Part II

. p. 2.

712 No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be assured that “_The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised Version_,” edited by Dr. Scrivener for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the Revisionists,—_which were not his own_.

713 Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p. 238 (_note_) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of _exact_ collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid on which to build up the _Science_ of Textual Criticism. We may safely keep our “_Theories_” back till we have collated our MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be abundantly in time _then_.

_ 714 Introduction_, p. 18.

715 See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262.

716 P. 13, cf. p. viii.

717 They are as follows:—

[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our SAVIOUR and His Disciples departing in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,—(α) “_and outwent them_—(β) _and came together unto Him_” (_i.e._ on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His “retirement” in “some sequestered nook”).

Now here, A substitutes συνέδραμον [_sic_] for συνῆλθον.—א B with the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—D omits clause (α), but substitutes “_there_” (αὐτοῦ) for “_unto Him_” in clause (β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the two clauses thus:—“_got there before Him_.”—L, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S. Mark’s Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of _Confusion_ there is plenty. “Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there is none.

[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our SAVIOUR (after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α) “_Neither enter into the village_”—(β) “_nor tell it to any one_—(γ) _in the village_.” (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A C N Δ and 12 other uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])

But it is found that the “two false witnesses” (א B) omit clauses (β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however (א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in B,) considers μηδέ “_simple and vigorous_” as well as “unique” and “peculiar” (p. 100).] substitutes μή. As for D and the Vulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), “_Depart unto thine house_.” D proceeds,—“_and tell it to no one_ [μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,] _in the village_.” Six copies of the old Latin (b f ff-2 g-1-2 l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following paraphrase of the entire place:—“_Depart unto thine house, and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one._” The same reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit “_say nothing_ [from Mk. i. 44] _to no one_.”) All six however add at the end,—“_not even in the village_.” Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“_Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any one_,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“_in the village_.”... _Why_ all this contradiction and confusion is now to be called “Conflation,”—and what “clear evidence” is to be elicited therefrom that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “neutral” readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.

We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received Text in this place; Tischendorf, _alone of Editors_, adopts the reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort, _alone of Editors_, adopt the reading of B (μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of “_Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town_,”—we are invited to read, “_Do not even enter into the village_.”

[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils in CHRIST’S Name, says—(α) “_who followeth not us, and we forbad him_—(β) _because he followeth not us_.”

Here, א B C L Δ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α), retaining (β). D with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β), but retain (α).—Both clauses are found in A N with 11 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the pretence be set up that there has been “Conflation” here? Two Omissions do not make one Conflation.

[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—our SAVIOUR says,—“_For_ (α) _every one shall be salted with fire_—_and_ (β) _every sacrifice shall be salted with salt_.”

Here, clause (α) is omitted by D and a few copies of the old Latin; clause (β) by א B L Δ.

But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen words by Cod. D is so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of א B L Δ,—especially in S. Mark’s Gospel, which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them, are to be set on the present occasion A C D N with 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also “Anon.” p. 206: and see Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 368.]

[5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our SAVIOUR “_withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida_:” which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2] τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which six words,—

(_a_)—א and Syrcu retain but three,—1, 2, 3.

(_b_)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.

(_c_)—B L X Ξ D and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4, 5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένης D exhibits κώμην λεγομένην.

(_d_)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for “_qui_ (or _quod_) _vocabatur_,” the Vulg. _b_ and _c_ exhibit “_qui_ (or _quod_) est.”

(_e_)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,

(_f_)—A C Δ E, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions,—retain _all the six words_.

In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of “conflation,” _i.e._ of _spurious mixture_. Note, that א and D have, this time, changed sides.

[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α) “_lying in wait for Him_,” (β) _seeking_ (γ) _to catch something out of His mouth_ (δ) “_that they might accuse Him_.” This is the reading of 14 uncials headed by A C, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is to be said against it?

It is found that א B L with the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod. D, in conjunction with Cureton’s Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause (β), and _paraphrases all the rest of the sentence_. How then can it be pretended that there has been any “Conflation” here?

In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτόν)—which are attested by A C D and 12 other uncials, together with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that א B, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?

[7th] The “rich fool” in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α) πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (So A Q and 13 other uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil, and Cyril.)

But א D (with the old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac [which however drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the other hand, B T, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no “Syrian conflation” _here_: for all that has happened has been _the substitution_ by B of τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of 4 words by א D. This instance must therefore have been an oversight.—Only once more.

[8th] S. Luke’s Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the Temple, “(α) _praising and_ (β) _blessing _GOD.” Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that א B C omit clause (α): while D and seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (β).

And this completes the evidence for “Conflation.” We have displayed it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards the esteemed writers on _the only occasion_ which they have attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at last _forced them_ to make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened upon _eight_: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil however, let _all but one_, the [7th], pass unchallenged.

718 The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 249.

_ 719 E.g._ pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.

720 Referred to below, p. 296.

721 See above, pages 257 (bottom) and 258 (top).

722 See above, pp. 37 to 38.

_ 723 Ibid._ p. 39.

724 To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of A.D. 250 and A.D. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between 2877 (B) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in respect of between 536 (B) and 839 (א) words:—substituted for as many genuine words, between 935 (B) and 1114 (א) uninspired words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (B) and 2299 (א):—and in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without authority between 1132 (*B*) and 1265 (א) words.

725 Quoted by Canon Cook, _Revised Version Considered_,—p. 202.

_ 726 i.e._ say from A.D. 90 to A.D. 250-350.

727 See above, p. 269.

728 “If,” says Dr. Hort, “an editor were for any purpose to make it his aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of Antioch in A.D. 350, he could not help taking the approximate consent of the cursives as equivalent to _a primary documentary witness_. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies THE ONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL”—[note the fallacy!]—“_was multiplied into the cursive hosts of the later ages_.”—Pp. 143-4.

729 Preface to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. xviii.: reprinted in the _Introduction_ (1881), p. 66.

_ 730 Ibid._

731 P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), “_Personal instincts_” are substituted for “_Personal discernment_.”

_ 732 The Revisers and the Greek Text_,—p. 19.

_ 733 Introduction_,—p. xiii.

_ 734 Notes_, p. 22.

_ 735 Notes_, p. 88.

_ 736 Notes_,—p. 51.

737 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—pp. 507-8.

738 Scrivener’s “_Introduction_,” pp. 513-4.

739 In S. MATTH. i. 25,—the omission of “_her first-born_:”—in vi. 13, the omission of the _Doxology_:—in xii. 47, the omission of _the whole verse_:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our LORD’S memorable words concerning the _signs of the weather_:—in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious statement, “_But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting_:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the precious words “_For the Son of man came to save that which was lost_.”

In S. MARK xvi. 9-20, the omission of the “_last Twelve Verses_,”—(“the contents of which are _not such as could have been invented_ by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57). All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.

In S. LUKE vi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56, the omitted _rebuke to the_ “_disciples James and John_:”—in x. 41, 42, the omitted _words concerning Martha and Mary_:—in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of the _Agony in the Garden_,—(which nevertheless, “_it would be impossible to regard_ as a product of the inventiveness of scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord’s _prayer for His murderers_,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that “_few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this_”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was “_in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew_:”—in xxiv. 12, _the visit of S. Peter to the Sepulchre_. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“_It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic_,”—(p. 28.)

In S. JOHN iii. 13, the solemn clause “_which is in heaven_:”—in v. 3, 4, the omitted incident of _the troubling of the pool_:—in vii. 53 to viii. 11, _the narrative concerning the woman taken in adultery_ omitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that “_the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character_. The story itself has justly seemed _to vouch for its own substantial truth_, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87). Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “_the narrative bears on its face the highest credentials of authentic history_”—(p. 28).

740 To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince himself of this, by examining the rejected “alternative” Readings in the margin of the “Revised Version.” The “Many” and the “Some ancient authorities,” there spoken of, _almost invariably include_—sometimes _denote_—codd. B א, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited by B א; but they will give English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration.

Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17:—30 and 31:—46 and 47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316 to 319] concerning B and א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now be added. The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side, thrust in after Matt. xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod’s daughter, thrust into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ) in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv. 44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii. 6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk. iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii. 25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy indictment against B and א jointly—which are here found in company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.

B (in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix. 1:—“seventy-_two_,” in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (CHRIST’S Agony in the Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys unenviable distinction.—B, singly, is remarkable for an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in Jo. vii. 39.

א (in company with others, but apart from B) is conspicuous for its sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν (for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72; of which the object was “so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter’s denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice.”

741 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) The _exclusive_ omission by B and א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder, αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That “vile error,” (as Scrivener calls it,) περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8) The omission of the last clause of the LORD’S prayer, in Lu. xi. 4; and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt. xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides (16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24, 27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and (18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.

The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the Gospels, B combines exclusively with A, but 11 times; and with C, but 38 times: with D, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א, 239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41 times).

Contrast it with A:—which combines exclusively with D, 21 times: with א 13 times: with B, 11 times: with C, 4 times.

742 The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer (in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been written _in Italy_,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [_not_ Egypt, but] _either Palestine or Syria_. Thus, considerations of time and place effectually dispose of Tischendorf’s preposterous notion that the Scribe of Codex B wrote _six leaves_ of א: an imagination which solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod. B.

This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf’s rests on the same fanciful basis as his notion that _the last verse_ of S. John’s Gospel in א was not written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There is _no manner of difference_: though of course it is possible that the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse, and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows. Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp. 23-4.

743 Tischendorf’s narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript (“_When were our Gospels written?_”), [1866,] p. 23.

744 “Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot. Nouveaux fragments d’Euripide et d’autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par M. Henri Weil. (Extrait des _Monumens Grecs publiés par l’Association pour l’encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France_. Année 1879.)” Pp. 36.

745 The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical readers:—“Ce n’est pas à dire qu’elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt, sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield) était déjà l’ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s’ils sont altérés, comme l’assurent quelques éditeurs d’Euripide, l’étaient déjà dans l’antiquité.

“L’homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour un Egyptien n’ayant qu’une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l’orthographe, ni sur les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus singulier est qu’il commence sa copie au milieu d’un vers et qu’il la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de la construction et le sens du passage.” A faithful copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital letters:—

“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δερος Πελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμην Μηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιας ερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονος οτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουρας πατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιαν συν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μεν φυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”

An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a half-educated writer.”

746 See p. 324 _note_ 1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that “Gaius” was a presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii. 125.

747 Eusebius, _Hist. Ecol._ v. 28 (ap. Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii. 132-4).

748 Tregelles,