Part ii

. p. 2.

749 Scrivener’s prefatory _Introduction_,—p. xix.

_ 750 Ibid._ p. iii.

_ 751 On Revision_,—p. 47.

752 Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 _exactly_ fills two columns of cod. א. (See Tischendorf’s reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)

753 Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins § v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p. 336, note 3.

754 “This Text” (say the Editors) “is _an attempt to reproduce at once the autograph Text_.”—_Introduction_, p. xxviii.

755 Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_, pp. 112-3.

756 Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times. All but T. 3 times. All but Tr. 1 time. Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 times T. WH. RT. 1 time Tr. WH. RT. 1 time L. Tr. WH. 1 time Then,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 time L. Tr. 1 time T. WH. 1 time Lastly,—L. stands alone 4 times. Total: 21.

_ 757 Twice_ he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver. 21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—_Once_ he agrees with only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).

758 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits peculiar readings of his own,—sides with _no one_.

_ 759 Q. R._ p. 360.

760 Article xx. § 1.

761 Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.

762 Theodoret, _Opp._ iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton, _F. R._ ii. _Appendix_, p. 473.

763 The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)’s _Account of the writings of Clement of Alexandria_,—and to read the vith and viiith chapters.

764 Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.

765 Alford’s N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.

766 See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).

_ 767 Preface_ (1870), p. xv.

768 See above, pp. 79 to 85.

769 Pp. 359-60.

770 P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.

771 Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.

772 “I perceived _a large and wide basket_ full of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already _committed to the flames._ What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers,” &c.—(_Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript,_ p. 23.)

773 τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.

774 [While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from outside, why B C L, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be superior to A. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as he does) very many grave faults of B, should yet consider B superior in character to A.”]

_ 775 Introduction_, p. 567.

776 Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9 _bis_, iv. 7; v. 1 _bis_, 4, 18 _bis_. _Why_ is it to be supposed that on this last occasion THE ETERNAL SON should be intended?

777 A*, B, 105.

778 The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691], Cassian [p. 409],—“_Sed generatio Dei conservat eum_:” Chromatius [Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“_Quia (quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum._” In a letter of 5 Bishops to Innocentius I. (A.D. 410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it is,—“_Nativitas quæ ex Deo est._” Such a rendering (viz. “_his having been born of_ GOD”) amounts to an _interpretation_ of the place.

779 From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.

780 iv. 326 b c.

781 Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer’s _Cat._ pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].

782 i. 94, 97.

783 In _Cat._ p. 124, repeated p. 144.

784 iii. 433 c.

785 ii. 601 d.

786 By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.

_ 787 Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.

_ 788 Introduction_, p. 283. _Notes_, pp. 3, 22, and _passim_.

789 Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“_A form of sound words to be used by Ministers._”)

790 Quoted by ps.-Ephraem _Evan. Conc._ p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys. viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 242 l. 25 (which is _not_ from Chrys.):—_Chron. Paschale_ 217 a (_diserte_).—Recognized by Melito (A.D. 170):—Irenæus (A.D. 177):—Hippolytus (A.D. 190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod., &c.

791 This is the _true_ reason of the eagerness which has been displayed in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just as nothing else but a determination that CHRIST shall not be spoken of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr. Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.

792 See Dr. W. H. Mill’s _University Sermons_ (1845),—pp. 301-2 and 305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman’s library.

793 Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

794 ἀφανισθήσονται.

795 This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א and B. A famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων,—“_prying into the things he hath not seen_”); where א* A B D* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the “_not_.” Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty conjecture.” Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i. 847), Theodoras Mops, (in _loc_.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii. 489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the diversity of reading, _but only to reject it_.—The Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.

796 εὑρεθήσεται.

797 Augustin, vii. 595.

798 ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901. _In Luc_. pp. 428, 654.

799 ii. 347.

800 Preface to “Provisional issue,” p. xxi.

_ 801 Introduction_, p. 210.

_ 802 Ibid_. p. 276.

803 Apud Mai, vi. 105.

_ 804 Opp._ vii. 543. Comp. 369.

805 Ap. Cramer, _Cat._ vi. 187.

806 So, Nilus, i. 270.

_ 807 Interp._ 595: 607.

_ 808 Dem. Evan._ p. 444.

809 P. 306.

_ 810 Epist. ad Zen._ iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered this to be a _genuine_ work of Justin M. (A.D. 150).

_ 811 Cantic._ (an early work) _interp._ iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i. 112, 181 [?]: ii. 305 _int._ [but _not_ ii. 419]) he is for leaving out εἰκῆ.

812 Gall. iii. 72 and 161.

813 ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the _Cat._ of Nicetas) _expressly_: 265.

814 i. 818 _expressly_.

815 ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome’s Latin translation, i. 240).

816 i. 132; iii. 442.

817 472, 634.

818 Ap. Chrys.

819 iii. 768: _apud Mai_, ii. 6 and iii. 268.

820 i. 48, 664; iv. 946.

821 Cramer’s _Cat._ viii. 12, line 14.

822 128, 625.

823 Gall. vi. 181.

824 Gall. x. 14.

825 Gall. vii. 509.

826 i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was 84.

827 vii. 26,—“_Radendum est ergo_ sine causâ.” And so, at p. 636.

828 1064.

829 ii. 261.

830 ii. 592.

_ 831 Amphilochia_, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also in _Cat._

_ 832 Apophthegm. PP._ [ap. Cotel. _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ i. 622].

833 S. Matth. xv. 14.

_ 834 Gospel of the Resurrection_,—p. vii.

_ 835 Introduction_, pp. 300-2.

_ 836 Ibid._ p. 299.

_ 837 Appendix_, p. 66.

838 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 432.

_ 839 On Revision_,—p. 99.

_ 840 Speech in Convocation_, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)

_ 841 On Revision_,—p. 205.

_ 842 Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 25.

_ 843 Ibid._,—p. 27.

_ 844 Considerations on Revision_,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May, 1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.

We learn from Dr. Newth’s _Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881), that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work” (p. 118) ... “The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv.” (p. 119) ... “The question of the spelling of proper names ... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first Revision were decided by simple majorities” (p. 122) ... “_The questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most part at the First Revision._” (Bp. Ellicott’s _Pamphlet_, p. 34.)

_ 845 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two Members of the New Testament Company_,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79, price two shillings and sixpence.

846 “To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an answer.”—p. 79.

847 See above, pages 235 to 366.

848 Article III.,—see last note.

_ 849 Pamphlet_, p. 79.

_ 850 The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its bearings upon the record of our __LORD’S__ Words and of incidents in His Life_,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook’s temperate and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.

851 P. 40.

_ 852 Ibid._

853 As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.

854 See above, pp. 348-350.

855 P. 40.

856 P. 40.

857 P. 77.

858 P. 41, and so at p. 77.

859 P. 41.

860 P. 5.

861 P. 3.

862 P. 77.

_ 863 On Revision_, pp. 47-8.

864 Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 423.

_ 865 Ibid._ p. 421.

866 “Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto, deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento, neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse.”—_Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c._ 4to. Gottingæ, 1847. (p. 4.)

867 He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto, continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum, certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio careamus.”—_Ibid._ (p. 19.)

_ 868 Commentarius Criticus in N. T._ (in his Preface to the Ep. to the Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to this. See by all means his _Revised Text of the first three Gospels_,—pp. 4-8.

869 It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the present writer,) the “Post-scriptum” of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from p. 234 to p. 236,) is a _jeu d’esprit_ only,—intended to enliven a dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.

870 It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott’s notice, (and yet the fact well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and Tregelles on the Church’s gratitude, are not by any means founded on _the Texts_ which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill, Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they _patiently accumulated evidence_. “Tischendorf’s reputation as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the world.” (Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 427.)

871 P. 12.

872 P. 13.

873 See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.

874 P. 40.

875 P. 19.

876 P. 4.

877 Acts xix. 35.

_ 878 Suprà_, pp. 339-41.

879 P. 13.

880 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_, &c.—p. 30.

881 P. 15.

882 P. 16.

883 P. 17.

884 P. 18.

885 P. 19.

886 P. 19.

887 P. 20.

888 P. 21.

889 Pp. 23-4.

_ 890 Supra_, pp. 258-266.

891 Pp. 25-7.

892 See _Art._ III.,—viz. from p. 235 to p. 366.

893 You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.

_ 894 Chronicle of Convocation_, Feb. 1870, p. 83.

895 See above, p. 368.

896 The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to by A C D P R X Γ Δ Λ Ξ Π and _every other known uncial except three of bad character: by every known cursive but four_:—by the Old Latin and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (_Evan. Concord_, p. 77) and Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are derived from S. Mark’s Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely imagined);—for the sufficient reason that _the words are not found there_. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S. Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.

897 Page 154 to p. 164.

898 You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only supported by _four_ manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed by _eighteen uncials_, (with A C D at their head,) and _every known cursive but one_; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i. 313 a, 327 a.) (A.D. 150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author of _the Dialogus_ (Orig. i. 853 d.) (A.D. 325),—Epiphanius (i. 327 b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8 c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.) in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (A.D. 400),—ps.-Chrysostom (xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly (for see page 369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were appointed only to revise the authorized _English Version_?

899 This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and variations in stops.

900 I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change of construction.

901 MS. communication from my friend, the Editor

902 I desire to keep out of sight the _critical impropriety_ of such corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that א B L are _the only witnesses discoverable_ for the former, and _almost the only_ witnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly unmeaning changes.

903 Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not able to convey even _this_ short message correctly. In reporting the two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders. B substitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in his note ... “These be thy gods, O Israel!”

904 Rev. xxii. 19.

905 iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is _not_ to S. Matt. x. 15.

906 P. 123.

907 Viz. vi. 7-13.

908 i. 199 and 200.

_ 909 In loc._

910 See above, pp. 347-9.

911 See above, pp. 79-85.

912 See above, pp. 409-411.

913 See above, p. 399.

914 Bp. Ellicott _on Revision_, p. 30.

915 The Bp. attended _only one meeting_ of the Revisers. (Newth, p. 125.)

916 Page 4.

917 See above, pp. 41 to 47.

918 Pages 17, 18.

919 See above, p. 37, note 1.

920 Pages 98-106.

921 Pages 64-76.

922 The exceptions are not worth noticing _here_.

923 N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.

924 i. 887 c.

925 Called _Ancoratus_, written in Pamphylia, A.D. 373. The extract in _Adv. Hær._ extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (= _Ancor._ ii. 67-79).

926 ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough had been said already to make it plain that it was of the SON they were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 John _apud_ Galland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius, _apud_ Cyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost. x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1 785. So indeed ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.

927 i. 894 c.

_ 928 Apud_ Theodoret, v. 719.

929 iv. 622 a,—_qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu_.

_ 930 De incarn. Unig._ v. part i . 680 d e = _De rectâ fide_, v.