourth century, and very well established must the word have then been to have found a place in them all. On the whole, therefore, we submit this important text as a proof that the united readings of אABC are sometimes at variance, not only with the more modern codices united, but with the text of the oldest versions and most illustrious Fathers. We confess, however, that in ver. 29 ἀναξίως (compare ver. 27) and τοῦ _κύ_ look too much like glosses to be maintained confidently against the evidence of א*ABC*, 17, (67**) and some manuscripts of the Ethiopic.

35. 1 COR. xiii. 3. ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθήσωμαι, “though I give my body to be burned.” Here we find the undoubtedly false reading καυχήσωμαι in the three chief codices אAB and in 17, adopted by Drs. Westcott and Hort(421), and it is said to have been favoured by Lachmann in 1831, by Tregelles in 1873 (A. W. Tyler, Bibl. Sacra, 1873, p. 502). Jerome testifies that in his time “apud Graecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria esse diversa,” and preferred καυχήσωμαι (though all copies of the Latin have _ut ardeam_ or _ut ardeat_), which is said to be countenanced by the Roman Ethiopic: the case of the Bohairic is stated by Bp. Lightfoot (Chap. IV)(422). Tischendorf cites Ephraem (ii. 112) for καυχήσομαι. This variation, which involves the change of but one letter, is worth notice, as showing that the best uncial MSS. are not always to be depended upon, and sometimes are “blemished with errors” (Wordsworth, N. T., _ad loc._). As a parallel use, Theodotion’s version of Dan. iii. 8 (παρέδωκαν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς πῦρ) is very pertinent: and for the punishment of burning alive, as practised in those times, consult (if it be thought needful) Joseph., Antiq. xvii. 6, 4 (Hort). Καυχήσωμαι may have obtained the more credit, inasmuch as each of the other principal readings, namely Tischendorf’s καυθήσομαι (DEFGL, 44, 47, 71, 80, 104, 113**, 253**, 254, 255, 257, 260, 265, with nine of Matthaei’s, and some others: καθήσομαι 244) and καυθήσωμαι (CK, 29, 37, and many others, Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c.) of Lachmann and Tregelles, are anomalous, the former in respect to mood, the latter to tense. The important cursive 73 has καυθήσεται with some Latin copies: Codd. 1, 108*, Basil (perhaps Cyprian) adopt καυθῇ: the Syriac (ܕܢܐܘܕ or ܕܘܐܢܕ), and I suppose the Arabic, will suit either of these last. Evidence seems to preponderate on the side of καυθήσομαι, but in the case of these itacisms manuscripts are very fallacious we know. Such a subjunctive future as καυθήσωμαι, however, I should have been disposed to question, had it not passed muster with much better scholars than I am: but to illustrate it, as Tregelles does (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 117, note), from ἵνα δώσῃ Apoc. viii. 3, is to accomplish little, since δώσηι is the reading of אAC, 1 (although Erasmus has δώσῃ with BP, 6, 7, 91, 98, and the Complutensian), 13, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 48, 68, 87, 94, 95, 96 (δωσι 8, 26, 27: δω 14), together with the best copies of Andreas, and is justly approved by Lachmann and Tischendorf, nay even by Tregelles himself in his second revision (1872). It seems most likely that in both places ἵνα, the particle of design, is followed by the _indicative_ future, as (with Meyer and Bp. Ellicott) I think to be clearly the case in Eph. vi. 3. In John xvii. 3 even Tregelles adopts ἵνα γινώσκουσιν(423).

36. 1 COR. xv. 51. We have now come to a passage which has perplexed Biblical students from St. Jerome’s time, and has exercised the keen judgement of Bp. Pearson in his Exposition of the seventh article of the Apostles’ Creed. There is but little doubt that the Received text, as rendered in our English versions, is the true reading: (a) Πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα. Some of the leading authorities omit μέν, a few put δέ or γάρ in its place, but, with this trifling exception, the clause stands thus in B, the third hand of D, and consequently in EKLP, 37, 47, 265, and indeed nearly all the cursives, as in some manuscripts known to Jerome, and has the support of Theodore of Heraclea and Apollinarius: and so the two Syriac, the Bohairic (the Sahidic not being extant), the Gothic, and one edition of the Ethiopic version. For the same form may be cited Ephraem the Syrian, Caesarius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom (often) in the fourth century; Theodoret and Euthalius in the fifth century; Andreas of Caesarea in the sixth; John Damascene in the eighth. A modification of this main and true reading (b) Οὐ πάντες κοιμησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα is supported only by Origen and some copies known to Jerome: it is only a clearer way of bringing out the foregoing sense. The next form also hardly enters into competition, (c) Πάντες [μὲν] ἀναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγήσομεθα: it is supported by the first hand of D, by the Vulgate (whose manuscripts vary between _resurgimus_ and _resurgemus_, while _m_ omits the negative), by Tertullian and Hilary. Even the Latin versions of EF maintain it against their own Greek, while Jerome and Augustine note it as a point wherein the Latin copies diverge from the Greek. A fourth variation is due to Cod. A alone, (d) Οἱ πάντες μὲν κοιμησόμεθα, οἱ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, the second οι being altered by the first hand, and ου by the same or a very early hand super-added after οἱ πάντες δέ: but this is only a correction of transcriptional error. The real variation consists in the transfer of the negative from the first clause to the second, (e) Πάντες [μὲν] κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα of אC(F)G, 17, and apparently of A also by intention. This last is discussed by Jerome, who alleges in its favour Didymus and Acacius of Caesarea; it appears also in Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and in copies known to Pelagius and Maximus, but their testimony fluctuates. In its favour are quoted the Armenian and one form of the Ethiopic, but all the Latin prefer (c) except the interlinear version of G, and the rendering set above the Vulgate text of F, which is assimilated to the latter. The Complutensian margin in a special note chronicles one other change, Πάντες μὲν οὖν κοιμηθησόμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες ἀλλαγησόμεθα, but this is bye-work. “The objection made in ancient times to the Received reading was, that the _wicked_ would not be changed, namely, glorified; but St. Paul is here speaking only of the resurrection of the Just” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth): compare 1 Thess. iv. 14-17. Thus Cod. B and the cursives for once unite to convict of falsehood a change which men were pleased to devise in order to evade a difficulty of their own making.

37. EPH. v. 14. It is instructive to observe how a reading, pretty widely diffused in the fourth century, though not obtaining much acceptance even at that period, has almost entirely disappeared from extant codices. In the place of ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ χριστός the first hand of D, followed of course by E (Sangermanensis) and the Latin versions of both, exhibits an interesting variant ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ χριστοῦ, _continges Christum_. Jerome had heard of it in the form ἐπιψαύσει, id est _continget te Christus_, but refused to vouch for it, as do Chrysostom and Theodoret, though they treat it with somewhat more consideration. The Latin interpreter of Origen (against his own Greek twice, and the Latin once), with Victorinus and the writer cited as Ambrosiaster, adopt it as genuine. Augustine (on Psalm iii) has _et continget te_ once, but once elsewhere the common reading. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the Latin version of his Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, recently edited by Dr. Swete from two manuscripts, one at Amiens (Cod. 68) brought from Corbey [x], a second from Cuza, now Harleian. 3063 [ix], after translating _inluminabit tibi Christus_, goes on to say “alii _continget te Christus_ legerunt; habet autem nullam sequentiam” (Swete, vol. i. p. 180). The variation of D* is surely too curious to be lost sight of altogether. “The two imperatives [ἔγειρε and ἀνάστα] doubtless suggested that the following future would be in the second person, the required σ stood next after ἐπιφαύσει, easily read as ἐπιψαύσει, and then the rest would follow accordingly.” Hort, Notes, p. 125. Such are the harmless recreations of a critical genius.

38. PHIL. ii. 1. εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τινα σπλάγχνα. For τινα, to the critic’s great perplexity, τις is found in אABCD EFGKLP, that is, in _all_ the uncials extant at this place. As regards the cursives nearly the same must be said. Of the seventeen collated by Scrivener, eleven read τις (29, 30, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260, 265, 266, 277), and six τι (31, 104, 221, 244, 253, 256). Mill enumerates sixteen others that give τις, one (40) that has τι: Griesbach reckons forty-five in favour of τις, eight (including Cod. 4) for τι, to which Scholz adds a few more (18, 46, 72, 74). Thus _am. fuld. tol._ of the Vulgate render _si quid viscera_, for the more usual _si qua viscera_. One cursive (109) and a manuscript of Theodoret have τε. Basil, Chrysostom (in manuscript) and others read τις, as do the Complutensian, the Aldine (1518), Erasmus’ first four, and R. Stephen’s first two editions. In fact it may be stated that no manuscript whatever has been cited for τινα, which is not therefore likely to be found in many. Theodore of Mopsuestia alone, in his Latin version published by Dr. Swete (vol. i. p. 214), has _si qua et viscera_ against the Vulgate. In spite of what was said above with regard to far weaker cases, it is impossible to blame editors for putting τις into the text here before σπλάνχνα: to have acted otherwise (as Tischendorf fairly observes) would have been “_grammatici quam editoris partes agere_.” Yet we may believe the reading to be as false as it is intolerable, and to afford us another proof of the early and (as the cursives show) the well-nigh universal corruption of our copies in some minute particulars. Of course Clement and later Fathers give τινα, indeed it is surprising that any cite otherwise; but, _in the absence of definite documentary proof_, this can hardly be regarded as genuine. Probably St. Paul wrote τι (the reading of about nineteen cursives), which would readily be corrupted into τις, by reason of the σ following (ΤΙΣΠΛΑΓΧΝΑ), and the τις which had just preceded. See also Moulton’s “Winer,” p. 661, and note 3.

39. COL. ii. 2. τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, “of the mystery of God the Father, and of Christ.” The reading of B (approved by Lachmann, by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, and Bp. Ellicott), τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ χριστοῦ (“ita cod. nihil interponens inter θεοῦ et χριστοῦ,” Mai, 2nd ed.(424)), has “every appearance of being the original reading, and that from which the many perplexing variations have arisen” (Canon II). At present it stands in great need of confirmation, since Hilary (de Trin. ix) alone supports it (but καὶ χριστοῦ Cyril), though the Scriptural character of the expression is upheld by the language of ch. i. 27 just preceding, and by the Received text in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Some, who feel a difficulty in understanding how χριστοῦ was removed from the text, if it ever had a place there, conceive that the verse should end with θεοῦ, all additions, including χριστοῦ the simplest, being _accretions_ to the genuine passage. These alleged accretions are τοῦ θεοῦ ὅ ἐστι χριστός, manifestly an expansion of χριστοῦ and derived from ch. i. 27; τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ: τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, the final form of the Received text. Now, of these four readings, τοῦ θεοῦ the shortest, and, according to Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf in his seventh edition, Alford, and Dr. Green, the true one, is found only in the late uncial P, and in a few, though confessedly good, cursives: 37, 71, 80*, 116 (καὶ θεοῦ 23), and the important second hand of 67; witnesses too few and feeble, unless we consent to put our third Canon of internal evidence to a rather violent use. Of the longer readings, ὅ ἐστιν χριστός is favoured by D (though obelized by the second hand, which thus would read only τοῦ θεοῦ), _d_ _e_ (whose parallel Greek speaks differently), by Augustine and Vigilius of Thapsus, but apparently by no cursives. The form best vouched for appears to be that of א*AC, 4, of the Sahidic according to one of the readings of Griesbach, and of an Arabic codex of Tischendorf, τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ (א* omits τοῦ) χριστοῦ. To these words “_ihu_” is simply added by _f_ (FG, _g_ are unfortunately lost here) and by other manuscripts of the Vulgate (_am. fuld._, &c.), though the Clementine edition has “Dei patris et Christi Jesu,” the Complutensian in the Latin “dei et patris et C.J.” With the Clementine Vulgate agree the Bohairic, and (omitting ἰησοῦ) the Peshitto Syriac, Arabic, 47, 73, Chrysostom; while 41, 115, 213, 221, 253* (τοῦ θ. καὶ π. τοῦ χ.), so far strengthen the case of אAC. The Received text is found in (apparently) the great mass of cursives, in D (_tertiâ manu_), EKL, the Harkleian Syriac (but the καί after πατρός marked with one of Harkel’s asterisks), Theodoret, John Damascene and others. The minor variations, τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of Clement and Ambrosiaster, τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of 17, uphold D*, as may the Ethiopic (“domini quod de Christo”): to the reading of Cod. 17 Zohrab’s or the Venice Armenian (A.D. 1789) simply adds “Jesu.” We also find “dei Christi Jesu patris et domini” in _tol._, “dei patris et domini nostri Christi” in _demid._, “dei patris in Christo Jesu” in Uscan’s Armenian; but these deserve not attention. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Swete, vol. i. p. 283), has _mysterii Dei Patris et Christi_, which need not imply the omission of καί before πατρός.

On reviewing the whole mass of conflicting evidence, we may unhesitatingly reject the shortest form τοῦ θεοῦ, some of whose maintainers do not usually found their text on cursive manuscripts almost exclusively. We would gladly adopt τοῦ θεοῦ χριστοῦ, so powerfully do internal considerations plead in its favour, were it but a little better supported: the important doctrine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that is, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it unreservedly. Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows upon us, as the source from which all the rest are derived. At present, perhaps, τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ may be looked upon as the most strongly attested, but in the presence of so many opposing probabilities, a very small weight might suffice to turn the critical scale.

40. 1 THESS. ii. 7. We have here a various reading, consisting of the prefix of a single letter, which seems to introduce into a simple verse what is little short of an absurdity. Instead of ἤπιοι of the Received text, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, we find νήπιοι adopted by Lachmann as a consequence of his own stringent rules, and by Westcott and Hort of their own free will, unless indeed it be said that they also are working in chains of their own forging. How St. Paul can compare himself to a babe in one clause of the verse and to its nurse in the other would be quite unintelligible if Origen, who read νήπιοι, had not instructed us that the nurse is playing at baby for the babe’s amusement (ἐγένετο νήπιος καὶ παραπλήσιος τροφῷ θαλπούσῃ τὸ ἑαυτῆς παιδίον καὶ λαλούσῃ λόγους ὡς παιδίον διὰ τὸ παιδίον, iii. 662). It needs but the exercise of common sense to brush away such a fancy as this, and the state of the evidence will show us how the best authorities are sometimes hopelessly in the wrong; for νήπιοι is the form favoured by א*BC*D*FG, 5, 23, 26, 31* 37, 39**, 74, 87, 109**, 114, 115, 137, 219*, 252, and is easily accounted for by the accidental reduplication of the letter after Ν in ΗΜΕΝΗΠΙΟΙ (_see_ p. 10). The Vulgate and the Latin versions accompanying DEFG (_e_ testifying against its own Greek) have _parvuli_, and so the Bohairic, Ethiopic, Clement of Alexandria (ἤπιος οὖν ὁ νήπιος), Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and Augustine very expressly. On the other hand ἤπιος is vouched for by א**AC**D**EKLP, 17, 47, 61, 260, and by all cursives not named above, by both Syriac versions, by the Sahidic and by its follower the Bashmuric, by the Armenian, by Clement and Origen elsewhere (but their inconsistency means nothing but carelessness), Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia(425), Theodoret, Euthalius, Œcumenius, John Damascene and the catenae. Theophylact knew of and expounds both readings. It is almost pathetic to mark Dr. Hort’s brave struggle to maintain a cause which in this instance is simply hopeless. “The second ν might be inserted or omitted with equal facility; but the change from the bold image to the tame and facile adjective is characteristic of the difference between St. Paul and the Syrian revisers (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2; ix. 20, &c.). It is not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of flattery and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured, his adversaries having doubtless put this malicious interpretation upon his language among the Thessalonians” (Notes, p. 128). For his alleged Syrian revision, _see_ above, p. 287.

41. 1 TIM. iii. 16. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. This text has proved the _crux criticorum_. The Vatican has now failed us, but all manuscripts (D _tertiâ manu_, KLP, 300 cursives) read Θεός with the common text, except א*A*? C*? FG, 17, 73, which have ὅς, D* which (after the Latin versions) has ὅ: the Leicester codex, 37, gives ὁ _θς_ (_see_ facsimile No. 40, l. 1), as if to combine two of the variations(426). In the abridged form of writing usual in all manuscripts, even the oldest, the difference between ΟΣ and _ΘΣ_ consists only in the presence or absence of two horizontal strokes; hence it is rather to be regretted than wondered at that the true reading of each of the uncial authorities for the former is more or less open to question. Respecting Cod. א we have the statement of Tischendorf, a most consummate judge in such matters: “_corrector aliquis, qui omnium ultimus textum attigit, saeculi ferè duodecimi_, [_pro_ ος _primae manûs_] reposuit θεος, _sed hoc tam cautè ut antiquissimam scripturam intactam relinqueret_” (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20), which is unequivocal enough: _see_ facsimile No. 13 in Scrivener’s “Collation of Cod. Sin.,” and Introd., p. xxv: also Plate iv, facsimile No. 11 c of this volume, wherein the twelfth century θε above the line, the new accent over ΟΣ, and the triple points to denote insertion, are very conspicuous. Nor is there any real doubt respecting the kindred codices FG. From the photographed title-page of the published “Cod. Augiensis” (F) l. 9, and Matthaei’s facsimile of G (N. T., vol. i. p. 4)(427), it will be seen that while there is not the least trace of the horizontal line within the circle of omicron, the line above the circle in _both_ (_ΟΣ_) is not horizontal, but rises a little towards the right: such a line not unfrequently in F, oftener in G, is used (as here) to indicate the rough breathing: it sometimes stands even for the _lenis_ (e.g. ἱδιον 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4; 37; ἱσσα Phil. ii. 6). Those who never saw Cod. C must depend on Tischendorf’s Excursus (Cod. Ephraemi, pp. 39-42) and his facsimile, imitated in our Plate x. No. 24. His decision is that the primitive reading was ΟΣ, but he was _the first to discern a cross line within_ Ο (facsimile, l. 3, eighth letter); which, however, from the colour (“_subnigra_”) he judges to belong to the second or third hand, rising upwards (a tendency rather exaggerated than otherwise in our Plate); while the coarse line above, and the musical notes (denoting a word of two syllables) below, are plainly of the third hand. This verdict, especially delivered by such a man, we know not how to gainsay, and merely point to the fact that the cross line in Θ, the ninth letter further on, which is certainly _primâ manu_, also ascends towards the right. Cod. A, however, I have examined at least twenty times within as many years, and yet am not quite able to assent to the conclusion of Mr. Cowper when he says “we hope that no one will think it possible, either with or without a lens, to ascertain the truth of the matter by any inspection of the Codex” (Cod. Alex., Introd. p. xviii). On the contrary, seeing (as every one must see for himself) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod. A read _ΘΣ_, and, so far as I am shaken in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion even of Bp. Ellicott(428), than by the more recently discovered fact that ΟΣ (which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hort and Westcott), was read in א as early as the fourth century.

The secondary witnesses, versions, and certain of the Fathers, also powerfully incline this way, and they deserve peculiar attention in a case like the present. The Peshitto (ܕ) and Harkleian (text and ܗܘ in margin) Syriac have a relative (whether ὅς or ὅ); so have the Armenian, the Roman Ethiopic, and Erpenius’ Arabic. The Gothic supports ὅς; the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Platt’s Ethiopic favour ὅς or ὅ: all Latin versions (even _f_ _g_ whose Greek is _ΟΣ_) read “quod,” while θεός appears only in the Slavonic (which usually resembles KL and the later copies) and the Polyglott Arabic. Of ecclesiastical writers the best witness for the Received text is Ignatius, Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου (“Ephes.” 19), both in the Greek and Old Latin, although the Syriac abbreviator seems to have τοῦ υἱοῦ: the later interpolator expanded the clause thus: θεοῦ ὡς ἀνθρώπου φαινομένου, καὶ ἀνθρώπου ὡς θεοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος. Hippolytus (Adv. Not. 17: fl. 220) makes a “free reference” to it in the words Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη, and elsewhere with ὁ before προελθών. The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (265) can no longer be upheld (Tregelles, Horne, iv. p. 339), that of Chrysostom to the same effect is by some deemed precarious, since his manuscripts fluctuate, and Cramer’s catena on 1 Tim. p. 31 is adverse(429). The evidence borne for θεός by Didymus (de Trin.) and Gregory Nyssen(430) is beyond all doubt; that of later writers, Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius (as might be looked for) is clear and express. The chief Latins, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, &c., exhibit either _qui_ or _quod_: Cyril of Alexandria (for so we must conclude both from manuscripts and his context)(431), Epiphanius (_twice_), Theodore of Mopsuestia (in Latin)(432), and others of less weight, or whose language is less direct, are cited in critical editions of the N. T. in support of a relative; add to which that θεός is not quoted by Fathers (e.g. Cyprian, p. 35; Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67) in many places where it might fairly be looked for; though this argument must not be pushed too far. The idle tale, propagated by Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated by Hincmar and Victor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 506) was expelled by the Emperor Anastasius for corrupting Ο or ΟΣ into ΘΣ, although lightly credited by Dr. Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 229) and even by Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 133), is sufficiently refuted by Bp. Pearson (On the Creed, Art. ii. p. 128, 3rd edition).

On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in mind too that ΟΣ (from which ὅ of D* is an evident corruption) is grammatically much the _harder_ reading after μυστήριον (Canon I), and that it might easily pass into ΘΣ, we must consider it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the testimony of the first-rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that the second of our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied, and θεός of the more recent many yield place to ὅς of the ancient few(433). Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched. Were we to concede to Dr. Hort’s unproved hypothesis that Didymus, de Trinitate, abounds in what he calls Syrian readings, and that they are not rare with Gregory Nyssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius and Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce θεός a corruption.

This decision of Dr. Scrivener would probably have been considerably strengthened in favour of θεός, if the above passage had been written after, instead of before, the composition and appearance of Dean Burgon’s elaborate and patient examination of all the evidence, which occupies seventy-seven pages in his “Revision Revised” (pp. 424-501). Dean Burgon shows at length that after about 1770 the passage in A became so worn that it has been since that time increasingly difficult to see it; he casts much doubt upon the witness of C for ὅς, which Mr. Hoskier (Cod. 604, Appendix J), after a long examination of the MS., not only confirms, but actually removes in the opposite direction by claiming C as a witness for θεός; he maintains with reason that the transverse line in F and G is the sign of contraction; he exhibits the consentient testimony of the cursives; he claims upon the testimony of the scholar who was editing the Harkleian that version, as also the Georgian and Slavonic; and he adds to the Fathers enumerated above, besides doubtful testimonies, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus, Euthalius, Macedonius, Epiphanius of Catana, Theodorus Studita, Euthymius, some scholia, the author of Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως, and an anonymous author,—making some fifty testimonies in all.

42. 1 TIM. vi. 7. By omitting δῆλον of the Received text, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, produce a Greek sentence as inconsequential as the most thorough votaries of the “harder reading” can wish for: “For we brought nothing into the world, because neither can we carry anything out.” Dr. Hort sees, of course, that St. Paul could not reason in this fashion, and says that “The text [i.e. _his_ text, without δῆλον] is manifestly the parent of all the other readings, which are futile attempts to smooth away its difficulty. A primitive corruption must lurk somewhere,”—and then ventures on the awkward suggestion that ΟΤΙ arose from the transcriptional repetition of the last syllable of κοσμον (ΟΝ being read as ΟΤΙ), a guess which we observe that Dr. Westcott does not care to vouch for (Notes, p. 134). But why create a difficulty at all? Cod. B, which ends in Heb. ix. 14, is now lost to us, and of the rest δῆλον is omitted in א*AFG and its Latin version _g_ with copies of the Vulgate referred to by Lachmann, the Bohairic (καί for ὅτι), Sahidic; the Armenian and both Ethiopic varying with the Bohairic. Instead of δῆλον D*, _m_, _fuld._, Cyprian and the Gothic have ἀληθές, and the printed Vulgate with its codices (even _f_) and Ambrosiaster _haud dubium_, which will suit δῆλον well enough, as will ܘܕܝܥܐ (or ܐܥܝܕܘ) (_et notum est_) of the Syriac versions. For δῆλον itself stand א**D** (_hiat_ E) KLP, all the cursives save one, and of the Fathers Basil, Macarius, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, and John Damascene, evidence which we should have liked to see a little stronger.

43. PHILEM. 12. For ὃν ἀνέπεμψα; σὺ δὲ αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, προσλαβοῦ of the Received text, the critics, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles (but not his margin), Bp. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort read ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι, αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, omitting προσλαβοῦ, which they judge to have been interpolated from ver. 17. Tregelles and Bp. Lightfoot, moreover, put a full stop after σοι, so that αὐτόν is regarded as an “accusative suspended; the sentence changes its form and loses itself in a number of dependent clauses; and the main point is not resumed till ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ, the grammar having been meanwhile dislocated.” So Lightfoot, who vindicates the emphatic place he has assigned to αὐτόν by the not very close parallels John ix. 21, 23; Eph. i. 22. Manuscripts, of course, will not help us much in punctuation, but Codd. א*A, 17 are very good witnesses for σοι in the room of σὺ δέ and for the omission of προσλαβοῦ, a simple, although somewhat rude, construction well worthy of attention. For σοι, with or without σὺ δέ following, we have the additional support of C*DE, _d_ _e_ and _g_ against its own Greek, the Clementine Vulgate and such Vulgate codices as _demid. harl._2**, the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, &c. For the omission of προσλαβοῦ, which is of course the chief variation, besides א*A, 17 are cited F and G in the Greek but not in their Latin versions, 37 and others setting it before αὐτόν. It is found in all the rest, D**E**KLP, all other cursives, and (as might have been anticipated) the versions, as well Latin as Syriac, Bohairic (which reads as Cod. 37), Gothic, and Ethiopic: _g_, the Armenian and Theodoret put it after αὐτόν.

Fourth Series. Catholic Epistles.

44. JAMES iv. 4. Μοιχοὶ καί should be omitted before μοιχαλίδες on the testimony of א*AB, 13. The Peshitto, Bohairic, Latin, Armenian, and both Ethiopic versions have “adulterers” (_fornicatores ff_) only, but since no Greek copy thus reads, we must suppose that their translators were startled by the bold imagery so familiar to the Hebrew prophets (Isa. liv. 5; Jer. ii. 2; Ezek. xvi. 32 are cited from a host of similar passages by Wordsworth) and endeavoured to dilute it in this way. Tischendorf would join μοιχαλίδες with δαπανήσητε ver. 3, alleging the point or stop placed after it in Cod. B: but this point is not found in Vercellone’s edition, although he leaves a small space before οὐκ. The full form Μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες of אcKLP, the later Syriac, and all other known copies, is evidently a correction of early scribes.

45. JAMES iv. 5. The variation between κατῴκισεν and κατῴκησεν is plainly to be attributed to a mere itacism, whichsoever is to be regarded as the true form. We find ι in אAB, 101, 104 only, nor is it quite accurate to say with Tischendorf that collators are apt to overlook such points. In KLP, and apparently in all other manuscripts of every class, η is read, and so the catenas, with Theophylact and Œcumenius, understand this difficult passage. That all the versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.) thus render seems decisive in favour of η. The combination of אAB, however strong, has repeatedly been seen not to be irresistible; and while it must be confessed that in our existing Greek copies the interchange of ι and η (though found in Cod. A) is not an itacism of the very oldest type (p. 10), yet here the testimony of the versions refers it back to the second century. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, combine in reading κατῴκισεν.

46. 1 PET. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to illustrate what we saw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 3, Phil. ii. 1, that the chief uncials sometimes conspire in readings which are unquestionably false, and can hardly have arisen independently of each other. For σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς Codd. אAC have φθορᾶσ φθαρτῆς, the scribe’s eye wandering in writing σπορᾶς to the beginning of the next word: Cod. B is free from this vile corruption. When Mill records the variation for Cod. A, he adds (as well he might), “dormitante scribâ:” but that the same gross error should be found in three out of the four oldest codices, _and in no other_, is very suggestive, and not a little perplexing to false theorists.

47. 1 PET. iii. 15. Κύριον δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. For θεόν we find χριστόν (a change of considerable doctrinal importance)(434) in אABC, 7, 8 (Stephen’s ια´), 13, 33 (_margin_), 69, 137, 182, 184 (but not 221: _see_ p. 310, note 2), Apost. 1 (_ιν_ _χν_ ἡμῶν) with its Arabic translation. Thus too read both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian (τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ χριστόν), Erpenius’ Arabic, the Vulgate, Clement of Alexandria, Fulgentius, and Bede. Jerome has “Jesum Christum:” the Ethiopic and one other (Auctor de promiss., fourth century) omit both words. Against this very strong case we can set up for the common text only the more recent uncials KLP (not more than seven uncials contain this Epistle), the mass of later cursives (ten out of Scrivener’s twelve, also Wake 12, or Cod. 193), the Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, Theophylact, and Œcumenius, authorities of the ninth century and downwards. It is a real pleasure to me in this instance to express my cordial agreement with Tregelles (and so read Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), when he says, “Thus the reading χριστόν may be relied on _confidently_” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 285). I would further allege this text as one out of many proofs that the great uncials seldom or never conspire in exhibiting a really valuable departure from the later codices, unless supported by some of the best of the cursives themselves. See, however, Acts xiii. 32.

48. 2 PET. ii. 13. The resemblance between the second epistle of St. Peter and that of St. Jude is too close to be unobserved by the most careless reader, and the supposition that the elder Apostle’s letter was in Jude’s hands when he wrote his own is that which best meets the circumstances of the case. The σπῖλοι of the present verse, for example, looks like the origin of σπιλάδες in Jude 12, where the latter word is employed in a signification almost unprecedented in classical Greek, though the Orphic poems have been cited for its bearing the sense of “spots,” which all the ancient versions rightly agree with our Authorized Bible in attributing to it. Bearing in mind the same verse of St. Jude, it seems plain that ἀπάταις of the Received text cannot be accepted as true, as well because it affords so poor a meaning in connexion with ἐντρυφῶντες and συνευωχούμενοι, as because the later writer must have seen ἀγάπαις in his model, when he paraphrased it by οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι. For this change of two letters we have the support of Cod. A (as corrected by the first hand) and B alone of the manuscripts, but of the versions, the Latin Speculum _m_ which in these later epistles is strangely loose, yet cannot be misunderstood in the present place, the Vulgate, the Sahidic version, the Ethiopic, the Syriac printed with the Peshitto(435), and the margin of the Harkleian version. Add to these Ephraem and the Latin author of the tract “de singularitate clericorum,” both of the fourth century. The little group of cursives 27, 29, and the second hand of 66 read ἀγνοίαις; but ἀπάταις, _nescio quo sensu_(436), still cleaves to the text of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort, and to the margin of Tregelles, who in the text prefers ἀγάπαις with Lachmann and Westcott and Hort’s margin. Codd. אA (in its original form) CKLP, all other cursives, the catenas (Cod. 36, &c.), the Bohairic, Armenian, and Harkleian versions also have ἀπάταις, and so Theophylact and Œcumenius, but hardly Jerome as cited by Tischendorf.

49. 1 JOHN ii. 23. The English reader will have observed that the latter clause of this verse, “_but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also_,” is printed in italics in our Authorized version, this being the only instance in the New Testament wherein variety of reading is thus denoted by the translators, who derived both the words and this method of indicating their doubtful authenticity from the “Great Bible” of 1539(437). The corresponding Greek ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει (which appears to have been lost out of some copies by Homoeoteleuton), was first inserted in Beza’s Greek Testament in 1582(438), it is approved by all modern editors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), and, though still absent from the _textus receptus_, is unquestionably genuine. This is just such a point as versions are best capable of attesting. The “Great Bible” had no doubt taken the clause from the Latin Vulgate, in whose printed editions and chief manuscripts it is found (e.g. in _am. fuld. demid. tol. harl._), as also in both Syriac, both Egyptian (the Sahidic not for certain), the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Erpenius’ (not the Polyglott) Arabic version. Of manuscripts the great uncials אABC (with P) contain the clause, the later KL omit it. Of the cursives only two of Scrivener’s (182, 225) have it, and another (183) _secundâ manu_: from twelve or more of them it is absent, as also from seven of Matthaei’s: but of the other cursives it is present in at least thirty, whereof 3, 5, 13, 66** (_marg._), 68, 69, 98 are valuable. It is also acknowledged by Clement, Origen (_thrice_), Eusebius, both Cyrils, Theophylact, and the Western Fathers. The younger Cyril, possibly Euthalius, and one or two others have ὁμολογεῖ for the final ἔχει: the Old Latin _m_, Cyprian, and Hilary repeat τὸν υἱὸν καί before τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. The critical skill of Beza must not be estimated very highly, yet in this instance he might well have been imitated by the Elzevir editors.

50. 1 JOHN v. 7, 8. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα; καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ], τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα; καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephen, the origin and value of the Velesian readings, and other points. A critical _résumé_ of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate(439).

The two verses appear in the early editions, with the following notable variations from the common text, C standing for the Complutensian, Er. for one or more of Erasmus’ five editions. Ver. 7.—ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ _usque ad_ τῇ γῇ ver. 8, Er. 1, 2.—ὁ _prim. et __ secund_. Er. 3. [_non_ C. Er. 4, 5]. + και (_post_ πατήρ) C.—τό Er. 3. πνεῦμα ἅγιον Er. 3, 4, 5.—οὗτοι C. + εισ το (_ante_ εν) C. Ver. 8, επί της γης C.—τὸ _ter_ Er. 3, 4, 5 [_habent_ C. Er. 1, 2].—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς _ad_ _fin. vers._ C. They are found, including the clause from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ in no more than three Greek manuscripts, and those of very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110) being a mere worthless copy from printed books; and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61, Act. 34 (whose history was described above, p. 187(440)); Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162), and, for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 83 or 173, q. v.). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations: ver. 7. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (_pro_ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) 162.—ὁ _prim. et secund._ 34, 162.—τό 34, 162. _πνα_ ἅγιον 34, 162.—οὗτοι 162. + εἰς τό (_ante_ ἕν) 162. Ver. 8. εἰσί 73 _marg._ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 162.—τό _ter_ 34.—καί (_post_ _πνα_) 34, 162.—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς _ad fin._ _vers_. 34, 162, _fin_. εἰσι 173. No printed edition, therefore, is found to agree with either 34 or 162 (173, whose margin is so very recent, only differs from the common text by dropping ν ἐφελκυστικόν), though on the whole 162 best suits the Complutensian: but the omission of the article in ver. 7, while it stands in ver. 8 in 162, proves that the disputed clause was interpolated (probably from its parallel Latin) by one who was very ill acquainted with Greek.

The controverted words are not met with in any of the extant uncials (אABKLP) or in any cursives besides those named above(441): the cursives that omit them were found by the careful calculation of the Rev. A. W. Grafton, Dean Alford’s secretary (N. T. _ad. loc._), to amount to 188 in all (to which we may now add Codd. 190, 193, 219-221), besides some sixty Lectionaries. The aspect of things is not materially altered when we consult the versions. The disputed clause is not in any manuscript of the Peshitto, nor in the best editions (e.g. Lee’s): the Harkleian, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Arabic do not contain it in any shape: scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it. The Latin versions, therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are much divided. The chief and oldest authority in its favour is Wiseman’s Speculum _m_ and _r_ of the earlier translation; it is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps forty-nine out of every fifty of its manuscripts, but not in the best, such as _am. fuld. harl._3; nor in Alcuin’s reputed copies at Rome (_primâ manu_) and London (Brit. Mus. Add. 10,546), nor in the book of Armagh and full fifty others. In one of the most ancient which contain it, _cav._, ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 (as appears also in _m. tol. demid._ and a codex at Wolfenbüttel, _Wizanburg._ 99 [viii] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written “_audiat hoc Arius et ceteri_,” as if its authenticity was unquestioned(442). In general there is very considerable variety of reading (always a suspicious circumstance, as has been already explained), and often the doubtful words stand only in the margin: the last clause of ver. 8 (_et hi tres unum sunt_), especially, is frequently left out when the “Heavenly Witnesses” are retained. It is to defend _this_ omission by the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, not to account for the reception of the doubtful words, that the Complutensian editors wrote a note, the longest and indeed almost the only one in their New Testament. We conclude, therefore, that the passage from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ had no place in ancient Greek manuscripts, but came into some of the Latin at least as early as the sixth century.

The Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insufficient to establish the genuineness of the clause, is entitled to more consideration. Of the Greek Fathers it has been said that no one has cited it, even when it might be supposed to be most required by his argument, or though he quotes consecutively the verses going immediately before and after it(443): [but a passage occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture of uncertain date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to refer to it, and another from the Disputation with Arius (Ps.-Athanasius)]. The same must be said of the great Latins, Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome(444), and Augustine, with others of less note. On the other hand the _African_ writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of the fifth century, and Fulgentius of Ruspe (fl. 508) in two places, expressly appeal to the “three Heavenly Witnesses” as a genuine portion of St. John’s Epistle; nor is there much reason to doubt the testimony of Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was insisted on in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and 460 bishops in 484, and presented to the Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals [or of Cassiodorus, an Italian, in the sixth century]. From that period the clause became well known in other regions of the West, and was in time generally accepted throughout the Latin Church.

But a stand has been made by the maintainers of this passage on the evidence of two African Fathers of a very different stamp from those hitherto named, Tertullian and Cyprian. If it could be proved that these writers cited or alluded to the passage, it would result—_not by any means that it is authentic_—but that like Acts viii. 37 and a few other like interpolations, it was known and received in some places, as early as the second or third century. Now as regards the language of Tertullian (which will be found in Tischendorf’s and the other critical editions of the N. T.; advers. Prax. 25; de Pudic. 21), it must be admitted that Bp. Kaye’s view is the most reasonable, that “far from containing an allusion to 1 John v. 7, it furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse” (Writings of Tertullian, p. 550, second edition); but I cannot thus dispose of his junior Cyprian (d. 258). One must say with Tischendorf (who, however, manages to explain away his testimony) “_gravissimus est_ Cyprianus _de eccles. unitate_ 5.” His words run, “Dicit dominus, _Ego et pater unum sumus_ (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, _Et tres unum sunt_.” And yet further, in his Epistle to Jubaianus (73) on heretical baptism: “Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit,—si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est, quaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si Christi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?” If these two passages be taken together (the first is manifestly much the stronger(445)), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning; although we must acknowledge that it was in this way ver. 7 obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin copies, and though we have clear examples of the like mystical interpretation in Eucherius (fl. 440) and Augustine (contra Maximin. 22), who only knew of ver. 8.

Stunica, the chief Complutensian editor, by declaring, in controversy with Erasmus, with reference to this very passage, “Sciendum est, Graecorum codices esse corruptos, nostros [i.e. Latinos] verò ipsam veritatem continere,” virtually admits that ver. 7 was translated in that edition from the Latin, not derived from Greek sources. The versions (for such we must call them) in Codd. 34, 162 had no doubt the same origin, but were somewhat worse rendered: the margin of 173 seems to be taken from a printed book. Erasmus, after excluding the passage from his first two editions, inserted it in his third under circumstances we have before mentioned; and notwithstanding the discrepancy of reading in ver. 8, there can be little or no doubt of the identity of his “Codex Britannicus” with Montfort’s(446). We have detailed the steps by which the text was brought into its present shape, wherein it long remained, unchallenged by all save a few such bold spirits as Bentley, defended even by Mill, implicitly trusted in by those who had no knowledge of Biblical criticism. It was questioned in fair argument by Wetstein, assailed by Gibbon in 1781 with his usual weapons, sarcasm and insinuation (Decline and Fall, chap. xxxvii). Archdeacon Travis, who came to the rescue, a person “of some talent and attainments” (Crito Cantab., p. 335, note), burdened as he was with a weak cause and undue confidence in its goodness, would have been at any rate—_impar congressus Achilli_—no match at all for the exact learning, the acumen, the wit, the overbearing scorn of Porson(447). The “Letters” of that prince of scholars, and the contemporaneous researches of Herbert Marsh, have completely decided the contest. Bp. Burgess alone, while yet among us [d. 1837], and after him Mr. Charles Forster [d. 1871], clung obstinately to a few scattered outposts after the main field of battle had been lost beyond recovery(448).

On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim. We will close this slight review with the terse and measured judgement of Griesbach on the subject: “Si tam pauci, dubii, suspecti, recentes testes, et argumenta tam levia, sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia, et testimonia et argumenta: nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus planè incertus esset atque dubius_” (N. T., _ad locum_, vol. ii. p. 709).

51. 1 JOHN v. 18. In this verse, according to the Received text, we have the perfect γεγεννημένος of continued effects and the aorist γεννηθείς of completed action used for the same person, although elsewhere in the same Epistle the man begotten of God is invariably γεγεννημένος (ch. ii. 29; iii. 9 _bis_; iv. 7; v. 1, 4). Hence the special importance of the various reading αὐτόν for ἑαυτόν after τηρεῖ, since, if this were to be accepted, ὁ γεννηθείς could be none other than the Only-begotten Son who keepeth the human sons of God, agreeably to His own declaration in John xvii. 12(449). In behalf of αὐτόν we can allege only AB, 105 (a cursive collated by Matthaei), and the Vulgate (_conservat eum_), the testimony of A, always so powerful when sanctioned by B, being nothing weakened by the fact that it is corrected into ἑαυτόν by the original [?] scribe(450), who in copying had faithfully followed his _exemplar_, and on second thoughts supposed he had gone wrong. _All_ other authorities, including copies, versions, and Fathers, א and the rest (C being lost here), have ἑαυτόν, the Peshitto very expressly [and Origen thrice, Didymus four times, Ephraem Syrus and Severus twice each, besides Theophylact and Œcumenius(451)]. We venture to commend this variation as one of a class Dean Vaughan speaks of, which, seeming violently improbable at first sight, grows upon the student as he becomes familiar with it. It must be confessed, however, that St. Paul makes but slight distinction between the two tenses in Gal. iv. 23, 29, and that we have no other example in Scripture or ecclesiastical writers of ὁ γεννηθείς being used absolutely for the Divine Son, though the contrast here suggested is somewhat countenanced by that between ὁ ἁγιάζων and οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι in Heb. ii. 11. [So that Dr. Scrivener’s view demands considerable sacrifice for its acceptance.]

52. JUDE 5. Here we have a variation, vouched for by AB united, which it is hard to think true, however interesting the doctrinal inference would be. Instead of ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, the article is omitted by אAB, and perhaps by C*, so that it must at any rate resign its place; while for _ΚΣ_ of א (apparently of C*) and the mass of copies, with the Harkleian, we find _ΙΣ_ in AB, 6, 7, 13, 29, 66 (_secundâ manu_), the Vulgate, Sahidic, Bohairic, and both Ethiopic versions. The Bodleian Syriac has yet another variation, ὁ Θεός, in support of which we have the important second hand of C, 5, 8, 68, tol. of the Vulgate, the Armenian (with _ισ_ in the margin), the Arabic of Erpenius, Clement of Alexandria, and Lucifer. The Greek of Didymus has _κσ_ _ισ_, but his Latin translation _ισ_, which Jerome also recognized, although he wrongly supposed that Joshua was meant. While we acknowledge that the Person who saved Israel out of Egypt was indeed the Saviour of the world, we should rather expect that He would be called the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4) than Jesus. There is a similar variation between _χν_, _κν_, and _θν_ in the parallel passage 1 Cor. x. 9.

Lachmann alone reads Ἰησοῦς here, though Tregelles gives it a place in his margin. Westcott and Hort would be acting on their general principle if they received it, but, while setting Κύριος in the text and Ἰησοῦς in the margin, they brand the passage as corrupt, and would be inclined to believe that the original words were ὁ ... σώσας, without either of the nouns. Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 106) points out how slight the change would be from ΟΤΙΟ to ΟΤΙΣ (one Ι being dropped) in the simple uncials of early times.

Fifth Series. Apocalypse.

53. APOC. xiii. 10. Εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει. This reading of the Received text is perfectly clear; indeed, when compared with what is found in the best manuscripts, it is too simple to be true (Canon I, Chap. VIII). We read in Codd. אBC: ει (C) τις εις αιχμαλωσιαν ὑπαγει (ὑπάγῃ B), the reading also of those excellent cursives 28, 38, 79, 95, and of a manuscript of Andreas: εἰς is further omitted in 14 (_sic_), and in 92 its echo, in 32, 47, the Bohairic (?), Arabic (Polyglott), and a Slavonic manuscript: and so Tregelles in 1872. The sense of this reading, if admissible at all, is very harsh and elliptical; that of the only remaining uncial A, though apparently unsupported except by a Slavonic manuscript and the best copies of the Vulgate (_am. fuld._ and another known to Lachmann), looks more probable: εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει: “if any one _is_ for captivity, into captivity he goeth” (Tregelles, Kelly: the latter compares Jer. xv. 2, LXX): the second εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν being omitted by Homoeoteleuton in the above-mentioned codices. Tregelles (in 1844), Lachmann, Tischendorf, Kelly, Westcott and Hort follow Cod. A, and it would seem rightly.

All other variations were devised for the purpose of supplying the ellipsis left in the uncials. For συνάγει of the common text (now that it is known not to be found in C) no Greek authority is expressly cited except Reuchlin’s Cod. 1, after Andreas (whence it came into the text of Erasmus) and the _recent_ margin of 94. The favourite form of the cursives is that printed in the Complutensian Polyglott: εἴ τις ἔχει αἰχμαλωσίαν, ὑπάγει, after P, 2, 6, 8, 13, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94*, 96, 97, 98, perhaps some six others, a Slavonic manuscript, Andreas in the edition of 1596. The Vulgate, the Latin version printed with the Peshitto Syriac, and Primasius in substance, read “Qui in captivitatem duxerit, in captivitatem vadet,” but (as we stated above) _am. fuld._ (not _demid._) and the best codices omit “duxerit” and have “vadit” (Syr. ܡܘܒܥ ... ܐܙܥ or ܥܙܐ ... ܥܒܘܡ), _which brings the clause into accordance with Cod. A._ The Greek corresponding with the _printed_ Vulgate is εἴ τις εἰς (33 omits εἰς) αἰχμαλωσίαν (ὑπάγει 87), εἰς (ἐς 87) αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 33, 35, 87. Other modes of expression (e.g. εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτίζει εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 7; εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτιεῖ, αἰχμαλωτισθήσεται, 18; εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτησεῖ, εἰς αἰχ. ὑπ. 36, &c.) resemble those already given, in their attempt to enlarge and soften what was originally abrupt and perhaps obscure.

We submit the two following as a pair of readings which, originating in the pure error of transcribers, have been adopted by eminent critics in their unreasonable and almost unreasoning admiration for Bengel’s canon, “Proclivi orationi praestat ardua.”

54. APOC. xv. 6. In the transparently clear clause ἐνδεδυμένοι λίνον καθαρόν Lachmann, Tregelles in his text, Westcott and Hort, present the variation λίθον for λίνον “arrayed with stone,” i.e. precious stone, for which καθαρόν “clean” would be no appropriate epithet. Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 139) justifies what he rightly calls “the bold image expressed by this well-attested reading” by Ezek. xxviii. 13 πάντα λίθον χρηστὸν ἐνδέδεσαι (or ἐνδέδυσαι), σάρδιον καὶ τοπάζιον κ.τ.λ., but that was said of a king of Tyre, not of the angelic host. The manifestly false λίθον is only too “well-attested” for the reputation of its advocate, AC, 38 in the margin, 48, 90, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (_am. fuld. demid. tol. lips._4.5.6, &c.), though not the printed editions. Andreas knew of the variation without adopting it: Haymo and Bede also mention both readings. Cod. א reads καθαροὺς λίνους with the Bohairic, and so helped to keep Tischendorf right: Tregelles sets this form in his margin. For λίνον or λινοῦν or λην- we have all the other manuscripts and other authorities, including BP, that excellent cursive Cod. 95, Primasius. Between the two forms with ν we should probably choose λινοῦν of B, [7], 14, 18, 92, 97, as λίνον seems to belong to the raw material in a rough state. The later Syriac has ܒܬܢܐ (or ܐܢܬܒ) (χιτῶνα), which admits of no ambiguity.

55. APOC. xviii. 3. For πέπωκε of the Received text, or πέπωκαν of Lachmann and Tischendorf, Tregelles (whose margin has πεπτώκασιν), Westcott and Hort in their text (not margin) have πέπτωκαν. Dr. Hort has no note on this place, but treats it in his index of “Quotations from the Old Testament” as a reference to Isa. li. 17, 22 (ἡ πιοῦσα τὸ ποτήριον τῆς πτώσεως) and to Jer. xxv. 27 (πίετε καὶ μεθύσθητε ... καὶ πεσεῖσθε), with the notion of stumbling through drink. What is required to complete the parallel is some passage in the Septuagint wherein πέπτωκαν stands alone, whether τοῦ οἴνου be in the text or not, and, in the absence of such parallel, πέπτωκαν must be regarded as incredible on any evidence. Yet πέπτωκαν or the virtually identical πεπτώκασιν is found in אAC, in B, 7, 8, 14, 25, 27, 29, 91, 92, 94, 95 (πέπτωσι _primâ manu_), the Bohairic and Ethiopic. The alternative reading πέπωκαν or πεπώκασιν (πέπωκε 96) occurs in P, 1, 18, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 79, 87, 90, 93, 97, 98, the Latin and later Syriac. Thus the very versions are divided in a case where the omission of a single letter produces so great a change in the sense.

56. APOC. xxi. 6. Καὶ εἶπε μοι, Γέγονε. ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω. Here the true reading Γέγοναν “They are done” (adopted, with or without εἰμι after ἐγώ, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Kelly, Archdeacon Lee in the “Speaker’s Commentary,” Westcott and Hort) is preserved by Cod. A, whose excellency is very conspicuous in the Apocalypse: its compeer C is defective here. The very valuable Apoc. 38 confirms it (γεγόνασιν), as did אc, but the whole word was afterwards erased: the interpreter of Irenaeus renders _facta sunt_, and this is all the support A has. The first hand of א with BP, 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35, 47, 48, 79, 87, 89, 91, 92 (_hiat_ 14), 93, 96, 97, 98, the Armenian, Origen (_quod mireris_), Andreas, Arethas, with the Complutensian, read γέγονα, most of them omitting either the ἐγώ or the ἐγώ εἰμι which follows. Erasmus was too good a scholar to adopt from Apoc. 1 a meaning for γίγνομαι which it cannot possibly bear, and seems to have got his own reading Γέγονε (though he recognizes that of Apoc. 1 in his Annotations) from the Vulgate _factum est_, which is confirmed by Primasius: it probably has no Greek authority whatsoever. The Syriac printed with the Peshitto (commonly assigned to the sixth century) appears, like the hand which followed אc, to omit γέγονα, as do the Bohairic and Ethiopic versions, with _lux._ of the Vulgate. Those which read γέγονα yet retain the following ἐγώ (אBP, 7 and some others) obviously differ from the true reading γέγοναν by the single stroke which in uncial manuscripts was set over a letter to represent _nu_, especially at the end of a line, and so avoid the monstrous rendering necessarily implied in 1, 8, 93, 96, 97, 98, “I have _become_ alpha and omega, the first and the last.” P accordingly puts the proper stop after γέγονα.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

God grant that if these studies shall have made any of us better instructed in the letter of His Holy Word, we may find grace to grow, in like measure, in that knowledge which tendeth to salvation, through faith in His mercy by Christ Jesus.

APPENDIX A. ON SYRIAC LECTIONARIES.

A very interesting group of Syriac manuscripts is found in the collections of Syriac MS. Lectionaries which have descended to us. That the number of them is large may be inferred from the fact that thirty-five may be found in the British Museum alone (Catalogue, i. pp. 146-203).

Syriac Lectionaries are of two classes, (i) those according to the Greek Use, and (ii) those according to the native Syriac Use. The former, or _Malkite_ Lectionaries, may be dismissed from the present enquiry. They are only Greek works in a Syriac dress, and their value is historical rather than critical(452).

The true Syriac Lectionaries, whether Jacobite or Nestorian, follow as to their main features the Greek Lectionaries which have been described in our first volume, coming under two main classes, Evangelistaries and Apostolos(453). But they present one important contrast. In both families of Syriac descent, the Ecclesiastical year begins with Advent, and not, as in Greek Lectionaries, with Easter; and in general the arrangement is similar in both, so that the system must at least be of considerably greater antiquity than the days of the schism. In some of the Jacobite copies the text of the Harkleian revision has been substituted for the ancient Peshitto. Some include Lessons from the Old Testament. Some contain a Menology. In a few instances the Lessons for special festivals form a separate volume.

The majority of the Syriac MS. Lectionaries are comparatively late, but others possess an antiquity which, in the case of some MSS., would be considered remarkable. The British Museum copies, Add. 14,485 and 14,486, are each dated A. GR. 1135 = A.D. 824. Others must be referred to the same century. Add. 14,528, foll. 152-228 (an Index), and the leaf in Add. 17,217, appear to be three centuries older. Another sixth century MS., Add. 14,455 (the Four Gospels), contains many Rubrics, a pr. m. in the text, besides those in the margins by later hands, such as occur in MSS. of all ages. When to these facts we add the consideration already mentioned, that the same system was in use in both branches of the Syrian Church, we see the importance of the testimony of works of this class. They are very ancient ecclesiastical records from the unchangeable East. Like Greek Lectionaries, they are difficult to use, because of their arrangement of Lessons in the succession ordered by the calendar: they are of course public documents, and in consequence possess an importance above that of copies which were in many cases the property of private persons, and may have been carelessly and cheaply prepared. Yet it would not be right to claim for copies of a version a position quite as important as that held by the Greek service-books, since the evidence of versions, as well as of quotations in ancient writers, is only subsidiary. Nevertheless, in the fact that the number of ancient Greek copies of the New Testament is relatively small as compared with the early copies of the Peshitto version, we are warned not to underrate Syriac Lectionaries, though they are of less value for the Syriac, on account of the large number of very ancient and well-written copies which have come down to us, such as those which have been enumerated in our account of the materials for ascertaining the text of the Peshitto.

APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL BOHAIRIC MANUSCRIPTS IN EGYPT (1893).

Cairo 1 [1184] attributed and possible date, fol., _chart._, ff. 290, 27 × 18·6 (23), κεφ., Copt. Gr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann., Copt., restored under patronage of Athanasius, Bp. of Abutij, 1794, whose statement gives date 900 of the martyrs. Dedication to monastery of St. Antony in the eastern desert; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12 and 14.

Ancient writing begins St. Matt. v. 25, continues to St. Luke x. 2. begins St. Luke x. 27, continues to St. Luke xxii. 52. begins St. Luke xxii. 66, continues to St. Luke xxiv. 53. begins St. John i. 31, continues to St. John xix. 24.

Cairo 2 [1291], fol., _chart._, ff. 409, 26·9 × 18 (24, 25), κεφ., Copt. Gr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ (pictures of SS. Mark, Luke, and John). Evann. Copt. Arab. Written by Deacon Barsuma, mended by Michael of Akhmîm, monk of monastery of Siryani (Nitrian), under patronage of Cyril, 112th Patriarch, 1878. Dedication to monastery of St. Barsuma, called Al Shahrân, 1329; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12 and 14. Quires numbered in Syriac. Same text as Paris 15.

Cairo 3 [xviii], fol., _chart._, ff. 342, 22·8 × 13 (29), _Carp._ and _Eus. t._ at end of St. Mark, _proll._, κεφ. _t._, κεφ., Copt. Gr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann. Copt. Arab. Written by Michael Pilatos, who gives his name in the duplicate book at Alexandria, and who wrote the Epistles and Acts below in 1714. In the library of the Patriarch in Cairo. Text same as Curzon 126.

Cairo 4 [1327], fol., _chart._, ff. 395, 27·5 × 17·8 (27), κεφ., Copt., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann. Copt. Written by Thomas. Dedication to the Church of St. Mercurius in old Cairo, where it now rests. Text of St. Matt. is same as Brit. Mus. 3381.

Cairo 5 [1257], fol., _chart._, ff. 382, 26·4 × 19 (25), _prol._ St. Luke, Capp. Copt. _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._, _mut._ Evann. Copt. Arab. _Mut._ St. Matt. i-iv. 5, St. Mark i. 1-7, St. John i. 1-21; a few leaves restored. Written by monk and priest Gabriel, who wrote in the house of Ibn ´Assâl; now in the Church of Al Moallaqah in old Cairo. Text similar to manuscript of Göttingen.

Cairo 6 [1272], fol., _chart._, ff. 328, 24·9 × 17 and 25·7 × 18. Epilogue to St. Matt. Κεφ., Copt., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._, _mut._ Evann. Copt. St. Matt. by more recent writer. SS. Mark, Luke, and John written by original scribe, Simon Ibn Abu Nasr. Text of St. Matt. similar to Bodl. vii. In the Patriarchal Library in Cairo.

Cairo 7 [xiv], 4to, St. Luke, restored under Bp. Athanasius of Abutij. Text unimportant.

Besides several which are too late to have any critical importance.

APOCALYPSE.

1. [xix], folio.

ALEXANDRIA 1 [xviii], fol., paper, duplicate of Cairo 3, by same writer. Evann.

2. [xix], SS. Matt. and Mark.

3. [1861], St. John, Copt.

DAYR AL MOHARRAQ, nr. Manfalût on the Nile (station and telegraph Nasâli Gânûb).

1. [1345], fol., _chart._, 22·5 × 14·2 (27), _Carp._ at end. _Mut._, but fairly perfect, _pict._, and richly glossed. Text unimportant. Evann. Copt. Arab.

ST. PAUL, CATH., ACTS.

1. [xii?], probably of same date as Evann., Cairo 1, fol., _chart._, ff. 432, 25·6 × 18·2 (24), κεφ., Copt. Gr. Thess., Heb., Tim., _pict._, Copt.: restored Rom. and 1 Cor. i-xvi. 12, copious glosses in Arabic.

2. [xiv], fol., _chart._, 26 × 18·5 (25), κεφ., Copt. Gr., _pict._ Philemon, Hebr., Copt.

INDEX I. TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED IN THIS TREATISE.

(Where the page is given alone, the reference is to the first volume. _n_ indicates _note_.)

ST. MATTHEW. i. 18 II. 321-3 iv. 18 12 v. 11 II. 298 22 8; II. 255, 281 vi. 1 13 8 II. 302 13 9; II. 279, 323-5 22 II. 302 vii. 2 13 14 16 28 13 viii. 5 12 28 17 ix. 17 12 29 13 36 13 x. 23 9 xi. 16 11 19 II. 325-6 xiii. 15 11 40 13 xiv. 22 12 xv. 5 11, 14 8 13 xvi. 2, 3 II. 326-7 21 II. 302 xvii. 20 II. 255 _n_ xix. 17 17; II. 281, 327-9 xx. 28 8; II. 330-1 xxi. 23 14 28 31; II. 331-6 xxii. 37 13 xxiii. 14-16 9 35 17 xxiv. 15 12 36 II. 269 _n_ xxv. 16 13 xxvi. 39 16 xxvii. 4 13 9 17 28 II. 234, 302 35 12 49 II. 303 60 16 xxviii. 19 II. 303

ST. MARK. i. 2 17 21 II. 315 ii. 17 12 27 II. 299 iii. 3 11 14, 16 II. 303 iv. 19 11 v. 14 10 40 II. 318 vi. 2 II. 303 22 II. 303 vii. 2 13, 14 19 11; II. 336-7 ix. 1 II. 303 x. 30 11 xiii. 14 12 32 17 33 II. 303 xiv. 4 II. 318 35 16 xv. 28 12 xvi. 9-20 7; II. 269, 337-44

ST. LUKE. ii. 14 II. 344-9 15 14 22 17 iv. 18 13 iv. 44 II. 304 v. 32 12 38 12 vi. 1 17 4 8 48 II. 304 vii. 31 12 viii. 40 II. 304 ix. 49 10 x. 1 II. 304 22 12 30 14 41, 42 II. 349-50 xi. 4 II. 279-81 36 9 xii. 54 15 xiv. 5 II. 305 xv. 21 II. 305 xvi. 12 11; II. 305 20 10 xvii. 36 9 xviii. 39 9 xxi. 24 II. 306, 319 xxii. 37 12 43, 44 9; II. 269, 353-6 49 II. 319 xxiii. 32 II. 306 34 II. 356-8 xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 42, 51 II. 299 _n_

ST. JOHN. i. 18 17; II. 358-60 28 17 44 12 ii. 3 II. 306 iii. 13 II. 360-1 iv. 1 II. 306 v. 3, 4. 9, 19; II. 361-3. 35. 10 vii. 8. 17; II. 363-4 39. II. 306 53-viii. 11. vii, 19; II. 364-8 viii. 44. II. 318 ix. 4. II. 307 x. 22. II. 307 xiii. 25, 26. 19 xviii. 5. II. 307 xix. 6-35. 12 14. 17

ACTS. iii. 6. 11 iv. 25. II. 307 v. 2. II. 318 vii. 37. 13 46. II. 308 viii. 7. 13 37. 8; II. 368-70 ix. 5, 6 (xxvi. 14, 15). 12 12. 9 x. 19. II. 308 xi. 19-27; xiii. 1. 312 20. II. 370-1 xii. 25. II. 308 xiii. 18. II. 371-2 32. II. 372-3 33. 13 xiv. 8. 14 24. 13 xv. 17, 18. II. 299 34. II. 373-4 xvi. 3. 14 7. 17; II. 374 xvii. 28. 11; II. 309 xviii. 26; xix. 4, 15, 8, 34. 14 xx. 4, 15. 19 10. II. 309 24. II. 299 28. 17; II. 374-7 30. II. 309 xxiv. 6-8. 19 xxv. 13. II. 309 xxvii. 1. II. 318 5. II. 298 _n_ 16. II. 377 37. II. 378-9 xxviii. 13. II. 309 xxviii. 16. II. 298 _n_

ROMANS. v. 1. 17; II. 379-81 22. II. 310 viii. 20. II. 319 24. II. 311 _n_ xii. 11. 15 xv. 31. II. 310

1 CORINTHIANS. vii. 29. 118 _n_ xi. 24. II. 381-2 29. 8 xii. 20. 14 xiii. 3. II. 382-4 5. II. 310 xv. 49. 17 51. 17; II. 384-6

2 CORINTHIANS. iii. 10. 10 iv. 12. 14 viii. 4. 13 xii. 1. 11 xiii. 2. 13 3. 11

GALATIANS. iii. 1. 9; II. 311 v. 7. 9

EPHESIANS. v. 14. II. 386-7

PHILIPPIANS. i. 30. 11 ii. 1. II. 387-9

COLOSSIANS. iii. 6. II. 311 _n_ iv. 15. II. 310

1 THESSALONIANS. ii. 7. II. 389-90 19. 12 iii. 13. 12 v. 4. II. 310

2 THESSALONIANS. i. 8, 12. 12

1 TIMOTHY. ii. 6. 17 iii. 16. 15; II. 390-5 vi. 7. 13; II. 395-6

2 TIMOTHY. iv. 5. 12 15. 13

PHILEMON. 12 (17). 13; II. 396

HEBREWS. ii. 7. 13 vi. 16. 14 vii. 1. II. 310 xii. 20. 13

JAMES. i. 17. II. 310 iv. 4. II. 397 5. II. 397

1 PETER. i. 3, 12. 11 23. II. 397-8 ii. 3. 11 21. 11 iii. 1. 11 18. 11 20. 10 21. 11 iv. 5. II. 311 v. 10. 11 13. II. 398-400

1 JOHN. ii. 23. 9; II. 400-1 iii. 21. II. 311 _n_ v. 7, 8. 8; II. 401-7 18. II. 407-8

JUDE. 4. 17 5. II. 409

APOCALYPSE. ii. 20. 14 iii. 16. 9 xiii. 10. II. 409-10 xv. 6. II. 410-1 xvi. 7. 17 10. 10 xviii. 3. II. 411 xxi. 6. II. 412

INDEX II. OF SUBJECTS.

(N.B.—For Greek manuscripts of the N. T. consult Vol. I. Index I. For separate Fathers, see Vol. II. pp. 172-4, and for present owners of MSS., Vol. I. Index I. _n_ indicates _note_.)

א, _see_ Sinaitic.

Abbot, Ezra, II. 236 _n_, 343 _n_ 1, 360 _n_.

Abbott, T. K., 154-5, 166; II. 46, 50.

Abbott’s group, _see_ Ferrar.

Abbreviations in manuscripts, &c., 49-51, 92, 144, &c.

Accents employed in manuscripts, &c., 45-8, 100.

Accretions, II. 249, 291, 362, 369, 374.

Acts and Cath. Epist. (Act., Cath.), 63-5, 78.

Acus employed by scribes, 27, 129.

Adamantius, _see_ Origen.

Adler, J. G. C., II. 30, 222, &c. &c.

African form of Old Latin version, _see_ Versions.

Alcuin’s Latin manuscripts, II. 59.

Aldus, N. T., II. 187-8.

Alexander II of Russia, 32, 91.

Alexandrian MS. (A), 97-105; history, 97-98; description, 98-101; age, 103; written by one hand or more, 101; collations and editions, 103-4; character, 104-105, and _passim_.

Alexandrianisms, 141; II. 224-6, 312, 316-8.

Alford, B. H., 147.

Alford, H., Dean, 12 _n_, 114 and _n_; II. 252 _n_ 4, 346, 351, and frequently.

ἀλλά, when to be edited, 14 _n_.

Alphabet, Gothic, invented, II. 146.

Alphabet, so Armenian, II. 150.

Alter, F. K., N. T. and manuscripts, II. 220, &c.

Amanuensis, influence of, II. 319 _n_ 1.

Amélineau, M., II. 133-4.

Amelli, Guer., II. 48.

Amiatinus, Cod. Lat. (_am_.), II. 71.

Ammonian Oasis and dialect, II. 101.

Ammonian sections, 59-63; without Eusebian Canons, 62, 68, 189, and _passim_.

Ἀναγνώσεις, 189, 64.

Ἀναγνώσματα, 189, 68-9, 75 _n_ 1, 139, &c. &c.

Ἀναστασιμὰ εὐαγγέλια, 85, Evst. 30, 240; Mark vi. 9-20 read in them, II. 341.

Ancient authorities, II. 276-8; often divided, _ibid_.; _see_ also 240, 359, 300-1.

Andreas, Abp., paragraphs, chapters, and summaries of the Apocalypse, 64, 67, Evann. 18, &c.

Andreas, priest, Evann. 15, 232, &c.

Angelus Vergecius, 44 _n_ 1.

Anglo-Saxon version, _see_ Versions.

Antiochene, (supposed) revision of text, II. 287-8.

Antony, St., II. 98-9.

Aphraates, II. 20-21, &c.

Apocalypse (Apoc.), 78, character of text, 14; wanting in Peshitto, 8; in Bohairic, II. 123; in Sahidic, II. 137.

Apocrypha, II. 177.

Apocryphal insertions, 8; II. 271 _n_. _See_ Western Interpolations.

Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια, 74.

Apostolos or Praxapostolos (Apost.), 74-5.

Apostrophus, 49, 138, 175; II. 270 _n_.

Aquila, II. 272.

Arabic versions, II. 161-4; in other MSS., Evan. 211, 240 _n_, Act. 96, Evst. 6, 328; II. 113-23.

Aramaean, II. 2, 28, 312-3, 320 _n_.

Arethas, Abp., on Apocalypse, 67.

Argenteus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.

Aristophanes of Byzantium, 46.

Ἀρχή and τέλος, 76.

Armagh, book of (_arm._), II. 74.

Armenian version, _see_ Versions.

Armfield, H. T., II. 401 _n_.

Article, Coptic, II. 124.

Article, Greek, fluctuating use of, 15.

Ascetic temper alleged to be traced in manuscripts, II. 252 _n_ 4, 255, 349.

Asiatic family of text, II. 212.

Asper, value of, 239 _n_.

Assemani, J. S., II. 27, 34.

Assemani, S. E., II. 30.

Assembly of Divines, 103 _n_ 1.

Asterisks, 133; II. 37, 354, 361, 365.

Athanasius, Bp. of Kos, II. 96, 100, 102.

Athos, Mount, Evann. 905, &c., _passim_.

Augustine, Bp., II. 42-3, 4 n, and _passim_.

Aureus, Cod., II. 51.

Autographs of the N. T., 2; II. 257-9, 262-3.

Available evidence to be used in full, II. 275, &c., 300-1.

Β and Υ confounded, 43 _n_ 2.

Baber, H. H., 104.

Babington, Churchill, papyri, 22.

Balance (nice) of evidence, II. 371-2.

Barbarous readings inadmissible, II. 319 _n_ 1.

Barnabas, St., Epistle of, 96; his apocryphal ἀποδημία, Evan. 239.

Barrett, John, 153-4.

Barsalibi, Dion., Bp., II. 18, 27 _n_, 31.

Bashmuric dialect, II. 96, 100; really Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, 103. _See_ Versions.

Batiffol, P., 166; II. 51.

Bebb, Rev. Ll. J. M., II. 3 _n_ 1, 145, 158-61, 168 _n_ 1.

Bede, the Venerable, II. 369.

Belsheim, J., Evann. 613-7; II. 46, 48, 51, 52.

Bengel, II. 210-13; his paragraphs (περικοπαί), 211, I. 271; families, II. 211-2; character, 212; Canon, 247, and _passim_.

Bensly, R. S., Prof., II. 46.

Bentley, Richard, II. 204-9; his career, 204-5; projected edition of N. T., 205-6; his papers and MSS., 206-9; causes of failure, 209; I. 110, 285; II. 65-6, 89, 245 _n_ 1, and _passim_.

Bentley, Thomas, 110, 177; II. 207.

Berger, M. Sam., II. 66 _n_, 46.

Bernard, Edward, II. 200.

Berriman, J., II. 392 _n_.

Bessarion, Jo., Cardinal, 105.

Beza, Theod., his N. T., II. 192-3.

Bezae, Cod. (D), 124-30; same as Stephen’s β´, 124 _n_ 3; history, 124-5; collations and editions, 126-7, 130; character, 130.

Bianchini, Jos., _see_ Index of Facsimiles, Vol. I.

Bible, English, margin of Authorized, II. 371-2.

Bible, Great, II. 400.

Bible, Hebrew, first printed, II. 175.

Bible, Latin, first printed, II. 61, 175.

Bilingual MSS., _see_ Cod. Bezae (D), Evan. Δ, Act. E, Paul. D, Paul. F, Paul. G.

Binding, manuscripts used for, 91, 151, 159, 171, 183.

Birch, Andr., II. 220-2; 110-111, &c.

Birks, T. R., Canon, II. 282 _n_ 2.

Blakesley, J. W., Dean, II. 351, 352.

Bloomfield, S. T., _see_ Index II, Vol. I.

Bobbio, II. 146.

Bodleian Euclid, 42.

Boetticher, P. (Lagarde), II. 109, 283 _n_.

Böttiger, 180.

Bohairic or Memphitic dialect, _see_ Versions (Coptic).

Bosworth, Dr. J., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165.

Bowyer, W., II. 245 _n_.

Bradshaw, H., 151, 189 _n_.

Breathings in manuscripts, 45-8, 100, &c.

Breves, _see_ τίτλοι.

Bright, J. W., Dr., 145, 164-5.

Broadus, J. A., II. 342.

Brown, D., II. 329 _n_.

Bruce, Ja., the traveller, II. 129.

Brugsch, 91 _n_; II. 97.

Burgess, Bp., II. 407.

Burgon, J. W., Dean, his enlargement of the study, 78-9; his letters to the _Guardian_, 189 _n_; II. 338; use of quotations from the Fathers, II. 167-71; his great book on “The Revision Revised,” 167; also I. 120 _n_ 2, 240-1 (his enlargement of the list in ed. 3), 251, 252, 255, 256; II. 282 _n_ 1, 301, 327, 341, 343 _n_ 2, 345, 357 _n_ 2, 363 _n_ 1, 368 _n_ 3, 395, and _passim_.

Buttmann, Phil., II. 231-3.

Byzantine revision of text(?), II. 224, 229.

Caesarea, library of, II. 266-9.

Calendar, Greek, 80-9.

Cambridge Texts, Greek Testament, 19.

Canonici, M. L., library of, 246.

Canons of Comparative Criticism, _see_ Comparative Criticism.

Canons of Internal Evidence, _see_ Internal Evidence.

Capernaum, its orthography, II. 315.

Capitals, 29, 51-2, and _passim_, and _description of plates_.

Caro, Hugo de S., Cardinal, 69.

Carolinus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.

Carpianus, Epistle to, &c., 60-3, 189, and _passim_.

Carshunic characters, II. 30.

Casley, II. 65, 89.

Catena, 67, and _passim_.

Ceriani, Ant., I. 120 _n_ 3; II. 50, 52, &c.

Chapters, _see_ Sections.

Chapters, Latin or modern, 69-71, 68.

Charles the Great, Emperor, II. 59.

Christian VII of Denmark, II. 220.

Church, the, the Keeper of Holy Writ, II. 252, 296 _n_ 1.

Church Lessons, _see_ Evangelistaria, Apostolos.

Cilicisms, II. 317.

Citation of O. T., marks of, 64 _n_, &c.

Classes, six, of manuscripts, 77-8.

Clement of Alexandria, II. 262-3.

Clement of Rome, Epistles, 99.

Clement VIII, his Vulgate, II. 64-5.

Cobet, C. G., 113 _n_ 2; II. 253 _n_, 263 _n_ 1.

Codex Britannicus, Evan. 61.

Codex Friderico-Augustanus, 31 &c., 90.

Codices, 28.

Coislin, Bp., his Library, Evan. H.

Coislin, his Octateuch, Evan. Fa.

Colbert, Pentateuch, &c., LXX (Paris), same MS. as Cod. Sarravianus, which _see_.

Coleridge, S. T., II. 258 _n_ 3.

Colinaeus, S., his N. T.; II. 188.

Columns in manuscripts, 28, and _passim_.

Comes, Latin Church Lessons, II. 341 _n_ 3.

Commentary (ἑρμήνεια), (a) of Andreas or Arethas, 67, 64, (b) Chrysostom, 242, &c., (c) Theophylact, 242, &c.

Comparative Criticism, II. 274-301; its nature, 274-5; completeness of comparison essential, 275-6; cannot be confined to a few authorities, 276-8; even to the oldest, 278-81; B and א not infallible, 281-4; Westcott and Hort’s theory unsound, 284-97, being on explanation (285-90), destitute of historical foundation (290-2), of critical groundwork (292-3), of Ante-Nicene authority (293-5) of internal probability (295-6), and of confirmation when applied to passages (302-11); true view, 297-301.

Complete copies of N. T., 72.

Complutensian Polyglott, II. 176-181; deviser of, 176; character, 177-8; MSS. used for, 178-180; text, 180-181, and _passim_.

Conflate readings (so-called), II. 292-3.

Confusion of certain vowels and diphthongs, 10.

Confusion of uncial letters, 10.

Conjectural emendation inadmissible, II. 244-7.

Constantine, Emperor, 118 _n_ 2.

Contents of MSS., 71-72.

Conybeare, F. C., II. 145, 148-54, 156-8.

Cook, F. C., Canon, II. 283 _n_, 325 _n_, 356.

Coptic (or Egyptian) language, its dialects and versions, II. 91-144. _See_ Versions.

Copying, mistakes in, 10; additions in, 13.

Corrector (διορθωτής), 54-5.

Correctoria, II. 60.

Correctorium, Bibl. Lat., Evan. 81.

Corruptions of text in second century, II. 259-65.

Corssen, Dr., 182; II. 51, 66.

Cotton fragment of Genesis, 32-40.

Cotton paper (bombycina), 23.

Courcelles, Stephen, II. 198.

Cowper, B. H., 104; II. 391.

Coxe, H. O., 240, 297 _n_, 324 _n_, &c.

Cozza-Luzi, Joseph, 116-19.

Cramer, J. A., II. 128.

Cranbrook, Earl of, II. 171.

Crawford, Earl of, his Library, II. 114, 121, 132.

Critical editions, 196-243.

Critical revision a source of various readings, 16-17.

Crito Cantabrigiensis (Turton, T., Bp.), II. 401 _n_, 403 _n_.

Crowding of letters, 41, 51, 132, &c.

Crum, W. E., II. 143-4.

Cureton, W., Canon, 8. _See_ Versions.

Curetonian, _see_ Versions.

Cureton’s Homer, 44.

Cursive letters, described, 29, 30; earliest cursive biblical MS., 41 _n_ 1; earlier MSS. still, 42.

Cursive manuscripts, their critical value, II. 277, 297-301.

Curzon, Hon. R. (Lord de la Zouche), and his Parham MSS., 240, 252; II. 114-5; 119, 122.

Cyril Lucar, _see_ Lucar.

Damasus, Pope, II. 56-7.

Dated manuscripts, 41-2. _See_ Indiction.

Davidson, S., II. 292.

Deane, Rev. H., II. 6, 29.

De Dieu, L., II. 10.

Delitzsch, F., II. 180 _n_ 1, 184 _n_ 1.

Demotic writing, II. 92, 97.

Designed alterations alleged in text, 17; II. 259, 327, 363.

Dialectic forms, II. 312-20; grounded on the Hellenistic dialect, 312-3; effect of Hebrew Aramaic, 313; ν ἐφελκυστικόν, 314-5; harsher forms in older MSS., 315-6; variations in grammatical forms, 316-8; other dialectic forms, 318-20; I. 14.

Dickinson, John, 126.

Dictation, 10; II. 319 _n_.

Dio Cassius, the Vatican MS., 28 _n_ 2.

Diocletian’s persecution, II. 266, 104 _n_ 1.

Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth, II. 259.

Dioscorides, the Vienna MS., 46, 164.

Divisions of N. T., _see_ Sections.

Divisions, Slavonic, II. 158. _See_ Versions.

Dobbin, Orlando, 120, Evann. 58, 61.

Doctrinal corruption, 17; II. 327, 407.

Donaldson, J. W., II. 210 _n_ 3, 314, 315 _n_.

Dorisms in N. T., II. 310, 318.

Duchesne, Prof., 166.

Ecclesiastical writers, _see_ Fathers.

Eclogadion, 77; list throughout the year, 77, 80-7. _See_ Synaxarion.

“Edinburgh Review” (Tregelles in), II. 210 _n_ 1.

Egyptian versions of N. T., _see_ Versions.

Ellicott, C. J., Bp., II. 253, 384, 392.

Ellis, A. A. (Bentleii Crit. Sacra), II. 206, 207, 209.

Elzevir editions of N. T., II. 193-5.

Embolismus, II. 325 _n_ 2.

Emendation and recension distinguished, II. 245-6.

Engelbreth, W. F. (Bashmuric), II. 131.

Ephraem Syrus, II. 20-1.

Ephraemi, Cod. (C), 121-24; palimpsest, 121; history, 121-2; described, 122-4.

Epiphanius, Bp., II. 270.

Erasmus, Desid., II. 182-7; first editions of Gr. Test., 182-5; other editions, 185; their character, 185-7, &c. &c.

Erizzo, F. M., Count, II. 31.

Ernesti, J. A., II. 216.

Erpenius, T., Arabic version, II. 162-3.

Estrangelo character, II. 9, 14, 37.

Ethiopic version, _see_ Versions.

Euchology, 75, 80.

Euclid, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42.

Eumenes, king of Pergamus, 24.

Eusebius, 120 n; II. 266-7, &c.; letter to Carpianus, 60-3, 189.

“Eusebian” canons, 59-63; 189, and _passim._

“Eusebian” canons, tables of, omitted in many MSS., 62.

Eustathius of Antioch, 53.

Euthalius, Bp., 63-4, 53, 190, and _passim_. _See_ Sections.

Evangelia (Evan.), 78.

Evangelistaria (Evst.), the term used in modern Greek catalogues; II, 74-5, 327, &c.

Fabiani, H., Canon, 118.

Facsimiles of MSS., 104.

Families of MSS., Bengel’s theory, II. 211-12; Griesbach’s, 224-6; Hug’s theory of recensions, II. 270-2; Scholz’ theory, 229-30.

Fathers, value of citations from, II. 167-71; drawbacks, 168; list of, with dates, 171-4.

Fayoumic version, II. 140. _See_ Versions.

Fell, John, Bp., II. 199-200, 106, 169.

Ferrar, W. H., the F. group, _see_ (Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561) 192, 255, 624

Field, Dr., II. 7 _n_ 1, 347 _n_ 1.

Fleck, F. F., 121.

Folio, _see_ Form.

Forbes, G., 50.

Ford, Henry, II. 131.

Foreign matter in manuscripts, 66-7, _passim_ under MSS.

Form of manuscripts, 28.

Forster, C., 129 _n_; II. 401-7.

Frankish version, II. 165.

Friderico-Augustanus, 90-1, 33-9.

Froben, J., II. 182-5.

Gabelentz, H. C. de, and J. Loebe, II. 147.

Gale, Th., Dean, 48.

Gebhart, Oscar von, 164.

Genevan N. T., 71.

Georgian version, II. 156-8. _See_ Versions.

Gildemeister, II. 162-4.

Giorgi, A. A., II. 128.

Glosses, marginal, &c., II. 249-50.

Gold, used in writing, 27.

Golden Evangelistarium, 88 _n_ 2.

Gospels, divisions of, _see_ Sections.

Gothic version, II. 145-8. _See_ Versions.

Goulburn, Dean, 171.

Grammatical forms, peculiar, II. 312-20, 181.

Greek era in dated manuscripts, 42 _n_ 2.

Green, T. S., II. 249.

Gregory, Dr. Caspar René, 79, 241-2, 272-83, 303-5, 317-9, 325-6, 356-65, 373-6, 384-9, App. A; II. 320 _n_, and _passim_, especially under Cursive MSS.

Griesbach, J. J., II. 222-226; 170, 196, 216, 249, 251; his N. T., 223; theory of families and recensions, 224-6; character, 226; 272 _n_, 285, 290.

Grimthorpe, Lord, II. 248 _n_ 2.

Grouping of authorities, II. 297-300, 279-80.

Guidi, II. 154.

Gutbier, Giles, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., II. 6, 12, 13, 34, 36.

Gwynn, J., Dean, 94; II. 10.

Haddan and Stubbs, II. 50.

Hagen, H., II. 51.

Hall, Dr. Isaac H., II. 27 _n_, 175 _n_, 193 _n_, 196.

Hammond, C. E., 18 _n_ 1; II. 379.

Hands of MSS. changed, 96, 101 _n_ 1, 337.

Hansell, E. H., 170.

Harkel, Thomas of, II. 25.

Harley, R., Earl of Oxford, 175.

Harmonies of the Gospel History, 67 _n_ 4, 190. _See_ Eusebian Canons.

Harnack, A., 164.

Harris, J. Rendel, 130, 151, 203, 255, Appendix D; II. 34, 51, 163, 172, 366 _n_ 2, &c.

Hartel, II. 54.

Headlam, Rev. A. C., II. 91-144.

Hearne, Th., 170.

Hebrew Bible first printed, II. 175.

Hebrew (or Jewish) Gospel, 161; II. 15 _n_ 2, 259 _n_ 1.

Hebrews, Ep. of, place in N. T., 74, 57, 99.

Hellenistic dialect, II. 312-20.

Hentenius, John (Louvain Lat. Bible), II. 62-4.

Herculanean papyri, 21, 22, 33, 42, 44, 47, 108.

Hermas, 66, 67.

Hesychius of Egypt, II. 268, 270-1.

Hieratic writing, II. 91-2.

Hieroglyphic writing, II. 91-2.

Hieronymus, _see_ Jerome.

Homer and his manuscripts, 4, 44, 45, 50, 145.

Homoeoteleuton, 9.

Horne, T. H., Introduction and Tregelles’ edition, II. 485, and _passim_.

Hort, F. J. A., II. 242-3; I. 18 _n_ 2; II. 244, 313 _n_ 2, 333 _n_ 1, 337 _n_ 1, and _passim_.

Hort, Westcott and, II. 284-97; their views explained, 285-90; compared with those of Griesbach, 290-1; destitute of historical foundation, 291; examination of the three reasons of the two Revisers, 293-4; these views unsound, 296-7; 242-3, 273.

Hoskier, H. C., 191, 251.

Hug, J. L., 107, 111, 120; his system of recensions, II. 229, 270-2.

Hutter, Elias, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.

Hyperides, papyrus fragments of, 22, 34-41, 45, &c.

Iberian version, II. 156-8. _See_ Georgian.

Ignatius, St., 257.

Indiction, I. Append. C; 42 _n_ 2, 156.

Ink, 26-7, black and coloured, _ibid_.

Insertion of glosses, 13.

Internal evidence, II. 244-56; not solely conjectural, 244-7; textual canons, 247-56.

Interpolations, various readings arising from, 7-9; II. 249.

Interpolations for liturgical use, 327.

Iota, ascript and subscript, 44-5.

Irenaeus, St., II. 261.

Irish monks at St. Gall, 158, 180.

Isaiah, Dublin MS., 154.

Itacism, 10-11, 17.

Itala, 44, 55-6; II. 42.

Italics of English Bible, 9, 400.

Jablonsky, II. 100, 119.

Jackson, John, 126.

Jebb, R. C., II. 209 _n_.

Jerome, II. 268-70; recklessness in statement, 355. _See_ Vulgate, and _passim_.

Jerusalem, Convent of Cross at, 240.

Jerusalem, Palestinian or J, II. 30-4. _See_ Versions.

Jude, St., followed 2 Pet., II. 398-9.

Junius, Fr., II. 147.

Ἰωάννης, orthography of, II. 316.

Καί abridged, 15, 16 and _n_.

Karkaphensian, 35-6. _See_ Versions.

Kaye, Bp., II. 258 _n_ 3.

Kelly, W., 70 _n_ 2, 343 _n_ 1.

Kennedy, B. H., Canon, II. 300 _n_.

Κεφάλαια, _see_ Sections.

Kipling, T., Dean, 126.

Kitchin, G. W., Dean, 152.

Koriun, II. 148 _n_, &c.

Kuenen, A., _see_ Cobet, C. G.

Kuster, L., 122; II. 203-4.

La Croze, II. 100, 119.

Lachmann, C., II. 231-5, 245, 285; his system, 231-2; unsoundness of it, 232-4, 273, 276, &c.; his character, 234-5; 170, 256, and _passim_.

Lagarde, P., _see_ Boetticher.

Lanfranc, Abp., II. 60.

Latinizing, 130, 182; II. 180, 215.

Laud, W., Abp., 170.

Laurence, R., Abp., II. 226.

Leaning uncial letters, 41, 144, 151, 155, &c.

Lectionaries of N. T., 74-7; system, age of, 75 and _n_ 2, 190. _See_ Evangelistaria, Apostolos.

Lectionaries, Syriac, II. Append. A.

Lectionaries of Old Testament, 76, 329 _n_, &c.

Lee, Edw., Abp., II. 186.

Lee, Sam., Peshitto, II. 11.

Le Long, J., II. 104, 191.

Lent, Lessons for, 84-5.

Leusden and Schaaf’s Peshitto N. T., II. 11.

Lewis, Mrs., discovery of an old Syriac MS., II. 14, 17, 37.

Liddon, H. P., D.D., II. 252 _n_ 1.

Lightfoot, J. B., Bp., on the Coptic versions, II. 91-139, &c.

Line set over Proper Names, Evan. 530.

Linen Paper (_charta_), 23, 189.

Linwood, W., II. 245 _n_ 2.

Liturgical notes, _see_ ἀναγνώσματα, Lect., ἀρχή and τέλος, 189-90, &c. &c., 11-12.

Lloyd, C., Bp. (N. T., Oxon.), 60, 67-8.

Λόγοι, 68.

Louvain Vulgate, _see_ Hentenius.

Lucar, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, and afterwards of Constantinople, 97-8.

Mabug, II. 25.

Mace, W., his N. T., II. 210.

Madden, Sir F., 21, 44.

Magee, W., Abp., II. 251.

Mahaffy, J. P., 166.

Mai, Angelo, Cardinal, 111 _n_ 2, 112-15.

Malan, S. C., D.D., 77 _n_ 2; II. 3, 32 _n_ 2, 120 _n_ 1, 146 _n_ 2, &c.

Manuscripts— (1) Greek. _See_ Index I, Vol. I: containing the whole Greek Testament, 72 and _n_ 1; containing the four Gospels complete, 136. (2) Syriac, II. 12-13, 29. (3) Latin. (a) Old Latin (_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_, &c.), II. 45-54. (b) Vulgate, II. 67-90; various notations (Tischendorf, _am._, _and._, _bodl._, _cav._, &c.), 89-90. (4) Coptic. (a) Bohairic, II. 110-23. (b) Sahidic, II. 132-6. (5) Gothic (Argenteus, Carolinus, Ambrosiani), II. 146-7. (6) Armenian, II. 153-4.

Marcion, heretic, II. 259-60.

Margoliouth, Prof. D. G., II. 145, 154-5, 161-4.

Marsh, Herbert, Bp., 127; II. 191, 401 _n_, 407.

Marshall, Th., II. 106, 147.

Martianay, D. J., II. 46, 47.

Martin, Abbé, 242, 269-72, 303, 317, Append. A; II. 28 _n_ 1.

Μαρτυρίαι, II. 192, 194.

Martyrs, era of, 98, 104 _n_ 1.

Mary Deipara, St., convent of, 145.

Materials for writing, 22-6.

Matthaei, Ch. F., II. 216-20; I. 75, 172; his accuracy, II. 216; his collations, 217-8; mode of controversy, 218-9.

Ματθαῖος, orthography of, II. 316.

Mazarin Bible, II. 61, 175.

McClellan, J. B., 347 _n_ 2.

Memphitic version (_see_ Bohairic).

Menology, 76-7; list of, throughout the year, 87-9.

Mesrop, St., II. 148-53, 156.

Michaelis, J. D., II. 13, 180, 216, 321.

Mico, Abbate, 110-11.

Middleton, T. F., Bp., 15; II. 182 _n_ 2, 321, 331 _n_.

Mill, Dr. J., II. 200-3; his career, 200-1; character of his services, 201-2; his MSS., 202-3; his Prolegomena, 203. _See_ also I. 122; II. 106, 169, and _passim_.

Miller, Edward, II. 3 _n_ 2, 24 _n_ 2, 256 _n_, 325 _n_ 2.

Miller, Emmanuel, 222, 273, I. Index II, &c.

Milligan, Wm., II. 346.

Mingarelli, J. A., II. 128, 129.

Moldenhawer, D. G., II. 221, 222, &c.

Monasteries, Egyptian, II. 99.

Montfaucon, Bernard de, 21, 134, and _passim_.

Morning hymn, Greek, II. 345.

Moses of Chorene, II. 149, &c.

Moulton, W. F., II. 319-20.

Moveable type, supposed cases of, 140; II. 146.

Mozarabic Church Lessons, II. 341 _n_ 3.

Münter, M. F., II. 129.

Muralt, Edw. de, edition of B, 110, 244.

Musical or vocal notes in red, _passim_ under Evst.

N, abridged form of, 50.

ν ἐφελκυστικόν or attached, 139; II. 181, 185, 314-5, &c.

Nablous, copy of Samaritan Pentateuch at, 28 _n_ 2.

Nazarenes, Gospel of, 161.

Nazareth, its orthography, II. 315.

Neubauer, Dr., II. 320 _n_.

Nicholson, E. B., 245, 341; II. 322 _n_ 2, 327.

Nicoll, Prof. of Hebrew, Oxford, 98.

Nitrian desert, manuscripts from, 145.

Nolan, Dr., II. 267.

Northumbria, MSS. written in, II. 59.

Notation of manuscripts of N. T., 77-8.

Obeli, II. 26 _n_ 1, 323, 365-6, &c.

Oblak, II. 159.

Oecumenii ὑποθέσεις to N. T., &c., 67, also under the MSS.

Old Latin Biblical Texts, II. 48, 49, 50.

Old Latin version, _see_ Versions.

Omissions, 7, 15.

Order of books in N. T., 72-4; Western order, 73 _n_ 2, Evan. 461.

Order of words, variations in, 9.

Origen, fanciful biblical speculations, II. 262-3, 266, 269-70, 271.

Origen, his Hexapla, II. 266.

Orme’s memoir of 1 John v. 7, II. 401 _n_.

Orthodox readings, not improbable, II. 251-2.

Orthography of manuscripts of N. T., II. 312-20.

Ostromir Gospels, II. 159.

Palaeographical Society, I. App. B.

Palestinian, _see_ Versions.

Palimpsest described, 25; double, 141.

Palmer, E., Archdn., 119 _n_; II. 208, 243.

Pamphilus, Martyr, and his library, II. 266-7.

Paper, cotton and linen, 23.

Papyrus, 23-4; MSS. on, 33; of Hyperides, 41, 44, 48. _See_ Herculanean Rolls.

Paradiplomatic evidence, II. 253-4.

Paragraph, 128. _See_ Sections.

Parchment, 23-6; dyed purple, 26.

Paronomasia, II. 399 _n_ 2.

## Particles omitted or interchanged, 14.

Patriarchates, the five, 67, Evan. 211.

Paul, Acts of, 97.

Pauline Epistles (Paul.), ancient divisions of, 64-6, 78.

Penn, Granville, 15 _n_ 1.

Pens, different instruments used for, 27.

Pericopae of Church Lessons, 11, 75. _See_ Bengel.

Pericope adulterae, 81 _n_, 99 _n_ 2.

Persic versions of N. T., II. 165-6. _See_ Versions.

Peshitto, II. 6-14. _See_ Versions.

Petrie, Dr. Flinders, II. 143.

Philodemus περὶ κακιῶν, 30, 33, 44.

Philoxenian Syriac, II. 25-9. _See_ Versions, Harkleian.

Philoxenus or Xenaias, Bp., II. 25.

Pictures in MSS., 190, and _passim_.

Pierius, II. 269.

Pius IV, II. 63.

Plantin, Greek N. T., II. 181; Peshitto N. T., II. 9.

Plato, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42.

Pocock, Edw., II. 165.

Pocock, Rev. Nicholas, 182.

Pococke, Richard, II. 26.

Polyglott, Antwerp (Plantin), II. 9.

Polyglott, Bagster’s, II. 11.

Polyglott, Complutensian (_see_ Complutensian), II. 176-81.

Polyglott, London (_see_ Walton), II. 163.

Polyglott, Paris, II. 10.

Porson, R., II. 406.

Porter, J. Scott, II. 31, 228.

Praxapostolos, _see_ Apostolos.

Printing, invention of, II. 61, 175.

Προγράμματα, Evan. 597.

Prologues, 67, 68, 190, and _passim_.

“Psalms of Solomon,” 99.

Psalters, Greek, first printed, II. 175.

Psalters, MS. on papyrus, 46.

Punchard, E. G., II. 248 _n_ 2.

Punctuation, 48-9, and _passim_.

Purple and gold or silver manuscripts, 27.

Pusey, Philip E., II. 12, 18, 19.

Quarto, _see_ Form.

Quaternion, _see_ Form.

Quatremère, _see_ Coptic.

Quotations from Fathers, II. 167-74. _See_ Fathers.

Quotations from Old Test. in New, 12-13.

Received Text, II. 264; founded on what editions, II. 195 _n_ 3, 193 _n_ 1.

Recension, false, 16-17; recensions, _see_ Families.

Reed used for writing, 27.

Reiche, J. G., II. 283 _n_.

Ῥήματᾳ or ῥήσεις, 65, 68-9, App. D.

Rettig, H. C. M., 157.

Reuchlin, J., 10 _n_.

Reuss, Ed., II. 175 _n_, 181 _n_, &c.

Revised Text, II. 243.

Revisers, the two, II. 292-6.

Rhythm, cause of various readings, II. 254.

Ridley, Gloucester, II. 27.

Roberts, Alex., 18 _n_ 1; II. 244 _n_ 2, 248 _n_ 1, 320 _n_.

Rolled manuscripts, 28-9.

Rönsch, H., II. 54.

Rosetta stone, 31, &c.

Rulotta, Abbate, 110.

Σ, the weak, II. 315.

Sabatier, P., II. 42. _See_ under Lat. MSS.

Σαββατοκυριακαί, 328, &c.

Sahak, St., 148, &c.

Sahidic or Thebaic dialect and version, II. 119-39. _See_ Versions.

Sakkelion, A. I., 272.

Sanday, Dr., II. 48, 127, 293.

Sarravianus, Cod. LXX, 49 _n_, 51; II. 378. Part of the Colbert Pentateuch.

Schaaf, Ch., and Leusden, J., Peshitto N. T., II. 181, 183.

Schmeller, J. A., Frankish version, II. 165.

Scholz, J. M. A., 240; II. 226-30; labours, 227; character, 228; theory of families, 229-30, and _passim_.

Schulz, D., II. 48, 228.

Schwartze, M. G., Bohairic N. T., &c., II. 101-3.

Scott, C. B., D.D., II. 198.

Scribes, chiefly clergy or monks, II. 252.

Scrivener, F. H. A., his Collations, _see_ Vol. I. Index II; edition of D, 127, &c.; of Cod. Augiensis, 177-8; of Revised Gr. Text, II. 243; of “Adversaria et Critica Sacra,” I. App. I, I. 252. _See_ also II. 79, 195 _n_ 3, 243, and _passim_.

Sections, (1) in B, 56-7; (2) greater, 57-8; (3) “Ammonian,” 59-63; (4) Euthalian, 63-4; (5) other, 64-5.

Semicursive letters, Evan. M, 274.

Semler, J. S., II. 211, 215.

Signatures of sheets, 28, 164.

Silver, used in writing, 27.

Silvestre, M. J. B., Paléographie Universelle, 21, &c., App. C.

Simonides, Constantine, 94-7·

Sinaitic MS. (א), 90-7; discovery of, 90-1; description, 91-3; age, 94-5; derived from a papyrus, 95; imposture of Simonides, 95-7; character of, 97; II. 267-8.

Sionita, Gabriel, Peshitto N. T., &c., II. 10.

Sixtus V, Pope, his Latin Bible, II. 63-5.

Skeat, W. W., II. 148, 164.

Slavonic, II. 158-61. _See_ Versions.

Slips of the pen, a source of various readings, 16.

Smith, R. Payne, Dean, II. 354.

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, II. 103.

Specimens of four Syriac versions of N. T., II. 38-40.

Specimens of the Coptic, II. 128, 139, 142, 144.

“Spectator,” No. 470, II. 345 _n_.

Spelling, variations in, 14.

Standish, II. 186.

Stephen, Henry, 70.

Stephen, Robert, II. 188-92; I. 70-1, 124-6, 137; II. 61-2, 196.

Stephen, Robert, editions, II. 188-9; MSS. used by him, I. 124 _n_ 3, 191, 192, 196, Act. 8, Act. 50, Apoc. 2.

Stichometry, 52-4, 65, 68-70, 137, I. App. D, and _passim_.

Stilus, 27, 137.

Στίχοι, _see_ Stichometry.

Stops, their power varies with their position, 48, 137.

Storr, G. C., II. 163.

Streane, A. W., II. 241.

Stunica, J., Lopez de, II. 184, 186, 405.

Style, change of, no decisive proof of spuriousness, II. 342.

Subjunctive future, II. 384.

Subscriptions, 55, 65-6, 190, and _passim_ under MSS.

Suicer, J. C., 53 _n_ 1, 144.

Sulci or Sulca, 63.

Swete, Dr., II. 286, 393 _n_ 4.

Synaxarion, 77 and _n_ 1; list of Lessons throughout the year, 80-7.

Synonyms interchanged, 13.

Syriac Evangelistaries, II. 32, App. A.

Syriac language and dialects, II. 6-8, 312-3.

Syrian Christians, sects of, II. 6-33.

Syro-hexaplar version, II. 13 _n_ 1.

Tatham, Edw., II. 402 _n_ 2.

Tatian’s Diatessaron, 12, 57, 59, &c.

Tattam, H., Archd., II. 110.

Taylor, Isaac, 18 _n_ 2.

Tentative process commended, II. 264-5.

Tertullian, II. 257.

Textual Canons, II. 247-56.

Textual criticism and its results, 4-7; II. 257-301.

Textus receptus, _see_ Received Text.

Thebaic, _see_ Sahidic.

Thecla, St., 101-2.

Theodora, or Theodosia, St., 87 and _n_ 2.

Theodulphus, Bp., II. 59.

Theophylact, _see_ Commentary.

Thompson, E. Maunde, 22, 102, 104, 147 _n_, App. C.

Thorpe, Benj., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165.

Tischendorf, II. 235-8; his great editions, 235-6; texts, 236-8; I. 115-7, 122, 155-6, 159-60, 163; II. 89, 163, 248, 282; collations, _see_ Vol. I. Index II, and _passim_.

Titles of the books, 65.

Τίτλοι, 57-9, 68, 190, _passim_ under MSS.

Todd, H. J., Archd., Catalogue of Lambeth MSS., 249.

Traditores, II. 266.

Transcription, _see_ Copying.

Transposition of sentences, 12.

Transposition of words, &c., 9-10.

Travis, G., Archd., II. 401 _n_, 406 and _n_ 2.

Tregelles, S. P., 18 _n_ 1, 111; II. 238-41; his books, 239; texts and collations, 240; his system, 240-1; life, 241; 170, 231-2, 246, 255, 273, 275, 328, and _passim_. _See_ also for Collations, Vol. I. Index II.

Tremellius, Im., Peshitto N. T., II. 9.

Trent, Council of, II. 63.

Τρισάγιον, 103.

Trost, Martin, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.

Tübingen edition of John i-vi, II. 176.

Tuki, R., Bp., II. 128.

Two Revisers, II. 292-6.

Tychsen, O. G., II. 221, 222.

Tyler, A. W., II. 383.

Tyndale, W., II. 186 _n_ 1.

Typicum defined, 144, Evan. 608.

Ulphilas or Ulfilas, Bp., II. 145.

Uncial letters, described, 29-30; mistakes in, 10; how distinguished as to age, 31-40; compressed uncials, 137; mixed with cursives, 142 _n_ 1.

Uncial MSS., list of, 90-188, 3; Evst., 328.

Ὕποδιαιρέσεις μερικαί (subdivisions of chapters), 64 _n_ 2.

Ussher, James, Abp., II. 10, 197-8.

Utrecht Psalter, the, 28 _n_ 2.

Valla, Laurentius, 205.

Vansittart, A. A., 152, 278 _n_.

Various readings defined, 3; different classes, 7-17.

Vatican MS. (B), 105-121; sections of, 56-7, 68; history, 105; description, 105-9; collations and editions, 109-19; age, 105, 118 _n_ 2; character, II. 268.

Vaughan, C. J., Dean, II. 297 _n_ 1.

Vellum, manufacture of, 22-5.

Vercellone, C., 56, 112, 113, 116-18.

Vermilion paint (κιννάβαρις), 61.

Verses, Greek or Latin in MSS., 192, _passim_ under MSS.

Verses, modern in N. T., 68, 70-1.

Versions, 1-5; use and defects, II. 2-3; various early, 3-4.

1. Syriac:

(1) Peshitto, II. 6-14; dates probably from the second century, II. 7, 264; printed edd., II. 8-12; new one by P. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam, Peshitto MSS., II. 12-13; why so called, II. 13.

(2) Curetonian, II. 14-24; first discovery, II. 14; second, II. 14; publication by Cureton, 11; common origin of Peshitto and Curetonian, II. 16; Peshitto the older, II. 17-24.

(3) Harkleian or Philoxenian, II. 25-9; made first by Xenaias, or Philoxenus, 25; next, collated by Thomas of Harkel, edd. of, 26-8; character, 28; MSS. of, 29; Mr. Deane’s work, 29.

(4) Palestinian or Jerusalem, II. 30-4; fragments, esp. of an Evst., 30; description, 30; Erizzi’s edition, 31; menology, 32-3; Lagarde, Harris, and Gwilliam, 34.

(5) Karkaphensian or Massorah, II. 34-6; discovered by Wiseman, 34; description, 34-6; a Massorah, 36.

2. Latin, II. 41-90:

(1) Old Latin, 41-56; many versions (3 _n_ 2) (Jerome, Augustine), 41-2; probably one, 42-3—but cf. 3 _n_ 2; “Itala,” arose in Africa, 43-4; age, 264; Old Latin MSS. of the Gospels, 45-51; Act. and Cath., 51-3; Paul., 53-4; Apoc., 54; Latin Fathers, 54; African family, 55; European, 55; Italian, 55-6.

(2) Vulgate, II. 56-90; history, 56-65; text often incorrect, 58-9; revisions, 59; correctoria, 60-1; printing, 63; authorized recension, 63-5; editions, 65-6; MSS., 66-89; Bibles, 67-74; New Testaments, 74-5; Gospels, 75-85; Acts, Epistles, Apoc., 85-9; notations, 89-90.

3. Egyptian or Coptic versions, 91-145; history and description, 91-106; sacred and demotic writing, 91-3; Coptic, 92-6; dialects, 96-106; at least five instead of three, 103-6:

(1) Bohairic (Coptic or Memphitic), 106-27; editions, 106-10; MSS., Gospels, 110-18,—Paul., Cath., and Act., 118-21, Apoc. 121-3; all except Apoc. in the Canon; order of books, 124; character, 124-5; date, 125-7.

(2) Sahidic or Thebaic, 127-39; editions, 127-32; MSS., 132-6; order of books, 137-8; character, 138-9.

(3) Fayoumic or Bashmuric, 140-1.

(4) Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, or Lower Sahidic, 141-3.

(5) Akhmimic, 143-4.

4. Other old versions, 145-66:

(1) Gothic, history, 145; MSS., 146-7; editions, 147-8.

(2) Armenian, history, 148-51; collation, 151-2; character of text, 152-3; MSS., 153-4.

(3) Ethiopic, date and MSS., 154-5; editions, 155.

(4) Georgian, history and MSS., 156; editions, 157; character, 157-8.

(5) Slavonic, history and divisions, 158; MSS., 159-60; character, 160-1.

(6) Arabic, history and MSS., 161-2; editions, 162-3; character, 163-4.

(7) Anglo-Saxon, history, MSS., and editions, 164-5.

(8) Frankish, 165.

(9) Persic, versions and MSS., 165-6.

Vossius, Isaac, II. 146.

Vulgate version, II. 56-96. _See_ Versions.

Wake, Wm., Abp., his MSS., 204 _n_, 246-8.

Walker, John, II. 206-9; I. 248 _n_; II. 65, 89.

Waller, Rev. Dr., II. 21 _n_ 2.

Walton, Brian, Bp., II. 10, 165 (Persic), 197-8.

Ward, W. H., II. 394 _n_ 2.

Westcott, B. F., D.D., Bp., 59 _n_ 2; II. 242, 258 _n_ 1, &c. _See_ Hort.

Western text, II. 264, 138, 224-6, 229-30, 231 _n_, 264-5, 272 _n_, 286-73; interpolations, 130; II. 264, 330. _See_ Apocryphal insertions.

Wetstein, J. J., II. 213-16; I. 78 _n_, 122, 209, 210, 247, and _passim_.

Wheelocke, Abr., II. 165.

White, E., 151.

White, H. J., Rev., II. 41-90, 66, 69, 71, 80, 85.

White, Joseph, II. 27.

Widmanstadt, Albert, Peshitto N. T., II. 8-9.

Wilkins, D., Coptic N. T., II. 106-7.

Winer, G. B., II. 284 _n_.

Wiseman, N., Card., 112; II. 34, 42, 406 _n_ 2.

Woide, C. G., 103; II. 129-31, 215, &c.

Woods, F. H., Rev., 21.

Wordsworth, C., Rev., 69.

Wordsworth, Chr., Bp., D.D., 17; II. 381-2, &c. &c.

Wordsworth, J., Bp., D.D., 41-90, 66, 90.

Wright, W., Dr., II. 155.

Writing, style of, 15; slips of the pen, 16.

Xenaias or Philoxenus, _see_ Versions.

Ximenes, Fr. de Cisneros, Card., II. 176-81, 184.

Year, Greek ecclesiastical, 80-9.

Young, Patrick, 103, 123.

Zacagni, L. A., 110.

Zacynthius, Cod., II. 365 _n_ 2.

Zahn, Dr., II. 21.

Zahn, J. C., Gothic N. T. II. 147.

Zoega, G., Cat. Codd. Copt., II. 131-2.

Zouche, de la, Lord, _see_ Curzon.

Zurich Psalter, 16 _n_.

FOOTNOTES

1 See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii. “Evidence of Early Versions and Patristic Quotations, &c.,” by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p. 211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb’s careful and thoughtful essay.

2 I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources of origin:—briefly speaking,

(_a_) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome;

(_b_) Because Latin translations from the first _must_ have been wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately to the want;

(_c_) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin MSS.;

(_d_) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can be quoted on both sides;

(_e_) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect being to group them.

But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—ED.

3 Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.

4 Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press), “The Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,” distinguishes between (1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at Jerusalem.

5 I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Proleg. lxxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version here quoted by Melito; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance between it and the renderings imputed to “the Syrian,” he certainly produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides Theodoret, who often opposes ὁ Σύρος to ὁ Εβραῖος (Thren. 1. 15 and passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the former,—Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius, Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii).

6 All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton’s gracious language two hundred years ago: “Etsi verò, olim in haereses miserè prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit” (Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500).

7 Dean Payne Smith’s Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude follow 1 John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr. Bradshaw reports.

8 See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in “Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy,” xxvii. 8, “On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop Ussher.” This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College Library, Dublin.

9 Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating τῶν σωζομένων Apoc. xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and Gutbier (1664).

10 Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament, _Church Quarterly Review_, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock’s Translation of the Peshitto.

11 Tregelles in “Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible” thinks that the term was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar translation derived from it, with their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1), adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is called ἁπλοῦν (1 Kings vii. 13; xii. 22), to distinguish its rendering from what is given ἐν τῷ ἑξαπλῷ. The epithet which was proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the New.

12 ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319.

13 A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.

14 “Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,” 4to, London, 1858. _See_ also Wright’s description of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.

15 Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modification of it and not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript agrees with it in the one particular of inserting the _three kings_, ch. i. 8, though even here the number of _fourteen_ generations retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases as _Juda_, ch. ii. 1; _Ramtha_, ver. 18; ܕ for ὅτι or the relative, ch. xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been derived.

16 The title to St. Matthew is remarkable; for while (in the subscription) we read, “Gospel of Markos,” and “Gospel of Juchanan” occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the title “Evangeliom dampharsa Mattai.” The meaning of the second word is doubtful in this application. The root means _divide_, _distinguish_, _separate_—cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says (1) that the great authority Bernstein suggested “Evangelium per anni circulum dispositum.” This is inapplicable, because the copy is not set out in Church Lessons, although some are noted by a much later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in the vellum before ܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡ), would read ܕܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡܕ), and render “The distinct Gospel of Matthew.” This he understood to indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from the other books, and was “built upon the original Aramaic text, which was the work of the Apostle himself.” But there is nothing to justify the insertion of a ܕ, which is required to connect the title with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work, “Evangeliom dampharsa—Mattai” [Catalogue Brit. Mus. _l. c._]; the other names being preceded by “Evangeliom” only. (3) “Dampharsa” has been rendered “explained” [see the review in “Journal of Sacred Literature,” 1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian, for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the quotations and references in the “Thesaurus Syriacus” (R. Payne Smith), col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means “separated,” as opposed to “united in a Harmony.” Such, of course, the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of Tatian’s Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation.

17 “Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque dite _Peshitto_ s’accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu’avec (B).” (Les Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. iii.) The fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener’s evidence, but on universal consent.

18 The student may also consult:—Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen, 1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859. Lehir’s Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische Evangeliën (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the question.

19 Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.

20 Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138—_see_ p. 36.

21 So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ܐܚܢܢ (or ܢܢܚܐ); but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.

22 Pages 164-5.

23 Pages 171-2.

24 Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345. Ephraem died A.D. 373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.

25 Page 14.

26 In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John’s Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to make use of his labours.

27 For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the Curetonian.

28 The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.

29 E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.

30 Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds:—

1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original text.

2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have demanded revision.

3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision between A.D. 250 and 350.

These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal evidence.

The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—

1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history.

2. There was an “infinita varietas” (August. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known.

3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards.

As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide, Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.

31 On the order, functions, and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι, _see_ Bingham’s “Antiquities,” book ii, chap. xiv.

32 Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abbé Martin (_see_ p. 323 note), after stating that this version was never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites, goes on to ask “Est-ce à dire que cette version soit entachée de monophysisme? Nous ne le pensons pas; pour l’affirmer, il faudra l’examiner très minutieusement; car l’hérésie monophysite est, à quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru” (Des Versions Syriennes, p. 162).

33 The asterisks ([symbol] [symbol]) and obeli ([symbol] [symbol]) of this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the similar marks in Origen’s Hexapla (from which they were doubtless borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian from the Peshitto: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal from it.

34 “Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum edita, cum Interpretation Latinâ et Annotationibus Josephi White. Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,” 1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53-viii. 11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John’s Gospel (Leipzig, 1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerût a manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he kindly sent me a photographed page containing the end of St. Luke and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White’s, but the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a list of over 300 readings differing from White’s.

35 Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 43; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171, 7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 36 and Barberini vi. 32.

_ 36 See_ also Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version, Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John. Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a fragment at end. _Mut._ at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.

37 Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in ܐ [final form] for ܐ: the third person affix to plural nouns in ܘ for ܗܘ. In the compass of the six verses we have cited (_below_, p. 39) occur not only the Greek words ܘܝܪܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܪܝܘ) (καιρός), _v._ 3, and ܢܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܢ) (ναός), _v._ 5, which are common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and forms as ܕܝ (or ܝܕ) for ܕܝܢ (or ܢܝܕ), δέ (_vv._ 4, 6, 7); ܒܒܝܢ (or ܢܝܒܒ) _v._ 3, “when;” ܐܗܐ _v._ 3, “repented;” ܐܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕܐ) for ܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕ) (_vv._ 4, 6, 8), “blood;” ܥܥܝܢܗ (or ܗܢܝܥܥ), _v._ 4, “to us;” ܓܪܡܐ (or ܐܡܪܓ), _v._ 5, “himself;” ܕܡܝܢ (or ܢܝܡܕ), _v._ 6, “price” (Pesh. has ܛܡܝ (or ܝܡܛ), Hark. ܛܝܡܐ (or ܐܡܝܛ) (pl.) τιμή); ܥܦܝܢ (or ܢܝܦܥ) _v._ 8, “therefore;” ܗܐܘ (or ܘܐܗ), _v._ 8, “this.”

38 Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the recensions of Targum and Talmud, _see_ Etheridge’s “Hebrew Literature,” pp. 145-6, 195-7.

39 Dr. Hort’s not very explicit judgement should now be added: “The Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate [meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite character” (Introd., p. 157).

40 On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p. 34), _see_ “The New Syriac Fragments” (F. H. Woods), in the _Expository Times_, Nov., 1893.

_ 41 See_ the “Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,” translated by the Rev. S. C. Malan, London, 1868.

42 Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday.

43 Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.

44 So Gale O. 4. 22, with the same Lesson.

45 See _Athenaeum_, Oct. 28, 1893.

46 Anecdota Oxoniensia, “The Palestinian Version of the Holy Scripture;” edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893.

47 The full form (ܛܘܒܢܐ or ܐܢܒܘܛ _blessed_) occurs in the scholion to Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto; but see “Studia Biblica,” iii. 60 and note.

48 Our specimens show the use in MSS. of _rucaca_ and _kushaia_, here printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian Massorah ore also shown.

49 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.

50 The Codex Babylonicus, A.D. 916, is the oldest Old Testament MS. known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.

51 Karkaphta = skull. See also “Thes. Syr.,” col. 3762.

52 Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas Heracleensis. M. l’Abbé Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas. _See_ Mr. Gwilliam’s Essay in “Stud. Bibl. et Eccl.,” iii. pp. 56-65.

53 “How the Codex was found” (Lewis and Gibson), 1893.

54 Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three MSS.; see Wordsworth’s Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.

55 For _Itala_ Bentley conjectured _et illa_, changing the following _nam_ into _quae_; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the idea of a “Versio Italica;” _see_ Correspondence, ed. Wordsworth, 1842, p. 569; and “Versio Latina Italica, somnium merum,” in Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata, Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjectured _usitata_ for _Itala_; _see_ Field, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.

56 Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Rheims, 1743-1749; a revised edition of this great work, for the Old Test., is in course of preparation under the auspices of the Munich Academy, and the able superintendence of Professor E. Wölfflin.

57 Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu Veteris Italicae, editum ex codicibus manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino, 2 vols., Rome, 1749; reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the works of Eusebius Vercellensis.

58 That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians would use other names, _vetus_, _antiqua_, _usitata_, _communis_, _vulgata_; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.

59 Published in the _Catholic Magazine_ for 1832-3; since reprinted in his “Essays on various subjects,” 1853, vol. i.

60 We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in 1883; since that time the opinion of scholars has become less positive as to the African origin of the Latin version. It is true that the words, phrases, &c., of that version in its earlier forms can be illustrated from contemporary African writers, and from them only; but that is because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature; and consequently are able to use only the method of _agreement_ and not the method of _difference_ in testing the origin and characteristics of the Latin New Testament. These characteristics may be the result only of the time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor can more stress be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use of Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.

_ 61 See_ Kaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.

62 “Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum Graeca consentiant veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa praesumptio, judicare de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.” Praef. ad Damasum.

63 “[Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.” _Ibid._ For a signal instance, see below, ch. ix, note on Matt. xxi. 31.

64 To his well-known censure of Jerome’s rendering of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, Augustine adds, “Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es: quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam contulerimus.”

65 Roger Bacon’s writings, however, in the thirteenth century, are the first in which Jerome’s translation is cited as the “Vulgate” in the modern sense of the term. _See_ Denifle, Die Handschriften der Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts, 1883, p. 278.

_ 66 See_ Jaffé, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373, “Jam pridem universos Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;” S. Berger’s essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De l’histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.

_ 67 See_ the Oxford “Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” ii (1890), p. 278 f.

68 Fritzsche, “Latein. Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog, R. E.2 viii. p. 449; Westcott, “Vulgate,” in Smith’s Bibl. Dict. iii. p. 1703; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg., p. 229 f.; P. Corssen, in “Die Trierer Adahandschr.” (Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.

69 Berger, as above, p. 7.

_ 70 See_ the Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch. xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary, _ibid._, col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., § 1058; Cave’s remark (Hist. Lit. 1743, vol. ii. p. 148), “Lanfrancus textum continuo emendat,” seems hardly borne out by the facts.

71 His corrected Bible in four vols. is now preserved at Dijon, public library, 9 bis, _see_ below, p. 68, no. 8; also Denifle, Die Hdss. d. Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267; Kaulen, p. 245.

72 His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat. class. x. cod. 178, fol. 141); _see_ Denifle, p. 270, who prints them.

_ 73 See_ the quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.

_ 74 See_ S. Berger, De l’histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f., 1887, and Revue de Théol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41, 1883.

_ 75 See_ Hugo’s remark (Denifle, p. 295), “In multis libris maxime historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.”

_ 76 See_ Vercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp. 426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in Wordsworth’s Vulgate as _cor. vat._; _see_ Berger, Notitia Linguae Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).

_ 77 See_ W. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des Savants, Apr. 1893.

78 Or to Peter Schoeffer, _see_ J. H. Hessels, in the _Academy_, June, 1887, p. 396; August, p. 104; or to Johann Fust. _See_ the British Museum “Catalogue of Printed Books,” Bible, part i. col. 16.

79 Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of “Thielman Kerver, impensis J. Parvi,” with emendations of A. Castellani.

80 The British Museum possesses a copy (340. d. 1); _see_ the “Catalogue,” part i. col. 1.

81 For details _see_ “Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,” i. p. 51 f.

_ 82 Ibid._, p. 48 f.

83 The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in three forms:—

(1) The “Notationes,” published in 1580, and incorporated in the Hentenian Bible of 1583.

(2) The “Variae Lectiones,” printed in Walton’s Polyglott, and taken from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds the letters Q. N., i.e. “quaere notationes,” where he has treated the subject more fully in (1).

(3) The “Notae ad Varias Lectiones,” also printed (for the Gospels) in Walton’s Polyglott; a _delectus_ of them is given in Sabatier at the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title “Roman. Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”

_ 84 See_ E. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, p. 13 f., 1892.

85 There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is practically in one volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.

86 He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is to be noticed that the _versing_ of the Sixtine ed. differs considerably from the Clementine as well as from Stephen.

87 The regular form of title, “Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. jussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita,” does not appear in any edition known to the writer before that of Rouille, Lyons, 1604. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, col. 50. The earliest edition with this title known to Masch (Le Long, Bibl. Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609; and Vercellone (Variae Lect. i. p. lxxii) names others considerably later as the earliest.

_ 88 See_ Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.

_ 89 Ibid._, p. xxv.

_ 90 See_ Fasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge, 1862.

91 M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the proof-sheets of his “History of the Vulgate” as they were printed, and to add a large number of MSS. to this list from that source.

92 For the Würzburg MSS., _see_ G. Schepps, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, 1887, from which these descriptions are mainly taken.

93 For these MSS., _see_ as before, G. Schepss, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften d. Würzb. Univ. B., 1887.

94 My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique, p. 4, but what does he mean by the words which I have italicised? “Au nombre des auteurs les plus récents qui nous aient donné des témoignages sur l’existence du démotique il faut citer St. Clément, prêtre de l’église chrétienne à Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l’an 190 de notre ère, ou environ le temps où régnait l’empereur Sévère. Mais les monuments nous prouvent que _cette date n’est pas la dernière_; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d’une époque plus rapprochée; telle est par exemple une inscription démotique que M. de Saulcy avait copiée en Égypte et qu’il eut la complaisance de me communiquer pendant mon séjour à Paris; elle date du règne en commun d’Aurélius et de Vérus, ce qui prouve que _dans la première moitié du troisième siècle_ le démotique était encore connu et en usage.” L. Verus died A.D. 169.

95 The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Revillout (Mélanges d’Archéologie Égyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who supposes the Coptic alphabet to have been a work commenced by pagan Gnostics, completed by Christian Gnostics, and adopted when complete by their orthodox successors.

96 [That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern, Zeitschr. für Aeg. Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]

97 [There has been considerable variation in the names given to the different dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be shown below, the latter name at any rate is incorrect and misleading. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe, the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic or Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so used by Tischendorf; this usage also is erroneous and misleading; and the names Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed by scholars at the present day.]

98 Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological bias, infers from the historical notices that “the greatest part of the New Testament writings, if not all, and a part of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated, in the second century, into the Egyptian language, and indeed into that of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt” (p. 963).

99 For convenience the following abbreviations will be used: “Z. A. S.” for _Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_; “Recueil” for the _Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes_; “Mémoires” for the _Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire_; and “Mitt.” for the _Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer_.

100 Quatremère can only point to a single word accidentally preserved, which according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur la Langue &c., p. 213 sq.).

101 Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).

_ 102 See_ also A. J. Butler’s “Coptic Churches,” vol. ii, Oxford.

103 I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the year A.D.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as the Diocletian year began in August or September; _see_ Clinton, Fast. Rom., ii. p. 210.

104 I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct forms in different Bohairic MSS.

105 My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me free access to their valuable collections of Coptic MSS., and in facilitating my investigations in many ways.

106 The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves, however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting. The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c. “The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.” Among the Fathers quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites, Timotheus, and Titus.

In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that “the name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,” and the inference is thence drawn that it must have been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date, however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak of the great Macarius, but of “_an abbot_ Macarius.” The fact is, that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ, “I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος) who wrote it” (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ, “the unworthy monk of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.” He was merely an inmate of the monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS. lxi in Tattam’s Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dated A.M. 604 = A.D. 888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde; but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it is perhaps translated from the Greek.

The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS. (no. 13, p. 29) is described as “St. Matthew with an Arabic translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.” I was not able to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access to the Parham collection.

107 The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner, who has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in European libraries.

108 The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.

109 No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we know something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.

110 It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by Tischendorf in his eighth edition; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan’s “Gospel according to St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin,” London, 1862, all Tuki’s Sahidic fragments of this Evangelist are included.

_ 111 See_ Münter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang. p. xx) says, “Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fidei _Rudimenta_, Sahidicis locis

## partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.” I do not know on

what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.

112 This has now been published. By Amélineau, Notice sur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce. Texte et Traduction, Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres Bibliothèques. Tome xxix. lre

## Partie. Paris, 1891; and Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache

aus dem Codex Brucianus, von Carl Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.

113 In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS., e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of information.

Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.

114 Catal., p. 169: “Si de aetate codicum quaeris, scio equidem non defuisse qui singulos ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si aliquid profecerunt, ego sane non obstrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius quam quae mihi non satisfaciunt, aliis velut explorata offerre, &c.” But since this was written the publication of Hyvernat’s “Album de Paléographie Copte” has given much assistance; and more may be looked for from the publication of the Paris fragments.

115 Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of the Codex Vaticanus, after it.

116 The term “Middle Egyptian” is often used as a general term to include the three varieties of Fayoumic, Lower Sahidic or what is properly Memphitic, and Akhmimic.

117 The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with which the additions to this article had to be written, much must have been passed over.

118 “But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the barbarians;” Gibbon, ch. xxxvii.

119 “A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,” is the verdict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John’s Gospel, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872, Preface, p. viii). Bishop Ellicott also praises this version as usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.

120 Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione, Milan, 1834.

121 Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.

122 Matt. iii. 11; v. 8; 15-vi. 32; vii. 12-x. 1; 23-xi. 25; xxv. 38-xxvi. 3; 65-xxvii. 19; 42-66; Mark i. 1; vi. 30; 58-xii. 38; xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41-xvi. 12; Luke i. 1-x. 30; xiv. 9-xvi. 24; xvii. 3-xx. 46; John i. 29; iii. 3-5; 23-26; 29-32; v. 21-23; 35-38; 45-xi. 47; xii. 1-49; xiii. 11-xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1-viii. 10; 34-xi. 1; 11-xii. 5; 8-xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24; 1 Cor. i. 12-25; iv. 2-12; v. 3-vi. 1; vii. 5-28; viii. 9-ix. 9; 19-x. 4; 15-xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-35; 46-Gal. i. 7; 20-iii. 6; 27-Eph. v. 11; 17-29; vi. 8-24; Phil. i. 14-ii. 8; 22-iv. 17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11-iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10-2 Thess. ii. 4; 15-1 Tim. v. 14; 16-2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1-ii. 1; Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse.

_ 123 See_ p. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French translation of this in the “Collection des Historiens de l’Arménie,” Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at random.

124 The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.

125 The translation of this writer in Langlois’ second volume is reliable.

126 Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or eighth century.

127 Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than one _sure_ copy was brought from Constantinople on which to base the final revision.

128 This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his “Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,” Venice, 1889, p. 228.

129 Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the following:—

(i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855.

(ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892.

(iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій славянскаго перевода Евангелія.

(iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы до xv вѣка.

(v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the “Archiv für Slavische Philologie,” xiii. pp. 321-361].

(vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex Zographensis, &c., by Jagić.

(vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.

130 In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two, and in another library as twelve to one. _See_ Описаніе славянскихъ рукописей и т. д. (as above), p. 299.

131 Kaluzniacki, _l. c._, p. xlv, gives instances.

_ 132 See_ Jagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.

133 The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into Arabic in A.D. 719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, p. xv).

134 Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.

135 I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter because of Dr. Scrivener’s private confession to myself of the great value of Dean Burgon’s services in this province of Sacred Textual Criticism. I am convinced that he could not have continued to maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching in Dean Burgon’s great book, and to his method of argument in respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province at all as he found it.

136 The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of Chichester. John Murray, 1883.

_ 137 See_ some very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford “Studia Biblica (et Ecclesiastica).” Mr. Bebb’s entire Article on “The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament” is well worth careful study.

138 “Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.” Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292. “Every Father is seen to be a dated witness and an independent authority,” p. 297.

139 I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr. Hammond, who says: “The value of even the most definite Patristic citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such citation might mean no more than that the writer found the passage in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by other good evidence, the writer’s authority may become of immense importance” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is discussed below, Chap. XI. (Third Edition.)

140 He speaks (N. T., Proleg., § 1478) of Bp. Fell’s “praepropera opinio;” he merely stated as _universally_ true what for the most

## part certainly is so.

141 Take the case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of them all. The _editio princeps_ of Erasmus (1526) was printed from manuscripts now unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin only. The oldest of them I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen of the tenth or eleventh century, _olim_ Claromontanus; another, of the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in the British Museum; the third once belonged to Vossius.

142 Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one Wolfenbüttel manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies on St. Matthew, which he designed to publish in his “Monumenta Sacra Inedita,” vol. vii. He indicates its readings by Chrgue.

143 Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.

144 Dampar cod. i.e. “Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Rupefuc. saeculi ferè 8.” Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth edition, 1869. He promised full information in his “Prolegomena,” which never appeared. Here we have a manuscript ascribed to the same century as the Father whose work it contains. One MS. is at Paris (collated by Mr. Rendel Harris, A.D. 1884); another in Phillipps collection at Cheltenham.

145 This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used with H. Roensch’s “Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s,” Leipzig, 1871, wherein all his citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically examined.

_ 146 See_ Dean Burgon’s Appendix (D) to his “Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,” pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius and character of Victor of Antioch’s Commentary on St. Mark, and enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.

147 It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just given are doubtful, authorities differing.

148 Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Reuss has published “Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentoratensis” (Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred for editions which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his statements regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes of the present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a complete collation of any book, but from the study of a thousand passages (p. 24) selected for his purpose. Hence his numerical results are perpetually less than our own, or even than Mill’s. Professor Isaac H. Hall in Schaff’s “Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version,” D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has improved upon Reuss, and given a list of editions which as to America is, I believe, exhaustive (_see_ also his “American Greek Testaments—a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as published in America”—Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company, 1883), and is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to have availed myself of the Professor’s kind permission to copy that list, but it would have been going out of the way to do so, since these two chapters are simply upon the _Early_ Printed and the _Critical_ Editions of the Text.—ED.

149 “Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter impressum,” Tom. v.

150 Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour, “Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes” (Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no disparagement to the original Scriptures, _as such_; but they had persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been corrupted by the Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to the Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.

151 Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly not _his_ work.

Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον, ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν, ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.

152 Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he was _elected_ Feb. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicolas (“Chronology of History,” p. 194) that he was elected March 11, without naming the date of his coronation as usual, but mentioning that “Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his pontificate before his coronation.”

153 The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by Vercellone: “Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus Card. Toletanus de mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario duo volumina graeca: unum in quo continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Proverbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras, Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in eo folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro. Fuit extractum ex blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera Apostolica per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena ducentorum ducatorum.”—“Restituit die 9 Julii, MDXVIII. Ita est. Fr. Zenobius Bibliothecarius.”

154 The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the silly story taken up by Moldenhawer, whose admiration of _las cosas de España_ was not extravagantly high, that the Alcalà manuscripts had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749; to which statement Sir John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819, “To celebrate the arrival of some worthless grandee.” Gutierrez’s recent list comprehends all the codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and we may hope that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.

155 Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one places, and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of other copies. In the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and differ but forty-one, some of their _loci singulares_ being quite decisive: e.g. x. 17; 21; xii. 12; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel’s Codex, in some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1 (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul. 72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I found Mill’s representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his Oxford manuscripts were collated much the best.

156 Goeze’s “Defence of the Complutensian Bible,” 1766. He published a “Continuation” in 1769. _See_ also Franc. Delitzsch’s “Studies on the Complutensian Polyglott” (Bagster, 1872), derived from his Academical Exercise as Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig, 1871-2.

157 Reuss says boldly that the Complutensian text “purus et authenticus a veteribus nunquam repetitus est” (p. 25), and gives a list of forty-four places in which the Complutensian and Plantin editions are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He subjoins a list of 185 cases in which the two are in unison against Erasmus and Stephen jointly (pp. 18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter cannot be disputed.

158 At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful rather than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1502-32), who, prosperous in life, was so singularly “felix opportunitate mortis.” It gladdens and makes sad at once an English heart to read what Erasmus writes about him ten years later: “Cujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis contigisset annis, fortassis aliquid in bonis literis potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo parum felici, cum passim impunè regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud nostrates, apud quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum literarum attigisse, tantum aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in eâ regione, quae Baccho Cererique dicata sunt verius quam musis” (N. T. 1516, Annot. 1 Thess. ii. p. 554).

159 Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he wrote of Erasmus, “an acquaintance with Greek criticism was certainly not among his best acquirements, as his Greek Testament plainly proves: indeed he seems not to have had a very happy talent for languages” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395, 3rd edition).

160 The title-page is long and rather boastful. “Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad graecam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem, et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basilaeam.” The Vulgarius of Erasmus’ first edition is no less a person than Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, as appears plainly from his Annotations, p. 319, “nec in ullis graecorum exemplaribus addita reperi [ἐκ σοῦ, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem, nec in antiquis codicibus Latinis.” He had found out his portentous blunder by 1528, when, in his “Responsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,” he gives that commentator his right name.

161 Yet he could have followed none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28; xxiii. 25; xxvii. 52; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26; x. 1; xii. 22; xv. 46; Luke i. 16, 61; ii. 43; ix. 1, 15; xi. 49; John i. 28; x. 8; xiii. 20; in all which passages the Latin Vulgate is neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier, Cod. Ev. 604, App. F. p. 4.

162 Such are ὀρθρινός, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16; ἐλθέ bis, ἐλθέτω, λαμβανέτω τό, ver. 17; συμμαρτυροῦμαι γάρ, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,—τῷ (_ante_ βιβλίῳ) ver. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βίβλου, ἀφαιρῆσει, βίβλου _secund_., καί ult-τῷ (_ante_ βιβλίῳ) ver. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, ver. 21. Erasmus in his Annotations fairly confesses what he did: “quanquam in calce hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.” But since the text and commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript (Tregelles’ “Delitzsch’s Handschriftliche Funde,” Part ii. pp. 2-7), it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. ii. 2, 17; iii. 5, 12, 15; vi. 11, 15 (_see_ under Apoc. 1); vii. 17; xiii. 4, 5; xiv. 16; xxi. 16; xxii. 11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false; while in ch. ii. 3; v. 14 (_bis_); vi. 1, 3, 5, 7; xiii. 10; xiv. 5 (as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel’s acuteness had long before suspected that ch. v. 14; xxii. 11, and the form ἀκαθάρτητος, ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has τὰ ἀκάθαρτα) had their origin in no Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any countenance to ch. xvii. 8, καίπερ ἔστι, or to ver. 13, διαδιδώσουσιν. For Erasmus’ πληρώσονται ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has πληρώσωσιν, the Latin _impleantur_; for his σφραγίζωμεν, ch. vii. 3, we find σφραγίσωμεν in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits τῆς ἀμπέλου, ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.

163 Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.

164 It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at variance with that given in the text; but Erasmus had been engaged in writing the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no leisure to revise them then. Thus John xvii. 2 δώσει (after Cod. 1, but corrected to δώση in the errata); 1 Thess. ii. 8; iii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 13; xxi. 6.

165 The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed Erasmus’ third edition rather than his second: cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21 as well as 1 John v. 7, 8.

166 I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his statement that ’Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few MSS. which he collated’ (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition). The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he used them as _copy_ for the press, as was intimated above, where Burgon’s evidence is quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would of course be necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Proleg., p. 127), “se codices suos praecastigasse.” Any wanton “tampering” with the text I am loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know of.

167 Reuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein the first edition of Erasmus differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were changed in his second edition. In fifteen places the first edition agrees with the Complutensian against the second (p. 30).

168 Besides the weighty insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8, Reuss (p. 32) gives us only seven changes in the third edition from the second: Mill’s other cases, he says, must be mere trifles.

169 Here again Reuss declares “paucissimas novas habet” (p. 36), and names only six.

170 “Non deserit quartam nisi duobus in locis: 1 Cor. xii. 2; Acts ix. 28” (Reuss, p. 37). Reuss had evidently not seen the first edition of the present work.

171 Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio).

172 This is Mill’s calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the ground, adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations of Aldus which Mill had overlooked, now and then correcting his predecessor’s errors (e.g. 2 Cor. xi. 1; Col. ii. 23), not without mistakes of his own (e.g. Luke xi. 34; Eph. vi. 22). Since Wetstein’s time no one seems to have gone carefully through the Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex Reuchlini (1) in the Apocalypse. Reuss (p. 28) notes eleven places in which it agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus; seven wherein it rejects both books.

173 The title-page runs εν λευκετια των παρησιων, παρα σιμωνι τω κολιναιω δεκεμβριου μηνος δευτερα φθινοντος, ετει απο της θεογονιας α φ λ δ. This book has no Preface, and the text does not contain 1 John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in reading ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5. Reuss (p. 46), who praises Colinaeus highly, states that he deserts Erasmus’ third edition 113 times out of his own thousand, fifty-three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a list of fifty-two passages wherein he stands alone among early editors, for most of which he may have had manuscript authority.

174 Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.

175 Reuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen’s first edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or Erasmus; in the second edition four (or rather three) more; in the third nine, including the great erratum, 1 Pet. iii. 11. He further alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever improvements were introduced by Stephen came from the fourth edition of Erasmus, not from the Complutensian.

176 Mill states that Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian are 598, Marsh 578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false; but we have tried to be as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen’s inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Acts ix. 6; xv. 29; xxv. 5; xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; ii. 1, 20, 24; iii. 2, 4, 7, 12; iv. 8; xv. 2: β’ seems to be put for α’ Matt. x. 25.

177 Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii. 5): but for the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities, α᾽, ιε᾽, ιϛ᾽ (ιϛ᾽ ending ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen rejects no less than fifty-four times. _See_, moreover, above, p. 154, note 3.

178 Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata. Of these 372 places, the third edition agrees in fifty-six places with π. or πάντες of its own margin, and in fifty-five with some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may be mere errata.

179 Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of Cod. D (indicated as “quidam codex” by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38; x. 50; Luke vii. 35. We may add that Beza in 1565 cites the evidence of one Stephanic manuscript for the omission of ὑμῶν, Matt. xxiii. 9; of two for κατεδίωξεν Mark i. 36; in later editions of two also in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25; of three for ἑτέρῳ; Matt. xxi. 30, two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. ιβ᾽). In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1565, Beza speaks plainly of an “exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus paenè impressis, ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio, et paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam diligentissimè collatum.”

180 But here again we must qualify previous statements. Reuss (p. 58) cites six instances wherein Stephen’s third and fourth editions differ (Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 13, 14; xxiv. 15; Luke xvii. 36; Col. i. 20; Apoc. iii. 12): to which list add Mark xiv. 21; xvi. 20; Luke i. 50; viii. 31; xii. 1; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. vii. 1.

181 Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in actually himself possessing all the ten editions of Beza, as he states in MS. in a copy of his “American Greek Testaments” kindly given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in the edition of 1556 the Greek does not occur, and that Beza’s first _Greek_ text was published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his editions when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition, and must generally have dated from 1556 as the beginning of his labours. The dates of the ten editions given above are extracted from Professor Hall’s list in Schaff’s “Companion to the Bible,” pp. 500-502.

182 Reuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of what is called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624 rarely departs. He used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen, from which he departed in 1565, so far as Reuss has found, only twenty-five times, nine times to side with the Complutensian, four times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united; the other nine readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25; James v. 12) had been adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 withdraws one of the peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more. The third edition (1588), so far as Reuss knows, departs from the second but five times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only twice, Matt. vi. 1 (δικαιοσύνην); Heb. x. 17 (add. τότε εἴρηκε), neither of which I can verify. These results, on Reuss’s system of investigation, can be only approximately true (_see_ p. 154, note), and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza’s Latin version, as suggested in his Annotations.

183 Reuss (p. 109) states that out of his thousand select examples Elzevir 1624 differs from Beza’s smaller New Testament of 1565 in only eight readings, all of which may be found in some of Beza’s other editions (e.g. the small edition of 1580), except one misprint (Rom. vii. 2).

184 Οἱ δοῦλος is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), who says that he has seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read οἱ δοῦλου. He had also inspected mine. “And although he says it reads δοῦλος, I read easily δοῦλοι. The type is rather faulty, that is all.” The point is not worth disputing.

185 “American Additions and Corrections,” p. 50.

186 Professor Hall states (Schaff’s “Companion,” p. 501) that Beza’s editions of 1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the Authorized Version of 1611. Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek Testament with Revisers’ Readings, p. vii) refers chiefly to Stephen’s edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon Palmer refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef., p. vi, in taking the Elzevir edition of 1624 as the authority for the “Textus Receptus,” says that it rests upon Stephen’s 1550, and Beza’s 1565, 1582, 1589 (= 1588), and 1598 (especially the later editions, and particularly 1598, Authorized Edition of the British Bible, p. 60), besides also Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that out of 252 passages the “Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113, with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.”

187 “The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives.” By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.

_ 188 See_ Miller’s “Textual Guide,” George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr. Scrivener’s “Adversaria et Critica Sacra” (not yet published).—Postscript.

189 Reuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Philem. 6, where Walton prefers the Complutensian reading.

190 Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p. 50).

191 If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as well as skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the cause. In a Life prefixed to Ussher’s “Body of Divinity,” 1678, p. 11, we are told that “in the winter evenings he constantly spent two hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible, Greek and Latin, taking with his own hand the _variae lectiones_ of each:” on which statement Dean Burgon (Letter in the _Guardian_, June 28, 1882) makes the pregnant comment, “Such work carried on at seventy or more by candlelight, is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when done with a heart-ache.”

192 “Sed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analogiis discernendis nimis fortasse curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint, quorum alia parum definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt argumenti quam quae servatis sanae interpretationis legibus possint adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi, qui nec parcior est, nec nimis minutus in locis allegandis, nec dissimilia unquam aut prorsus ἀπροσδιόνυσα ad marginem locavit.”—Car. Oxon. (Bishop C. Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.

193 1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22. Mill (N. T., Proleg. § 1397) says that it was printed “ad editiones priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.”

194 “Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro variantibus lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices, unde eas habeat, an ex manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice haberi.” Canon xiii. pp. 11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (_see_ below, p. 204).

195 But it goes with Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12; Apoc. xvi. 5, and sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e.g. Mark i. 21; vi. 29, and notably Luke ii. 22 (αὐτῶν); Luke x. 22; Rom. vii. 2; Philem. 7. Peculiarities of this edition are Εἰ δὲ for Εἶτα Heb. xii. 9; συγκληρονόμοις 1 Pet. iii. 7. Wetstein’s text follows its erratum, Acts xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν. Mill seems to say (N. T., Proleg. § 1409) that Fell’s text was taken from that of Curcellaeus.

196 Fell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally recognized, adding one which does not seem very probable, that accidental slips once made were retained and propagated through a superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence, citing in illustration Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known subscription of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered hereafter; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the practice of the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred books, it was allowed “e vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare” (Praef. p. 4).

197 “Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,” 1659: to which Walton rejoined, sharply enough, in “The Considerator considered,” also in 1659.

198 Dr. Hort says that “his comprehensive examination of individual documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations” (Introd. p. 180).

199 As Mill’s text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen’s of 1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx. 15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12 _bis_; x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36; vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster’s edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii. 5.

200 Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.

201 Ellis, _ubi supra_, pp. xvii-xix. These _Proposals_ were also very properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full title was to have been: “Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Graece. Novum Testamentum Versionis Vulgatae, per stum Hieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS., cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.”

202 This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that “Bentley’s testimony, when he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omits _one-third_ of the variations of the MSS., without following, as far as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.”

203 Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called “Clarissimus Walker,” died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.—Wordsworth, Old Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts collated by him wholly or partially, _see_ pp. 55-63.

204 He continued this work till after 1735. _See_ paper found by Dr. Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.

205 Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley’s grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172) ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man by the proviso “si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.”

206 “This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, that _vae mihi_ unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end” (Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis, _ubi supra_, p. xvi). A short article in the _Edinburgh Review_ for July, 1860, apparently from the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to “Nicolai Toinardi Harmonia Graeco-Latina,” Paris, 1707, fol. (“liber rarissimus,” Reuss, p. 167), who so far anticipates Bentley’s labours, that he forms a new Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of them) and of the Latin version.

207 Dr. Gregory says that though Mace’s edition had no accents or soft breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some critics of the present day.

208 I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with reference to an entirely different department of study, in the opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work: “It may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an irresistible impulse—a conviction that it is his duty and vocation to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps, clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished labours” (New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr. Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763), Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S. looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing study.

209 The full title is “’Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A. B.”

210 They consist of seven Augsburg codices (_Aug._ 1 = Evan. 83; _Aug._ 2 = Evan. 84; _Aug._ 3 = Evan. 85; _Aug._ 4 = Evst. 24; _Aug._ 5 = Paul. 54; _Aug._ 6 = Act. 46; _Aug._ 7 = Apoc. 80); _Poson._ = Evan. 86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (_Bas._ α = Evan. E; _Bas._ β = Evan. 2; _Bas._ γ = Evan. 1); _Hirsaug._ = Evan. 97; _Mosc._ = Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add Uffenbach’s three, _Uffen._ 2 or 1 = Paul. M; _Uffen._ 1 or 2 = Act. 45; _Uffen._ 3 = Evan. 101.

211 It is worth while to quote at length Bengel’s terse and vigorous statement of his principle: “Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de tabulâ, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet” (N. T., Apparat. Crit., p. 387).

212 See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel in _Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere Tage_, from the eminent pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor through the Rev. H. J. White.

213 The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed that _opus magnum_ for twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).

214 We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.

215 Errors of Wetstein’s text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26; xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir 1633, but his note shows that he does not _intend_ to read τῷ in Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22; xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht’s edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell’s text agrees with Wetstein’s. In Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells ναζαρέτ uniformly, except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi. 2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (δ); Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.

216 One other specimen of Matthaei’s critical skill will suffice: he is speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50. “Hic Codex scriptus est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimè ex scholiis et Versione Latinâ Vulgatâ interpolati sunt” (N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).

217 In using Matthaei’s N. T. the following index of manuscripts first collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1), Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13: c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul. 115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul. 118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan. 243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245, Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r = Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t = Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5: x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan. 252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256: 15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19 = Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ξ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: χ = Evst. 53, Apost. 17: ψ = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: ω = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag. Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c = Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.

218 The copies of Chrysostom’s homilies on the Gospels freshly collated by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ, λ, μ, π, ρ, φ: those on St. Paul’s Epistles are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, α, β.

219 Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei’s second and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.

220 “Textui ad Millianum expresso” says Reuss (p. 151), which is not quite the same thing: _see_ p. 203, note 2.

221 “Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus constat.” (Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of these last words!

222 “Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen.”

223 Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading, and that erroneously, επηγειραν, Acts xiv. 2.

224 In the London edition of 1809 ἄλλοι is printed for the first οὗτοί, Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits καί in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.

225 “Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,” Halae, 1771: “Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum Paulinarum,” Jenae, 1777.

226 “Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,” Part i. 1798; Part ii. 1811.

227 The following specimen of a reading, _possessing no internal excellence_, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt. xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or preferable (though in his _later_ manual edition of 1805 he marks it as an inferior reading), on the authority of the _later_ margin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.

228 Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss’ thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in 648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about fifty places only.

229 Laurence, in the Appendix to his “Remarks,” shows that while Cod. A agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.

230 David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.

231 One of Porter’s examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz’s constant habit to copy Griesbach’s lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words “uti docuimus in Symbolis Criticis:” this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334, col. 2) so as to claim the “Symbolae Criticae” of the Halle Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86, and Tischendorf’s notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach’s. Thus, since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted με in 2 Cor. ii. 13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his note a few cursives in which he had met with με, a word really absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in error prefix τῆς to δόξης. Scholz’s inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon breaks out at last: “What else but calamitous is it to any branch of study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?” (_Guardian_, Aug. 27, 1873.)

232 Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener’s “Collation of the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,” Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.

233 The following is the _whole_ of this notice, which we reprint after Tregelles’ example: “De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse. Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit: ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proximis duobus saeculis _receptae lectionis_ ratio haberi non posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.” Here we have one of Lachmann’s leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one would guess that by the “custom of the oldest Churches of the East” he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach’s Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which that critic’s Byzantine family was made up.

234 These are _d_ for Cod. Bezae, _e_ for Cod. Laud. 35, _f_ being Lachmann’s notation for Paul. Cod. D, as _ff_ is for Paul. Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited independently), _g_ for Paul. Cod. G.

235 We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. א called by Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading εκδ. into ενδ., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between Codd. א and B at a remote period. _See_ vol. i. p. 96, and note.

236 In dedicating the third volume of his “Monumenta sacra inedita” in 1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at about twenty-two years of age.

237 Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without straw.

238 Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume. Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.

239 For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862, “Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fünfundzwanzigjährigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding.” I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot’s courtesy, his paper in the _Unitarian Review_, March, 1875.

240 A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860, “Additions to the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,” &c., by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer’s other publications are not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of Scripture we may mention his edition of the “Canon Muratorianus,” liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles’ book with the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute correctness (_Guardian_, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon’s judgement. The custodian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.

241 As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful, with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the sheets for the press.

242 He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough, assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.

243 Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this: “Those,” he says, “who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.”

244 I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument where Dr. Roberts does when he says that “conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober critics feel that there is no need for it” (Words of the N. T., p. 24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ); 1 Tim. vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12; Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the judgement of scholars as intuitively true.

245 Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that “If the author has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.” It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer’s “Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,” or the summary of them contained in Knappe’s N. T. of 1797, if only to see the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (_e.g._ συναλιζομένοις Acts i. 4; πορκείας for πορνείας _ibid._ xv. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless and stupid (_e.g._ νηνεμίαν for νηστείαν Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood’s additions to the over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will think πρώτη in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate πρώτει from πρώτω ἔτει (_ubi supra_ p. 5); or that τὰ πολλά in Rom. xv. 22 ought to be ἐτη πολλά (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ὅς ἄν for ὅταν in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt. His worst surely is ΟΣ for _ΘΣ_ (θεός) Rom. ix. 5, which could not be endured unless ἐστιν followed ὅς, as it does in the very passage (Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).

246 “VII. Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius. VIII. Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus insolentem, usuque magis tritam.” Wetstein’s whole tract, “Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae” (N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G. D. T. M. D.

247 So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the same as the Bishop of Lincoln’s: “Of course occasions might occur on which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction” (“Words of the New Testament,” p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott’s Commentary, “The supporters of such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with believers in verbal inspiration.” Sir Edmund Beckett (“Should the Revised New Testament be Authorised?” 1882) writes in so scornful a spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader’s mind of his native acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument “that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody would have invented it.” “I suppose,” he rejoins, “an accidental piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in copying as well as a probable one.” (p. 7.)

248 In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.

249 One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the reading καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (whether the verse end or not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since “it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of construction, or corrections from parallel places.” The reader may apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in selecting between the three different readings ὀκνηροί or νωθροί or νοεροί to close the sentence οὐ μὴν ἠλίθιοί γε οἱ τοιοῦτοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, ἀλλα μᾶλλον ... having careful reference to the context in which it stands: or to the easier case of καίτοιγε and its variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting τί καί, appear to present the original text.

250 “Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g. by _Wassenberg_ in ‘Valcken.’ Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume.” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes, in _some_ MSS.

251 On this passage Canon Liddon justly says, “The question may still perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat excessively” (Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).

252 Griesbach’s “etiam manifestò falsas” can allude only to 1 John v. 7, 8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it is _not_ cited by Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins who did.

253 The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the evidence against it is strong and varied (אAB, 17, 67, Bohair., &c.).

254 Alford’s only _definite_ example (and that derived from Wetstein, N. T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom. xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη _καὶ ἄσκησις_ καὶ εἰρήνη. Tregelles (An Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13 (!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on, would be the suspected addition of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark ix. 29, and of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd. א (by the first hand) Β, of the beautiful Latin copy _k_ from Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (_k_ being defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Latin _e_ _ff_1, some forms of the Ethiopic version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that verse is assigned to the _tenth_ canon. In the face of such readings of אΒ it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby’s vague suspicion that they “bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical hands.” (N. T., Preface, p. 3.)

255 See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be confounded by scribes (p. 10) are ΑΔΛ, ΕΣ, ΟΘ, ΝΠ, and less probably ΓΙΤ. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N. T. portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a mere _jeu d’esprit_, would serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood’s pamphlet) I had supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (Δ for Α, Ε for Σ, Ι for Τ, Σ for Ε, κ for ΙΣ, Τ for Ι) this modern Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for ΑΣΤΕΙΟΣ τῷ θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place ΔΕΚΤΟΣ τῷ θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one of the _six_ necessary changes Cobet profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitution of δεκτός for ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the same spirit he suggests ΗΔΕΙΟΝΑ for ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1 Cor. ii. 4 for ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις he simply reads ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας, the σ which begins σοφίας having become accidentally doubled and λόγοις subsequently added to explain πειθοῖς, which he holds to be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere else. Dr. Hort’s comment on this learned trifling is instructive: “Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of principle” (Introd., p. 277).

256 Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III includes (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under Canon IV; (20) under Canon VI.

257 “Canon Criticus” xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.

258 Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360) “no less than thirty ancient witnesses.”

259 ’The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of various other precepts of the “Sermon on the Mount.” Milligan, Words of the N. T., p. 111.

260 Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between ὀλιγοπιστίαν, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable, and ἀπιστίαν, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must have been current in the second century, the former having the support of Codd. אB, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 [_hiat_ 69], the Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac, and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain ἀπιστίαν of the common text.

261 Perhaps I may refer to my “Textual Guide,” p. 120. The utmost caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence: perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.—ED.

262 E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see below, p. 261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty.

263 In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute. Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω; καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός κ.τ.λ. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of ἀρχεῖα in the succeeding clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a substitute for the manuscript reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the interpolators of the genuine Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on the words was designed between ἀρχαίοις and ἀρχεῖα, both copies of the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean Greek (“si non in veteribus invenio” and “Mihi autem principium est Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in ἀρχαίοις but in πρόκειται. Chevallier’s translation of the passage is perfectly intelligible, “Because I have heard some say, Unless I find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel. And when I said to them, ‘It is written [in the Gospel],’ they answered me, ‘It is found written before [in the Law].’ ” Gainsayers set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.

264 Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De Monogamia, xi: “sciamus planè non sic esse in Graeco authentico.” Dean Burgon refers us to Routh’s “Opuscula,” vol. i. pp. 151 and 206.

265 Compare too Jerome’s expression “ipsa authentica” (Comment. in Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen’s Hexapla: below, p. 263.

266 The view I take is Coleridge’s (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.). “I beg Tertullian’s pardon; but among his many _bravuras_, he says something about St. Paul’s autograph. Origen expressly declares the reverse;” referring, I suppose, to the passage cited below, p. 263. Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes: “Since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian’s style” (Kaye’s “Ecclesiastical History ... illustrated from the writings of Tertullian,” p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of the moment to suppose that they were extant; and, _knowing nothing to the contrary_, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.

267 I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist’s autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice (_for._) is worthy of serious notice. The statement twice made in the “Chronicon Paschale,” of Alexandria, compiled in the seventh century, _but full of ancient fragments_, that ὡσεὶ τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14 “καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται” (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp. 11 and 411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment of the Paschal treatise of “Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr” [d. 311], which he got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher (Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the assertion of Peter “Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum” (Exercit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).

268 “I have no doubt,” says Tischendorf, “that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the Church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,” English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.

269 Caius (175-200) in Routh’s “Reliquiae,” ii. 125, quoted in Burgon’s “Revision Revised,” p. 323.

270 “Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit: quem Marcion secutus...” Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.

271 Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion’s mutilations. _See_ e.g. “The Revision Revised,” pp. 34-35.

272 In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the judgement of Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦ _κν_ _χν_ ἐποίησεν. Consult also Bp. Lightfoot’s note (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 336, n. 1) on Heracleon’s variation of πέντε for ἓξ in John ii. 20. “There is no reason to think,” he says, “that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.”

_ 273 See_ Chap. XI on Acts xxvii. 37.

274 Irenaeus’ anxiety that his own works should be kept free from corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been said above, Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ. Here the copyist (ὁ μεταγραφόμενος) is assumed to be the same person as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (_ubi supra_, p. 11) illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader’s natural wish to possess an author’s original manuscript rather than a less perfect copy: _Qui vis_ archetypas _habere nugas_. A still stronger illustration of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood’s citation of a well-known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of that Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt variation _amaro_ for _amaror_ in Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes Atticae, Lib. i. cap. 21).

275 Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται; ἤ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ Εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι; καί, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἔξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p. 39, note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less extravagant, as when he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ, Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος βελόνης διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, ii. 5).

276 In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the language of Irenaeus, cited above, p. 262, note 2) the copyist (γραφεύς) is clearly distinct from the corrector (διορθωτής), who either alters the words that stand in the text, or adds to and subtracts from them. In Cobet’s masterly Preface to his own and Kuenen’s “N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani,” Leyden, 1860, pp. xxvii-xxxiv, will be found most of the passages we have used that bear on the subject, with the following from classical writers, “Nota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες... Sic in Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο Ἀττικιανά, id est, _correctus est_ (hic liber) _ex duobus codicibus ab Attico_ (nobili calligrapho) _descriptis_.” Just as at the end of each of Terence’s plays the manuscripts read “Calliopius recensui.”

277 No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would deserve consideration if they were not destitute of adequate support. Some may be inclined to think the words cited above in vol. I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom they are ascribed. The margin of the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D in that touching appendage to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be genuine, ος πολλα κλαιων ου διελυ[ι]μπανεν. Several minute facts are also inserted by D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy. Such are απο ωρας ε εως δεκατης annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9: και Μυρα to Acts xxi. 1; the former of which is also found in Cod. 137 and the Harkleian margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or two Latin copies.

278 Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p. 113, ed. Potter) refer to the former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have produced this passage among others to show (what in itself is quite true) that “Clement frequently quotes from memory.”

279 This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version of the first three Gospels, p. 176): “I will not dwell upon indications of Arian tendencies. They are not such as we should be entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating true statements. As was the case with many supporters of the high Arian party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius was familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe to our Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far more likely to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system, than to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open to public inspection.”

280 “This is possible, though there is no proof of it,” is Professor Abbot’s comment (_ubi supra_, p. 190, but _see_ above, vol. i. p. 118, note 2).

281 In the “Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,” 1860. They are Matt. xxvii. 64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi. 1-25. Other like calculations, with much the same result, are given in Scrivener’s “Cod. Sin.,” Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.

282 And that too hardly to the credit of either of them. “Ought it not,” asks Dean Burgon, “sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_?... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones—altogether destroy my confidence in either?” (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 77-8.)

283 Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. _Unde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia_ (Praef. ad Damasum).

284 The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf’s, and for the most part more exactly in Tregelles’ N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp. 418, 487.

285 See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap. XI. This same writer testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες κατὰ προσῳδίαν ἔστιζαν τὰς γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν τάδε: ὀξεῖα ᾽, δασεῖα ᾽, βαρεῖα ᾽, ψιλὴ ᾽, περισπωμένη ᾽, ἀπόστροφος ᾽, μακρὰ —, ὑφὲν ᾽, βραχεῖα ᾽, ὑποδιαστολή, Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν σημείων κ.τ.λ. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237 Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above, Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the presence of such marks in very ancient codices, though on the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir F. Madden’s opinion as regards Cod. A.

286 “Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.” “Evangelia quae falsavit Esitius [_alii_ Hesychius _vel_ Isicius], apocrypha,” occur separately in the course of a long list of spurious books (such as the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James, that “nomine Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,” &c.) in Appendix iii to Gelasius’ works in Migne’s Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [A.D. 494]. But the authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear of these falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius’ knowledge of them might have been derived from what he had read in Jerome’s “Praef. ad Damasum.”

287 Griesbach rejoices to have Hug’s assent “in eo, in quo disputationis de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse, inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures sacri textûs recensiones, quarum una, si Evangelia spectes, supersit in Codice D, altera in Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua” (Meletemata, p. lxviii, prefixed to “Commentarius Criticus,” Pars ii, 1811). I suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage (probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when he states that Griesbach now “virtually gave up his system” as regards the possibility of “drawing an actual line of distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his “Commentarius Criticus,” that Origen does not lend him the support he had once anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension was the very _hinge_ on which the whole question turned, and clung to that theory as tenaciously as ever. THIRD EDITION. Dr. Hort (N. T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed our opinion that Griesbach was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics of his theory, adding that “the Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate Griesbach’s familiar statements in precise language, while they show a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further results if he had not died in the following spring.”

288 It should be also observed that ΦΣ containing SS. Matthew and Mark are probably older than D.

289 E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John i. 28, where Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, actually appears in א*ABC*.

290 This view is controverted in Burgon’s “Remains.”

291 Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35. I suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says, “It seems almost superfluous to affirm that _every element of evidence must be allowed its full weight_; but it is a principle that must not be forgotten.” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93, 2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this principle when we so perpetually find the study of the cursive manuscripts disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the Caliph Omar’s argument, that if they agree with the older authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict them, it is necessarily false.

292 The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters ΝΗΡΟΥ, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to support the readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt it often does) and thus to afford a confirmation of their authority; it cannot help them much when its vote is against them. On analyzing the 908 readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf’s eighth edition, I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where A and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101 times, with B alone four, with א alone five, with C alone (but C is lost in 473 places out of the 908) six; with D alone twenty-four. Some of its other combinations are instructive. It is with AC forty-two times and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL eighteen; with אB eleven and with אBL twenty-nine; with אL nine times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL never; with DL twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-nine times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 ἐκ), such as the Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where its fragments coincide with those of Cod. Ξ (which is much more friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.

293 Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that “no reading can be of real importance—I mean has a chance of being _true_—which is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or cursive.... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings, _wherever they may happen to be found_, but fragments of primitive error, repudiated by the Church (‘a witness and keeper of Holy Writ’) in her corporate capacity.” (Letter in the _Guardian_, July 12, 1882.) I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]

294 Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. R. Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition that “Constant increase of error is no certain and inevitable result of repeated transcription” (p. 33) is true enough in itself, though we cannot follow him when he adds that “Errors, after they have found entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A careful scribe may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he may correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he copies, and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as to revise and improve the text of that on which he chiefly relies.” Only such a scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text as extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on principles of his own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.

295 Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G. Reiche (a critic “remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,” as Canon Cook vouches, Revised Version, p. 4), given in Bloomfield’s “Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text,” p. 5, note: “In multis sanè N. T. locis lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de verâ scripturâ judicium firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit, nisi omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia, et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter explorata, justâ lance expendantur.... Quod in causâ est, ut re non satis omni ex parte circumspectâ, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commutent.” In the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of the Septuagint, thus protests: “Certum est eos non a somniis monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos. Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et doctrinâ probabili instructum codicibus recentioribus collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in communi plurium aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit” (Genesis, p. 19). Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 5.

296 “So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the elaborate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to honour it” (_Saturday Review_, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of “Comparative Criticism made easy” has obtained, for its childlike simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could reasonably suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differently: “B must be regarded as having preserved not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively small depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other hand, to take it as the sole authority except where it contains self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably leads to erroneous results” (Introd. p. 250).

297 The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all the fuller consideration in the learned world by reason of their authors having been members of the New Testament Revision Company, in whose deliberations they had a real influence, though, as a comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on the controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with the subject which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my colleagues had necessarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught on Dr. Hort’s and Bishop Westcott’s principles in three articles in the _Quarterly Review_ [afterwards published together with additions in “The Revision Revised”] especially in the number for April, 1882, and Canon F. C. Cook’s “Revised Version of the First Three Gospels” (1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials from which a final judgement may be formed. “The Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of the N. T.” (1882), which my friend and benefactor Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to myself, are none the less valuable for their attempt to hold the balance even between opposite views of the questions at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could hardly be enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due acknowledgement in Chap. XII.

298 We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort may give his _ignis fatuus_ what appellation he likes, only why he calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The notices connecting his imaginary revision with Lucian of Antioch which we have given above he feels to be insufficient, for he says no more than that “the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome, which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern theories which have been suggested by it” (Hort, p. 138).

_ 299 See_ Burgon’s “The Revision Revised,” pp. 271-288.

300 Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14 for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again; Luke xxiii. 34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note 1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii. 7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.). _See_ also Miller’s “Textual Guide,” pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts are gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.

301 For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted sparingly from the trenchant article in the _Quarterly Review_, April, 1882, but the following summary of the consequences of a too exclusive devotion to Codd. אB seems no unfit comment on the facts of the case: “Thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai—from which he rescued it on February 4, 1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely supposition. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned persons imagine” (p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.

_ 302 See_ Appendix of passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while refusing without hesitation the claim of the _monstra_ which follow to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we are by no means insensible to the fact impressed upon us by the Dean of Llandaff, that there are readings which conciliate favour the more we think over them: it being the special privilege of Truth always to grow upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words: “It is deeply interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which attends in one’s own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar reading. At first sight the suggestion is repelled as unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees, light dawns upon it—it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context, and a conviction gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise was it written.” (Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi.)

303 Thus far we are in agreement with the “Two Members of the N. T. Company,” however widely we may differ from their general views: “The great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials has been the clearer statement of the method of genealogy, and, by means of it, the corrected distribution of the great mass of documentary evidence” (p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to be kept as far as possible out of sight.

304 So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D, and with high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acts xxvii. 5 we observe δι᾽ ἡμερῶν δεκάπεντε inserted after διαπλεύσαντες in 137, 184, and the Harkleian margin with an asterisk; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς before σύν in the last two and in _demid._

305 E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 τοῦ κυρίου ἰησοῦ omitted by D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_; ver. 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὦδε ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη (comp. Mark xvi. 6), omitted by the same; ver. 9 ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου by the same, by _c_ and the Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (except _ff_2) with _fuld._, but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriac, even according to Tischendorf’s showing, or by Eusebius’ canon, for he knew the verse well (comp. John xx. 5); ver. 36 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν omitted by D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ as before (comp. John xx. 19, 26); the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton’s Syriac (comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν and ver. 52 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν omitted by the same and by Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by א* also, and consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show how mixed the evidence is, D deserts _a_ _b_ _ff_2 _l_ when, in company with a host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (_f_ _q_, Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they annex καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου to the end of ver. 42. _See_ also Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19, 20, discussed in Chap. XII.

306 So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that they are less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with אB.

307 Canon Kennedy, whose “Ely Lectures” exhibit, to say the least, no prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort’s Introduction, is good enough to commend the four rules here set forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159, note). The first three were stated in my first edition (1861), the fourth added in the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the advocates of extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the terms on which the respective claims of the uncial and cursive manuscripts, of the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.

308 Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to the mere antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not the oldest authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of judgement.

309 The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic readings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii. 2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.

310 “The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.” Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.

311 Yet in Penn’s “Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts” (1837) “The restoration of this verse to its due place” is described as “the most important circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.” Its omission is imputed to “the undue influence of a criticism of Origen [ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος], whom Jerome followed.”

312 “This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,” is the vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 68, note.

313 “Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero neque denario” (Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little later (re-echoed by the younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the Recognitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third century, the number adopted is seventy-two, “vel hoc modo recognitâ imagine Moysis” and of his elders, traditionally set down at that number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius, Hilary (Scholz), and Augustine are also with Cod. B.

314 To enable us to translate “a son, nay even an ox,” would require ἢ καί, which none read. The argument, moreover, is one _a minori ad majus_. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii. 4; ch. xiii. 15.

315 Let me add _ex meo_ Codd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576, 582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently after correction.

316 But not in the Beirût MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall.

317 A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14 “they have children at their desire”: ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΙΩΝ Cod. A, but ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΕΙΩΝ Cod. B. The London papyrus has ΥΩΝ for ΥΙΩΝ.

318 Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date. It is frequently found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes with other chief authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles, e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17 (partly); ii. 6; 1 John ii. 20.

319 We note many small variations between the text of these critics as communicated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally published in 1881. The latter, of course, we have treated as their standard.

320 This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best uncials in upholding readings of the higher type: the other members are 69, 137, 182, to which will sometimes be added the text or margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57 and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by means of Tischendorf’s notes, will prove what is here alleged: 1 Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19; iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.

321 Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B accords with the later copies against Codd. אA(C), and is also supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23, &c. In 1 John iii. 21, where the first ἡμῶν is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in other cases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in favour of B, when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24, where τίς ἐλπίζει; as against τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; though B and the margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the existence of other variations (_see_ p. 248). In Eph. v. 22, B alone, with Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the true form of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman Ethiopic, Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de singl. cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph. v. 6.

322 Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts: excluding such cases as St. Stephen’s speech, Acts vii, and the parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and were derived from the same sources as, those of SS. Matthew and Mark.

323 Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements, which we have repeated unchanged from our former editions. “What spellings are sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among alternative readings, is often difficult to determine. Although many deviations from classical orthography are amply attested, many others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two, or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered from the effacement of unclassical forms of words. It is no less true on the other hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is discernible in Western MSS.: the orthography of common life, which to a certain extent was used by all the writers of the New Testament, though in unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.”

324 E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος ἴθυνεν δόρυ, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ πιχωρεῖν τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν τάδε.

325 Cod. א, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a hiatus), 29 with nouns, 45 with adjectives (chiefly πᾶσι) or

## participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv). Its absence

produces the hiatus in B*C in 1 Pet. ii. 18 (ἐπιεικέσι), and not seldom in B, e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 6, where we find κριθῶσι and ζῶσι, which latter is countenanced by A, and both by אL.

326 Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a fair representative of its class and date. It retains ν with εἶπεν thirty-three times in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as 130 in St. Luke. With other words it mostly reserves ν to indicate emphasis (e.g. Luke xxii. 14; xxiv. 30), or to stand before a break in the sense.

327 The terminations which admit this moveable ν (including -ει of the pluperfect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53). Tischendorf, however (N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to εἴκοσιν, even before a vowel.

328 With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. א which Tischendorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves of Cod. א Ἰωάνης occurs four times: Matt. xvi. 14; xvii. 1; 13; Luke i. 13, in which last passage, however, B has the double _nu_.

329 These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or insertion of the faint line for ν over the preceding letter, which (especially at the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be found even in the oldest manuscripts. Sometimes the anomalous form is much supported by junior as well as by ancient codices: e.g. θυγατέραν, Luke xiii. 16 by KXΓ*Λ, 209, also by 69, and ten others of Scrivener’s.

330 Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron κἀπὸ γῆς ἐσχάζοσαν, and Dr. Moulton (Winer, p. 91, note 5), after Mullach, ἔσχοσαν from Scymnus Chius.

331 Tregelles presses yet another argument: “If Alexandrian forms had been introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it that the classical MSS. written in that country are free from them?” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS. does he know of, written while Egypt was yet Greek or Christian, and now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cureton’s Homer and Babington’s papyri.

332 “It is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or provincialisms, which certainly his pen never wrote, and which there can be no proof that his lips ever uttered” (Epistle to the Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi) is Dean Vaughan’s comment on this “barbarism.” He regards the Apostle’s habit of dictating his letters as a “sufficient reason for broken constructions, for

## participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden

digressions, for fresh starts.”

333 Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form ἐφ᾽ in this place, aspirating ἐλπίδι, and in the same way favours but does not print οὐχ ὁλίγος eight times in the Acts, adding that although ὁλίγος “has no lost digamma to justify it, like some others, it may nevertheless have been in use in the apostolic age: it occurs in good MSS. of the LXX” (Introd., Notes, p. 143).

334 “A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the basis of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the German with large additions and full indices by Rev. W. F. Moulton, M. A., D. D.,” third edition revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The forthcoming “Prolegomena” to Tischendorf’s N. T. eighth edition (pp. 71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar René Gregory has given me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject; and Dr. Hort’s “Notes on Orthography” (Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will afford invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to accept some of his conclusions. See also on the more general subject Dr. Neubauer’s Article in the first issue of the Oxford “Studia Biblica” on “The Dialects of Palestine in the Time of Christ.” He controverts Dr. Roberts’ opinion that “Christ spoke for the most

## part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic.” And he

distinguishes between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic, and the dialect spoken at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.

335 In Acts ix. 34 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, the article between them being rejected, is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, on the adequate authority of אB*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180, and a catena (probably also Cod. 36), with one or two Fathers, although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.

336 I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gscr) for the omission of Ἰησοῦ. I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and find _ἰῦ_ in this place.

_ 337 See_ above, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of Cod. D to the parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener’s “Codex Bezae,” Introduction, chap. iii.

338 Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley’s Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness of Irenaeus’ Latin here “because his copyist was in the habit of altering him into accordance with the oldest Latin version; and because his argument is just as strong if we read _Jesu Christi autem_ as if we read _Christi_. The argument requires _Christi_, but does not in the least require it as against _Jesu Christi_.”

339 “The clearly Western Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ,” as Dr. Hort admits, “is intrinsically free from objection, ... yet it cannot be confidently accepted. The attestation is unsatisfactory, for no other Western omission of a solitary word in the Gospels has any high probability” (N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains ψευδόμενοι, Matt. v. 11.

340 Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states, “suam expositionem his quidem verbis concludit: [ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ τὴν ἰσχὺν κεκτημένου, οὗ ῥυσθείημεν] χάριτι [τοῦ] χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν”? Griesbach adds indeed, “sed pro parte sacri textûs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;” and justly: they were rather a _loose paraphrase_ of the sentence before him. _See_ Textual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.

341 Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the petitions preceding by an intercalated _Embolismus_. More weighty is his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, “agree with that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the doxology] upon the preceding petitions.”

342 “Quite a test-passage” Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text. Crit., p. 76).

343 THIRD EDITION. I would fain side in this instance with my revered friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all my prepossessions are strongly in favour of the _textus receptus_ here. He is quite right in perceiving (Christian Opinion and Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the authenticity of ἀγαθέ ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less evidence for omitting ἀγαθέ (אBDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [_not_ “five Evangelistaria”], _a_ _e_ _ff_1, Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than for Τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ., although Cureton’s and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairic, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies, change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown must fix the charge of inconsistency. If ἀγαθέ be an interpolation, surely τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω is pertinently answered by Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.

344 Canon Westcott (Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” Vulgate Version) adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg. I B. vii, and Reg. I. A. xviii in part, also Addit. 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also cites _theotisc_.

345 No passage more favours Bp. Middleton’s deliberate conclusion respecting the history of the Codex Bezae: “I believe that no fraud was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him, ‘καλλιγραφίας quàm vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.’ ” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)

346 I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen who, as he truly observes, “non solet difficilia praeterire,” did not find in his copy anything between πατρός; and Ἀμήν in ver. 31. On the supposition that he read πρῶτος there was no difficulty to slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἰησοῦς, the existence of which words Lachmann clearly perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will only allow that it “weakens his suggestion,” adding in his quiet way “This phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention of words spoken by others” (Notes, p. 17).

347 Jerome conceives that the Jews “intellegere quidem veritatem, sed tergiversari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;” and so Canon G. F. Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false answer brought on them the Lord’s stern rebuke. Hilary’s idea is even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it was because he _could_ not execute the command. “Non ait noluisse sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti erat difficultate ne fieret.”

348 His sole example is ὁδὸν ποιεῖν Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all parallel. The phrase may as well signify to “clear away” as “make their way.”

349 πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει is the reading of Abbott’s four and of Codd. 28, 122, 541, 561, 572, Evst. 196.

350 Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur. 1619); I know no example like that in St. Mark.

351 I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf’s notion, that six leaves of Cod. א, _that containing_ Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56 _being one of them_, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in these leaves, Codd. אB make but one witness, not two.

352 The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.

353 Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, “In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory verses of St. Luke’s Gospel” (Introduction, p. 298).

354 We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph have the subscription “Gospel after Mark” at the end of ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L’s, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.

355 Burgon (_Guardian_, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter α is small, but covers an abnormally large space.

356 Of course no notice is to be taken of τέλος after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon’s laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).

357 The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.

358 Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, in _The Expositor_ for July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr—hinting that some also remains behind—proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor’s acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question.

359 It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived about A.D. 349, that his “negative evidence is peculiarly cogent” (Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article of the Creed τὸν καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός. He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday’s discourse.

360 Several of these references are derived from “The Revision Revised,” p. 423.

361 Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20 comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old Latin _Comes_.

362 To get rid of one apparent ἀντιφωνία, that arising from the expression πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου (_sic_), ver. 9, compared with ὀψὲ σαββάτων Matt. xxviii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting a stop between Ἀναστὰς δέ and πρωΐ, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after δέ: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon, _Guardian_, Aug. 20, 1873).

363 The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses: ἐκεῖνος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; πορεύομαι vers. 10, 12, 15; τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ver. 10; θεάομαι vers. 11, 14; ἀπιστέω vers. 11, 16; μετὰ ταῦτα ver. 12; ἕτερος ver. 12; παρακολουθέω ver. 17; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ver. 17; κύριος for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20; πανταχοῦ, συνεργοῦντος, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω ver. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist’s pen, appeared in the _Baptist Quarterly_, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon’s ninth chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology “breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.”

364 “Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women” (Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can say: “it is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air” (Notes, p. 46).

365 When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (_ubi supra_, p. 197) remarks upon it that “With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstration.” We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them, existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (_see_ Calendar of Lessons); he supposes that τέλος, which would stand at the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an _exemplar_ of the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark stood last.

366 The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than negative.

367 Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age” (_ibid._ p. 51).

368 Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56),

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

369 I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th number of the _Spectator_, where what we will venture to call a precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison. “So many ancient manuscripts,” he tells us, concur in this last reading, “that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as I have published it: first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because the sense, is preserved by it.”

370 This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which “Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six” (R. R., p. 45, note).

371 Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following critique from his charming “Otium Norvicense,” Part iii. p. 36, on the reading εὐδοκίας and the rendering “among men in whom he is well pleased.” “To which it may be briefly objected (1) _that it ruins the stichometry_; (2) that it separates ἐν from εὐδοκία, the word with which it is normally construed; (3) that ‘men of good pleasure’ (אנשי רצון) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας, but ἄνδρες εὐδοκίας; (4) that the turn of the sentence, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, very much resembles the second clause of Prov. xiv. 9: ובין ישרים רצון rendered by Symmachus καὶ ἀναμέσον εὐθέων εὐδοκία.” But this is almost slaying the slain.

372 Κυριακὴ δευτεροπρώτη is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from “Eustr. 2381 B” in the sense of _low Sunday_ (McClellan, N. T., p. 690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in the second month (_Iyar_), precisely the time when wheat would be fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is “the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover.”] On the other hand, “If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the first.” (Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would it? The fancy that δευτεροπρώτῳ had its origin in numerals of reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such scholars as are under the self-imposed necessity of upholding Codd. אB united against all other evidence, of whatever kind.

373 Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says, “In Lat. Codd. OB TRANSLATIONIS DIFFICULTATEM hoc penitus non invenitur.” (Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.)

374 Dr. Hort and the _Quarterly Reviewer_ (October, 1881, p. 348) almost simultaneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word. “Docebo te super hac re in ecclesia” was the only reply he obtained; on which Jerome’s comment is, _Eleganter lusit_ (Hier. _ad Nepotianum_, Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.

375 Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers: “And this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to hospitality” (Dean Payne Smith’s Translation, pp. 317-20).

376 Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo quarto, MDCCCL, quâ ... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T. B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850).

377 “Intrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees. The difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of order in St. Luke’s account of the Temptation” (iv. 5-8; 9-12). Hort, Notes, p. 64.

378 Adler says “in omnibus codicibus,” and _guelph. heidelb._ Dawkins iii and xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the verses in a parenthesis. But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19 in words but little differing from his or Schaaf’s.

379 “Si fides habenda A. F. Gorio ‘in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum Evangeliorum Syriacorum mirae aetatis’ apud Blanchini Evangelium Quadruplex p. DXL, et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [_b_] faciunt.” Blakesley, _Schema_ facing _Praelectio_, p. 20.

380 Especially mark his mode of dealing with ἐκχυννόμενον ver. 20, which by a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to ποτήριον instead of to αἵματι: “Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit clausula ista τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, fraude tamen ita piâ accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam vel literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut cuivis patet, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένω, non τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum subjectum de quo praedicabatur non ἡ διαθήκη verum τὸ αἷμα esset” (_Praelectio_, p. 22).

381 Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf’s statement, “Hos versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C vero puncta et uncos delevit,” and אa has sometimes been spoken of as only a little less weighty than א itself. I had the satisfaction, through Dean Burgon’s kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr. Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf’s decision is probably right, strangely adding, “but the point is of little consequence” (Notes, p. 65).

382 Bp. Lightfoot’s Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them altogether: they are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text of 3, 14, 21, and so in 18 _primâ manu_, but in smaller characters.

383 Yet Dr. Hort contends that “The testimony of A is not affected by the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which manifestly presuppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44: the discrepance merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were throughout” (Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort’s position as a textual critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch. xxiii. 34; hardly in Luke xxiv. 12.

384 Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ περὶ τῶν θρόμβων τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐκ ἔχουσιν: adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers.

385 Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserted _uno tenore_ between Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between vers. 39 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday.

386 “Upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than our oldest manuscripts” (The Revision Revised, p. 81).

387 The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do otherwise, since Mill’s mode of punctuation (N. T., Proleg. § 797), which wholly separates καὶ γενόμενος from the words immediately preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any meddling with ἔκλαυσε by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus cites it.

388 Lightfoot’s Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20, in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.

389 Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (_see_ also Miller’s Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his results: “And _what_ (we ask the question with sincere simplicity), _what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken thereby.”

390 “Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,” 1872, p. 8. Dr. Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto “the only Son of God” and its satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as “the only one of God.” With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto: it is precisely that which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriac inserts ܒܪܚ ܕ (or ܕ ܚܪܒ). Bp. Lightfoot judges θεός the more likely rendering of the Bohairic, though θεοῦ is possible.

391 We are not likely to adopt Tischendorf’s latest reading and punctuation in Col. ii. 2, τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.

392 Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48) that μονογενὴς θεός is very probably the original reading, and must even take leave to doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is upheld by Dr. Ezra Abbot in papers contributed to the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_, Oct. 1861, and to the _Unitarian Review_, June, 1875; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his “Two Dissertations” (pp. 1-72) written in 1876 as exercises for Theological degrees at Cambridge.

393 The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller’s “Textual Guide,” App. VI.

394 To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4: δέ (_pro_ γάρ) L, _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_, Vulg. -γάρ Evst. 51, Boh. + κυρίου (_post_ γὰρ) AKLΔ, 12, 13, 69, 507, 509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others: at τοῦ θεοῦ 152, Evst. 53, 54.—κατὰ καιρὸν _a b ff_ ἐλούετο (_pro_ κατέβαινεν) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop.—ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ a b ff. ἐταράσσετο τὸ ὕδωρ C3GHIMUVΛ*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543, 570, 575, Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in piscinam (_post_ ἐμβάς) _c_, Clementine Vulg. ἐγένετο FL, 69, at least fifteen others.

395 Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd. 518, 524, 541, 560, 561, 573, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604, 622.

396 Of Lightfoot’s list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text of 3, 9, 14, in the margin only of 1, 20.

397 “Both elements, the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων (sic) κίνησιν, and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive evidence” (Hort, Introd., p. 301).

398 Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst his papers not yet published.

399 Add from Dr. Malan (_ubi supra_, p. 97), the Georgian, Slavonic (text, not margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of Erpenius) agrees with the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of Ephraem’s Tatian also reads _non_.

400 Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have shown (p. 99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve verses, and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as McClellan remarks (N. T., p. 723), “does not preclude the possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark the _place_ of the Section, as in L and Δ.”

401 Yet Burgon’s caution should be attended to. “It is to mislead—rather it is to misrepresent the facts of the case—to say (with the critics) that Codex X leaves out the ‘pericope de adulterâ.’ This Codex is nothing else but a _commentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel used to be read in public_. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out those parts of the Gospel which are observed _not_ to have been publicly read” (_Guardian_, Sept. 10, 1873).

402 The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53: τὰ ὠβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, οὐδὲ Ἀπολ[λ]ιναρίῳ; ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὅλα κεῖ[ν]ται; μνημονεύουσιν τῆς περικοπῆς ταύτης καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν αἷς ἐξέθεντο διατάξεσιν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24. 4), as Tischendorf perceives.

403 Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text, setting in the margin τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ζήτει εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ βιβλίου (Burgon, _Guardian_, Oct. 1, 1873).

404 A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John’s narrative before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of a _late_ comer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for the _pericope_ is between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.

405 Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot’s copies than would have been anticipated: viz. in the text of 3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of 20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.

406 “Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, βλαβερὰν εἶναι τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν dicentibus.” Tischendorf _ad loc._ Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.

407 Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (_primâ manu_) in ver. 8 ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.

408 We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort’s verdict (Introd. p. 299): “No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not Western of the earliest type.” Dean Burgon has left amongst his papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however the Editor cannot quote.

409 The form τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated by Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned. _See_ above. Compare also ver. 12.

410 ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Harvey, vol. ii. p. 62.

411 Such are αὐτῷ with or without ὁ Φίλιππος in E, 100, 105, 163, 186, 221, the Harkleian with an asterisk: σου added after καρδίας in E, 100, 105, 163, 186, _tol._, the Harkleian with an asterisk, the Armenian, Cyprian; but _ex toto corde_ the margin of _am._ and the Clementine Vulgate: τόν omitted before Ἰησοῦν in 186, 221 and others.

412 “Non reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum incuria. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed in margine.” Erasmus, N. T., 1516.

413 They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript evidence for Ἑλληνιστάς, that “A familiar word standing in an obvious antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare that it is no longer extant, except in a totally different sense, anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek interpretations of the Acts; more especially when the change introduced an apparent difficulty” (Hort, Notes, p. 93). _Judicet lector._

414 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. lvi and lxxxii.

415 But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great copy: ως ετροφοφορησεν σε _κς_ ο _θς_ σου ως ει τις τροποφορησει _primâ manu_ (Vercellone).

416 Witness too Lucian’s ὑπερμεγέθη ναῦν καὶ πέρα τοῦ μέτρου, μίαν τῶν ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου εἰς Ἰταλίαν σιταγωγῶν (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons.

417 Dr. Field, however, says that “this is a mistake.” The Syriac is ἔχωμεν and nothing else. For ἔχομεν this version (and all others) would put ܐܬ ܥܢ (or ܢܥ ܬܐ): but “when the word is in the subjunctive mood, since ܐܬ (or ܬܐ) is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of ܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗ), here ܢܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗܢ)” (Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange phrase he cites Rom. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I have but _dare manus_.

418 It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the [Wesleyan] _London Quarterly_, April, 1878, either “Let us then, justified by faith, have peace with God,” or “Let us then be justified by faith and have peace with God.” Acts xv. 36 will help him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii. 13, &c.) not at all.

419 Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has ἔχωμεν in his text, and compares Heb. xii. 28, ἔχωμεν χάριν, “where there is the same variety of reading.” B is lost in this last place, but ἔχομεν, which is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. אKP, the Latin of D, 31 and many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts. In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the sense to adopt in his text διώκωμεν of CD and the mass of cursives, rather than διώκομεν with אABFGLP, &c. The like confusion between ο and ω appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor. xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p. 384). See also φορέσομεν and φορέσωμεν, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of ο and ω is but rare. In Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224 in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of ει and ι. On the other hand, ο stands for ω and _vice versâ_ very frequently in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any existing writing on vellum.

420 Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that διαθρύπτω is specially used in the Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6; Isa. lviii. 7) for the breaking of bread.

421 Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to be told that “The text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2 refers to a faith towards God which is unaccompanied by love, so ver. 3 refers to acts which seem by their very nature to be acts of love to men, but are really done in ostentation. First the dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a climax, the yielding up of the very body; both alike being done for the sake of glorying, and unaccompanied by love” (Notes, p. 117).

422 Tyler compares _shoushou_ also in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9; Ps. v. 11 (12).

423 Neither Winer nor his careful translator, Professor Moulton, seems disposed to yield to Lachmann’s authority in this matter. “In the better class of writers,” says Winer, “such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thucydides iii. 11 and 54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there is very little in favour of these conjunctives” (Moulton’s “Winer,” p. 89 and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks “there would be no difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical critics” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note †). But in his own example, John xvii. 2, ἵνα ... δώσῃ is read by אcACGKMSX, 33, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find) by no other manuscript whatever. On the other hand δώσει (read by Westcott and Hort; _see_ Introd., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUYΓΔΛΠ (א has δωσω, D εχη, L δωσ), and (as it would seem) by every other codex extant: δώσῃ came into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus. Out of the twenty-five collated by myself for this chapter, δώσει is found in twenty-four (now including Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod. 622), and the following others have been expressly cited for it: 1, 10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66, 106, 118, 124, 127, 131, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24, 36, and at least fifty others, indeed one might say all that have been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion of ει and η at the period when the uncials were written abundantly accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them. In later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In Pet. iii. 1 ἵνα κερδηθήσονται is read by all the uncials (אABCKLP), nearly all cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -σωνται of Erasmus and the Received text; just as we have ἵνα γινώσκομεν in אAB*LP, 98, 99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in 1 John v. 20. The case for ἀρκεσθησόμεθα 1 Tim. vi. 8 is but a shade less feeble.

424 Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words (_see_ p. 359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by Bp. Lightfoot, whose note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very elaborate. This mode of punctuation would set χριστοῦ in apposition to μυστηρίου, in support of which construction ch. i. 27 (ὅ); 1 Tim. iii. 16 (ὅς) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense favoured by Hilary (_in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi_, and again _Deus Christus sacramentum est_), and would almost call for the article before χριστοῦ. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., ὅ ἐστιν _χσ_.

425 In Dr. Swete’s edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in the old Latin version: _sed facti sumus quieti in medio vestro_, hoc est, “omni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves aliquibus videri.”

426 A like combination is seen in Cod. 37 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 τῆς αἰωνίου ὄντως ζωῆς.

427 Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod. G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.

428 The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol. 145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a widely different condition from the present when it first came to England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or referred to it, believed that _ΘΣ_ was written by the first hand. Mill (N. T. _ad loc._) declares that he had first supposed the primitive reading to be _ΟΣ_, seeing clearly that the line _over_ the letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent, horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more closely, however, he detected “ductus quosdam et vestigia satis certa ... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae pertingit,” evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him (Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer’s Lecture for 1737-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p. 156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but referred it to the tongue or _sagitta_ of Ε on the reverse of the leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles, who states in opposition to Woide that “Part of the Ε on the other side of the leaf _does_ intersect the Ο, as we have seen again and again, and which others with us have seen also” (Horne, iv. p. 156). This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy in his edition of “The Pastoral Epistles” (p. 100, 1856), Bp. Ellicott declares, as the result of “minute personal inspection,” that the original reading was “indisputably” ΟΣ. But the fact is, that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765, but not in 1785.

429 Yet how can it be _precarious_ in the face of such testimony as the following (_Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1881, p. 363)? Τὸ δὲ θεὸν ὄντα ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. Ὅ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγε; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ποῖον μέγα? θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ θεός (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic evidence.

430 Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (_see_ p. 394, note) observes, adding that “nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his reading.” The _Quarterly Reviewer_ speaks very well (_ubi supra_), “A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says: Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι” (ii. 693).

431 Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, ’Σχόλια Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.) _ad loc_. ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ _ιβ_ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν σχολίων φησίν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.’ Photius also quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for θεός.

432 Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of Theodore’s commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, after citing the Latin text as _qui manifestatus est in carne_, adds “Both our MSS. read _qui_, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently throughout the context.... Thus the present translation goes to confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read ὃς ἐφανερώθη” (vol. ii. p. 135 n.): pertinently observing that if Theodore used ὅς, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions.

433 “Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacrâ Americanâ, anni 1865,” Tregelles N. T. _ad loc_. For a copy of this work I am indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the Ε on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse line of the Θ. I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript.

434 “As the Apostle here applies to _Christ_ language which in the Old Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (_see_ Isa. viii. 13), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,” as Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170). Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way or the other by individual prepossessions; but that those who in the course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when truth is gain.

435 This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads ἀδικούμενοι (“being wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing”) with א*BP and the Armenian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine: in ver. 17 it omits εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα with אB and some other versions: in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (apparently correctly) instead of εὑρεθήσεται of אBKP, of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66 _secundâ manu_, of the Armenian and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious κατακαήσεται of AL and the rest, and C hits upon ἀφανισθήσονται in pure despair.

436 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were a _paronomasia_, a play on the words ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, comparing (after Windischmann) 2 Thess. ii. 10. “The false teachers called their meetings ἀγάπαι, _love feasts_, but they were mere ἀπάται, _deceits_. Their _table_ was a _snare_” (Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St. Peter, with whom the _paronomasia_ must have taken its rise, were not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott’s notion that 2 Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude.

437 See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.

438 “Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimè.” Beza, N. T., 1582.

439 Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson, 1790; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh [afterwards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis [Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827; Two Letters on some parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman, 1835, for which _see_ Index. For Dr. Adam Clarke’s “Observations,” &c., 1805, _see_ Evan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John v. 7. Professor Ezra Abbot’s edition of “Orme’s Memoir of the Controversy on 1 John v. 7,” New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As elaborate works, on the verses are “A new plea for the authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson’s Letters to Travis eclectically examined,” Cambridge, 1867, being the performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster, whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have found it easier to pass by than to refute; and “The Three Witnesses, the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old,” by the Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.

440 That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is probably true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once from a single instance, namely, the substitution of χριστός after that version and Uscan’s Armenian for the second πνεῦμα in verse 6: “quae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 34 Dublinensem illum Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur versionem vulgatam ad cum conficiendum valuisse” (Tischendorf _ad loc._).

441 It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being scholars, at least in some degree, will talk about codices containing this clause. Dr. Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827, speaks of a manuscript in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough (Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question that he meant Act. 33, which does not give the verse, but has long been known to have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus, which does (_see_ Act. 33).

442 Of the two Spanish MSS. one _leon._2 contains the passage only in the margin, the other _leon._1 adds at the end of ver. 8, _in __xpo__ __ihu_. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript in the British Museum (Add. 11,852), of the ninth century, to the same effect, observing that, like _m_ and _cav._, it contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans. This MS. runs “quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant _sps_ et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt pater verbum et _sps_ et tres unum sunt.” Westcott’s manuscript is, in fact, _ulm._, and had already been used by Porson (Letters, &c., p. 148).

443 Mr. Forster (_ubi supra_, pp. 200-209) believed that he had discovered _Greek_ authority of the fourth century for this passage, in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-21), whose date Montfaucon easily fixes by internal evidence at A.D. 381. As this discovery, if real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving them to make their own way with the reader: (1) εἷς κέκληται ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον: (2) δεῖ γὰρ τῇ ἀποστολικῇ χορείᾳ παραχωρῆσαι τὴν Ἁγίαν Τριάδα, ἢν ὁ Πατὴρ καταγγέλλει. Τριὰς Ἀποστόλων, μάρτυς τῆς οὐρανίου Τριάδος.

444 The “Prologus Galeatus in vii Epistolas _Canonicas_,” in which the author complains of the omission of ver. 7, “ab infidelibus translatoribus,” is certainly not Jerome’s, and begins to appear in codices of about the ninth century.

445 The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of Travis’ “Letters to Gibbon,” 1785, p. 49, very well observes on the second citation from Cyprian: “That three are one might be taken from the eighth verse, as that was certainly understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, _especially when Baptism was the subject in hand_” [Matt. xxviii. 19].

446 It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p. 402 that the points of difference between Codex Montfortianus (34) and Erasmus’ printed text are two, viz. that 34 omits καί after πνεῦμα in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian leaves out its last clause altogether; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and Cod. 34 agree against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the last clause of ver. 8 (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν), it is obvious to conjecture that the person, whosoever he was, that sent the transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who never saw the MS. for himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed words, and neglected to note down the further variation that immediately followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the matter as it stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for the discrepancy, whereof Mr. Forster makes the very utmost in the following note, which, as a specimen of his book, is annexed entire: “Bishop Marsh labours hard to identify the Codex Britannicus used by Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus’s own description of the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt: ‘Postremo: Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, quod non addebatur hic duntaxat in editione Hispaniensi.’ Now as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort Codex, it cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus. In this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore, we have a second and independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The zeal of the adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its importance” (p. 126). Alas! _Hi motus animorum._

447 I side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue between them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy (as has been reported) by publishing his “Letters,” he was entitled to but slender sympathy. The prejudices of good men (especially when a passage is concerned which they have long held to be a genuine portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine) should be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness and love. Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper of Porson. The immediate question was a very subordinate one in the controversy, namely, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran Council, A.D. 1215. “Though this,” rejoins Porson, “proves nothing in favour of the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind, and that able tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics. _Which I desire some certain gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts as a very seasonable innuendo_” (Letters, p. 361, quoted from “A Tale of a Tub” p. 151). As if it were a disgrace for an Archdeacon to know a little about the laws which affect the clergy.

448 Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to press the masculine forms οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ver. 7 and οἱ τρεῖς ver. 8 as making in favour of the intervening clause: “Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent:” a reason truly, but one not strong enough to carry his point.

449 We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between γεγεννημένος and γεννηθείς in the same context, and, with all deference to the _Quarterly Reviewer_ (April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view of the matter more natural than that given in the text: “St. John,” he suggests, “is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he became regenerate (ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ).” [The distinction given between the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the text, is perfectly just, and explains the passage. The effects of regeneration if continued are indefectible, but the mere fact of regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]

450 So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A, although it may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in it no corrections by later hands. Above in ver. 10 ἐν ἀυτῷ is supported by ABKLP and a shower of cursives in the room of ἐν ἑαυτῷ of א and the Received text, but here there is no difference of sense between the two forms. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has an exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing of αυτου, αυτῳ, &c., and ultimately declines to exclude the aspirate from the N. T.

451 The Revision Revised, pp. 247-8.

452 For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader may consult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the “Journal of the American Oriental Society,” vol. xi, No. 2, 1885.

453 It is not meant that these terms occur as titles. _Apostolos_ (ܫܥܝܐ or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul. _Evangeliom_, in the sense of _Evangelistary_ in a title, is quoted in “Thesaurus Syriacus.”

But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books, _see_ Pelliccia’s “Polity” (tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8: for the Syriac system, _see_ Etheridge’s “Syrian Churches,” pp. 112-6.