,,the ,,causes ,,of ,,the ,,corruption ,,of ,,the ,,traditional ,,text ,,of ,,the ,,holy ,,gospels ,,being ,,the ,,sequel ,,to ,,the ,,traditional ,,text ,,of ,,the ,,holy ,,gospels ,,by ,,the ,,late ,,john ,,william ,,burgon1 ,b4 ,d4 ,,dean ,,of ,,chichester ,,arranged1 ,,completed1 ,,and ,,edited ,,by ,,edward ,,miller1 ,m4 ,a4 ,,wykehamical ,,prebendary ,,of ,,chichester ,,london ,,george ,,bell ,,and ,,sons ,,cambridge3 ,,deighton1 ,,bell ,,and ,,co4 #ahif4 ',tenet ecclesia nostra1 tenuitque semper firmam illam et immotam ,tertulliani regulam ,id verius quod prius1 id prius quod ab initio4 ,quo propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus1 eo purior decurrit ,catholicae doctrinae rivus4' ,cave's ,proleg4 p4 xliv4 ',interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona1 et ambulate in ea4'--,jerem4 vi4 #af4 ',in summa1 si constat id verius quod prius1 id prius quod ab initio1 id ab initio quod ab ,apostolis2 pariter utique constabit1 id esse ab ,apostolis traditum1 quod apud ,ecclesias ,apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum4'--,tertull4 adv4 ,marc4 l4 iv4 c4 #e4 ,,preface ,the reception given by the learned world to the ,first ,volume of this work1 as expressed hitherto in smaller reviews and notices1 has on the whole been decidedly far from discouraging4 ,all have had some word of encomium on our efforts4 ,many have accorded praise and signified their agreement1 sometimes with unquestionable ability4 ,some have pronounced adverse opinions with considerable candour and courtesy4 ,others in opposing have employed arguments so weak and even irrelevant to the real question at issue1 as to suggest that there is not after all so much as ,i anticipated to advance against our case4 ,longer examinations of this important matter are doubtless impending1 with all the interest attaching to them and the judgements involved3 but ,i beg now to offer my acknowledgements for all the words of encouragement that have been uttered4 ,something however must be said in reply to an attack made in the ,guardian newspaper on ,may #bj1 because it represents in the main the position occupied by some members of an existing ,school4 ,i do not linger over an offhand stricture upon my 'adhesion to the extravagant claim of a second-century origin for the ,peshitto1' because ,i am content with the companionship of some of the very first ,syriac scholars1 and with the teaching given in an unanswered article in the ,church ,quarterly ,review for ,april1 #ahie4 ,nor except in passing do ,i remark upon a fanciful censure of my account of the use of papyrus in ,,mss4 before the tenth century--as to which the reviewer is evidently not versed in information recently collected1 and described for example in ,sir ,e4 ,maunde ,thompson's ,greek and ,latin ,palaeography1 or in ,mr4 ,f4 ,g4 ,kenyon's ,our ,bible and the ,ancient ,manuscripts1 and in an article in the just mentioned ,review which appeared in ,october1 #ahid4 ,these observations and a large number of inaccuracies shew that he was at the least not posted up to date4 ,but what will be thought1 when attention is drawn to the fact that in a question whether a singular set of quotations from the early ,fathers refer to a passage in ,st4 ,matthew or the parallel one in ,st4 ,luke1 the peculiar characteristic of ,st4 ,matthew--'them that persecute you'--is put out of sight1 and both passages 7taking the lengthened reading of ,st4 ,matthew7 are represented as having equally only four clauses8 ,and again1 when quotations going on to the succeeding verse in ,st4 ,matthew 7v4 #de7 are stated dogmatically to have been wrongly referred by me to that ,evangelist8 ,but as to the details of this point in dispute1 ,i beg to refer our readers to pp4 #add-aec of the present volume4 ,the reviewer appears also to be entirely unacquainted with the history of the phrase ,greek3 monogens ,theos in ,st4 ,john i4 #ah1 which1 as may be read on pp4 #bae-bah1 was introduced by heretics and harmonized with ,arian tenets1 and was rejected on the other side4 ,that some orthodox churchmen fell into the trap1 and like those who in these days are not aware of the pedigree and use of the phrase1 employed it even for good purposes1 is only an instance of a strange phenomenon4 ,we must not be led only by first impressions as to what is to be taken for the genuine words of the ,gospels4 ,even if phrases or passages make for orthodoxy1 to accept them if condemned by evidence and history is to alight upon the quicksands of conjecture4 ,a curious instance of a fate like this has been supplied by a critic in the ,athenaeum1 who1 when contrasting ,dean ,burgon's style of writing with mine to my discredit1 quotes a passage of some length as the ,dean's which was really written by me4 ,surely the principle upheld by our opponents1 that much more importance than we allow should be attributed to the ',internal evidence of ,readings and ,documents1' might have saved him from error upon a piece of composition which characteristically proclaimed its own origin4 ,at all events1 after this undesigned support1 ,i am the less inclined to retire from our vantage ground4 ,but it is gratifying on all accounts to say now1 that such interpolations as in the companion volume ,i was obliged frequently to supply in order to fill up gaps in the several ,,mss4 and in integral portions of the treatise1 which through their very frequency would have there made square brackets unpleasant to our readers1 are not required so often in this part of the work4 ,accordingly1 except in instances of pure editing or in simple bringing up to date1 my own additions or insertions have been so marked off4 ,it will doubtless afford great satisfaction to others as well as the admirers of the ,dean to know what was really his own writing3 and though some of the ,,mss41 especially towards the end of the volume1 were not left as he would have prepared them for the press if his life had been prolonged1 yet much of the book will afford1 on what he regarded as the chief study of his life1 excellent examples of his style1 so vigorously fresh and so happy in idiomatic and lucid expression4 ,but the ,introduction1 and ,appendix ,,ii on ',conflation' and the ',neutral ,text1' have been necessarily contributed by me4 ,i am anxious to invite attention particularly to the latter essay1 because it has been composed upon request1 and also because--unless it contains some extraordinary mistake--it exhibits to a degree which has amazed me the baselessness of ,dr4 ,hort's theory4 ,the manner in which the ,dean prepared piecemeal for his book1 and the large number of fragments in which he left his materials1 as has been detailed in the ,preface to the former volume1 have necessarily produced an amount of repetition which ,i deplore4 ,to have avoided it entirely1 some of the ,,mss4 must have been rewritten4 ,but in one instance ,i discovered when it was too late that after searching for1 and finding with difficulty and treating1 an example which had not been supplied1 ,i had forestalled a subsequent examination of the same passage from his abler hand4 ,however ,i hope that in nearly all1 if not all cases1 each treatment involves some new contribution to the question discussed2 and that our readers will kindly make allowance for the perplexity which such an assemblage of separate papers could not but entail4 ,my thanks are again due to the ,rev4 ,g4 ,h4 ,gwilliam1 ,b4,d41 ,fellow of ,hertford ,college1 for much advice and suggestion1 which he is so capable of giving1 and for his valuable care in looking through all the first proofs of this volume2 to ',m4 ,w41' ,dean ,burgon's indefatigable secretary1 who in a pure labour of love copied out the text of the ,,mss4 before and after his death2 also to the zealous printers at the ,clarendon ,press1 for help in unravelling intricacies still remaining in them4 ,this treatise is now commended to the fair and candid consideration of readers and reviewers4 ,the latter body of men should remember that there was perhaps never a time when reviewers were themselves reviewed by many intelligent readers more than they are at present4 ,i cannot hope that all that we have advanced will be finally adopted1 though my opinion is unfaltering as resting in my belief upon the ,rock2 still less do ,i imagine that errors may not be discovered in our work4 ,but ,i trust that under ,divine ,blessing some not unimportant contribution has been made towards the establishment upon sound principles of the reverent criticism of the ,text of the ,new ,testament4 ,and ,i am sure that1 as to the ,dean's part in it1 this trust will be ultimately justified4 ,,edward ,,miller4 #i ,bradmore ,road1 ,oxford3 ,sept4 #b1 #ahif4 ,,contents4 ,,introduction4 ,the ,traditional ,text--established by evidence--especially before ,st4 ,chrysostom--corruption--early rise of it--,galilee of the ,gentiles--,syrio-,low-,latin source--various causes and forms of corruption4 pp4 #a-i ,,chapter ,i4 ,general ,corruption4 #a4 ,modern re-editing--difference between the ,new ,testament and other books--immense number of copies--ordinary causes of error--,doctrinal causes4 #b4 ,elimination of weakly attested readings--nature of inquiry4 #c4 ,smaller blemishes in ,,mss4 unimportant except when constant4 #d4 ,most mistakes arose from inadvertency3 many from unfortunate design4 pp4 #aj-bc ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,accidental ,causes of ,corruption4 ,i4 ,pure ,accident4 #a4 ,st4 ,john x4 #bi4 #b4 ,smaller instances1 and ,acts xx4 #bd4 #c4 ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ad4 #d4 ,st4 ,mark xv4 #f2 vii4 #d2 vi4 #bb4 #e4 ,st4 ,mark viii4 #a2 vii4 #ad--,st4 ,john xiii4 #cg4 pp4 #bd-ce ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,accidental ,causes of ,corruption4 ,,ii4 ,homoeoteleuton4 ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ae--,st4 ,john vi4 #aa2 vi4 #ee--,st4 ,matt4 xxiii4 #ad2 xix4 #i--,st4 ,luke xvi4 #ba4 pp4 #cf-da ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,accidental ,causes of ,corruption4 ,,iii4 ,from ,writing in ,uncials4 #a4 ,st4 ,john iv4 #ce-cf4 #b4 ,st4 ,luke xv4 #ag--,st4 ,john v4 #dd4 #c4 ,acts xxvii4 #ad--,st4 ,john iv4 #ae--,st4 ,luke xvii4 #cg--,st4 ,matt4 xxii4 #bc--;and other passages4 #d4 ,st4 ,john v4 #d--,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #aa--,st4 ,matt4 iv4 #bc4 #e4 #b ,st4 ,peter i4 #ca--;,heb4 vii4 #a4 #f4 ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ag4 pp4 #db-ee ,,chapter ,v4 ,accidental ,causes of ,corruption4 ,,iv4 ,itacism4 #a4 ,various passages--,st4 ,john xii4 #a1 #b2 #da4 #b4 ,rev4 i4 #e--,other passages--,st4 ,mark vii4 #ai4 #c4 ,st4 ,mark iv4 #h4 #d4 ,titus ii4 #e4 pp4 #ef-ff ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,accidental ,causes of ,corruption4 ,v4 ,liturgical ,influence4 #a4 ,lectionaries of the ,church--,liturgical influence--,antiquity of the ,lectionary ,system4 #b4 ,st4 ,john xiv4 #a--;,acts iii4 #a--,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark4 #c4 ,st4 ,luke vii4 #ca2 ix4 #a--,other passages4 #d4 ,st4 ,mark xv4 #bh4 #e4 ,acts iii4 #a--,st4 ,matt4 xiii4 #dd2 xvii4 #bc4 #f4 ,st4 ,matt vi4 #ac 7doxology in the ,lord's ,prayer74 pp4 #fg-hh ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,causes of ,corruption ,chiefly ,intentional4 ,i4 ,harmonistic ,influence4 #a4 ,st4 ,mark xvi4 #i4 #b4 ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #a--other examples4 #c4 ,chiefly intentional--,diatessarons--,st4 ,matt4 xvii4 #be1 #bf--;,harmonized narratives--,other examples4 pp4 #hi-ii ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,causes of ,corruption ,chiefly ,intentional4 ,,ii4 ,assimilation4 #a4 ,transfer from one ,gospel to another4 #b4 ,not entirely intentional--,various passages4 #c4 ,st4 ,john xvi4 #af4 #d4 ,st4 ,john xiii4 #ba-be4 #e4 ,st4 ,mark i4 #a1 #b--,other examples--,st4 ,matt4 xii4 #aj 7,st4 ,luke xiv4 #c7--;and others4 #f4 ,st4 ,mark vi4 #aa4 #g4 ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #gj4 pp4 #ajj-abb ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,causes of ,corruption ,chiefly ,intentional4 ,,iii4 ,attraction4 #a4 ,st4 ,john vi4 #ga and xiii4 #bf4 #b4 ,acts xx4 #bd--b ,cor4 iii4 #c4 pp4 #abc-abg ,,chapter ,x4 ,causes of ,corruption ,chiefly ,intentional4 ,,iv4 ,omission4 #a4 ,omissions a class of their own--,exemplified from the ,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark--,omission the besetting fault of transcribers4 #b4 ,the onus probandi rests upon omitters4 #c4 ,st ,luke vi4 #a2 and other omissions4 #d4 ,st4 ,matt4 xxi4 #dd4 #e4 ,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #h4 #f4 ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dd--,reply to the ,reviewer in the ,guardian4 #g4 ,shorter ,omissions4 pp4 #abh-aef ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,causes of ,corruption ,chiefly ,intentional4 ,v4 ,transposition4 #a4 ,st4 ,mark i4 #e2 ii4 #c--,other instances4 #b4 ,st4 ,luke xiii4 #i2 xxiv4 #g4 #c4 ,other examples--,st4 ,john v4 #bg--,transpositions often petty1 but frequent4 ,,vi4 ,substitution4 #d4 ,if taken with ,modifications1 a large class--,various instances4 pp4 #afd-afe ,,vii4 ,addition4 #e4 ,the smallest of the four--,st4 ,luke vi4 #d--,st4 ,matt4 xx4 #bh4 #f4 ,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #ac2 xxiv4 #cf--,st4 ,mark iii4 #af--,other examples4 pp4 #aff-aga ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,causes of ,corruption ,chiefly ,intentional4 ,,viii4 ,glosses4 #a4 ,not so numerous as has been supposed--,st4 ,matt4 xiii4 #cf--,st4 ,mark vii4 #c4 #b4 ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bc4 #c4 ,st4 ,john vi4 #ae2 xiii4 #bd2 xx4 #ah--,st4 ,matt4 xxiv4 #ca4 #d4 ,st4 ,john xviii4 #ad--,st4 ,mark vi4 #aa4 #e4 ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #da--,st4 ,john ix4 #bb4 #f4 ,st4 ,john xii4 #g4 #g4 ,st4 ,john xvii4 #d4 #h4 ,st4 ,luke i4 #ff4 #i4 ,st4 ,luke v4 #g--;,acts xx4 #d4 pp4 #agb-aij ,,chapter ,,xiii4 ,causes of ,corruption ,chiefly ,intentional4 ,,ix4 ,corruption by ,heretics4 #a4 ,this class very evident--,began in the earliest times--,appeal to what is earlier still--,condemned in all ages and countries4 #b4 ,the earliest depravers of the ,text--,tatian's ,diatessaron4 #c4 ,gnostics--,st4 ,john i4 #c-d4 #d4 ,st4 ,john x4 #ad1 #ae4 #e4 ,doctrinal--,matrimony--,st4 ,matt i4 #ai4 pp4 #aia-baj ,,chapter ,,xiv4 ,causes of ,corruption ,chiefly ,intentional4 ,x4 ,corruption by the ,orthodox4 #a4 ,st4 ,luke xix4 #da2 ii4 #dj4 #b4 ,st4 ,john viii4 #dj2 and i4 #ah4 #c4 #a ,cor4 xv4 #dg4 #d4 ,st4 ,john iii4 #ac4 #e4 ,st4 ,luke ix4 #ed-ef4 pp4 #baa-bca ,,appendix ,i4 ,pericope de ,adultera4 pp4 #bcc-bfe ,,appendix ,,ii4 ,dr4 ,hort's ,theory of ,conflation and the ,neutral ,text4 pp4 #bff-bhf ,index of ,subjects4 pp4 #bhg-bhh ,index of ,passages of the ,new ,testament ,discussed4 pp4 #bhi-bij ,,the ,,causes ,,of ,,the ,,corruption ,,of ,,the ,,traditional ,,text ,,of ,,the ,,holy ,,gospels4 ,,introduction4 ,in the companion volume to this1 the ,traditional ,text1 that is1 the ,text of the ,gospels which is the resultant of all the evidence faithfully and exhaustively presented and estimated according to the best procedure of the courts of law1 has been traced back to the earliest ages in the existence of those sacred writings4 ,we have shewn1 that on the one hand1 amidst the unprecedented advantages afforded by modern conditions of life for collecting all the evidence bearing upon the subject1 the ,traditional ,text must be found1 not in a mere transcript1 but in a laborious revision of the ,received ,text2 and that on the other hand it must1 as far as we can judge1 differ but slightly from the ,text now generally in vogue1 which has been generally received during the last two and a half centuries4 ,the strength of the position of the ,traditional ,text lies in its being logically deducible and to be deduced from all the varied evidence which the case supplies1 when it has been sifted1 proved1 passed1 weighed1 compared1 compounded1 and contrasted with dissentient testimony4 ,the contrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon which controversy has gathered4 ,on one side the vast mass of authorities is assembled3 on the other stands a small group4 ,not inconsiderable is the advantage possessed by that group1 as regards numerous students who do not look beneath the surface1 in the general witness in their favour borne by the two oldest ,,mss4 of the ,gospels in existence4 ,that advantage however shrinks into nothing under the light of rigid examination4 ,the claim for the ,text in them made at the ,semiarian period was rejected when ,semiarianism in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour4 ,and the argument advanced by ,dr4 ,hort that the ,traditional ,text was a new ,text formed by successive recensions has been refuted upon examination of the verdict of the ,fathers in the first four centuries1 and of the early ,syriac and ,latin ,versions4 ,besides all this1 those two manuscripts have been traced to a local source in the library of ,caesarea4 ,and on the other hand a ,catholic origin of the ,traditional ,text found on later vellum manuscripts has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus which existed all over the ,roman ,empire1 unless it was in ,asia1 and were to some degree in use even as late as the ninth century2 before and during the employment of vellum in the ,caesarean school1 and in localities where it was used in imitation of the mode of writing books which was brought well-nigh to perfection in that city4 ,it is evident that the turning-point of the controversy between ourselves and the ,neologian school must lie in the centuries before ,st4 ,chrysostom4 ,if1 as ,dr4 ,hort maintains1 the ,traditional ,text not only gained supremacy at that era but did not exist in the early ages1 then our contention is vain4 ,that ,text can be ,traditional only if it goes back without break or intermission to the original autographs1 because if through break or intermission it ceased or failed to exist1 it loses the essential feature of genuine tradition4 ,on the other hand1 if it is proved to reach back in unbroken line to the time of the ,evangelists1 or to a period as near to them as surviving testimony can prove1 then ,dr4 ,hort's theory of a ',syrian' text formed by recension or otherwise just as evidently falls to the ground4 ,following mainly upon the lines drawn by ,dean ,burgon1 though in a divergence of my own devising1 ,i claim to have proved ,dr4 ,hort to have been conspicuously wrong1 and our maintenance of the ,traditional ,text in unbroken succession to be eminently right4 ,the school opposed to us must disprove our arguments1 not by discrediting the testimony of the ,fathers to whom all ,textual ,critics have appealed including ,dr4 ,hort1 but by demonstrating if they can that the ,traditional ,text is not recognized by them1 or they must yield eventually to us#a4 ,in this volume1 the other half of the subject will be discussed4 ,instead of exploring the genuine ,text1 we shall treat of the corruptions of it1 and shall track error in its ten thousand forms to a few sources or heads4 ,the origination of the pure ,text in the inspired writings of the ,evangelists will thus be vindicated anew by the evident paternity of deflections from it discoverable in the natural defects or iniquities of men4 ,corruption will the more shew itself in true colours3-- ,quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra#b3 and it will not so readily be mistaken for genuineness1 when the real history is unfolded1 and the mistakes are accounted for4 ,it seems clear that corruption arose in the very earliest age4 ,as soon as the ,gospel was preached1 the incapacity of human nature for preserving accuracy until long years of intimate acquaintance have bred familiarity must have asserted itself in constant distortion more or less of the sacred stories1 as they were told and retold amongst ,christians one to another whether in writing or in oral transmission4 ,mistakes would inevitably arise from the universal tendency to mix error with truth which ,virgil has so powerfully depicted in his description of ',fame'3-- ,tam ficti pravique tenax1 quam nuntia veri#c4 ,and as soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work1 a spirit of infidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the details of the new religion must have impelled such as were either imperfect ,christians1 or no ,christians at all1 to corrupt the sacred stories4 ,thus it appears that errors crept in at the very first commencement of the life of the ,church4 ,this is a matter so interesting and so important in the history of corruption1 that ,i must venture to place it again before our readers4 ,why was ,galilee chosen before ,judea and ,jerusalem as the chief scene of our ,lord's ,life and ,ministry1 at least as regards the time spent there8 ,partly1 no doubt1 because the ,galileans were more likely than the other inhabitants of ,palestine to receive ,him4 ,but there was as ,i venture to think also another very special reason4 ',galilee of the nations' or 'the ,gentiles1' not only had a mixed population#d and a provincial dialect#e1 but lay contiguous to the rest of ,palestine on the one side1 and on others to two districts in which ,greek was largely spoken1 namely1 ,decapolis and the parts of ,tyre and ,sidon1 and also to the large country of ,syria4 ,our ,lord laid foundations for a natural growth in these parts of the ,christian religion after ,his death almost independent as it seems of the centre of the ,church at ,jerusalem4 ,hence ,his crossings of the lake1 ,his miracles on the other side1 ,his retirement in that little understood episode in ,his life when ,he shrank from persecution#f1 and remained secretly in the parts of ,tyre and ,sidon1 about the coasts of ,decapolis1 on the shores of the lake1 and in the towns of ,caesarea ,philippi1 where the traces of ,his footsteps are even now indicated by tradition#g4 ,his success amongst these outlying populations is proved by the unique assemblage of the crowds of #ejjj and #djjj men besides women and children4 ,what wonder then if the ,church sprang up at ,damascus1 and suddenly as if without notice displayed such strength as to draw persecution upon it6 ,in the same way the ,words of life appear to have passed throughout ,syria over congenial soil1 and ,antioch became the haven whence the first great missionaries went out for the conversion of the world4 ,such were not only ,st4 ,paul1 ,st4 ,peter1 and ,st4 ,barnabas1 but also as is not unreasonable to infer many of that assemblage of ,christians at ,rome whom ,st4 ,paul enumerates to our surprise in the last chapter of his ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,many no doubt were friends whom the ,apostle of the ,gentiles had met in ,greece and elsewhere3 but there are reasons to shew that some at least of them1 such as ,andronicus and ,junias or ,junia#h and ,herodion1 may probably have passed along the stream of commerce that flowed between ,antioch and ,rome#i1 and that this interconnexion between the queen city of the empire and the emporium of the ,east may in great measure account for the number of names well known to the apostle1 and for the then flourishing condition of the ,church which they adorned4 ,it has been shewn in our first volume that1 as is well known to all students of ,textual ,criticism1 the chief amount of corruption is to be found in what is termed the ,western ,text2 and that the corruption of the ,west is so closely akin to the corruption which is found in ,syriac remains1 that practically they are included under one head of classification4 ,what is the reason of this phenomenon8 ,it is evidently derived from the close commercial alliance which subsisted between ,syria and ,italy4 ,that is to say1 the corruption produced in ,syria made its way over into ,italy1 and there in many instances gathered fresh contributions4 ,for there is reason to suppose1 that it first arose in ,syria4 ,we have seen how the ,church grew of itself there without regular teaching from ,jerusalem in the first beginnings1 or any regular supervision exercised by the ,apostles4 ,in fact1 as far as the ,syrian believers in ,christ at first consisted of ,gentiles1 they must perforce have been regarded as being outside of the covenant of promise4 ,yet there must have been many who revered the stories told about our ,lord1 and felt extreme interest and delight in them4 ,the story of ,king ,abgar illustrates the history3 but amongst those who actually heard our ,lord preach there must have been very many1 probably a majority1 who were uneducated4 ,they would easily learn from the ,jews1 because the ,aramaic dialects spoken by ,hebrews and ,syrians did not greatly differ the one from the other4 ,what difference there was1 would not so much hinder the spread of the stories1 as tend to introduce alien forms of speech and synonymous words1 and so to hinder absolute accuracy from being maintained4 ,much time must necessarily have elapsed1 before such familiarity with the genuine accounts of our ,lord's sayings and doings grew up1 as would prevent mistakes being made and disseminated in telling or in writing4 ,the ,gospels were certainly not written till some thirty years after the ,ascension4 ,more careful examination seems to place them later rather than earlier4 ,for myself1 ,i should suggest that the three first were not published long before the year #gj ,a4,d4 at the earliest2 and that ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel was written at ,pella during the siege of ,jerusalem amidst ,greek surroundings1 and in face of the necessity caused by new conditions of life that ,greek should become the ecclesiastical language4 ,the ,gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their entirety of the stories constituting the ,life of our ,lord2 and corruption must have come into existence1 before the antidote was found in complete documents accepted and commissioned by the authorities in the ,church4 ,i must again remark with much emphasis that the foregoing suggestions are offered to account for what may now be regarded as a fact1 viz41 the connexion between the ,western ,text1 as it is called1 and ,syriac remains in regard to corruption in the text of the ,gospels and of the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,if that corruption arose at the very first spread of ,christianity1 before the record of our ,lord's ,life had assumed permanent shape in the ,four ,gospels1 all is easy4 ,such corruption1 inasmuch as it beset the oral and written stories which were afterwards incorporated in the ,gospels1 would creep into the authorized narrations1 and would vitiate them till it was ultimately cast out towards the end of the fourth and in the succeeding centuries4 ,starting from the very beginning1 and gaining additions in the several ways described in this volume by ,dean ,burgon1 it would possess such vigour as to impress itself on ,low-,latin manuscripts and even on parts of the better ,latin ones1 perhaps on ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 on the ,curetonian and ,lewis manuscripts of the fifth century1 on the ,codex ,bezae of the sixth2 also on the ,vatican and the ,sinaitic of the fourth1 on the ,dublin ,palimpsest of ,st4 ,matthew of the sixth1 on the ,codex ,regius or ,l of the eighth1 on the ,st4 ,gall ,,ms4 of the ninth in ,st4 ,mark1 on the ,codex ,zacynthius of the eighth in ,st4 ,luke1 and a few others4 ,we on our side admit that the corruption is old even though the manuscripts enshrining it do not date very far back1 and cannot always prove their ancestry4 ,and it is in this admission that ,i venture to think there is an opening for a meeting of opinions which have been hitherto opposed4 ,in the following treatise1 the causes of corruption are divided into 7,i7 such as proceeded from ,accident1 and 7,,ii7 those which were ,intentional4 ,under the former class we find 7#a7 those which were involved in pure ,accident1 or 7#b7 in what is termed ,homoeoteleuton where lines or sentences ended with the same word or the same syllable1 or 7#c7 such as arose in writing from ,uncial letters1 or 7#d7 in the confusion of vowels and diphthongs which is called ,itacism1 or 7#e7 in ,liturgical ,influence4 ,the remaining instances may be conveniently classed as ,intentional1 not because in all cases there was a settled determination to alter the text1 for such if any was often of the faintest character1 but because some sort of design was to a greater or less degree embedded in most of them4 ,such causes were 7#a7 ,harmonistic ,influence1 7#b7 ,assimilation1 7#c7 ,attraction2 such instances too in their main character were 7#d7 ,omissions1 7#e7 ,transpositions1 7#f7 ,substitutions1 7#g7 ,additions1 7#h7 ,glosses1 7#i7 ,corruption by ,heretics1 7#aj7 ,corruption by ,orthodox4 ,this dissection of the mass of corruption1 or as perhaps it may be better termed1 this classification made by ,dean ,burgon of the numerous causes which are found to have been at work from time to time1 appears to me to be most interesting to the inquirer into the hidden history of the ,text of the ,gospels1 because by revealing the influences which have been at work it sheds light upon the entire controversy1 and often enables the student to see clearly how and why certain passages around which dispute has gathered are really corrupt4 ,indeed1 the vast and mysterious ogre called corruption assumes shape and form under the acute penetration and the deft handling of the ,dean1 whose great knowledge of the subject and orderly treatment of puzzling details is still more commended by his interesting style of writing4 ,as far as has been possible1 ,i have let him in the sequel1 except for such clerical corrections as were required from time to time and have been much fewer than his facile pen would have made1 speak entirely for himself4 ,,footnotes3 #a ,it must be always borne in mind1 that it is not enough for the purpose of the other side to shew that the ,traditional ,text was in a minority as regards attestation4 ,they must prove that it was nowhere in the earliest ages1 if they are to establish their position that it was made in the third and fourth centuries4 ,traditional ,text of the ,holy ,gospels1 p4 #ie4 #b ',a hydra in her direful shape1 ,with fifty darkling throats agape4'-- ,altered from ,conington's version1 ,aen4 vi4 #egf4 #c ',how oft soe'er the truth she tell1 ,what's false and wrong she loves too well4'-- ,altered from ,conington1 ,aen4 iv4 #ahh4 #d ,strabo1 xvi1 enumerates amongst its inhabitants ,egyptians1 ,arabians1 and ,phoenicians4 #e ,studia ,biblica1 i4 #ej-ee4 ,dr4 ,neubauer1 ,on the ,dialects spoken in ,palestine in the time of ,christ4 #f ,isaac ,williams1 ,on the ,study of the ,gospels1 #cda-ceb4 #g ,my devoted ,syrian friend1 ,miss ,helanie ,baroody1 told me during her stay in ,england that a village is pointed out as having been traversed by our ,lord on ,his way from ,caesarea ,philippi to ,mount ,hermon4 #h ,it is hardly improbable that these two eminent ,christians were some of those whom ,st ,paul found at ,antioch when ,st4 ,barnabas brought him there1 and thus came to know intimately as fellow-workers 7,greek3 epismoi en tois apostolois1 oi kai pro emou gegonasin en ,christ74 ,most of the names in ,rom4 xvi are either ,greek or ,hebrew4 #i ',jam pridem ,syrus in ,tiberim defluxit ,orontes ,et linguam et mores 444 vexit4' --,juv4 ,sat4 iii4 #fb-c4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,general ,,corruption4 #a4 ,we hear sometimes scholars complain1 and with a certain show of reason1 that it is discreditable to us as a ,church not to have long since put forth by authority a revised ,greek ,text of the ,new ,testament4 ,the chief writers of antiquity1 say they1 have been of late years re-edited by the aid of the best ,manuscripts4 ,why should not the ,scriptures enjoy the same advantage8 ,men who so speak evidently misunderstand the question4 ,they assume that the case of the ,scriptures and that of other ancient writings are similar4 ,such remonstrances are commonly followed up by statements like the following3--,that the received ,text is that of ,erasmus3--that it was constructed in haste1 and without skill3--that it is based on a very few1 and those bad ,manuscripts3--that it belongs to an age when scarcely any of our present critical helps were available1 and when the ,science of ,textual ,criticism was unknown4 ,to listen to these advocates for ,revision1 you would almost suppose that it fared with the ,gospel at this instant as it had fared with the original ,copy of the ,law for many years until the days of ,king ,josiah#aj4 ,yielding to no one in my desire to see the ,greek of the ,new ,testament judiciously revised1 ,i freely avow that recent events have convinced me1 and ,i suppose they have convinced the public also1 that we have not among us the men to conduct such an undertaking4 ,better a thousand times in my judgement to leave things as they are1 than to risk having the stamp of authority set upon such an unfortunate production as that which appeared on the #agth ,may1 #ahha1 and which claims at this instant to represent the combined learning of the ,church1 the chief ,sects1 and the ,socinian#aa body4 ,now if the meaning of those who desire to see the commonly received text of the ,new ,testament made absolutely faultless1 were something of this kind3--,that they are impatient for the collation of the copies which have become known to us within the last two centuries1 and which amount already in all to upwards of three thousand3 that they are bent on procuring that the ancient ,versions shall be re-edited2--and would hail with delight the announcement that a band of scholars had combined to index every place of ,scripture quoted by any of the ,fathers3--if this were meant1 we should all be entirely at one2 especially if we could further gather from the programme that a fixed intention was cherished of abiding by the result of such an appeal to ancient evidence4 ,but unfortunately something entirely different is in contemplation4 ,now ,i am bent on calling attention to certain features of the problem which have very generally escaped attention4 ,it does not seem to be understood that the ,scriptures of the ,new ,testament stand on an entirely different footing from every other ancient writing which can be named4 ,a few plain remarks ought to bring this fact1 for a fact it is1 home to every thoughtful person4 ,and the result will be that men will approach the subject with more caution1--with doubts and misgivings1--with a fixed determination to be on their guard against any form of plausible influence4 ,their prejudices they will scatter to the winds4 ,at every step they will insist on proof4 ,in the first place1 then1 let it be observed that the ,new ,testament ,scriptures are wholly without a parallel in respect of their having been so frequently multiplied from the very first4 ,they are by consequence contained at this day in an extravagantly large number of copies probably1 if reckoned under the six classes of ,gospels1 ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles1 ,pauline ,epistles1 ,apocalypse1 ,evangelistaries1 and ,apostolos1 exceeding the number of four thousand4 ,there is nothing like this1 or at all approaching to it1 in the case of any profane writing that can be named#ab4 ,and the very necessity for multiplying copies1--a necessity which has made itself felt in every age and in every clime1--has perforce resulted in an immense number of variants4 ,words have been inevitably dropped1--vowels have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or less competent3--and the meaning of ,scripture in countless places has suffered to a surprising degree in consequence4 ,this first4 ,but then further1 the ,scriptures for the very reason because they were known to be the ,word of ,god became a mark for the shafts of ,satan from the beginning4 ,they were by consequence as eagerly solicited by heretical teachers on the one hand1 as they were hotly defended by the orthodox on the other4 ,alike from friends and from foes therefore1 they are known to have experienced injury1 and that in the earliest age of all4 ,nothing of the kind can be predicated of any other ancient writings4 ,this consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of judicial impartiality1 in the handling of ancient evidence of whatever sort4 ,for ,i request it may be observed that ,i have not said--and ,i certainly do not mean--that the ,scriptures themselves have been permanently corrupted either by friend or foe4 ,error was fitful and uncertain1 and was contradicted by other error3 besides that it sank eventually before a manifold witness to the truth4 ,nevertheless1 certain manuscripts belonging to a few small groups--particular copies of a ,version--individual ,fathers or ,doctors of the ,church1--these do1 to the present hour1 bear traces incontestably of ancient mischief4 ,but what goes before is not nearly all4 ,the fourfold structure of the ,gospel has lent itself to a certain kind of licentious handling--of which in other ancient writings we have no experience4 ,one critical owner of a ,codex considered himself at liberty to assimilate the narratives3 another to correct them in order to bring them into 7what seemed to himself7 greater harmony4 ,brevity is found to have been a paramount object with some1 and ,transposition to have amounted to a passion with others4 ,conjectural ,criticism was evidently practised largely3 and almost with as little felicity as when ,bentley held the pen4 ,lastly1 there can be no question that there was a certain school of ,critics who considered themselves competent to improve the style of the ,holy ,ghost throughout4 ,and before the members of the ,church had gained a familiar acquaintance with the words of the ,new ,testament1 blunders continually crept into the text of more or less heinous importance4 ,all this1 which was chiefly done during the second and third centuries1 introduces an element of difficulty in the handling of ancient evidence which can never be safely neglected3 and will make a thoughtful man suspicious of every various reading which comes in his way1 especially if it is attended with but slender attestation4 ,it has been already shewn in the companion volume that the names of the ,codexes chiefly vitiated in this sort prove to be ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,,cdl2 of the ,versions1--the two ,coptic1 the ,curetonian1 and certain specimens of the ,old ,latin2 of the ,fathers1--,origen1 ,clement of ,alexandria1 and to some extent ,eusebius4 ,add to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures1 and it will become abundantly plain why they should have been liable to a series of assaults which make it reasonable that they should now at last be approached by ourselves as no other ancient writings are1 or can be4 ,the nature of ,god1--,his ,being and ,attributes3--the history of ,man's ,redemption3--the soul's eternal destiny3--the mysteries of the unseen world3--concerning these and every other similar high doctrinal subject1 the sacred writings alone speak with a voice of absolute authority4 ,and surely by this time enough has been said to explain why these ,scriptures should have been made a battle-field during some centuries1 and especially in the fourth2 and having thus been made the subject of strenuous contention1 that copies of them should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverse influences4 ,i say it for the last time1--of all such causes of depravation the ,greek ,poets1 ,tragedians1 ,philosophers1 ,historians1 neither knew nor could know anything4 ,and it thus plainly appears that the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament is to be handled by ourselves in an entirely different spirit from that of any other book4 #b4 ,i wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of the ,text of the ,new ,testament4 ,i do not entitle the present a discussion of ',various ,readings1' because ,i consider that expression to be incorrect and misleading#ac4 ,freely allowing that the term 'variae lectiones1' for lack of a better1 may be allowed to stand on the ,critic's page1 ,i yet think it necessary even a second time to call attention to the impropriety which attends its use4 ,thus ,codex ,b differs from the commonly received ,text of ,scripture in the ,gospels alone in #gegh places2 of which no less than #bhgg are instances of omission4 ,in fact omissions constitute by far the larger number of what are commonly called ',various ,readings4' ,how then can those be called 'various readings' which are really not readings at all8 ,how1 for example1 can that be said to be a 'various reading' of ,st4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 which consists in the circumstance that the last #ab verses are left out by two ,,mss48 ,again1--,how can it be called a 'various reading' of ,st4 ,john xxi4 #be1 to bring the ,gospel abruptly to a close1 as ,tischendorf does1 at v4 #bd8 ,these are really nothing else but indications either of a mutilated or else an interpolated text4 ,and the question to be resolved is1--,on which side does the corruption lie8 and1 ,how did it originate8 ,waiving this however1 the term is objectionable on other grounds4 ,it is to beg the whole question to assume that every irregularity in the text of ,scripture is a 'various reading4' ,the very expression carries with it an assertion of importance2 at least it implies a claim to consideration4 ,even might it be thought that1 because it is termed a 'various reading1' therefore a critic is entitled to call in question the commonly received text4 ,whereas1 nine divergences out of ten are of no manner of significance and are entitled to no manner of consideration1 as every one must see at a glance who will attend to the matter ever so little4 ',various readings' in fact is a term which belongs of right to the criticism of the text of profane authors3 and1 like many other notions which have been imported from the same region into this department of inquiry1 it only tends to confuse and perplex the judgement4 ,no variety in the ,text of ,scripture can properly be called a 'various reading1' of which it may be safely declared that it never has been1 and never will be1 read4 ,in the case of profane authors1 where the ,,mss4 are for the most part exceedingly few1 almost every plausible substitution of one word for another1 if really entitled to alteration1 is looked upon as a various reading of the text4 ,but in the ,gospels1 of which the copies are so numerous as has been said1 the case is far otherwise4 ,we are there able to convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed 'various reading' is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness or inattention on the part of a previous scribe or scribes1 and we can afford to neglect it accordingly#ad4 ,it follows therefore1--and this is the point to which ,i desire to bring the reader and to urge upon his consideration1--that the number of 'various readings' in the ,new ,testament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated4 ,they are1 in reality1 exceedingly few in number2 and it is to be expected that1 as sound 7sacred7 ,criticism advances1 and principles are established1 and conclusions recognized1 instead of becoming multiplied they will become fewer and fewer1 and at last will entirely disappear4 ,we cannot afford to go on disputing for ever2 and what is declared by common consent to be untenable ought to be no longer reckoned4 ,that only in short1 as ,i venture to think1 deserves the name of a ,various ,reading which comes to us so respectably recommended as to be entitled to our sincere consideration and respect2 or1 better still1 which is of such a kind as to inspire some degree of reasonable suspicion that after all it may prove to be the true way of exhibiting the text4 ,the inquiry therefore on which we are about to engage1 grows naturally out of the considerations which have been already offered4 ,we propose to ascertain1 as far as is practicable at the end of so many hundred years1 in what way these many strange corruptions of the text have arisen4 ,very often we shall only have to inquire how it has come to pass that the text exhibits signs of perturbation at a certain place4 ,such disquisitions as those which follow1 let it never be forgotten1 have no place in reviewing any other text than that of the ,new ,testament1 because a few plain principles would suffice to solve every difficulty4 ,the less usual word mistaken for the word of more frequent occurrence2--clerical carelessness2--a gloss finding its way from the margin into the text2--- such explanations as these would probably in other cases suffice to account for every ascertained corruption of the text4 ,but it is far otherwise here1 as ,i propose to make fully apparent by and by4 ,various disturbing influences have been at work for a great many years1 of which secular productions know absolutely nothing1 nor indeed can know4 ,the importance of such an inquiry will become apparent as we proceed2 but it may be convenient that ,i should call attention to the matter briefly at the outset4 ,it frequently happens that the one remaining plea of many critics for adopting readings of a certain kind1 is the inexplicable nature of the phenomena which these readings exhibit4 ',how will you possibly account for such a reading as the present1' 7say they17 'if it be not authentic8' ,or they say nothing1 but leave it to be inferred that the reading they adopt1--in spite of its intrinsic improbability1 in spite also of the slender amount of evidence on which it rests1--must needs be accepted as true4 ,they lose sight of the correlative difficulty3--,how comes it to pass that the rest of the copies read the place otherwise8 ,on all such occasions it is impossible to overestimate the importance of detecting the particular cause which has brought about1 or which at least will fully account for1 this depravation4 ,when this has been done1 it is hardly too much to say that a case presents itself like as when a pasteboard mask has been torn away1 and the ghost is discovered with a broad grin on his face behind it4 ,the discussion on which ,i now enter is then on the ,causes of the various ,corruptions of the ,text4 ,the reader shall be shewn with illustrations to what particular source they are to be severally ascribed4 ,when representative passages have been thus labelled1 and the causes are seen in operation1 he will be able to pierce the mystery1 and all the better to winnow the evil from among the good4 #c4 ,when ,i take into my hands an ancient copy of the ,gospels1 ,i expect that it will exhibit sundry inaccuracies and imperfections3 and ,i am never disappointed in my expectation4 ,the discovery however creates no uneasiness1 so long as the phenomena evolved are of a certain kind and range within easily definable limits4 ,thus3-- #a4 ,whatever belongs to peculiarities of spelling or fashions of writing1 ,i can afford to disregard4 ,for example1 it is clearly consistent with perfect good faith1 that a scribe should spell ,greek3 krabatton#ae in several different ways3 that he should write ,greek3 out for ,greek3 outs1 or the contrary3 that he should add or omit what grammarians call the ,greek3 n ephelkystikon4 ,the questions really touched by irregularities such as these concern the date and country where the ,,ms4 was produced2 not by any means the honesty or animus of the copyist4 ,the man fell into the method which was natural to him1 or which he found prevailing around him2 and that was all4 ',itacisms' therefore1 as they are called1 of whatever kind1--by which is meant the interchange of such vowels and diphthongs as ,greek3 i-ei1 ai-e1 -i1 -oi-u1 o-1 -ei1--need excite no uneasiness4 ,it is true that these variations may occasionally result in very considerable inconvenience3 for it will sometimes happen that a different reading is the consequence4 ,but the copyist may have done his work in perfect good faith for all that4 ,it is not he who is responsible for the perplexity he occasions me1 but the language and the imperfect customs amidst which he wrote4 #b4 ,in like manner the reduplication of syllables1 words1 clauses1 sentences1 is consistent with entire sincerity of purpose on the part of the copyist4 ,this inaccuracy is often to be deplored2 inasmuch as a reduplicated syllable often really affects the sense4 ,but for the most part nothing worse ensues than that the page is disfigured with errata4 #c4 ,so1 on the other hand1--the occasional omission of words1 whether few or many1--especially that passing from one line to the corresponding place in a subsequent line1 which generally results from the proximity of a similar ending1--is a purely venial offence4 ,it is an evidence of carelessness1 but it proves nothing worse4 #d4 ,then further1--slight inversions1 especially of ordinary words2 or the adoption of some more obvious and familiar collocation of particles in a sentence2 or again1 the occasional substitution of one common word for another1 as ,greek3 eipe for ,greek3 elege1 ,greek3 phnsan for ,greek3 kraxan1 and the like2--need not provoke resentment4 ,it is an indication1 we are willing to hope1 of nothing worse than slovenliness on the part of the writer or the group or succession of writers4 #e4 ,i will add that besides the substitution of one word for another1 cases frequently occur1 where even the introduction into the text of one or more words which cannot be thought to have stood in the original autograph of the ,evangelist1 need create no offence4 ,it is often possible to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way4 ,but it is high time to point out1 that irregularities which fall under these last heads are only tolerable within narrow limits1 and always require careful watching2 for they may easily become excessive or even betray an animus2 and in either case they pass at once into quite a different category4 ,from cases of excusable oscitancy they degenerate1 either into instances of inexcusable licentiousness1 or else into cases of downright fraud4 #f4 ,thus1 if it be observed in the case of a ,codex 7a7 that entire sentences or significant clauses are habitually omitted3--7b7 that again and again in the course of the same page the phraseology of the ,evangelist has upon clear evidence been seriously tampered with3 and 7c7 that interpolations here and there occur which will not admit of loyal interpretation3--we cannot but learn to regard with habitual distrust the ,codex in which all these notes are found combined4 ,it is as when a witness1 whom we suspected of nothing worse than a bad memory or a random tongue or a lively imagination1 has been at last convicted of deliberate suppression of parts of his evidence1 misrepresentation of facts1--in fact1 deliberate falsehood4 #g4 ,but now suppose the case of a ,,ms4 in which words or clauses are clearly omitted with design2 where expressions are withheld which are confessedly harsh or critically difficult1--whole sentences or parts of them which have a known controversial bearing2--,suppose further that the same ,,ms4 abounds in worthless paraphrase1 and contains apocryphal additions throughout3--,what are we to think of our guide then8 ,there can be but one opinion on the subject4 ,from habitually trusting1 we shall entertain inveterate distrust4 ,we have ascertained his character4 ,we thought he was a faithful witness1 but we now find from experience of his transgressions that we have fallen into bad company4 ,his witness may be false no less than true3 confidence is at an end4 #d4 ,it may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations discoverable in ,codexes of the ,sacred ,text have arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency of the scribes4 ,that such was the case in a vast number of cases is in fact demonstrable4 ,inaccuracy in the apprehension of the ,divine ,word1 which in the earliest ages was imperfectly understood1 and ignorance of ,greek in primitive ,latin translators1 were prolific sources of error4 ,the influence of ,lectionaries1 in which ,holy ,scripture was cut up into separate ,lections either with or without an introduction1 remained with habitual hearers1 and led them off in copying to paths which had become familiar4 ,acquaintance with ',harmonies' or ,diatessarons caused copyists insensibly to assimilate one ,gospel to another4 ,and doctrinal predilections1 as in the case of those who belonged to the ,origenistic school1 were the source of lapsing into expressions which were not the verba ipsissima of ,holy ,writ4 ,in such cases1 when the inadvertency was genuine and was unmingled with any overt design1 it is much to be noted that the error seldom propagated itself extensively4 ,but next1 well-meant endeavours must have been made at a very early period 'to rectify' 7,greek3 diorthoun7 the text thus unintentionally corrupted2 and so1 what began in inadvertence is sometimes found in the end to exhibit traces of design1 and often becomes in a high degree perplexing4 ,thus1 to cite a favourite example1 it is clear to me that in the earliest age of all 7,a4,d4 #ajj87 some copyist of ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ad 7call him ,x7 inadvertently omitted the second ,greek3 en in the ,angelic ,hymn4 ,now if the persons 7call them ,y and ,z7 whose business it became in turn to reproduce the early copy thus inadvertently depraved1 had but been content both of them to transcribe exactly what they saw before them1 the error of their immediate predecessor 7,x7 must infallibly have speedily been detected1 remedied1 and forgotten1--simply because1 as every one must have seen as well as ,y and ,z1 it was impossible to translate the sentence which results1--,greek3 epi gs eirn anthrpois eudokia4 ,reference would have been made to any other copy of the third ,gospel1 and together with the omitted preposition 7,greek3 en7 sense would have been restored to the passage4 ,but unhappily one of the two supposed ,copyists being a learned grammarian who had no other copy at hand to refer to1 undertook1 good man that he was1 proprio ,marte to force a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy before him3 and he did it by affixing to ,greek3 eudokia the sign of the genitive case 7,greek3 s74 ,unhappy effort of misplaced skill6 ,that copy or those copies became the immediate progenitor or progenitors of a large family1--from which all the ,latin copies are descended2 whereby it comes to pass that ,latin ,christendom sings the ,hymn ',gloria in excelsis' incorrectly to the present hour1 and may possibly sing it incorrectly to the end of time4 ,the error committed by that same venerable ,copyist survives in the four oldest copies of the passage extant1 ,b99 and ,symbol3 ,aleph991 ,a and ,d1--though happily in no others1--in the ,old ,latin1 ,vulgate1 and ,gothic1 alone of ,versions2 in ,irenaeus and ,origen 7who contradict themselves71 and in the ,latin ,fathers4 ,all the ,greek authorities1 with the few exceptions just recorded1 of which ,a and ,d are the only consistent witnesses1 unite in condemning the evident blunder#af4 ,i once hoped that it might be possible to refer all the ,corruptions of the ,text of ,scripture to ordinary causes3 as1 careless transcription1-- divers accidents1--misplaced critical assiduity1--doctrinal animus1--small acts of unpardonable licence4 ,but increased attention and enlarged acquaintance with the subject1 have convinced me that by far the larger number of the omissions of such ,codexes as ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bld must needs be due to quite a different cause4 ,these ,,mss4 omit so many words1 phrases1 sentences1 verses of ,scripture1--that it is altogether incredible that the proximity of like endings can have much to do with the matter4 ,inadvertency may be made to bear the blame of some omissions3 it cannot bear the blame of shrewd and significant omissions of clauses1 which invariably leave the sense complete4 ,a systematic and perpetual mutilation of the inspired ,text must needs be the result of design1 not of accident#ag4 ,it will be seen therefore that the causes of the ,corruptions of the ,text class themselves under two main heads1 viz4 7,i47 ,those which arose from ,inadvertency1 and 7,,ii47 ,those which took their origin in ,design4 ,,footnotes3 #aj #b ,kings xxii4 #h #b ,chron4 xxxiv4 #ae4 #aa ,this name is used for want of a better4 ,churchmen are ,unitarians as well as ,trinitarians4 ,the two names in combination express our ,faith4 ,we dare not alienate either of them4 #ab ,see ,the ,traditional ,text of the ,holy ,gospels 7,burgon and ,miller71 p4 #ba1 note #a4 #ac ,see ,traditional ,text1 chapter ii1 #f1 p4 #cc4 #ad ,perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into two classes1 viz4 7#a7 such as really have strong evidence for their support1 and require examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt2 and 7#b7 those which afford no doubt as to their being destitute of foundation1 and are only interesting as specimens of the modes in which error was sometimes introduced4 ,evidently1 the latter class are not 'various' at all4 #ae ,i4e4 generally ,greek3 krabatton1 or else ,greek3 krabaton1 or even ,greek3 krabakton2 seldom found as ,greek3 krabbatton1 or spelt in the corrupt form ,greek3 krabbaton4 #af ,i am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeeding that of the ,apostles1 some person or persons of great influence and authority executed a ,revision of the ,n4,t4 and gave the world the result of such labours in a 'corrected ,text4' ,the guiding principle seems to have been to seek to abridge the ,text1 to lop off whatever seemed redundant1 or which might in any way be spared1 and to eliminate from one ,gospel whatever expressions occurred elsewhere in another ,gospel4 ,clauses which slightly obscured the speaker's meaning2 or which seemed to hang loose at the end of a sentence2 or which introduced a consideration of difficulty3--words which interfered with the easy flow of a sentence3--every thing of this kind such a personage seems to have held himself free to discard4 ,but what is more serious1 passages which occasioned some difficulty1 as the pericope de adultera2 physical perplexity1 as the troubling of the water2 spiritual revulsion1 as the agony in the garden3--all these the reviser or revisers seem to have judged it safest simply to eliminate4 ,it is difficult to understand how any persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred deposit2 but it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period there were found some who did act in some such way4 ,let it be observed1 however1 that unlike some critics ,i do not base my real argument upon what appears to me to be a not unlikely supposition4 #ag ,unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption1 as described in ,the ,traditional ,text4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,accidental ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption4 ,i4 ,pure ,accident4 ,it often happens that more causes than one are combined in the origin of the corruption in any one passage4 ,in the following history of a blunder and of the fatal consequences that ensued upon it1 only the first step was accidental4 ,but much instruction may be derived from the initial blunder1 and though the later stages in the history come under another head1 they nevertheless illustrate the effects of early accident1 besides throwing light upon parts of the discussion which are yet to come4 #a4 ,we are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress of accidental depravations of the text3 and the study is as instructive as it is interesting4 ,let me invite attention to what is found in ,st4 ,john x4 #bi2 where1--instead of1 ',my ,father1 who hath given them viz4 ,my sheep to ,me1 is greater than all1'--,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 are for reading1 ',that thing which ,my 7or the7 ,father hath given to ,me is greater 7i4e4 is a greater thing7 than all4' ,a vastly different proposition1 truly2 and1 whatever it may mean1 wholly inadmissible here1 as the context proves4 ,it has been the result of sheer accident moreover1--as ,i proceed to explain4 ,st4 ,john certainly wrote the familiar words1--,greek3 ho patr mou ,greek3 os dedke moi1 meizn pantn esti4 ,but1 with the licentiousness or inaccuracy which prevailed in the earliest age1 some remote copyist is found to have substituted for ,greek3 hos dedke1 its grammatical equivalent ,greek3 ho dedks4 ,and this proved fatal2 for it was only necessary that another scribe should substitute ,greek3 meizon for ,greek3 meizn 7after the example of such places as ,st4 ,matt4 xii4 #f1 #da1 #db1 c471 and thus the door had been opened to at least four distinct deflections from the evangelical verity1--which straightway found their way into manuscripts3--7#a7 ,greek3 o dedks 444 meizn--of which reading at this day ,d is the sole representative3 7#b7 ,greek3 os dedke 444 meizon--which survives only in ,,ax3 7#c7 ,greek3 o dedke 444 meizn--which is only found in ,symbol3 ,aleph,l3 7#d7 ,greek3 o dedke 444 meizon--which is the peculiar property of ,b4 ,the #ast and #bnd of these sufficiently represent the ,evangelist's meaning1 though neither of them is what he actually wrote2 but the #crd is untranslatable3 while the #dth is nothing else but a desperate attempt to force a meaning into the #crd1 by writing ,greek3 meizon for ,greek3 meizn2 treating ,greek3 o not as the article but as the neuter of the relative ,greek3 os4 ,this last exhibition of the text1 which in fact scarcely yields an intelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum of manuscript evidence1 would long since have been forgotten1 but that1 calamitously for the ,western ,church1 its ,version of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures was executed from ,,mss4 of the same vicious type as ,cod4 ,b#ah4 ,accordingly1 all the ,latin copies1 and therefore all the ,latin ,fathers#ai1 translate1-- ',pater meus quod dedit mihi1 majus omnibus est#bj4' ,the ,westerns resolutely extracted a meaning from whatever they presumed to be genuine ,scripture3 and one can but admire the piety which insists on finding sound ,divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else but a sorry blunder4 ,what1 asks ,augustine1 was 'the thing1 greater than all1' which the ,father gave to the ,son8 ,to be the ,word of the ,father 7he answers71 ,his only-begotten ,son and the brightness of ,his glory#ba4 ,the ,greeks knew better4 ,basil#bb1 ,chrysostom#bc1 ,cyril on nine occasions#bd1 ,theodoret#be--;as many as quote the place--invariably exhibit the textus receptus ,greek3 s 444 meizn1 which is obviously the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation4 ',but1'--,i shall perhaps be asked1--'although ,patristic and manuscript evidence are wanting for the reading ,greek3 o dedke moi 444 meizn1--is it not a significant circumstance that three translations of such high antiquity as the ,latin1 the ,bohairic1 and the ,gothic1 should concur in supporting it8 and does it not inspire extraordinary confidence in ,b to find that ,b alone of ,,mss4 agrees with them8' ,to which ,i answer1--,it makes me1 on the contrary1 more and more distrustful of the ,latin1 the ,bohairic and the ,gothic versions to find them exclusively siding with ,cod4 ,b on such an occasion as the present4 ,it is obviously not more 'significant' that the ,latin1 the ,bohairic1 and the ,gothic1 should here conspire with--than that the ,syriac1 the ,sahidic1 and the ,ethiopic1 should here combine against ,b4 ,on the other hand1 how utterly insignificant is the testimony of ,b when opposed to all the uncials1 all the cursives1 and all the ,greek fathers who quote the place4 ,so far from inspiring me with confidence in ,b1 the present indication of the fatal sympathy of that ,codex with the corrupt copies from which confessedly many of the ,old ,latin were executed1 confirms me in my habitual distrust of it4 ,about the true reading of ,st4 ,john x4 #bi1 there really exists no manner of doubt4 ,as for the 'old uncials' they are 7as usual7 hopelessly at variance on the subject4 ,in an easy sentence of only #i words1--which however ,tischendorf exhibits in conformity with no known ,codex1 while ,tregelles and ,alford blindly follow ,cod4 ,b1--they have contrived to invent five 'various readings1' as may be seen at foot#bf4 ,shall we wonder more at the badness of the ,codexes to which we are just now invited to pin our faith2 or at the infatuation of our guides8 #b4 ,i do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to grave disturbances of the ,text which have resulted from a slight clerical error4 ,while we are enumerating the various causes of ,textual depravity1 we may not fail to specify this4 ,once trace a serious ,textual disturbance back to 7what for convenience may be called7 a 'clerical error1' and you are supplied with an effectual answer to a form of inquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing3 viz4 ,if the true meaning of this passage be what you suppose1 for what conceivable reason should the scribe have misrepresented it in this strange way1--made nonsense1 in short1 of the place8444 ,i will further remark1 that it is always interesting1 sometimes instructive1 after detecting the remote origin of an ancient blunder1 to note what has been its subsequent history and progress4 ,some specimens of the thing referred to ,i have already given in another place4 ,the reader is invited to acquaint himself with the strange process by which the '#bgf souls' who suffered shipwreck with ,st4 ,paul 7,acts xxvii4 #cg71 have since dwindled down to 'about #gfbg4'--;,he is further requested to note how 'a certain man' who in the time of ,st4 ,paul bore the name of ',justus' 7,acts xviii4 #g71 has been since transformed into ',titus1' ',titus ,justus1' and even ',titius ,justus#bh4'--;,but for a far sadder travestie of sacred words1 the reader is referred to what has happened in ,st4 ,matt4 xi4 #bc and ,st4 ,luke x4 #ae1--where our ,saviour is made to ask an unmeaning question--instead of being permitted to announce a solemn fact--concerning ,capernaum#bi4--,the newly-discovered ancient name of the ,island of ,malta1 ,melitene#cj1 7for which geographers are indebted to the adventurous spirit of ,westcott and ,hort71 may also be profitably considered in connexion with what is to be the subject of the present chapter4 ,and now to break up fresh ground4 ,attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in ,acts xx4 #bd4 ,it is but the change of a single letter 7,greek3 logo,u for ,greek3 logo,n71 yet has that minute deflection from the truth led to a complete mangling of the most affecting perhaps of ,st4 ,paul's utterances4 ,i refer to the famous words ,greek3 all' oudenos logon poioumai1 oude ech tn psuchn mou timian emaut1 hs teleisai ton dromon mou meta charas3 excellently1 because idiomatically1 rendered by our ,translators of #afaa1--';,but none of these things move me1 neither count ,i my life dear unto myself1 so that ,i might finish my course with joy4' ,for ,greek3 oudenos lo,g,o,n1 7the accusative after ,greek3 poioumai71 some one having substituted ,greek3 oudenos lo,g,o,u1--a reading which survives to this hour in ,b and ,c#ca1--;it became necessary to find something else for the verb to govern4 ,greek3 ,tn psychn was at hand1 but ,greek3 oude ech stood in the way4 ,greek3 ,oude ech must therefore go#cb2 and go it did1--as ,b1 ,c1 and ,symbol3 ,aleph remain to attest4 ,greek3 ,timian should have gone also1 if the sentence was to be made translatable2 but ,greek3 timian was left behind#cc4 ,the authors of ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers4 ,in the meantime1 ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph inadvertently retained ,st4 ,luke's word1 ,greek3 ,,logon2 and because ,symbol3 ,aleph here follows ,b in every other respect1 it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible#cd4 ,now the second clause of the sentence1 viz4 the words ,greek3 oude echo tn psychn mou timian emaut1 may on no account be surrendered4 ,it is indeed beyond the reach of suspicion1 being found in ,codd4 ,a1 ,d1 ,e1 ,h1 ,l1 ,p1 #ac1 #ca1--;in fact in every known copy of the ,acts1 except the discordant ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc4 ,the clause in question is further witnessed to by the ,vulgate#ce1--;by the ,harkleian#cf1--;by ,basil#cg1--;by ,chrysostom#ch1--;by ,cyril#ci1--;by ,euthalius#dj1--;and by the interpolator of ,ignatius#da4 ,what are we to think of our guides 7,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers7 who have nevertheless surrendered the ,traditional ,text and presented us instead with what ,dr4 ,field1--who is indeed a ,master in ,israel1--describes as the impossible ,greek3 all' oudenos logou poioumai tn psychn timian emaut#db8 ,the words of the last-named eminent scholar on the reading just cited are so valuable in themselves1 and are observed to be so often in point1 that they shall find place here3--',modern ,critics1' he says1 'in deference to the authority of the older ,,mss41 and to certain critical canons which prescribe that preference should be given to the shorter and more difficult reading over the longer and easier one1 have decided that the ,t4,r4 in this passage is to be replaced by that which is contained in those older ,,mss4 ',in regard to the difficulty of this reading1 that term seems hardly applicable to the present case4 ,a difficult reading is one which presents something apparently incongruous in the sense1 or anomalous in the construction1 which an ignorant or half-learned copyist would endeavour1 by the use of such critical faculty as he possessed1 to remove2 but which a true critic is able1 by probable explanation1 and a comparison of similar cases1 to defend against all such fancied improvements4 ,in the reading before us1 ,greek3 all' oudenos logou poioumai tn psychn timian emaut1 it is the construction1 and not the sense1 which is in question2 and this is not simply difficult1 but impossible4 ,there is really no way of getting over it2 it baffles novices and experts alike#dc4' ,when will men believe that a reading vouched for by only ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,c is safe to be a fabrication#dd8 ,but at least when ,copies and ,fathers combine1 as here they do1 against those three copies1 what can justify critics in upholding a text which carries on its face its own condemnation8 #c4 ,we now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten ,ist or ,i,ind century scribes who1 beguiled by the similarity of the letters ,greek3 ,,en and ,greek3 ,,an 7in the expression ,greek3 ,e,n,a,nthrpois eudokia1 ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ad71 left out the preposition4 ,an unintelligible clause was the consequence1 as has been explained above 7p4 #ba73 which some one next sought to remedy by adding to ,greek3 eudokia the sign of the genitive 7,greek3 ,s74 ,thus the ,old ,latin translations were made4 ,that this is the true history of a blunder which the latest ,editors of the ,new ,testament have mistaken for genuine ,gospel1 is ,i submit certain#de4 ,most ,latin copies 7except #addf7 exhibit 'pax hominibus bonae voluntatis1' as well as many ,latin ,fathers#dg4 ,on the other hand1 the preposition ,greek3 ,,en is retained in every known ,greek copy of ,st4 ,luke without exception1 while the reading ,greek3 eudokias is absolutely limited to the four uncials ,,ab,symbol3 ,aleph,d4 ,the witness of antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive4 #d4 ,in other cases the source1 the very progress of a blunder1--is discoverable4 ,thus whereas ,st4 ,mark 7in xv4 #f7 certainly wrote ,greek3 hena desmion1 ,greek3 ,,onper tounto1 the scribe of ,symbol3 ,delta1 who evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in uncial letters is found to have divided the ,evangelist's syllables wrongly1 and to exhibit in this place ,greek3 ,,on4,,per,,tounto4 ,the consequence might have been predicted4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ab transform this into ,greek3 ,,on ,,par,,tounto3 which accordingly is the reading adopted by ,tischendorf and by ,westcott and ,hort4 ,whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly be mistaken for the first syllable of the next1 or vice versa1 it is safe sooner or later to have misled somebody4 ,thus1 we are not at all surprised to find ,st4 ,mark's ,greek3 ha parelabon 7vii4 #d7 transformed into ,greek3 haper elabon1 but only by ,b4 ,another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied by the substitution in ,st4 ,mark vi4 #bb of ,greek3 ts thygatros autou ,hrdiados for ,greek3 ts thygatros auts ts ,hrdiados4 ,here a first copyist left out ,greek3 ts as being a repetition of the last syllable of ,greek3 auts1 and afterwards a second attempted to improve the ,greek by putting the masculine pronoun for the feminine 7,greek3 ,,autou for ,greek3 ,,aut,s74 ,the consequence was hardly to have been foreseen4 ,strange to say it results in the following monstrous figment3--that the fruit of ,herod's incestuous connexion with ,herodias had been a daughter1 who was also named ,herodias2 and that she1--the ,king's own daughter1--was the immodest one#dh who came in and danced before him1 'his lords1 high captains1 and chief estates of ,galilee1' as they sat at the birthday banquet4 ,probability1 natural feeling1 the obvious requirements of the narrative1 ,history itself--1 for ,josephus expressly informs us that ',salome1' not ',herodias1' was the name of ,herodias' daughter#di1--;all reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the truth4 ,but what ought to be in itself conclusive1 what in fact settles the question1 is the testimony of the ,,mss41--of which only seven 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl,symbol3 ,delta with two cursive copies7 can be found to exhibit this strange mistake4 ,accordingly the reading ,greek3 ,,autou is rejected by ,griesbach1 ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 ,tischendorf and ,alford4 ,it has nevertheless found favour with ,dr4 ,hort2 and it has even been thrust into the margin of the revised ,text of our ,authorized ,version1 as a reading having some probability4 ,this is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidental errors--another proof that ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl cannot be trusted4 ,sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present erroneous reading was brought to perfection4 ,the immediate proximity in ,,mss4 of the selfsame combination of letters is observed invariably to result in a various reading4 ,greek3 ,,aut,,st,s was safe to part with its second ,greek3 ,t,s on the first opportunity1 and the definitive article 7,greek3 ts7 once lost1 the substitution of ,greek3 ,,autou for ,greek3 ,,aut,s is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directed intelligence would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing sufficient attention on the subject to be aware that the person spoken of in verses #bj and #ba is ,herod the ,king4 ,this recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was a frequent source of error4 ,copying has always a tendency to become mechanical3 and when the mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his monotonous toil1 as well as if it became too active1 the sacred ,text suffered more or less1 and so even a trifling mistake might be the seed of serious depravation4 #e4 ,another interesting and instructive instance of error originating in sheer accident1 is supplied by the reading in certain ,,mss4 of ,st4 ,mark viii4 #a4 ,that the ,evangelist wrote ,greek3 pampollou ochlou 'the multitude being very great1' is certain4 ,this is the reading of all the uncials but eight1 of all the cursives but fifteen4 ,but instead of this1 it has been proposed that we should read1 'when there was again a great multitude1' the plain fact being that some ancient scribe mistook1 as he easily might1 the less usual compound word for what was to himself a far more familiar expression3 i4e4 he mistook ,greek3 ,,pampollou for ,greek3 ,,palin ,,pollou4 ,this blunder must date from the second century1 for 'iterum' is met with in the ,old ,latin as well as in the ,vulgate1 the ,gothic1 the ,bohairic1 and some other versions4 ,on the other hand1 it is against 'every true principle of ,textual ,criticism' 7as ,dr4 ,tregelles would say71 that the more difficult expression should be abandoned for the easier1 when forty-nine out of every fifty ,,mss4 are observed to uphold it2 when the oldest version of all1 the ,syriac1 is on the same side2 when the source of the mistake is patent2 and when the rarer word is observed to be in ,st4 ,mark's peculiar manner4 ,there could be in fact no hesitation on this subject1 if the opposition had not been headed by those notorious false witnesses ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl1 which it is just now the fashion to uphold at all hazards4 ,they happen to be supported on this occasion by ,,gmn,symbol3 ,delta and fifteen cursives3 while two other cursives look both ways and exhibit ,greek3 palin pampollou4 ,in ,st ,mark vii4 #ad1 ,greek3 palin was similarly misread by some copyists for ,greek3 panta1 and has been preserved by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl,symbol3 ,delta 7,greek3 ,,palin for ,greek3 ,,panta7 against thirteen uncials1 all the cursives1 the ,peshitto and ,armenian4 ,so again in ,st4 ,john xiii4 #cg4 ,a reads ,greek3 dynasai moi by an evident slip of the pen for ,greek3 dynamai soi4 ,and in xix4 #ca ,greek3 megal mera has become ,greek3 megal hmera in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ae,symbol3 ,gamma and some cursive copies4 ,,footnotes3 #ah ,see the passages quoted in ,scrivener's ,introduction1 ,,ii4 #bgj-b1 #dth ed4 #ai ,tertull4 7,prax4 c4 #bb73 ,ambr4 7ii4 #egf1 #fjg1 #fhi bis73 ,hilary 7#icj bis1 #ajhi73 ,jerome 7v4 #bjh73 ,augustin 7iii#b4 #fae73 ,maximinus1 an ,arian bishop 7ap4 ,aug4 viii4 #fea74 #bj ,pater 7or ,pater meus7 quod dedit mihi 7or mihi dedit71 majus omnibus est 7or majus est omnibus3 or omnibus majus est74 #ba iii#b4 #fae4 ,he begins1 ',quid dedit ,filio ,pater majus omnibus8 ,ut ipsi ille esset unigenitus ,filius4' #bb i4 #bcf4 #bc viii4 #cfc bis4 #bd i4 #ahh3 ii4 #efg3 iii4 #gib3 iv4 #fff 7ed4 ,pusey73 v#a4 #cbf1 #egg1 #egh3 ap4 ,mai ii4 #ac3 iii4 #ccf4 #be v4 #ajfe 7,dial,maced ap4 ,athanas4 ii4 #eee74 #bf ,viz4 ,greek3 mou ,,abd3--,greek3 mou ,symbol3 ,aleph ,greek3 os ,a3 ,greek3 o ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,d ,greek3 dedken ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,a3 ,greek3 dedks ,greek3 meizn ,symbol3 ,aleph,d3 ,greek3 meizon ,,ab ,greek3 meiz4 pantn estin ,a3 ,greek3 pantn meiz4 estin ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,d4 #bg ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #ea-c4 #bh ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #ec-d4 #bi ,ibid4 p4 #ea-f4 #cj ,ibid4 p4 #agg-h4 #ca ,also in ,ammonius the presbyter1 ,a4,d4 #deh--see ,cramer's ,cat4 p4 #ccd-e1 last line4 ,greek3 ,logou is read besides in the cursives ,act4 #cf1 #if1 #aje4 #cb ,i look for an approving word from learned ,dr4 ,field1 who wrote in #ahge--',the real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the ,t4,r4 is1 that if the words ,greek3 oude ech had once formed a part of the original text1 there is no possibility of accounting for the subsequent omission of them4' ,the same remark1 but considerably toned down1 is found in his delightful ,otium ,norvicense1 ,p4 iii1 p4 #hd4 #cc ,b and ,c read--,greek3 all' oudenos logou poioumai tn psychn emaut3 which is exactly what ,lucifer ,calarit4 represents1--'sed pro nihilo aestimo animam meam caram esse mihi' 7,galland4 vi4 #bda74 #cd ,symbol3 ,aleph reads--,greek3 all' oudenos logon poioumai tn psychn timian emaut hs teleis ton dromon mou4 #ce ',sed nihil horum 7,greek3 toutn is found in many ,greek ,codd47 vereor1 nee facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me4' ,so1 the ,cod4 ,amiat4 ,it is evident then that when ,ambrose 7ii4 #ajdj7 writes 'nec facio animam meam cariorem mihi1' he is quoting the latter of these two clauses4 ,augustine 7iii#a4 #eaf71 when he cites the place thus1 ',non enim facto animam meam preliosiorem quam me'2 and elsewhere 7iv4 #bfh7 'pretiosam mihi'2 also ,origen 7interp4 iv4 #fbh c71 'sed ego non facto cariorem animam meam mihi'2 and even the ,coptic1 'sed anima mea1 dico1 non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo'3--these evidently summarize the place1 by making a sentence out of what survives of the second clause4 ,the ,latin of ,d exhibits ',sed nihil horum cura est mihi3 neque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi4' #cf ,dr4 ,field says that it may be thus ,graecized--,greek3 all' oudena logon poioumai1 oude lelogistai moi psych ti timion4 #cg ii4 #bif e1--exactly as the ,t4,r4 #ch ,exactly as the ,t4,r41 except that he writes ,greek3 tn psychn without ,greek3 mou 7ix4 #ccb74 ,so again1 further on 7#ccd b71 ,greek3 ouk ech timian tn emautou psychn4 ,this latter place is quoted in ,cramer's ,cat4 #ccd4 #ci ,ap4 ,mai ii4 #ccf ,greek3 edei kai ts zs kataphronein hyper tou teleisai ton dromon1 oude tn psychn eph poieisai timian heaut4 #dj ,greek3 logon ech1 oude poioumai tn psychn timian emaut1 ste k4t4l4 7ap4 ,galland4 x4 #bbb74 #da ,greek3 all' oudenos logon poioumai tn deinn1 oude ech tn psychn timian emaut4 ,epist4 ad ,tars4 c4 #a 7,dressel1 p4 #bee74 #db ,the whole of ,dr4 ,field's learned annotation deserves to be carefully read and pondered4 ,i speak of it especially in the shape in which it originally appeared1 viz4 in #ahge4 #dc ,ibid4 p4 #b and #c4 #dd ,surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at the hands of ,copyists and ,translators4 ,in ,a and ,d1 the words ,greek3 poioumai and ,greek3 ech have been made to change places4 ,the latter ,codex introduces ,greek3 moi after ,greek3 ech1--for ,greek3 emaut writes ,greek3 emautou1--and exhibits ,greek3 tou teleisai without ,greek3 hs4 ,c writes ,greek3 hs to teleisai4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,b alone of ,codexes present us with ,greek3 teleis for ,greek3 teleisai1 and are followed by ,westcott and ,hort alone of ,editors4 ,the ,peshitto 7'sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea'71 the ,sahidic 7'sed non facto animam meam in ull re'71 and the ,aethiopic 7'sed non reputo animam meam nihil quidquam'71 get rid of ,greek3 timian as well as of ,greek3 oude ech4 ,so much diversity of text1 and in such primitive witnesses1 while it points to a remote period as the date of the blunder to which attention is called in the text1 testifies eloquently to the utter perplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first4 #de ,another example of the same phenomenon1 7viz4 the absorption of ,greek3 ,,en by the first syllable of ,greek3 ,a,nthrpois7 is to be seen in ,acts iv4 #ab1--where however the error has led to no mischievous results4 #df ,for those which insert in 7#ad71 and those which reject it 7#be71 see ,wordsworth's edition of the ,vulgate on this passage4 #dg ,of ,fathers3--,ambrose i4 #abih--;,hieronymus i4 #ddhb1 #fic1 #hgf3 ii4 #bac3 iv4 #cd1 #ib3 v4 #adg3 vi4 #fch3 vii4 #bda1 #bea1 #bhc1--;,augustine #cd times1--,optatus 7,galland4 v4 #dgb1 #deg71--;,gaudentius ,brix4 7ap4 ,sabat471--,chromatius ,ag4 7,gall4 viii4 #ccg71--,orosius 7ib4 ix4 #acd71 ,marius ,m4 7ib4 viii4 #fgb71 ,maximus ,taur4 7ib4 ix4 #cee71--,sedulius 7ib4 #ege71--,leo ,m4 7ap4 ,sabat471--,mamertus ,claudianus 7,gall4 x4 #dca71--,vigilius ,taps4 7ap4 ,sabat471--,zacchaeus 7,gall4 ix4 #bda71--;,caesarius ,arel4 7ib4 xi4 #aa71--ps4-,ambros4 ii4 #cid1 #cif1--;,hormisdas ,p4 7,conc4 iv4 #adid1 #adif71--eb ,bps4 at #hth ,council of ,toledo 7,conc4 vi4 #cie71 c41 c4 #dh ,see ,wetstein on this place4 #di ,antiqq4 i4 #ii1 xviii4 #e4 #d4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,accidental ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption4 ,,ii4 ,homoeoteleuton4 ,no one who finds the syllable ,greek3 ,,oi recurring six times over in about as many words1--e4g4 ,greek3 kai egeneto1 hs aplthon 444 ,,oi angel,o,i1 kai ,,oi anthrp,o,i ,,oi p,o,imenes eipon1--is surprised to learn that ,,mss4 of a certain type exhibit serious perturbation in that place4 ,accordingly1 ,,bl,symbol3 ,xi leave out the words ,greek3 kai hoi anthrpoi2 and in that mutilated form the modern critical editors are contented to exhibit ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ae4 ,one would have supposed that ,tischendorf's eyes would have been opened when he noticed that in his own ,codex 7,symbol3 ,aleph7 one word more 7,greek3 hoi7 is dropped1--whereby nonsense is made of the passage 7viz4 ,greek3 hoi angeloi poimenes74 ,self-evident it is that a line with a 'like ending' has been omitted by the copyist of some very early codex of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel2 which either read1-- ,greek3 ,,oi ,,angeloi ,greek3 ,,oi ,,angeloi ,greek3 ,,kai ,,oi ,a,,no,i ,,oi or else ,greek3 ,,kai ,,oi ,a,,no,i ,greek3 ,,poimenes ,greek3 ,,oi ,,poimenes ,another such place is found in ,st4 ,john vi4 #aa4 ,the ,evangelist certainly described the act of our ,saviour on a famous occasion in the well-known words1--,greek3 kai eucharistsas ,greek3 diedke tois mathtais1 oi de mathtai tois anakeimenois4 ,the one sufficient proof that ,st4 ,john did so write1 being the testimony of the ,,mss4 ,moreover1 we are expressly assured by ,st4 ,matthew 7xiv4 #ai71 ,st4 ,mark 7vi4 #da71 and ,st4 ,luke 7ix4 #af71 that our ,saviour's act was performed in this way4 ,it is clear however that some scribe has suffered his eye to wander from ,greek3 tois in l4 #b to ,greek3 tois in l4 #d1--whereby ,st4 ,john is made to say that our ,saviour himself distributed to the #ejjj4 ,the blunder is a very ancient one2 for it has crept into the ,syriac1 ,bohairic1 and ,gothic versions1 besides many copies of the ,old ,latin2 and has established itself in the ,vulgate4 ,moreover some good ,fathers 7beginning with ,origen7 so quote the place4 ,but such evidence is unavailing to support ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abl,symbol3 ,pi1 the early reading of ,symbol3 ,aleph being also contradicted by the fourth hand in the seventh century against the great cloud of witnesses1--beginning with ,d and including twelve other uncials1 beside the body of the cursives1 the ,ethiopic and two copies of the ,old ,latin1 as well as ,cyril ,alex4 ,indeed1 there does not exist a source of error which has proved more fatal to the transcribers of ,,mss4 than the proximity of identical1 or nearly identical1 combinations of letters4 ,and because these are generally met with in the final syllables of words1 the error referred to is familiarly known by a ,greek name which denotes 'likeness of ending' 7,homoeoteleuton74 ,the eye of a scribe on reverting from his copy to the original before him is of necessity apt sometimes to alight on the same word1 or what looks like the same word1 a little lower down4 ,the consequence is obvious4 ,all that should have come in between gets omitted1 or sometimes duplicated4 ,it is obvious1 that however inconvenient it may prove to find oneself in this way defrauded of five1 ten1 twenty1 perhaps thirty words1 no very serious consequence for the most part ensues4 ,nevertheless1 the result is often sheer nonsense4 ,when this is the case1 it is loyally admitted by all4 ,a single example may stand for a hundred4 ,in ,st4 ,john vi4 #ee1 that most careless of careless transcripts1 the ,sinaitic ,symbol3 ,aleph1 omits on a most sacred subject seven words1 and the result hardly admits of being characterized4 ,let the reader judge for himself4 ,the passage stands thus3--,greek3 h gar sarx mou alths esti brsis1 kai to haima mou alths esti posis4 ,the transcriber of ,symbol3 ,aleph by a very easy mistake let his eye pass from one ,greek3 alths to another1 and characteristically enough the various correctors allowed the error to remain till it was removed in the seventh century1 though the error issued in nothing less than ',my ,flesh is drink indeed4' ,could that ,,ms4 have undergone the test of frequent use8 ,but it requires very little familiarity with the subject to be aware that occasions must inevitably be even of frequent occurrence when the result is calamitous1 and even perplexing1 in the extreme4 ,the writings of ,apostles and ,evangelists1 the ,discourses of our ,divine ,lord ,himself1 abound in short formulae2 and the intervening matter on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence1 which occasionally may be discovered from its context without evident injury to the general meaning of the place4 ,thus ver4 #ad in ,st4 ,matt1 xxiii4 was omitted in an early age1 owing to the recurrence of ,greek3 ouai hymin at the beginning1 by some copyists1 and the error was repeated in the ,old ,latin versions4 ,it passed to ,egypt1 as some of the ,bohairic copies1 the ,sahidic1 and ,origen testify4 ,the ,vulgate is not quite consistent3 and of course ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdlz1 a concord of bad witnesses especially in ,st4 ,matthew1 follow suit1 in company with the ,armenian1 the ,lewis1 and five or more cursives1 enough to make the more emphatic the condemnation by the main body of them4 ,besides the verdict of the cursives1 thirteen uncials 7as against five7 including ,symbol3 ,phi and ,symbol3 ,sigma1 the ,peshitto1 ,harkleian1 ,ethiopic1 ,arabian1 some ,,mss4 of the ,vulgate1 with ,origen 7iii4 #hch 7only in ,lat4772 ,chrysostom 7vii4 #gjg 7bis72 ix4 #gee72 ,opus ,imperf4 #ahe 7bis72 #ahf 7bis72 ,john ,damascene 7ii4 #eag72 ,theophylact 7i4 #abd72 ,hilary 7#hi2 #gbe72 ,jerome 7iv4 #bgf2 v4 #eb2 vi4 #ach3 vii4 #ahe74 ,worst of all1 it will sometimes of necessity happen that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote period2 7for there have been careless scribes in every age37 and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have propagated itself widely4 ,it is observed to exist 7suppose7 in several of the known copies2 and if1--as very often is the case1--it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old uncials1' all hope of its easy extirpation is at an end4 ,instead of being loyally recognized as a blunder1--which it clearly is1--it is forthwith charged upon the ,apostle or ,evangelist as the case may be4 ,in other words1 it is taken for granted that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the sacred autograph4 ,it is henceforth treated as an unauthorized accretion to the text4 ,quite idle henceforth becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a hundred which contain the missing words4 ,i proceed to give an instance of my meaning4 ,our ,saviour1 having declared 7,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #i7 that whosoever putteth away his wife ,greek3 ei m epi porneia1 kai gams alln1 moichatai1--adds ,greek3 kai ho apolelymenn gamsas moichatai4 ,those five words are not found in ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,dls1 nor in several copies of the ,old ,latin nor in some copies of the ,bohairic1 and the ,sahidic4 ,tischendorf and ,tregelles accordingly reject them4 ,and yet it is perfectly certain that the words are genuine4 ,those thirty-one letters probably formed three lines in the oldest copies of all4 ,hence they are observed to exist in the ,syriac 7,peshitto1 ,harkleian and ,jerusalem71 the ,vulgate1 some copies of the ,old ,latin1 the ,armenian1 and the ,ethiopic1 besides at least seventeen uncials 7including ,b,symbol3 ,phi,symbol3 ,sigma71 and the vast majority of the cursives4 ,so that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause4 ,a somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from precisely the same cause meets us a little further on in the same ,gospel4 ,the threefold recurrence of ,greek3 tn in the expression ,greek3 ,t,n psichin ,t,n pipton,t,n 7,st4 ,luke xvi4 #ba71 has 7naturally enough7 resulted in the dropping of the words ,greek3 psichin tn out of some copies4 ,unhappily the sense is not destroyed by the omission4 ,we are not surprised therefore to discover that the words are wanting in--,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl3 or to find that ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl are supported here by copies of the ,old ,latin1 and 7as usual7 by the ,egyptian versions1 nor by ,clemens ,alex4#ej and the author of the ,dialogus#ea4 ,jerome1 on the other hand1 condemns the ,latin reading1 and the ,syriac ,versions are observed to approve of ,jerome's verdict1 as well as the ,gothic4 ,but what settles the question is the fact that every known ,greek ,,ms41 except those three1 witnesses against the omission3 besides ,ambrose#eb1 ,jerome#ec1 ,eusebius#ed ,alex41 ,gregory#ee ,naz41 ,asterius#ef1 ,basil#eg1 ,ephraim#eh ,syr41 ,chrysostom#ei1 and ,cyril#fj of ,alexandria4 ,perplexing it is notwithstanding to discover1 and distressing to have to record1 that all the recent ,editors of the ,gospels are more or less agreed in abolishing 'the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table4' ,the foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age of the ,text of the ,gospels4 ,before the sense of the exact expressions of the ,written ,word was impressed upon the mind of the ,church1--when the ,canon was not definitely acknowledged1 and the halo of antiquity had not yet gathered round writings which had been recently composed1--severe accuracy was not to be expected4 ,errors would be sure to arise1 especially from accident1 and early ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny2 besides that evil would increase1 and slight deviations would give rise in the course of natural development to serious and perplexing corruptions4 ,in the next chapter1 other kinds of accidental causes will come under consideration4 ,,footnotes3 #ej ,p4 #bcb4 #ea ,ap4 ,orig4 i4 #hbg4 #eb ,ambrose i4 #fei1 #adgc1 #adia3--places which shew how insecure would be an inference drawn from i4 #edc and #ffe4 #ec ,hieron4 v4 #iff2 vi4 #ifi4 #ed ,ap4 ,mai ii4 #eaf1 #ebj4 #ee i4 #cgj4 #ef ,p4 #ab4 #eg ii4 #afi4 #eh ii4 #adb4 #ei i4 #gae1 #gbj2 ii4 #ffb 7bis7 #gfd2 vii4 #ggi4 #fj v#b4 #adi 7luc4 text1 #ebd74 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,accidental ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption4 ,,iii4 ,from ,writing in ,uncials4 #a4 ,corrupt readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice of writing ,scripture in the uncial character1 without accents1 punctuation1 or indeed any division of the text4 ,especially are they found in places where there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence4 ,st4 ,john iv4 #ce-f 7,greek3 leukai eisi pros therismon d7 has suffered in this way1--owing to the unusual position of ,greek3 d4 ,certain of the scribes who imagined that ,greek3 d might belong to ver4 #cf1 rejected the ,greek3 kai as superfluous2 though no ,father is known to have been guilty of such a solecism4 ,others1 aware that ,greek3 d can only belong to ver4 #ce1 were not unwilling to part with the copula at the beginning of ver4 #cf4 ,a few1 considering both words of doubtful authority1 retained neither#fa4 ,in this way it has come to pass that there are four ways of exhibiting this place3--7a7 ,greek3 pros therismon d4 ,kai ho therizn3--7b7 ,greek3 pros therismon4 d ho th43--7c7 ,greek3 pros therismon d4 ,ho therizn3--7d7 ,greek3 pros therismon4 ,ho therizn1 k4t4l4 ,the only point of importance however is the position of ,greek3 d3 which is claimed for ver4 #ce by the great mass of the copies3 as well as by ,origen#fb1 ,eusebius#fc1 ,chrysostom#fd1 ,cyril#fe1 the ,vulgate1 ,jerome of course1 and the ,syriac4 ,the ,italic copies are hopelessly divided here#ff3 and ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bm,symbol3 ,pi do not help us4 ,but ,greek3 d is claimed for ver4 #cf by ,,cdel1 #cc1 and by the ,curetonian and ,lewis 7 ,greek3 kai d ho therizn73 while ,codex ,a is singular in beginning ver4 #cf1 ,greek3 d kai1--which shews that some early copyist1 with the correct text before him1 adopted a vicious punctuation4 ,for there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly received text and the usual punctuation is the true one3 as1 on a careful review of the evidence1 every unprejudiced reader will allow4 ,but recent critics are for leaving out ,greek3 kai 7with ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcdl73 while ,tischendorf1 ,westcott and ,hort1 ,tregelles 7marg471 are for putting the full stop after ,greek3 pros therismon and 7with ,,acdl7 making ,greek3 d begin the next sentence1--which 7as ,alford finds out7 is clearly inadmissible4 #b4 ,sometimes this affects the translation4 ,thus1 the ,revisers propose in the parable of the prodigal son1--',and ,i perish here with hunger6' ,but why 'here8' ,because ,i answer1 whereas in the earliest copies of ,st4 ,luke the words stood thus1--,greek3 ,,eg,,delim,,apollymai1 some careless scribe after writing ,greek3 ,,eg,,de1 reduplicated the three last letters 7,greek3 ,,de73 he mistook them for an independent word4 ,accordingly in the ,codex ,bezae1 in ,r and ,u and about ten cursives1 we encounter ,greek3 eg de de4 ,the inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained to superadd 'transposition1' as was done by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl4 ,from ,greek3 eg de de lim1 the sentence has now developed into ,greek3 eg de lim de3 which approves itself to ,griesbach and ,schultz1 to ,lachmann and ,tischendorf and ,tregelles1 to ,alfoid and ,westcott and ,hort1 and to the ,revisers4 ,a very ancient blunder1 certainly1 ,greek3 eg de de is3 for it is found in the ,latin#fg and the ,syriac translations4 ,it must therefore date from the second century4 ,but it is a blunder notwithstanding3 a blunder against which #af uncials and the whole body of the cursives bear emphatic witness#fh4 ,having detected its origin1 we have next to trace its progress4 ,the inventors of ,greek3 de or other scribes quickly saw that this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the sentence4 ,accordingly1 the same primitive authorities which advocate 'here1' are observed also to advocate1 above1 'in my ,father's house4' ,no extant ,greek copy is known to contain the bracketed words in the sentence ,greek3 en t oik tou patros mou3 but such copies must have existed in the second century4 ,the ,peshitto1 the ,cureton and ,lewis recognize the three words in question2 as well as copies of the ,latin with which ,jerome#fi1 ,augustine#gj and ,cassian#ga were acquainted4 ,the phrase 'in domo patris mei' has accordingly established itself in the ,vulgate4 ,but surely we of the ,church of ,england who have been hitherto spared this second blunder1 may reasonably 7at the end of #agjj years7 refuse to take the first downward step4 ,our ,lord intended no contrast whatever between two localities--but between two parties4 ,the comfortable estate of the hired servants ,he set against the abject misery of the ,son3 not the house wherein the servants dwelt1 and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing when he came to a better mind4--,these are many words2 but ,i know not how to be briefer4 ,and1--what is worthy of discussion1 if not the utterances of 'the ,word made flesh8' ,if hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any quarter1 it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl4 ,what else but the instinct of a trained understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place like the present8 ,accordingly1 we discover that in ver4 #af1 for ,greek3 gemisai tn koilian autou apo1 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdlr present us with ,greek3 chortasthnai ek3 and in ver4 #bb1 the prodigal1 on very nearly the same authority 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdux71 is made to say to his father1--,greek3 ,poison me hs hena tn misthin sou3 ,which certainly he did not say#gb4 ,moreover1 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,blx and the ,old ,latin are for thrusting in ,greek3 tachy 7,d ,greek3 taches7 after ,greek3 exenenkate4 ,are not these one and all confessedly fabricated readings8 the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to improve upon the inspired original8 ,from the fact that three words in ,st4 ,john v4 #dd were in the oldest ,,mss4 written thus1--,greek3 ,,monouthuou 7i4e4 ,greek3 monou ,theou ou71 the middle word 7,greek3 theou7 got omitted from some very early copies2 whereby the sentence is made to run thus in ,english1--',and seek not the honour which cometh from the only ,one4' ,it is so that ,origen#gc1 ,eusebius#gd1 ,didymus#ge1 besides the two best copies of the ,old ,latin1 exhibit the place4 ,as to ,greek ,,mss41 the error survives only in ,b at the present day1 the preserver of an ,alexandrian error4 #c4 ,st4 ,luke explains 7,acts xxvii4 #ad7 that it was the 'typhonic wind called ,euroclydon' which caused the ship in which ,st4 ,paul and he sailed past ,crete to incur the 'harm and loss' so graphically described in the last chapter but one of the ,acts4 ,that wind is mentioned nowhere but in this one place4 ,its name however is sufficiently intelligible2 being compounded of ,greek3 ,euros1 the 'south-east wind1' and ,greek3 klydn1 'a tempest3' a compound which happily survives intact in the ,peshitto version4 ,the ,syriac translator1 not knowing what the word meant1 copied what he saw1--'the blast' 7he says7 'of the tempest#gf1 which blast is called ,tophonikos ,euroklidon4' ,not so the licentious scribes of the ,west4 ,they insisted on extracting out of the actual ',euroclydon1' the imaginary name ',euro-aquilo1' which accordingly stands to this day in the ,vulgate4 7,not that ,jerome himself so read the name of the wind1 or he would hardly have explained ',eurielion' or ',euriclion' to mean 'commiscens1 sive deorsum ducens#gg4'7 ,of this feat of theirs1 ,codexes ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,a 7in which ,greek3 ,,euroklud,n has been perverted into ,greek3 ,,eurakul,n7 are at this day the sole surviving ,greek witnesses4 ,well may the evidence for ',euro-aquilo' be scanty6 ,the fabricated word collapses the instant it is examined4 ,nautical men point out that it is 'inconsistent in its construction with the principles on which the names of the intermediate or compound winds are framed3'-- ',euronotus is so called as intervening immediately between ,eurus and ,notus1 and as partaking1 as was thought1 of the qualities of both4 ,the same holds true of ,libonotus1 as being interposed between ,libs and ,notus4 ,both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of the circle with the winds of which they are composed1 and no other wind intervenes4 ,but ,eurus and ,aquilo are at #ij distance from one another2 or according to some writers1 at #aje2 the former lying in the south-east quarter1 and the latter in the north-east3 and two winds1 one of which is the ,east cardinal point1 intervene1 as ,caecias and ,subsolanus#gh4' ,further1 why should the wind be designated by an impossible ,latin name8 ,the ship was 'a ship of ,alexandria' 7ver4 #f74 ,the sailors were ,greeks4 ,what business has ',aquilo' here8 ,next1 if the wind did bear the name of ',euro-aquilo1' why is it introduced in this marked way 7,greek3 anemos typhnikos1 ho kaloumenos7 as if it were a kind of curiosity8 ,such a name would utterly miss the point1 which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term ,euroclydon4 ,but above all1 if ,st4 ,luke wrote ,greek3 ,,eurak-1 how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has written ,greek3 ,,eurok-8 ,the testimony of ,b is memorable4 ,the original scribe wrote ,greek3 ,,eurakud,n#gi3 the secunda mantis has corrected this into ,greek3 ,,euryklud,n1--which is also the reading of ,euthalius#hj4 ,the essential circumstance is1 that not ,greek3 ,,ul,n but ,greek3 ,,ud,n has all along been the last half of the word in ,codex ,b#ha4 ,in ,st4 ,john iv4 #ae1 on the authority of ,symbol3 ,aleph,b1 ,tischendorf adopts ,greek3 dierchesthai 7in place of the uncompounded verb71 assigning as his reason1 that ',if ,st4 ,john had written ,greek3 erchesthai1 no one would ever have substituted ,greek3 dierchesthai for it4' ,but to construct the text of ,scripture on such considerations1 is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand4 ,i could have referred the learned ,critic to plenty of places where the thing he speaks of as incredible has been done4 ,the proof that ,st4 ,john used the uncompounded verb is the fact that it is found in all the copies except our two untrustworthy friends4 ,the explanation of ,greek3 ,d,ierchmai is sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable 7,greek3 ,,de7 of ,greek3 mde which immediately precedes4 ,similarly but without the same excuse1 ,st4 ,mark x4 #af ,greek3 eulogei has become ,greek3 kateulogei 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc74 xii4 #ag ,greek3 thaumasan ,greek3 ezethaumasan 7,symbol3 ,aleph,b74 xiv4 #dj ,greek3 bebarmenoi ,greek3 katabebarmenoi 7,a,symbol3 ,aleph,b74 ,it is impossible to doubt that ,greek3 kai 7in modern critical editions of ,st4 ,luke xvii4 #cg7 is indebted for its existence to the same cause4 ,in the phrase ,greek3 ekei synachthsontai hoi aetoi it might have been predicted that the last syllable of ,greek3 ekei would some day be mistaken for the conjunction4 ,and so it has actually come to pass4 ,greek3 ,,kai oi aetoi is met with in many ancient authorities4 ,but ,symbol3 ,aleph,,lb also transposed the clauses1 and substituted ,greek3 episynachthsontai for ,greek3 synachthsontai4 ,the self-same casualty1 viz4 ,greek3 kai elicited out of the insertion of ,greek3 ekei and the transposition of the clauses1 is discoverable among the ,cursives at ,st4 ,matt4 xxiv4 #bh1--the parallel place3 where by the way the old uncials distinguish themselves by yet graver eccentricities#hb4 ,how can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of ,scripture on evidence so precarious as this8 ,it is proposed that we should henceforth read ,st4 ,matt4 xxii4 #bc as follows3--',on that day there came to ,him ,sadducees saying that there is no ,resurrection4' ,a new incident would be in this way introduced into the ,gospel narrative3 resulting from a novel reading of the passage4 ,instead of ,greek3 hoi legontes1 we are invited to read ,greek3 legontes1 on the authority of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdmszp and several of the ,cursives1 besides ,origen1 ,methodius1 ,epiphanius4 ,this is a respectable array4 ,there is nevertheless a vast preponderance of numbers in favour of the usual reading1 which is also found in the ,old ,latin copies and in the ,vulgate4 ,but surely the discovery that in the parallel ,gospels it is-- ,greek3 hoitines legousin anastasin m einai 7,st4 ,mark xii4 #ah7 and ,greek3 hoi antilegontes anastasin m einai 7,st4 ,luke xx4 #bg7 may be considered as decisive in a case like the present4 ,sure ,i am that it will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to the method of the ,evangelists4 ,add that the origin of the mistake is seen1 the instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial copy3 ,greek3 ,,saddoukaioioilegontes and really nothing more requires to be said4 ,the second ,greek3 ,,oi was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that4 ,it might also have been anticipated1 that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent ,greek3 ,,kai4 ,accordingly the ,peshitto1 ,lewis1 and ,curetonian render the place 'et dicentes2' shewing that they mistook ,greek3 ,,kai ,,oi ,,legontes for a separate phrase4 #d4 ,the termination ,greek3 ,,to 7in certain tenses of the verb71 when followed by the neuter article1 naturally leads to confusion2 sometimes to uncertainty4 ,in ,st4 ,john v4 #d for instance1 where we read in our copies ,greek3 kai etarasse to hydr1 but so many ,,mss4 read ,greek3 etarasseto1 that it becomes a perplexing question which reading to follow4 ,the sense in either case is excellent3 the only difference being whether the ,evangelist actually says that the ,angel 'troubled' the water1 or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance that after the ,angel had descended1 straightway the water 'was troubled4' ,the question becomes less difficult of decision when 7as in ,st4 ,luke vii4 #ba7 we have to decide between two expressions ,greek3 echarisato blepein 7which is the reading of ,symbol3 ,aleph99,,abdeg and #aa other uncials7 and ,greek3 echarisato to blepein which is only supported by ,symbol3 ,alephb,,elva4 ,the bulk of the ,cursives faithfully maintain the former reading1 and merge the article in the verb4 ,akin to the foregoing are all those instances1--and they are literally without number--1 where the proximity of a like ending has been the fruitful cause of error4 ,let me explain3 for this is a matter which cannot be too thoroughly apprehended4 ,such a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit will shew my meaning4 ,in the expression ,greek3 esthta lampran anepempsen 7,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #aa71 we are not surprised to find the first syllable of the verb 7,greek3 an7 absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding ,greek3 lampran4 ,accordingly1 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,lr supported by one copy of the ,old ,latin and a single cursive ,,ms4 concur in displaying ,greek3 epempsen in this place4 ,the letters ,greek3 ,,naik,,naikai in the expression 7,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #bg7 ,greek3 gynaikn hai kai were safe to produce confusion4 ,the first of these three words could of course take care of itself4 7,though ,d1 with some of the ,versions1 make it into ,greek3 gynaikes47 ,not so however what follows4 ,,abcdlx and the ,old ,latin 7except c7 drop the ,greek3 kai3 ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,c drop the ,greek3 ai4 ,the truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives4 ,thus also the reading ,greek3 en ol t ,galilaia 7,b7 in ,st4 ,matt4 iv4 #bc1 7adopted by ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort and the ,revisers17 is due simply to the reduplication on the part of some inattentive scribe of the last two letters of the immediately preceding word1--,greek3 perigen4 ,the received reading of the place is the correct one1--,greek3 kai perigen holn tn ,galilaian ho ,isous1 because the first five words are so exhibited in all the ,copies except ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,c2 and those three ,,mss4 are observed to differ as usual from one another1--which ought to be deemed fatal to their evidence4 ,thus1 ,b reads ,greek3 kai perigen en holi ti ,galilaiai4 ,symbol3 ,aleph ,greek3 kai perigen ho is en ti ,galilaiai4 ,c ,greek3 kai perigen ho is en hol ti ,galilaiai4 ,but--7,i shall be asked7--what about the position of the ,sacred ,name8 ,how comes it to pass that ,greek3 ho ,isous1 which comes after ,greek3 ,galilaian in almost every other known copy1 should come after ,greek3 perigen in three of these venerable authorities 7in ,d as well as in ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,c71 and in the ,latin1 ,peshitto1 ,lewis1 and ,harkleian8 ,tischendorf1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort and the ,revisers at all events 7who simply follow ,b in leaving out ,greek3 ho ,isous altogether7 will not ask me this question3 but a thoughtful inquirer is sure to ask it4 ,the phrase 7,i reply7 is derived by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,cd from the twin place in ,st4 ,matthew 7ix4 #ce7 which in all the ,,mss4 begins ,greek3 kai perigen ho is4 ,so familiar had this order of the words become1 that the scribe of ,symbol3 ,aleph1 7a circumstance by the way of which ,tischendorf takes no notice17 has even introduced the expression into ,st4 ,mark vi4 #f1--the parallel place in the second ,gospel1--where ,greek3 ho is clearly has no business4 ,i enter into these minute details because only in this way is the subject before us to be thoroughly understood4 ,this is another instance where 'the ,old ,uncials' shew their text to be corrupt2 so for assurance in respect of accuracy of detail we must resort to the ,cursive ,copies4 #e4 ,the introduction of ,greek3 apo in the place of ,greek3 hagioi made by the ',revisers' into the ,greek ,text of #b ,peter i4 #ba1--;derives its origin from the same prolific source4 7#a7 some very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of ,greek3 agioi for ,greek3 apo4 ,it was but the mistaking of ,greek3 ,,agio for ,greek3 ,,apo4 ,at the end of #agjj years1 the only ,copies which witness to this deformity are ,,bp with four cursives1--in opposition to ,symbol3 ,aleph,,akl and the whole body of the cursives1 the ,vulgate#hc and the ,harkleian4 ,euthalius knew nothing of it#hd4 ,obvious it was1 next1 for some one in perplexity1--7#b7 to introduce both readings 7,greek3 apo and ,greek3 hagioi7 into the text4 ,accordingly ,greek3 apo ,theou hagioi is found in ,c1 two cursives1 and ,didymus#he4 ,then1 7#c71 another variant crops up1 7viz4 ,greek3 hypo for ,greek3 apo--but only because ,greek3 hypo went immediately before72 of which fresh blunder 7,greek3 hypo ,theou hagioi7 ,theophylact is the sole patron#hf4 ,the consequence of all this might have been foreseen3 7#d7 it came to pass that from a few ,codexes1 both ,greek3 apo and ,greek3 agioi were left out1--which accounts for the reading of certain copies of the ,old ,latin#hg4 ,unaware how the blunder began1 ,tischendorf and his followers claim '7#b7'1 '7#c7'1 and '7#d7'1 as proofs that '7#a7' is the right reading3 and1 by consequence1 instead of 'holy men of ,god spake1' require us to read 'men spake from ,god1' which is wooden and vapid4 ,is it not clear that a reading attested by only ,,bp and four cursive copies must stand self-condemned8 ,another excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished by ,heb4 vii4 #a4 ,instead of ,greek3 ,ho synantsas ,abraam--said of ,melchizedek1--,symbol3 ,aleph,,abd exhibit ,greek3 ,,os4 ,the whole body of the copies1 headed by ,,clp1 are against them#hh1--;besides ,chrysostom#hi1 ,theodoret#ij1 ,damascene#ia4 ,it is needless to do more than state how this reading arose4 ,the initial letter of ,greek3 synantsas has been reduplicated through careless transcription3 ,greek3 ,,ossyn--instead of ,greek3 ,,osyn--4 ,that is all4 ,but the instructive feature of the case is that it is in the four oldest of the uncials that this palpable blunder is found4 #f4 ,i have reserved for the last a specimen which is second to none in suggestiveness4 ',whom will ye that ,i release unto you8' asked ,pilate on a memorable occasion#ib3 and we all remember how his enquiry proceeds4 ,but the discovery is made that1 in an early age there existed copies of the ,gospel which proceeded thus1--',jesus who is called#ic ,barabbas1 or ,jesus who is called ,christ8' ,origen so quotes the place1 but ',in many copies1' he proceeds1 'mention is not made that ,barabbas was also called ,jesus3 and those copies may perhaps be right1--else would the name of ,jesus belong to one of the wicked1--of which no instance occurs in any part of the ,bible3 nor is it fitting that the name of ,jesus should like ,judas have been borne by saint and sinner alike4 ,i think1' ,origen adds1 'something of this sort must have been an interpolation of the heretics#id4' ,from this we are clearly intended to infer that ',jesus ,barabbas' was the prevailing reading of ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ag in the time of ,origen1 a circumstance which--besides that a multitude of copies existed as well as those of ,origen--for the best of reasons1 we take leave to pronounce incredible#ie4 ,the sum of the matter is probably this3--,some inattentive second century copyist probably a ,western ,translator into ,syriac who was an indifferent ,greek scholar mistook the final syllable of 'unto you' 7,greek3 ,,umin7 for the word ',jesus' 7,greek3 ,,in73 in other words1 carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of ,greek3 ,,umin1--from which1 strange to say1 results the form of inquiry noticed at the outset4 ,origen caught sight of the extravagance1 and condemned it though he fancied it to be prevalent1 and the thing slept for #aejj years4 ,then about just fifty years ago ,drs4 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf and ,tregelles began to construct that 'fabric of ,textual ,criticism' which has been the cause of the present treatise though indeed ,tischendorf does not adopt the suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is supported by no surviving uncial1 and in fact advocates the very origin of the mischief which has been just described4 ,but1 as every one must see1 'such things as these are not 'readings' at all1 nor even the work of 'the heretics2' but simply transcriptional mistakes4 ,how ,dr4 ,hort1 admitting the blunder1 yet pleads that 'this remarkable reading is attractive by the new and interesting fact which it seems to attest1 and by the antithetic force which it seems to add to the question in ver4 #ag1' is more than we can understand4 ,to us the expression seems most repulsive4 ,no 'antithetic force' can outweigh our dislike to the idea that ,barabbas was our ,saviour's namesake6 ,we prefer ,origen's account1 though he mistook the cause1 to that of the modern critic4 ,,footnotes3 #fa ,it is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of ,greek3 d in ver4 #ce1 by those ,fathers who do not shew how they would have began ver4 #cf--;as ,eusebius 7see below1 note #b71 ,theodoret 7i4 #acih3 ii4 #bcc71 and ,hilary 7#gh4 #ddc4 #ida4 #ajda74 #fb i4 #bai3 iii4 #aeh3 iv4 #bdh1 #bej bis1 #bea bis1 #beb1 #bec1 #bee bis1 #bef1 #beg4 ,also iv4 #ddj note1 which catox iv4 #ba4 #fc dem4 #ddj4 ,but not in cs4 #dbf3 theoph4 #bfb1 #bge4 #fd vii4 #dhh1 #ffb3 ix4 #cb4 #fe i4 #cig4 #ih4 7,palladius7 #faa3 iii4 #eg4 ,so also in iv4 #aii1 ,greek3 etoimos d pros to pisteuein4 #ff ,ambrose1 ii4 #bgi1 has ',et qui metit4' ,iren4int substitutes 'nam' for 'et1' and omits 'jam4' ,jerome #i times introduces 'jam' before 'albae sunt4' ,so ,aug4 7iii4#b #dag73 but elsewhere 7iv4 #fci3 v4 #eca7 he omits the word altogether4 #fg ',hic' is not recognized in ,ambrose4 ,append4 ii4 #cfg4 #fh ,the ,fathers render us very little help here4 ,ps4-,chrys4 twice 7viii4 #cd3 x4 #hch7 has ,greek3 eg de de3 once 7viii4 #aec7 not4 ,john ,damascene 7ii4 #egi7 is without the ,greek3 de4 #fi i4 #gf3 vi4 #af 7not vi4 #dhd74 #gj iii4#b #bei 7not v4 #eaa74 #ga p4 #dje4 #gb ,the prodigal was prepared to say this2 but his father's kindness stopped him3--a feature in the account which the ,codexes in question ignore4 #gc iii4 #fhg4 ,but in i4 #bbh and #bei he recognizes ,greek3 theou4 #gd ,ap4 ,mai vii4 #ace4 #ge ,praep4 xiii4 #f1--;,greek3 monou tou henos 7vol4 ii4 #bid74 #gf ,same word occurs in ,st4 ,mark iv4 #cg4 #gg iii4 #aja4 #gh ,falconer's ,dissertation on ,st4 ,paul's ,voyage1 pp4 #af and #ab4 #gi ,let the learned ,vercellone be heard on behalf of ,codex ,b3 ',antequam manum de tabul amoveamus1 e re fore videtur1 si1 ipso codice ,vaticano inspecto1 duos injectos scrupulos eximamus4 ,cl4 ,tischendorfius in nuperrim su editione scribit 7,proleg4 p4 cclxxv71 ,maium ad ,act4 xxvii4 #ad1 codici ,vaticano tribuisse a prim manu ,greek3 euraklydn2 nos vero ,greek3 eurakydn2 atque subjungit1 utrumque1 ut videtur1 male4 ,at1 quidquid videri possit1 certum nobis exploratumque est ,vaticanum codicem primo habuisse ,greek3 eurakydn1 prout expressum fuit tum in tabella qu ,maius ,birchianas lectiones notavit1 tum in alter qu nos errata corrigenda recensuimus4'--,prfatio to ,mai's #bnd ed4 of the ,cod4 ,vaticanus1 #ahei 7#hvo71 p4 v4 vi4 ,any one may now see this in the photographed copy4 #hj ,ap4 ,galland4 x4 #bbe4 #ha ,remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the copyist knowing more of ,latin than of ,greek4 ,true1 that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in ,latin4 ,that is the reason why the ,latin translator 7not understanding the word7 rendered it ,euroaquilo3 instead of writing ,euraquilo4 ,i have no doubt that it was some ,latin copyist who began the mischief4 ,like the man who wrote ,greek3 ep' aut t phor for ,greek3 ep' autophr4 ,readings of ,euroclydon ,greek3 ,,eurakyd,n ,b 7sic7 ,greek3 ,,eurakyl,n ,symbol3 ,aleph,a ,greek3 ,,eurak,l,n ,greek3 ,,eutrak,l,n ,greek3 ,,eurakl,d,n ,peshitto4 ,greek3 ,,eurakykl,n ,euroaquilo ,vulg4 ,greek3 ,,euroklyd,n ,,hlp ,greek3 ,,euraklyd,n ,syr4 ,harkl4 ,greek3 ,,euryklyd,n ,b#b man4 #hb ,greek3 ,opou 7,greek3 ou ,symbol3 ,aleph7 ,greek3 gar 7--,greek3 gar ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl7 ,greek3 ean 7,greek3 an ,d7 ,greek3 to ptma 7,greek3 sma ,symbol3 ,aleph74 #hc ,sancti ,dei homines4 #hd ,ap4 ,galland4 x4 #bcf a4 #he ,trin4 #bcd4 #hf iii4 #chi4 #hg ',locuti sunt homines ,d4' #hh ,their only supporters seem to be ,k i4e4 ,paul #aag 7,matthaei's 71 #ag1 #ei published in full by ,cramer1 vii4 #bjb1 #acg ,reiche1 p4 #fj4 ,why does ,tischendorf quote besides ,e of ,paul1 which is nothing else but a copy of ,d of ,paul8 #hi ,chrys4 xii4 #abj b1 #aba a4 #ij ,theodoret1 iii4 #ehd4 #ia ,j4 ,damascene1 ii4 #bdj c4 #ib ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ag4 #ic ,cf4 ,greek3 ho legomenos ,barabbas4 ,st4 ,mark xv4 #g4 #id ,int4 iii4 #iah c d4 #ie ,on the two other occasions when ,origen quotes ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ag 7i4 #caf a and ii4 #bde a7 nothing is said about ',jesus ,barabbas4'-- ,alluding to the place1 he elsewhere 7iii4 #hec d7 merely says that ',secundum quosdam ,barabbas dicebatur et ,jesus4'--,the author of a well-known scholion1 ascribed to ,anastasius1 ,bp4 of ,antioch1 but query1 for see ,migne1 vol4 lxxxix4 p4 #aceb b c 7 ,galland4 xii4 #bec c71 and #afjd a1 declares that he had found the same statement 'in very early copies4' ,the scholion in question is first cited by ,birch 7,varr4 ,lectt4 p4 #aaj7 from the following ,,mss43--,s1 #ajh1 #abi1 #acg1 #ach1 #adc1 #adf1 #aha1 #ahf1 #aie1 #aig1 #aii or #bjj1 #bji1 #baj1 #bba1 #bbb3 to which ,scholz adds #da1 #bcg1 #bch1 #bec1 #bei1 #bii3 ,tischendorf adds #a1 #aah4 ,in ,gallandius 7,bibl4 ,p4 ,p4 xiv4 #ha d e1 ,append471 the scholion may be seen more fully given than by ,birch1--from whom ,tregelles and ,tischendorf copy it4 ,theophylact 7p4 #aef a7 must have seen the place as quoted by ,gallandius4 ,the only evidence1 so far as ,i can find1 for reading ',jesus ,barabbas' 7in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #af1 #ag7 are five disreputable ,evangelia #a1 #aah1 #bji1 #bda1 #bii1--the ,armenian ,version1 the ,jerusalem ,syriac1 and the ,sinai ,syriac2 7see ,adler1 pp4 #agb-c74 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,accidental ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption4 ,,iv4 ,itacism4 ,it has been already shewn in the ,first ,volume that the ,art of ,transcription on vellum did not reach perfection till after the lapse of many centuries in the life of the ,church4 ,even in the minute elements of writing much uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successive ages4 ,it by no means followed that1 if a scribe possessed a correct auricular knowledge of the ,text1 he would therefore exhibit it correctly on parchment4 ,copies were largely disfigured with misspelt words4 ,and vowels especially were interchanged2 accordingly1 such change became in many instances the cause of corruption1 and is known in ,textual ,criticism under the name ',itacism4' #a4 ,it may seem to a casual reader that in what follows undue attention is being paid to minute particulars4 ,but it constantly happens1--and this is a sufficient answer to the supposed objection1--that1 from exceedingly minute and seemingly trivial mistakes1 there result sometimes considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of the ,spirit's meaning4 ,new incidents3--unheard-of statements3--facts as yet unknown to readers of ,scripture3--perversions of our ,lord's ,divine sayings3--such phenomena are observed to follow upon the omission of the article1--the insertion of an expletive1--the change of a single letter4 ,thus ,greek3 palin1 thrust in where it has no business1 makes it appear that our ,saviour promised to return the ass on which ,he rode in triumph into ,jerusalem#if4 ,by writing ,greek3 for ,greek3 o1 many critics have transferred some words from the lips of ,christ to those of ,his ,evangelist1 and made ,him say what ,he never could have dreamed of saying#ig4 ,by subjoining ,greek3 s to a word in a place which it has no right to fill1 the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marred effectually1 and a sentence produced which defies translation#ih4 ,by omitting ,greek3 t and ,greek3 ,kyrie1 the repenting malefactor is made to say1 ',jesus6 remember me1 when ,thou comest in ,thy kingdom#ii4' ,speaking of our ,saviour's triumphal entry into ,jerusalem1 which took place 'the day after' 'they made ,him a supper' and ,lazarus 'which had been dead1 whom ,he raised from the dead1' 'sat at the table with ,him' 7,st4 ,john xii4 #a1 #b71 ,st4 ,john says that 'the multitude which had been with ,him when ,he called ,lazarus out of the tomb and raised ,him from the dead bare testimony' 7,st4 ,john xii4 #ag74 ,the meaning of this is best understood by a reference to ,st4 ,luke xix4 #cg1 #ch1 where it is explained that it was the sight of so many acts of ,divine ,power1 the chiefest of all being the raising of ,lazarus1 which moved the crowds to yield the memorable testimony recorded by ,st4 ,luke in ver4 #ch1--;by ,st4 ,john in ver4 #acajj4 ,but ,tischendorf and ,lachmann1 who on the authority of ,d and four later uncials read ,greek3 hoti instead of ,greek3 hote1 import into the ,gospel quite another meaning4 ,according to their way of exhibiting the text1 ,st4 ,john is made to say that 'the multitude which was with ,jesus1 testified that ,he called ,lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead'3 which is not only an entirely different statement1 but also the introduction of a highly improbable circumstance4 ,that many copies of the ,old ,latin 7not of the ,vulgate7 recognize ,greek3 hoti1 besides the ,peshitto and the two ,egyptian versions1 is not denied4 ,this is in fact only one more proof of the insufficiency of such collective testimony4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ab with the rest of the uncials and1 what is of more importance1 the whole body of the cursives1 exhibit ,greek3 hote1--which1 as every one must see1 is certainly what ,st4 ,john wrote in this place4 ,tischendorf's assertion that the prolixity of the expression ,greek3 ephnsen ek tou mnmeiou kai geiren auton ek nekrn is inconsistent with ,greek3 hote#aja1--may surprise1 but will never convince any one who is even moderately acquainted with ,st4 ,john's peculiar manner4 ,the same mistake--of ,greek3 hoti for ,greek3 hote--is met with at ver4 #da of the same chapter4 ',these things said ,isaiah because he saw ,his glory' 7,st4 ,john xii4 #da74 ,and why not 'when he saw ,his glory'8 which is what the ,evangelist wrote according to the strongest attestation4 ,true1 that eleven manuscripts 7beginning with ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abl7 and the ,egyptian versions exhibit ,greek3 hoti3 also ,nonnus1 who lived in the ,thebaid 7,a4,d4 #daj73 but all other ,,mss41 the ,latin1 ,peshitto1 ,gothic1 ,ethiopic1 ,georgian1 and one ,egyptian version3-- ,origen#ajb1--;,eusebius in four places#ajc1--;,basil#ajd1--;,gregory of ,nyssa twice#aje1--;,didymus three times#ajf1--;,chrysostom twice#ajg1-- ,severianus of ,gabala#ajh2--these twelve ,versions and ,fathers constitute a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming4 ,cyril three times reads ,greek3 hoti#aji1 three times ,greek3 hote#aaj1--;and once ,greek3 hnika#aaa1 which proves at least how he understood the place4 #b4 ,a suggestive example#aab of the corruption introduced by a petty ,itacism may be found in ,rev4 i4 #e1 where the beautiful expression which has found its way into so many tender passages relating to ,christian devotion1 ',who hath washed#aac us from our sins in ,his own blood' 7,a4,v471 is replaced in many critical editions 7,r4,v47 by1 ',who hath loosed#aad us from our sins by ,his blood4' ,in early times a purist scribe1 who had a dislike of anything that savoured of provincial retention of ,aeolian or ,dorian pronunciations1 wrote from unconscious bias ,greek3 u for ,greek3 ou1 transcribing ,greek3 lusanti for ,greek3 lousanti 7unless he were not ,greek scholar enough to understand the difference73 and he was followed by others1 especially such as1 whether from their own prejudices or owing to sympathy with the scruples of other people1 but at all events under the influence of a slavish literalism1 hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise to the spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed therein4 ,accordingly the three uncials1 which of those that give the ,apocalypse date nearest to the period of corruption1 adopt ,greek3 u1 followed by nine cursives1 the ,harkleian ,syriac1 and the ,armenian versions4 ,on the other side1 two uncials--viz4 ,b#b of the eighth century and ,p of the ninth--the ,vulgate1 ,bohairic1 and ,ethiopic1 write ,greek3 lousanti and--what is most important--all the other cursives except the handful just mentioned1 so far as examination has yet gone1 form a barrier which forbids intrusion4 ,an instance where an error from an ,itacism has crept into the ,textus ,receptus may be seen in ,st4 ,luke xvi4 #be4 ,some scribes needlessly changed ,greek3 hde into ,greek3 hode1 misinterpreting the letter which served often for both the long and the short ,greek3 o1 and thereby cast out some illustrative meaning1 since ,abraham meant to lay stress upon the enjoyment 'in his bosom' of comfort by ,lazarus4 ,the unanimity of the uncials1 a majority of the cursives1 the witness of the versions1 that of the ,fathers quote the place being uncertain1 are sufficient to prove that ,greek3 hde is the genuine word4 ,again1 in ,st4 ,john xiii4 #be1 ,greek3 houts has dropped out of many copies and so out of the ,received ,text because by an ,itacism it was written ,greek3 outos in many manuscripts4 ,therefore ,greek3 ekeinos outos was thought to be a clear mistake1 and the weaker word was accordingly omitted4 ,no doubt ,latins and others who did not understand ,greek well considered also that ,greek3 houts was redundant1 and this was the cause of its being omitted in the ,vulgate4 ,but really ,greek3 houts1 being sufficiently authenticated#aae1 is exactly in consonance with ,greek usage and ,st4 ,john's style#aaf1 and adds considerably to the graphic character of the sacred narrative4 ,st4 ,john was reclining 7,greek3 anakeimenos7 on his left arm over the bosom of the robe 7,greek3 en ti kolpi7 of the ,saviour4 ,when ,st4 ,peter beckoned to him he turned his head for the moment and sank 7,greek3 epipesn1 not ,greek3 anapesn which has the testimony only of ,b and about twenty-five uncials1 ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,c being divided against themselves7 on the breast of the ,lord1 being still in the general posture in which he was 7,greek3 houts#aag71 and asked ,him in a whisper ',lord1 who is it8' ,another case of confusion between ,greek3 and ,greek3 o may be seen in ,st4 ,luke xv4 #bd1 #cb1 where ,greek3 apolls has gained so strong a hold that it is found in the ,received ,text for ,greek3 apollos1 which last being the better attested appears to be the right reading#aah4 ,but the instance which requires the most attention is ,greek3 katharizon in ,st4 ,mark vii4 #ai1 and all the more because in ,the ,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark1 the alteration into ,greek3 katharizn is advocated as being 'no part of the ,divine discourse1 but the ,evangelist's inspired comment on the ,saviour's words#aai4' ,such a question must be decided strictly by the testimony1 not upon internal evidence--which in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way1 for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by ,greek3 katharizn1 and ,greek3 katharizon bears a very intelligible meaning4 ,when we find that the uncial evidence is divided1 there being eight against the change 7,symbol3 ,phi,symbol3 ,sigma,,kmuv,symbol3 ,gamma,symbol3 ,pi71 and eleven for it 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,abefghlsx,symbol3 ,delta72--that not much is advanced by the versions1 though the ,peshitto1 the ,lewis ,codex1 the ,harkleian 7871 the ,gothic1 the ,old ,latin#abj1 the ,vulgate1 favour ,greek3 katharizon2--nor by the ,fathers3--since ,aphraates#aba1 ,augustine 787#abb1 and ,novatian#abc are contradicted by ,origen#abd1 ,theophylact#abe1 and ,gregory ,thaumaturgus#abf1 we discover that we have not so far made much way towards a satisfactory conclusion4 ,the only decided element of judgement1 so far as present enquiries have reached1 since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ab1 is supplied by the cursives which with a large majority witness to the received reading4 ,it is not therefore safe to alter it till a much larger examination of existing evidence is made than is now possible4 ,if difficulty is felt in the meaning given by ,greek3 katharizon1--and that there is such difficulty cannot candidly be denied1--this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by ,greek3 katharizn1 which would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words1 including two interrogations and the closing sentence4 ,those people who form their judgement from the ,revised ,version should bear in mind that the ,revisers1 in order to make intelligible sense1 were obliged to introduce three fresh ,english words that have nothing to correspond to them in the ,greek2 being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would hardly bear in memory4 ,let any reader who doubts this leave out the words in italics and try the effect for himself4 ,the fact is that to make this reading satisfactory1 another alteration is required4 ,greek3 ,katharizn panta ta brmata ought either to be transferred to the #bjth verse or to the beginning of the #ahth4 ,then all would be clear enough1 though destitute of a balance of authority3 as it is now proposed to read1 the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple and transparent sentences of ,st4 ,mark4 ,we must therefore be guided by the balance of evidence1 and that is turned by the cursive testimony4 #c4 ,another minute but interesting indication of the accuracy and fidelity with which the cursive copies were made1 is supplied by the constancy with which they witness to the preposition ,greek3 en 7not the numeral ,greek3 hen7 in ,st4 ,mark iv4 #h4 ,our ,lord says that the seed which 'fell into the good ground' 'yielded by 7,greek3 en7 thirty1 and by 7,greek3 en7 sixty1 and by 7,greek3 en7 an hundred4' ,tischendorf notes that besides all the uncials which are furnished with accents and breathings 7viz4 ,,efghkmuv,symbol3 ,pi7 'nearly #ajj cursives' exhibit ,greek3 en here and in ver4 #bj4 ,but this is to misrepresent the case4 ,all the cursives may be declared to exhibit ,greek3 en1 e4g4 all ,matthaei's and all ,scrivener's4 ,i have myself with this object examined a large number of ,evangelia1 and found ,greek3 en in all4 ,the ,basle ,,ms4 from which ,erasmus derived his text#abg exhibits ,greek3 en1--though he printed ,greek3 hen out of respect for the ,vulgate4 ,the ,complutensian having ,greek3 hen1 the reading of the ,textus ,receptus follows in consequence3 but the ,traditional reading has been shewn to be ,greek3 en1--which is doubtless intended by ,greek3 ,,en in ,cod4 ,a4 ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,c,symbol3 ,delta 7two ever licentious and ,symbol3 ,delta similarly so throughout ,st4 ,mark7 substitute for the preposition ,greek3 en the preposition ,greek3 eis1--7a sufficient proof to me that they understand ,greek3 ,,en to represent ,greek3 en1 not ,greek3 hen73 and are followed by ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 and the ,revisers4 ,as for the chartered libertine ,b 7and its servile henchman ,l71 for the first ,greek3 en 7but not for the second and third7 it substitutes the preposition ,greek3 ,,eis3 while1 in ver4 #bj1 it retains the first ,greek3 en1 but omits the other two4 ,in all these vagaries ,cod4 ,b is followed by ,westcott and ,hort#abh4 #d4 ,st4 ,paul#abi in his ,epistle to ,titus ii4 #e directs that young women shall be 'keepers at home1' ,greek3 oikourous4 ,so1 7with five exceptions17 every known ,codex#acj1 including the corrected ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,d1--,,hklp2 besides #ag1 #cg1 #dg4 ,so also ,clemens ,alex4#aca 7,a4,d4 #ahj71--,theodore of ,mopsuestia#acb1--;,basil#acc1--;,chryso stom#acd-- ,theodoret#ace1--;,damascene#acf4 ,so again the ,old ,latin 7domum custodientes#acg71--the ,vulgate 7domus curam habentes#ach71--;and ,jerome 7habentes domus diligentiam#aci73 and so the ,peshitto and the ,harkleian versions1--besides the ,bohairic4 ,there evidently can be no doubt whatever about such a reading so supported4 ,to be ,greek3 oikouros was held to be a woman's chiefest praise#adj3 ,greek3 kalliston ergon gyn oikouros1 writes ,clemens ,alex4#ada2 assigning to the wife ,greek3 oikouria as her proper province#adb4 ,on the contrary1 'gadding about from house to house' is what the ,apostle1 writing to ,timothy#adc1 expressly condemns4 ,but of course the decisive consideration is not the support derived from internal evidence2 but the plain fact that antiquity1 variety1 respectability1 numbers1 continuity of attestation1 are all in favour of the ,traditional reading4 ,notwithstanding this1 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,westcott and ,hort1 because they find ,greek3 oikourgous in ,symbol3 ,aleph99,,acd99,f-,g1 are for thrusting that 'barbarous and scarcely intelligible' word1 if it be not even a non-existent#add1 into ,titus ii4 #e4 ,the ,revised ,version in consequence exhibits 'workers at home'--which ,dr4 ,field may well call an 'unnecessary and most tasteless innovation4' ,but it is insufficiently attested as well1 besides being a plain perversion of the ,apostle's teaching4 ,and the error must have arisen from carelessness and ignorance1 probably in the ,west where ,greek was not properly understood4 ,so again1 in the cry of the demoniacs1 ,greek3 ti hmin kai soi1 ,isou1 huie tou ,theou2 7,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #bi7 the name ,greek3 ,isou is omitted by ,b,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,the reason is plain the instant an ancient ,,ms4 is inspected3--,greek3 ,,kaisoi,,iu,,uietou,,thu3--the recurrence of the same letters caused too great a strain to scribes1 and the omission of two of them was the result of ordinary human infirmity4 ,indeed1 to this same source are to be attributed an extraordinary number of so-called 'various readings'2 but which in reality1 as has already been shewn1 are nothing else but a collection of mistakes1--the surviving tokens that anciently1 as now1 copying clerks left out words2 whether misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending1 or by the speedy recurrence of the like letters1 or by some other phenomenon with which most men's acquaintance with books have long since made them familiar4 ,,footnotes3 #if ,st4 ,mark xi4 #d4 ,see ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #eg-eh4 #ig ,st4 ,mark vii4 #ai1 ,greek3 katharizn for ,greek3 katharizon4 ,see below1 pp4 #fa-c4 #ih ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ad4 #ii ,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #db4 #ajj ,st4 ,matt4 xx4 #i4 ,see also ,st4 ,mark xi4 #i1 #aj4 #aja ',quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si ,greek3 hote legendum esset4' #ajb iv4 #egg3 'quando4' #ajc ,dem4 ,ev4 #caj1 #cab1 #ded bis4 #ajd i4 #cja4 #aje ii4 #dhh1 and ap4 ,gall4 vi4 #ehj4 #ajf ,trin4 #ei1 #ii1 #bdb4 #ajg viii4 #djf1 #djg4 ,also ps4-,chrysost4 v4 #fac4 ,note1 that ',apolinarius' in ,cramer's ,cat4 #ccb is ,chrys4 viii4 #djg4 #ajh ,ap4 ,chrys4 vi4 #dec4 #aji iv4 #eje1 #gji1 and ap4 ,mai iii4 #he4 #aaj ii4 #ajb3 iv4 #gji1 and ap4 ,mai iii4 #aah4 #aaa v#a4 #fdb4 #aab ,unfortunately1 though the ,dean left several lists of instances of ,itacism1 he worked out none1 except the substitution of ,greek3 hen for ,greek3 en in ,st4 ,mark iv4 #h1 which as it is not strictly on all fours with the rest ,i have reserved till last4 ,he mentioned all that ,i have introduced 7besides a few others71 on detached papers1 some of them more than once1 and ,greek3 lousanti and ,greek3 katharizon even more than the others4 ,in the brief discussion of each instance which ,i have supplied1 ,i have endeavoured whenever it was practicable to include any slight expressions of the ,dean's that ,i could find1 and to develop all surviving hints4 #aac ,greek3 lousanti4 #aad ,greek3 lusanti4 #aae ,greek3 houts4 ,,bcefghlmx,symbol3 ,delta4 ,most cursives4 ,goth4 ,greek3 outos4 ,,ksu,symbol3 ,gamma,symbol3 ,lambda4 ,ten cursives4 ,omit ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ad,pi4 ,many cursives4 ,vulg4 ,pesh4 ,ethiop4 ,armen4 ,georg4 ,slavon4 ,bohair4 ,pers4 #aaf ,e4g4 ,thuc4 vii4 #ae1 ,st4 ,john iv4 #f4 #aag ,see ,st4 ,john iv4 #f3 ,acts xx4 #aa1 xxvii4 #ag4 ,the beloved ,apostle was therefore called ,greek3 ho epistthios4 ,see ,suicer4 s4 v4 ,westcott on ,st4 ,john xiii4 #be4 #aah #bd4 ,greek3 apolls4 ,symbol3 ,alepha,,abd c4 ,greek3 apollos4 ,symbol3 ,aleph99,,gkmrsx,symbol3 ,gamma,symbol3 ,pi994 ,most curs4 #cb4 ,greek3 apolls4 ,symbol3 ,aleph99,,abd c4 ,greek3 apollos4 ,symbol3 ,alephc,,kmrsx,symbol3 ,gamma,symbol3 ,pi994 ,most curs4 #aai ,pp4 #agi1 #ahj4 ,since the ,dean has not adopted ,greek3 katharizn into his corrected text1 and on account of other indications which caused me to doubt whether he retained the opinion of his earlier years1 ,i applied to the ,rev4 ,w4 ,f4 ,rose1 who answered as follows3--',i am thankful to say that ,i can resolve all doubt as to my uncle's later views of ,st4 ,mark vii4 #ai4 ,in his annotated copy of the ,twelve ,verses he deletes the words in his note p4 #agi1 ,this appears to be the true reading1 and writes in the margin1 ,the old reading is doubtless the true one1 and in the margin of the paragraph referring to ,greek3 katharizn on p4 #ahj he writes1 ,alter the wording of this4 ,this entirely agrees with my own recollection of many conversations with him on the subject4 ,i think he felt that the weight of the cursive testimony to the old rending was conclusive1--at least that he was not justified in changing the text in spite of it4' ,these last words of ,mr4 ,rose express exactly the inference that ,i had drawn4 #abj ',the majority of the ,old ,latin ,,mss4 have in secessum uadit 7or exiit7 purgans omnes escas2 i 7,vindobonensis7 and r 7,usserianus7 have et purgat for purgans3 and a has a conflation in secessum exit purgans omnes escas et exit in rivum--so they all point the same way4'--7,kindly communicated by ,mr4 ,h4 ,j4 ,white47 #aba ,dem4 xv4 7,graffin7--',vadit enim esca in ventrem1 unde purgatione in secessum emittitur4' 7,lat47 #abb iii4 #gfd4 ',et in secessum exit1 purgans omnes escas4' #abc ,galland4 iii4 #cai4 ',cibis1 quos ,dominus dicit perire1 et in secessu naturali lege purgari4' #abd iii4 #did4 ,greek3 elege tauta ho ,str1 katharizn panta ta brmata4 #abe i4 #bjf4 ,greek3 ekkatharizn panta ta brmata4 #abf ,galland4 iii4 #djj4 ,greek3 alla kai ho ,str1 panta katharizn ta brmata4 #abg ,evan4 #b4 ,see ,hoskier1 ,collation of ,cod4 ,evan4 #fjd1 ,app4 ,f4 p4 #d4 #abh ,the following specimens taken from the first hand of ,b may illustrate the kakigraphy1 if ,i may use the expression1 which is characteristic of that ,,ms4 and also of ,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,the list might be easily increased4 ,i4 ,proper ,names4 ,greek3 ,ians1 generally3 ,greek3 ,ianns1 ,luke i4 #ac991 #fj1 #fc2 ,acts iii4 #d2 iv4 #f1 #ac1 #ai2 xii4 #be2 xiii4 #e1 #be2 xv4 #cg2 ,rev4 i4 #a1 #d1 #i2 xxii4 #h4 ,greek3 ,beezeboul1 ,matt4 x4 #be2 xii4 #bd1 #bg2 ,mark iii4 #bb2 ,luke xi4 #ae1 #ah1 #ai4 ,greek3 ,nazaret1 ,matt4 ii4 #bc2 ,luke i4 #bf2 ,john i4 #df1 #dg4 ,greek3 ,nazara1 ,matt4 iv4 #ac4 ,greek3 ,nazareth1 ,matt4 xxi4 #aa2 ,luke ii4 #ea2 iv4 #af4 ,greek3 ,maria for ,greek3 ,mariam1 ,matt4 i4 #bj2 ,luke ii4 #ai4 ,greek3 ,mariam for ,greek3 ,maria1 ,matt4 xxvii4 #fa2 ,mark xx4 #dj2 ,luke x4 #db2 xi4 #cb2 ,john xi4 #b2 xii4 #c2 xx4 #af1 #ah4 ,see ,traditional ,text1 p4 #hf4 ,greek3 ,koum1 ,mark v4 #da4 ,greek3 ,golgoth1 ,luke xix4 #ag4 ,greek3 ,istraleitai1 ,istralitai1 ,israleitai1 ,isralitai4 ,greek3 ,eleisabet1 ,elisabet4 ,greek3 ,mss1 ,muss4 ,greek3 ,dalmanountha1 ,mark viii4 #aj4 ,greek3 ,is 7,joseph of ,arimathea71 ,mark xv4 #de4 ,greek3 ,isph1 ,matt4 xxvii4 #eg1 #ei2 ,mark xv4 #db2 ,luke xxiii4 #ej2 ,john xix4 #ch4 ,,ii4 ,mis-spelling of ordinary words4 ,greek3 kath' idian1 ,matt4 xvii4 #a1 #ai2 xxi v4 #c2 ,mark iv4 #cd2 vi4 #ca1 c4 ,greek3 kat' idian1 ,matt4 xiv4 #ac1 #bc2 ,mark vi4 #cb2 vii4 #cc1 c4 ,greek3 genma1 ,matt4 xxvi4 #bi2 ,mark xiv4 #be2 ,luke xxii4 #ah4 ,greek3 gennma1 ,matt4 iii4 #g2 xii4 #cd2 xxiii4 #cc2 ,luke iii4 #g 7the well-known ,greek3 gennmata echidnn74 ,a similar confusion between ,greek3 genesis and ,greek3 gennsis1 ,matt4 i1 and between ,greek3 egenthn and ,greek3 egennthn1 and ,greek3 gegenmai and ,greek3 gegennmai4 ,see ,kuenen and ,cobet ,n4 ,t4 ad fid4 ,cod4 ,vaticani lxxvii4 ,,iii4 ,itacisms4 ,greek3 krein1 ,john xii4 #dh 7,greek3 kreinei74 ,greek3 krin1 ,matt4 vii4 #a2 xix4 #bh2 ,luke vi4 #cg2 vii4 #dc2 xii4 #eg1 c4 ,greek3 teim1 tim1 ,matt4 xv4 #d1 #e1 #h2 xix4 #ai2 xxvii4 #i2 ,mark vii4 #f1 #aj1 c4 ,greek3 enebreimth 7,matt4 ix4 #cj7 for ,greek3 enebrimsato4 ,greek3 anakleithnai 7,mark vi4 #ci7 for ,greek3 anaklinai4 seitos for ,greek3 sitos 7,mark iv4 #bh74 ,,iv4 ,bad ,grammar4 ,greek3 ti oikodespoti epekalesan for ,greek3 ton oikodespotn ekal4 7,matt4 x4 #be74 ,greek3 katapatsousin for ,greek3-ssin 7,matt4 vii4 #f74 ,greek3 ho an aitsetai 7,matt4 xiv4 #g74 ,greek3 hotan de akouete 7,mark xiii4 #g74 ,v4 ,impossible words4 ,greek3 emnsteumenn 7,luke i4 #bg74 ,greek3 ouranou for ,greek3 ouraniou 7ii4 #ac74 ,greek3 anztoun 7,luke ii4 #dd74 ,greek3 kopiousin 7,matt4 vi4 #bh74 ,greek3 rtoun 7,matt4 xv4 #bc74 ,greek3 katasknoin 7,mark iv4 #cb74 ,greek3 hmeis for ,greek3 hymeis4 ,greek3 hymeis for ,greek3 hmeis4 #abi ,this paper on ,titus ii4 #e was marked by the ,dean as being 'ready for press4' ,it was evidently one of his later essays1 and was left in one of his later portfolios4 #acj ,all ,matthaei's #af1--;all ,rinck's #g1--;all ,reiche's #f1--;all ,scrivener's #ac1 c41 c4 #aca #fbb4 #acb ,ed4 ,swete1 ii4 #bdg 7domos suas bene regentes72 #bdh 7domus proprias optime regant74 #acc ii4 7,eth47 #bia a1 #cji b4 #acd xi4 #gej a1 #gea b c d--,greek3 h oikouros kai oikonomik4 #ace iii4 #gjd4 #acf ii4 #bga4 #acg ,cod4 ,clarom4 #ach ,cod4 ,amiat41 and ,august4 iii#a4 #hjd4 #aci vii4 #gaf c1 #gah b 7,bene domum regere1 #gah c74 #adj ,greek3 kat' oikon oikourousin hste parthenoi 7,soph4 ,oed4 ,col4 #cdc74--';,greek3 ,oikouros est quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum3 ,greek3 oikourgos est scribarum commentum1'--as ,matthaei1 whose note is worth reading1 truly states4 ,wetstein's collections here should by all means be consulted4 ,see also ,field's delightful ,otium ,norv41 pp4 #ace-f4 #ada ,p4 #bic1 lin4 #d 7see lin4 #b74 #adb ,p4 #bhh1 lin4 #bj4 #adc #a ,tim4 v4 #ac4 #add ,greek3 oikourgein--which occurs in ,clemens ,rom4 7ad ,cor4 c4 #a7--;is probably due to the scribe4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,accidental ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption4 ,v4 ,liturgical ,influence4 #a4 ,there is one distinct class of evidence provided by ,almighty ,god for the conservation of the deposit in its integrity#ade1 which calls for special notice in this place4 ,the ,lectionaries of the ancient ,church have not yet nearly enjoyed the attention they deserve1 or the laborious study which in order to render them practically available they absolutely require4 ,scarcely any persons1 in fact1 except professed critics1 are at all acquainted with the contents of the very curious documents alluded to3 while collations of any of them which have been hitherto effected are few indeed4 ,i speak chiefly of the ,books called ,evangelistaria 7or ,evangeliaria71 in other words1 the proper lessons collected out of the ,gospels1 and transcribed into a separate volume4 ,let me freely admit that ,i subjoin a few observations on this subject with unfeigned diffidence2 having had to teach myself throughout the little ,i know2--and discovering in the end how very insufficient for my purpose that little is4 ,properly handled1 an adequate study of the ,lectionaries of the ancient ,church would become the labour of a life4 ,we require exact collations of at least #ajj of them4 ,from such a practical acquaintance with about a tenth of the extant copies some very interesting results would infallibly be obtained#adf4 ,as for the external appearance of these documents1 it may be enough to say that they range1 like the mass of uncial and cursive copies1 over a space of about #gjj years1--the oldest extant being of about the eighth century1 and the latest dating in the fifteenth4 ,rarely are any so old as the former date1--or so recent as the last named4 ,when they began to be executed is not known2 but much older copies than any which at present exist must have perished through constant use3 for they are in perfect order when we first become acquainted with them1 and as a whole they are remarkably consistent with one another4 ,they are almost invariably written in double columns1 and not unfrequently are splendidly executed4 ,the use of ,uncial letters is observed to have been retained in documents of this class to a later period than in the case of the ,evangelia1 viz4 down to the eleventh century4 ,for the most part they are furnished with a kind of musical notation executed in vermilion2 evidently intended to guide the reader in that peculiar recitative which is still customary in the oriental ,church4 ,in these books the ,gospels always stand in the following order3 ,st4 ,john3 ,st4 ,matthew3 ,st4 ,luke3 ,st4 ,mark4 ,the lessons are brief1-- resembling the ,epistles and ,gospels in our ,book of ,common ,prayer4 ,they seem to me to fall into two classes3 7a7 ,those which contain a lesson for every day in the year3 7b7 ,those which only contain lessons for fixed ,festivals and the ,saturday-,sunday lessons 7,greek3 sabbatokyriakai74 ,we are reminded by this peculiarity that it was not till a very late period in her history that the ,eastern ,church was able to shake herself clear of the shadow of the old ,jewish ,sabbath#adg4 ,to these ,lectionaries ,tables of the ,lessons were often added1 of a similar character to those which we have in our ,prayer-books4 ,the ,table of daily ,lessons went under the title of ,synaxarion 7or ,eclogadion72 and the ,table of the ,lessons of immovable ,festivals and ,saints' days was styled ,menologion#adh4 ,liturgical use has proved a fruitful source of textual perturbation4 ,nothing less was to have been expected1--as every one must admit who has examined ancient ,evangelia with any degree of attention4 ,for a period before the custom arose of writing out the ,ecclesiastical ,lections in the ',evangelistaries1' and ',apostolos1' it may be regarded as certain that the practice generally prevailed of accommodating an ordinary copy1 whether of the ,gospels or of the ,epistles1 to the requirements of the ,church4 ,this continued to the last to be a favourite method with the ancients#adi4 ,not only was it the invariable liturgical practice to introduce an ecclesiastical lection with an ever-varying formula1--by which means the holy ,name is often found in ,,mss4 where it has no proper place1--but notes of time1 c41 'like the unique and indubitably genuine word ,greek3 deuteroprti#aej1' are omitted as carrying no moral lesson1 as well as longer passages like the case of the two verses recounting the ministering ,angel with the ,agony and the ,bloody ,sweat#aea4 ,that ,lessons from the ,new ,testament were probably read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme1 and on an established system1 at least as early as the fourth century1 has been shewn to follow from plain historical fact in the tenth chapter of the ,twelve ,last ,verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 to which the reader is referred for more detailed information4 ,cyril1 at ,jerusalem1--and by implication1 his namesake at ,alexandria1--,chrysostom1 at ,antioch and at ,constantinople1-- ,augustine1 in ,africa1--all four expressly witness to the circumstance4 ,in other words1 there is found to have been at least at that time fully established throughout the ,churches of ,christendom a ,lectionary1 which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the ,west and in the ,east4 ,that it must have been of even ,apostolic antiquity may be inferred from several considerations#aeb4 ,for example1 ,marcion1 in ,a4,d4 #adj1 would hardly have constructed an ,evangelistarium and ,apostolicon of his own1 as we learn from ,epiphanius#aec1 if he had not been induced by the ,lectionary ,system prevailing around him to form a counterplan of teaching upon the same model4 #b4 ,indeed1 the high antiquity of the ,church's ,lectionary ,system is inferred with certainty from many a textual phenomenon with which students of ,textual ,science are familiar4 ,it may be helpful to a beginner if ,i introduce to his notice the class of readings to be discussed in the present chapter1 by inviting his attention to the first words of the ,gospel for ,st4 ,philip and ,st4 ,james' ,day in our own ,english ,book of ,common ,prayer1--',and ,jesus said unto ,his disciples4' ,those words he sees at a glance are undeniably nothing else but an ,ecclesiastical accretion to the ,gospel1--words which breed offence in no quarter1 and occasion error to none4 ,they have nevertheless stood prefixed to ,st4 ,john xiv4 #a from an exceedingly remote period2 for1 besides establishing themselves in every ,lectionary of the ancient ,church#aed1 they are found in ,cod4 ,d#aee1--;in copies of the ,old ,latin#aef as the ,vercellensis1 ,corbeiensis1 ,aureus1 ,bezae1--and in copies of the ,vulgate4 ,they may be of the second or third1 they must be as old as the fourth century4 ,it is evident that it wants but a very little for those words to have established their claim to a permanent place in the ,text4 ,readings just as slenderly supported have been actually adopted before now#aeg4 ,i proceed to cite another instance2 and here the success of an ordinary case of ,lectionary licence will be perceived to have been complete3 for besides recommending itself to ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 and ,westcott and ,hort1 the blunder in question has established itself in the pages of the ,revised ,version4 ,reference is made to an alteration of the ,text occurring in certain copies of ,acts iii4 #a1 which will be further discussed below#aeh4 ,when it has been stated that these copies are ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcg1--the ,vulgate1--the two ,egyptian versions1--besides the ,armenian1--and the ,ethiopic1--it will be admitted that the ,ecclesiastical practice which has resulted in so widespread a reading1 must be primitive indeed4 ,to some persons such a formidable array of evidence may seem conclusive in favour of any reading3 but it can only seem so to those who do not realize the weight of counter-testimony4 ,but by far the most considerable injury which has resulted to the ,gospel from this cause is the suspicion which has alighted in certain quarters on the last twelve verses of the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,mark4 ,those verses made up by themselves a complete ,lection4 ,the preceding ,lection1 which was used on the ,second ,sunday after ,easter1 was closed with the ,liturgical note ',the ,end1' or ,greek3 ,,to ,,telos1 occurring after the eighth verse4 ,what more probable1 nay1 more certain result could there be1 than that some scribe should mistake the end of the ,lection for the end of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 if the last leaf should chance to have been torn off1 and should then transcribe no more#aei8 ,how natural that ,st4 ,mark should express himself in a more condensed and abrupt style than usual4 ,this of course is only put forward as an explanation1 which leaves the notion of another writer and a later date unnecessary4 ,if it can be improved upon1 so much the better4 ,candid critics ought to study ,dean ,burgon's elaborate chapter already referred to before rejecting it4 #c4 ,and there probably does not exist1 in the whole compass of the ,gospel1 a more interesting instance of this than is furnished by the words ,greek3 eipe de ho ,kyrios1 in ,st4 ,luke vii4 #ca4 ,this is certainly derived from the ,lectionaries2 being nothing else but the formula with which it was customary to introduce the lection that begins at this place4 ,accordingly1 only one out of forty copies which have been consulted for the purpose contains them4 ,but the circumstance of interest remains to be stated4 ,when these four unauthorized words have been thus got rid of1 the important discovery is made that the two preceding verses 7verses #bh and #bi7 must needs form a part of our ,lord's discourse1--which it is perceived flows on unbroken from v4 #bd to v4 #ce4 ,this has been seen already by some#afj1 though denied by others4 ,but the fact does not admit of rational doubt2 though it is certainly not as yet generally known4 ,it is not generally known1 ,i mean1 that the ,church has recovered a piece of knowledge with which she was once familiar#afa1 but which for many centuries she has forgotten1 viz4 that thirty-two words which she supposed to be those of the ,evangelist are in reality those of her ,lord4 ,indeed1 when the expressions are considered1 it is perceived that this account of them must needs be the true one4 ,thus1 we learn from the #bdth verse that our ,saviour was at this time addressing 'the crowds' or 'multitudes4' ,but the four classes specified in verses #bi1 #cj1 cannot reasonably be thought to be the ,evangelist's analysis of those crowds4 ,in fact what is said of 'the ,pharisees and ,lawyers' in ver4 #cj is clearly not a remark made by the ,evangelist on the reception which our ,saviour's words were receiving at the hands of his auditory2 but our ,saviour's own statement of the reception which ,his ,forerunner's preaching had met with at the hands of the common people and the publicans on the one hand1--the ,pharisees and the ,scribes on the other4 ,hence the inferential particle ,greek3 oun in the #cast verse2 and the use in ver4 #ce of the same verb 7,greek3 edikaith7 which the ,divine ,speaker had employed in ver4 #bi3 whereby ,he takes up ,his previous statement while ,he applies and enforces it4 ,another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating in the same way is found a little farther on4 ,in ,st4 ,luke ix4 #a 7',and having called together ,his twelve ,disciples'71 the words ,greek3 mathtas autou are confessedly spurious3 being condemned by nearly every known cursive and uncial4 ,their presence in the meantime is fully accounted for by the adjacent rubrical direction how the lesson is to be introduced3 viz4 ',at that time ,jesus having called together ,his twelve ,disciples4' ,accordingly we are not surprised to find the words ,greek3 ho ,isous also thrust into a few of the ,,mss43 though we are hardly prepared to discover that the words of the ,peshitto1 besides the ,latin and ,cureton's ,syriac1 are disfigured in the same way4 ,the admirers of 'the old uncials' will learn with interest that1 instead of ,greek3 mathtas autou1 ,symbol3 ,aleph,c with ,,lx,symbol3 ,lambda,symbol3 ,xi and a choice assortment of cursives exhibit ,greek3 apostolous1--being supported in this manifestly spurious reading by the best copies of the ,old ,latin1 the ,vulgate1 ,gothic1 ,harkleian1 ,bohairic1 and a few other translations4 ,indeed1 it is surprising what a fertile source of corruption ,liturgical usage has proved4 ,every careful student of the ,gospels remembers that ,st4 ,matthew describes our ,lord's first and second missionary journey in very nearly the same words4 ,the former place 7iv4 #bc7 ending ,greek3 kai pasan malakian en t la used to conclude the lesson for the second ,sunday after ,pentecost1--the latter 7ix4 #ce7 ending ,greek3 kai pasan malakian occupies the same position in the ,gospel for the seventh ,sunday4 ,it will not seem strange to any one who considers the matter1 that ,greek3 en t la has in consequence not only found its way into ix4 #ce1 but has established itself there very firmly3 and that from a very early time4 ,the spurious words are first met with in the ,codex ,sinaiticus#afb4 ,but sometimes corruptions of this class are really perplexing4 ,thus ,symbol3 ,aleph testifies to the existence of a short additional clause 7,greek3 kai polloi kolouthsan aut7 at the end1 as some critics say1 of the same #ceth verse4 ,are we not rather to regard the words as the beginning of ver4 #cf1 and as being nothing else but the liturgical introduction to the lection for the ,twelve ,apostles1 which follows 7ix4 #cf-x4 #h71 and whose ,festival falls on the #cjth ,june8 ,whatever its origin1 this confessedly spurious accretion to the ,text1 which exists besides only in ,l and six cursive copies1 must needs be of extraordinary antiquity1 being found in the two oldest copies of the ,old ,latin3--a sufficient indication1 by the way1 of the utter insufficiency of such an amount of evidence for the genuineness of any reading4 ,this is the reason why1 in certain of the oldest documents accessible1 such a strange amount of discrepancy is discoverable in the text of the first words of ,st4 ,luke x4 #be 7,greek3 kai idou nomikos tis anest1 ekpeirazn aiton1 kai legn74 ,many of the ,latin copies preface this with et haec eo dicente4 ,now1 the established formula of the lectionaries here is1--,greek3 nomikos tis prosthen t ,i41 which explains why the ,curetonian1 the ,lewis1 with #cc1 'the queen of the cursives1' as their usual leader in aberrant readings is absurdly styled1 so read the place3 while ,d1 with one copy of the ,old ,latin1 stands alone in exhibiting1--,greek3 anest de tis nomikos4 ,four ,codexes 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl,symbol3 ,xi7 with the ,curetonian omit the second ,greek3 kai which is illegible in the ,lewis4 ,to read this place in its purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy4 #d4 ,take another instance4 ,st4 ,mark xv4 #bh has been hitherto read in all ,churches as follows3--',and the ,scripture was fulfilled1 which saith1 ,and ,he was numbered with the transgressors4' ,in these last days however the discovery is announced that every word of this is an unauthorized addition to the inspired text4 ,griesbach indeed only marks the verse as probably spurious2 while ,tregelles is content to enclose it in brackets4 ,but ,alford1 ,tischendorf1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers eject the words ,greek3 kai eplrth h graph h legousa1 kai meta anomn elogisth from the text altogether4 ,what can be the reason for so extraordinary a proceeding8 ,let us not be told by ,schulz 7,griesbach's latest editor7 that 'the quotation is not in ,mark's manner2 that the formula which introduces it is ,john's3 and that it seems to be a gloss taken from ,luke xxii4 #cg4' ,this is not criticism but dictation1--imagination1 not argument4 ,men who so write forget that they are assuming the very point which they are called upon to prove4 ,now it happens that all the ,uncials but six and an immense majority of the ,cursive copies contain the words before us3--that besides these1 the ,old ,latin1 the ,syriac1 the ,vulgate1 the ,gothic and the ,bohairic versions1 all concur in exhibiting them3--that the same words are expressly recognized by the ,sectional ,system of ,eusebius2--having a section 7,greek3 sis _/ ,greek3 i4e4 #baf_/h7 to themselves--which is the weightiest sanction that ,father had it in his power to give to words of ,scripture4 ,so are they also recognized by the ,syriac sectional system 7#bfj_/h71 which is diverse from that of ,eusebius and independent of it4 ,what then is to be set against such a weight of ancient evidence8 ,the fact that the following six ,codexes are without this #bhth verse1 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcdx1 together with the ,sahidic and ,lewis4 ,the notorious ,codex k 7,bobiensis7 is the only other ancient testimony producible2 to which ,tischendorf adds 'about forty-five cursive copies4' ,will it be seriously pretended that this evidence for omitting ver4 #bh from ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel can compete with the evidence for retaining it8 ,let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers before antiquity4 ,codex ,d is of the sixth century2 ,cod4 ,x not older than the ninth3 and not one of the four ,codexes which remain is so old1 within perhaps two centuries1 as either the ,old ,latin or the ,peshitto versions4 ,we have ,eusebius and ,jerome's ,vulgate as witnesses on the same side1 besides the ,gothic version1 which represents a ,codex probably as old as either4 ,to these witnesses must be added ,victor of ,antioch1 who commented on ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel before either ,a or ,c were written#afc4 ,it will be not unreasonably asked by those who have learned to regard whatever is found in ,b or ,symbol3 ,aleph as oracular1--',but is it credible that on a point like this such authorities as ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcd should all be in error8' ,it is not only credible1 ,i answer1 but a circumstance of which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it ceases to be even a matter of surprise4 ,on the other hand1 what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like this all the ancient versions 7except the ,sahidic7 should have conspired to mislead mankind8 ,and further1 on what intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials1 and the whole mass of cursives1 to be explained1 if this verse of ,scripture be indeed spurious8 ,i know that the rejoinder will be as follows3--',yes1 but if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired verity1 how is their absence from the earliest ,codexes to be accounted for8' ,now it happens that for once ,i am able to assign the reason4 ,but ,i do so under protest1 for ,i insist that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest ,codexes is no part of a critic's business4 ,it would not only prove an endless1 but also a hopeless task4 ,this time1 however1 ,i am able to explain4 ,if the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the ,bibliothque at ,paris for a ,greek ,codex numbered '#ga1' an ,evangelium will be put into his hands which differs from any that ,i ever met with in giving singularly minute and full rubrical directions4 ,at the end of ,st4 ,mark xv4 #bg1 he will read as follows3--',when thou readest the sixth ,gospel of the ,passion1--also when thou readest the second ,gospel of the ,vigil of ,good ,friday1--stop here3 skip verse #bh3 then go on at verse #bi4' ,the inference from this is so obvious1 that it would be to abuse the reader's patience if ,i were to enlarge upon it1 or even to draw it out in detail4 ,very ancient indeed must the ,lectionary practice in this particular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of its operation in our four oldest ,codexes3 but it has left it#afd4 ,the explanation is evident1 the verse is plainly genuine1 and the ,codexes which leave it out are corrupt4 ,one word about the evidence of the cursive copies on this occasion4 ,tischendorf says that 'about forty-five' of them are without this precious verse of ,scripture4 ,i venture to say that the learned critic would be puzzled to produce forty-five copies of the ,gospels in which this verse has no place4 ,but in fact his very next statement 7viz4 that about half of these are ,lectionaries71--satisfactorily explains the matter4 ,just so4 ,from every ,lectionary in the world1 for the reason already assigned1 these words are away2 as well as in every ,,ms4 which1 like ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph1 has been depraved by the influence of the ,lectionary practice4 ,and now ,i venture to ask1--,what is to be thought of that ,revision of our ,authorized ,version which omits ver4 #bh altogether2 with a marginal intimation that 'many ancient authorities insert it'8 ,would it not have been the course of ordinary reverence1--,i was going to say of truth and fairness1--to leave the text unmolested3 with a marginal memorandum that just 'a very few ancient authorities leave it out'8 #e4 ,a gross depravation of the ,text resulting from this cause1 which nevertheless has imposed on several critics1 as has been already said1 is furnished by the first words of ,acts iii4 ,the most ancient witness accessible1 namely the ,peshitto1 confirms the usual reading of the place1 which is also the text of the cursives3 viz4 ,greek3 ,epi to auto de ,petros kai ,ianns k4t4l4 ,so the ,harkleian and ,bede4 ,so ,codex ,e4 ,the four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however in representing the words which immediately precede in the following unintelligible fashion3--,greek3 ho de ,kyrios prosetithei tous szomenous kath' hmeran epi to auto4 ,petros de k4t4l4 ,how is it to be thought that this strange and vapid presentment of the passage had its beginning8 ,it results1 ,i answer1 from the ecclesiastical practice of beginning a fresh lection at the name of ',peter1' prefaced by the usual formula ',in those days4' ,it is accordingly usual to find the liturgical word ,greek3 arch--indicative of the beginning of a lection1--thrust in between ,greek3 epi to auto de and ,greek3 ,petros4 ,at a yet earlier period ,i suppose some more effectual severance of the text was made in that place1 which unhappily misled some early scribe#afe4 ,and so it came to pass that in the first instance the place stood thus3 ,greek3 ho de ,kyrios prosetithei tous szomenous kath' hmeran t ekklsia epi to auto1--which was plainly intolerable4 ,what ,i am saying will commend itself to any unprejudiced reader when it has been stated that ,cod4 ,d in this place actually reads as follows3--,greek3 kathmeran epi to auto en t ekklsia4 ,en de tais hmerais tautais ,petros k4t4l43 the scribe with simplicity both giving us the liturgical formula with which it was usual to introduce the ,gospel for the ,friday after ,easter1 and permitting us to witness the perplexity with which the evident surplusage of ,greek3 t ekklsia epi to auto occasioned him4 ,he inverts those two expressions and thrusts in a preposition4 ,how obvious it now was to solve the difficulty by getting rid of ,greek3 t ekklsia4 ,it does not help the adverse case to shew that the ,vulgate as well as the copy of ,cyril of ,alexandria are disfigured with the same corrupt reading as ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abc4 ,it does but prove how early and how widespread is this depravation of the ,text4 ,but the indirect proof thus afforded that the actual ,lectionary ,system must needs date from a period long anterior to our oldest ,codexes is a far more important as well as a more interesting inference4 ,in the meantime ,i suspect that it was in ,western ,christendom that this corruption of the text had its beginning3 for proof is not wanting that the expression ,greek3 epi to auto seemed hard to the ,latins#aff4 ,hence too the omission of ,greek3 palin from ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bd 7,st4 ,matt1 xiii4 #dc74 ,a glance at the place in an actual ,codex#afg will explain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of writing3-- ,greek3 akouet4 telos ,greek3 palin4 arch4 eipen o ,kurios tn paraboln tautn4 ,greek3 ,omoia estin k4t4l4 ,the word ,greek3 palin1 because it stands between the end 7,greek3 telos7 of the lesson for the sixth ,thursday and the beginning 7,greek3 arch7 of the first ,friday after ,pentecost1 got left out though every one acquainted with ,gospel ,,mss4 knows that ,greek3 arch and ,greek3 telos were often inserted in the text4 ,the second of these two lessons begins with ,greek3 homoia because ,greek3 palin at the beginning of a lesson is not wanted4 ,here then is a singular token of the antiquity of the ,lectionary ,system in the ,churches of the ,east3 as well as a proof of the untrustworthy character of ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bd4 ,the discovery that they are supported this time by copies of the ,old ,latin 7a c e ff#a4b g#a4b k l71 ,vulgate1 ,curetonian1 ,bohairic1 ,ethiopic1 does but further shew that such an amount of evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine the text of ,scripture4 ,when therefore ,i see ,tischendorf1 in the immediately preceding verse 7xiii4 #dc7 on the sole authority of ,symbol3 ,aleph,b and a few ,latin copies1 omitting the word ,greek3 akouein1--and again in the present verse on very similar authority 7viz4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,d1 ,old ,latin1 ,vulgate1 ,peshitto1 ,curetonian1 ,lewis1 ,bohairic1 together with five cursives of aberrant character7 transposing the order of the words ,greek3 panta hosa echei plei1--,i can but reflect on the utterly insecure basis on which the ,revisers and the school which they follow would remodel the inspired ,text4 ,it is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason1 that the clause ,greek3 kai elypthsan sphodra 7,st4 ,matt4 xvii4 #bc7 comes to be omitted in ,k and several other copies4 ,the previous lesson ends at ,greek3 egerthsetai1--the next lesson begins at ,greek3 proslthon4 #f4 ,indeed1 the ,ancient ,liturgy of the ,church has frequently exercised a corrupting influence on the text of ,scripture4 ,having elsewhere considered ,st4 ,luke's version of the ,lord's ,prayer#afh1 ,i will in this place discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the ,lord's ,prayer concludes in ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #acafi1--;,greek3 hoti sou estin h basileia kai h dynamis kai h doxa eis tous ainas4 amn1--words which for #cfj years have been rejected by critical writers as spurious1 notwithstanding ,st4 ,paul's unmistakable recognition of them in #b ,tim4 iv4 #ah1--which alone1 one would have thought1 should have sufficed to preserve them from molestation4 ,the essential note of primitive antiquity at all events these fifteen words enjoy in perfection1 being met with in all copies of the ,peshitto3--and this is a far weightier consideration than the fact that they are absent from most of the ,latin copies4 ,even of these however four 7k f g#a q7 recognize the doxology1 which is also found in ,cureton's ,syriac and the ,sahidic version2 the ,gothic1 the ,ethiopic1 ,armenian1 ,georgian1 ,slavonic1 ,harkleian1 ,palestinian1 ,erpenius' ,arabic1 and the ,persian of ,tawos2 as well as in the ,greek3 ,didach 7with variations72 ,apostolical ,constitutions 7iii4 #ah-vii4 #be with variations72 in ,st4 ,ambrose 7,de ,sacr4 vi4 #e4 #bd71 ,caesarius 7,dial4 i4 #bi74 ,chrysostom comments on the words without suspicion1 and often quotes them 7,in ,orat4 ,dom41 also see ,hom4 in ,matt4 xiv4 #ac73 as does ,isidore of ,pelusium 7,ep4 iv4 #bd74 ,see also ,opus ,imperfectum 7,hom4 in ,matt4 xiv71 ,theophylact on this place1 and ,euthymius ,zigabenus 7in ,matt4 vi4 #ac and ,c4 ,massal4 ,anath4 #g74 ,and yet their true claim to be accepted as inspired is of course based on the consideration that they are found in ninety-nine out of a hundred of the ,greek copies1 including ,symbol3 ,phi and ,symbol3 ,sigma of the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries4 ,what then is the nature of the adverse evidence with which they have to contend and which is supposed to be fatal to their claims8 ,four uncial ,,mss4 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdz71 supported by five cursives of bad character 7#a1 #ag which gives ,greek3 amn1 #aah1 #acj1 #bji71 and1 as we have seen1 all the ,latin copies but four1 omit these words2 which1 it is accordingly assumed1 must have found their way surreptitiously into the text of all the other copies in existence4 ,but let me ask1--,is it at all likely1 or rather is it any way credible1 that in a matter like this1 all the ,,mss4 in the world but nine should have become corrupted8 ,no hypothesis is needed to account for one more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a mutilated text in every page4 ,but how will men pretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present2 which may be traced as far back as the second century2 which has established itself without appreciable variety of reading in all the ,,mss42 which has therefore found its way from the earliest time into every part of ,christendom2 is met with in all the ,lectionaries1 and in all the ,greek ,liturgies2 and has so effectually won the ,church's confidence that to this hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of the faithful all over the world8 ,one and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry ever since the days of ,erasmus4 ,a note in the ,complutensian ,polyglott 7#aead7 expresses it with sufficient accuracy4 ',in the ,greek copies1 after ,and deliver us from evil1 follows ,for thine is the kingdom1 and the power1 and the glory1 for ever4 ,but it is to be noted that in the ,greek liturgy1 after the choir has said ,and deliver us from evil1 it is the ,priest who responds as above3 and those words1 according to the ,greeks1 the priest alone may pronounce4 ,this makes it probable that the words in question are no integral part of the ,lord's ,prayer3 but that certain copyists inserted them in error1 supposing1 from their use in the liturgy1 that they formed part of the text4' ,in other words1 they represent that men's ears had grown so fatally familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the liturgy1 that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel of the ,lord's ,prayer4 ,the same statement has been repeated ad nauseam by ten generations of critics for #cfj years4 ,the words with which our ,saviour closed ,his pattern prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting from the liturgical practice of the primitive ,church4 ,and this slipshod account of the matter is universally acquiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the present day4 ,from an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies1 it is found then that though the utmost variety prevails among them1 yet that not one of them exhibits the evangelical formula as it stands in ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #ac2 while in some instances the divergences of expression are even extraordinary4 ,subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the typical eucharistic formula1 derived from the liturgy which passes as ,chrysostom's4 ,precisely the same form recurs in the office which is called after the name of ,basil3 and it is essentially reproduced by ,gregory of ,nyssa1 ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 and pseudo-,caesarius2 while something very like it is found to have been in use in more of the ,churches of the ,east4 ',for thine is the kingdom1 and the power1 and the glory1 ,father1 ,son and ,holy ,ghost1 now and always and for ever and ever4 ,amen4' ,but as every one sees at a glance1 such a formula as the foregoing1--with its ever-varying terminology of praise1--its constant reference to the blessed ,trinity1--its habitual ,greek3 nun kai aei1--and its invariable ,greek3 eis tous ainas tn ainn1 7which must needs be of very high antiquity1 for it is mentioned by ,irenaeus#agj1 and may be as old as #b ,tim4 iv4 #ah itself27--the doxology1 ,i say1 which formed part of the ,church's liturgy1 though transcribed #aj1jjj times1 could never by possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found in ,,mss4 of ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #ac1--';,for thine is the kingdom1 and the power1 and the glory1 for ever4 ,amen4' ,on the other hand1 the inference from a careful survey of so many ,oriental liturgies is inevitable4 ,the universal prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the ,lord's ,prayer2 the general prefix 'for thine'2 the prevailing mention therein of 'the kingdom and the power and the glory'2 the invariable reference to ,eternity3--all this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the form in ,st4 ,matthew4 ,eked out with a confession of faith in the ,trinity1 and otherwise amplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested1 every liturgical formula of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #ac4 ,in no conceivable way1 on the other hand1 could that briefer formula have resulted from the practice of the ancient ,church4 ,the thing1 ,i repeat1 is simply impossible4 ,what need to point out in conclusion that the ,church's peculiar method of reciting the ,lord's ,prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and sufficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case8 ,it was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the ,choir to break off at the words ',but deliver us from evil4' ,they never pronounced the doxology4 ,the doxology must for that reason have been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of ,st4 ,matthew from which nine extant ,evangelia1 ,origen1 and the ,old ,latin version originally derived their text4 ,this is the sum of the matter4 ,there can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty4 ,that ,tertullian1 ,cyprian1 ,ambrose recognize no more of the ,lord's ,prayer than they found in their ,latin copies1 cannot create surprise4 ,the wonder would have been if they did4 ,much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the ,greek ,fathers concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the ,lord's ,prayer2 as ,origen1 ,gregory of ,nyssa#aga1 ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 ,maximus4 ,those who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me most ready witness1 that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients4 ,what if they regarded a doxology1 wherever found1 as hardly a fitting subject for exegetical comment8 ,but however their silence is to be explained1 it is at least quite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of ,st4 ,matthew were unfurnished with the doxology4 ,does any one seriously imagine that in ,a4,d4 #fej1 when ,maximus wrote1 ,evangelia were1 in this respect1 in a different state from what they are at present8 ,the sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated3--,the textual perturbation observable at ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #ac is indeed due to a liturgical cause1 as the critics suppose4 ,but then it is found that not the great bulk of the ,evangelia1 but only ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdz1 #a1 #ag1 #aah1 #acj1 #bji1 have been victims of the corrupting influence4 ,as usual1 ,i say1 it is the few1 not the many copies1 which have been led astray4 ,let the doxology at the end of the ,lord's ,prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text without further molestation4 ,let no profane hands be any more laid on these fifteen precious words of the ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,there yet remains something to be said on the same subject for the edification of studious readers2 to whom the succeeding words are specially commended4 ,they are requested to keep their attention sustained1 until they have read what immediately follows4 ,the history of the rejection of these words is in a high degree instructive4 ,it dates from #aead1 when the ,complutensian editors1 whilst admitting that the words were found in their ,greek copies1 banished them from the text solely in deference to the ,latin version4 ,in a marginal annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical interpolation4 ,but how is that possible1 seeing that the doxology is commented on by ,chrysostom8 ',we presume1' they say1 'that this corruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period4' ,the same adverse sentence1 supported by the same hypothesis1 was reaffirmed by ,erasmus1 and on the same grounds2 but in his edition of the ,n4,t4 he suffered the doxology to stand4 ,as the years have rolled out1 and ,codexes ,,dbz,symbol3 ,aleph have successively come to light1 critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict4 ,first1 ,grotius1 ,hammond1 ,walton2 then ,mill and ,grabe2 next ,bengel1 ,wetstein1 ,griesbach2 lastly ,scholz1 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers have denounced the precious words as spurious4 ,but how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the case against the doxology8 ,since #aead1 scholars have become acquainted with the ,peshitto version2 which by its emphatic verdict1 effectually disposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the ,old ,latin copies4 ,the ,greek3 ,didach of the first or second century1 the ,sahidic version of the third century1 the ,apostolic ,constitutions 7#b71 follow on the same side4 ,next1 in the fourth century come ,chrysostom1 ,ambrose1 ps4-,caesarius1 the ,gothic version4 ,after that ,isidore1 the ,ethiopic1 ,cureton's ,syriac4 ,the ,harkleian1 ,armenian1 ,georgian1 and other versions1 with ,chrysostom 7#b71 the ,opus ,imperfectum1 ,theophylact1 and ,euthymius 7#b71 bring up the rear#agb4 ,does any one really suppose that two ,codexes of the fourth century 7,b,symbol3 ,aleph71 which are even notorious for their many omissions and general accuracy1 are any adequate set-off against such an amount of ancient evidence8 ,l and #cc1 generally the firm allies of ,,bd and the ,vulgate1 forsake them at ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #ac3 and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of ,d and ,z1 which are also balanced by ,symbol3 ,phi and ,symbol3 ,sigma4 ,but at this juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down3 and when it is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its support1 and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to be a myth1--what must be the verdict of an impartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence8 ,the whole matter may be conveniently restated thus3--,liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #ac2 but it proves on inquiry to be the very few ,,mss41--not the very many1--which have been depraved4 ,nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence2 and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which is found in the ordinary text of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,this may have been the case or it may not4 ,meanwhile1 the hypothesis1 which fell to the ground when the statement on which it rested was disproved1 is not now to be built up again on a mere conjecture4 ,but if the fact could be ascertained1--and ,i am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is possible1--,i should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of the doxology4 ,for why should the liturgical employment of the last fifteen words of the ,lord's ,prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness8 ,in the meantime1 the undoubted fact1 that for an indefinitely remote period the ,lord's ,prayer was not publicly recited by the people further than ',but deliver us from evil1'--a doxology of some sort being invariably added1 but pronounced by the priest alone1--this clearly ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary found indeed so commonly throughout ,st4 ,matthew1 to say nothing of occurrences in the other ,gospels as really not to require particular explanation1 viz4 the omission of the last half of ,st4 ,matthew vi4 #ac from ,codexes ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdz4 ,,footnotes3 #ade ,i have retained this passage notwithstanding the objections made in some quarters against similar passages in the companion volume1 because ,i think them neither valid1 nor creditable to high intelligence1 or to due reverence4 #adf ,the ,textual student will remember that besides the ,lectionaries of the ,gospels mentioned here1 of which about #ajjj are known1 there are some #cjj more of the ,acts and ,epistles1 called by the name ,apostolos4 #adg ',it seems also a singular note of antiquity that the ,sabbath and the ,sunday succeeding it do as it were cohere1 and bear one appellation2 so that the week takes its name--not from the ,sunday with which it commences1 but--from the ,saturday-and-,sunday with which it concludes4' ,twelve ,verses1 p4 #aid1 where more particulars are given4 #adh ,for the contents of these ,tables1 see ,scrivener's ,plain ,introduction1 #dth edition1 vol4 i4 pp4 #hj-hi4 #adi ,see ,scrivener's ,plain ,introduction1 #dth edition1 vol4 i4 pp4 #ef-fe4 #aej ,twelve ,verses1 p4 #bbj4 ,the ,,ms4 stops in the middle of a sentence4 #aea ,st4 ,luke xxii4 #dc1 #dd4 #aeb ,in the absence of materials supplied by the ,dean upon what was his own special subject1 ,i have thought best to extract the above sentences from the ,twelve ,last ,verses1 p4 #bjg4 ,the next illustration is his own1 though in my words4 #aec i4 #caa4 #aed ,greek3 eipen ho ,kyrios tois heautou mathtais2 m tarassesth4 #aee ,greek3 kai eipen tois mathtais autou4 ,the same ,codex 7,d7 also prefixes to ,st4 ,luke xvi4 #ai the ,ecclesiastical formula--,greek3 eipen de kai eteran paraboln4 #aef ',et ait discipulis suis1 non turbetur4' #aeg ,e4g4 the words ,greek3 kai legei autois2 eirn hymin have been omitted by ,tisch1 and rejected by ,w4-,hort from ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #cf on the sole authority of ,d and five copies of the ,old ,latin4 ,again1 on the same sorry evidence1 the words ,greek3 proskynsantes auton have been omitted or rejected by the same critics from ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #eb4 ,in both instances the expressions are also branded with doubt in the ,r4 ,v4 #aeh ,pp4 #gh-hj4 #aei ,see ,traditional ,text1 ,appendix ,,vii4 #afj ,bp4 ,c4 ,wordsworth4 ,but ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort1 doubt it4 #afa ,thus ,codex ,symbol3 ,xi actually interpolates at this place the words--,greek3 ouketi ekeinois elegeto1 alla tois mathtais4 ,tisch4 ad loc4 #afb ,cyril ,alex1 7four times7 and the ,verona ,codex 7b71 besides ,l and a few other copies1 even append the same familiar words to ,greek3 kai pasan malakian in ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #a4 #afc ,investigate ,possinus1 #cde1 #cdf1 #cdh4 #afd ,it is surprising to find so great an expert as ,griesbach in the last year of his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject4 ,see his ,comment4 ,crit4 ,part ii4 p4 #aij4 ',nec ulla 444 debuerint4' #afe ,greek3 tous szomenous kathmeran en t ekklsia4 epi to auto de 7,t ,s' ,t,s ,,diakin,,simou7 ,petros kai ,ianns1 k4t4l4 ,addit4 #af1ahd1 fol4 #aeb b4 #aff ,bede1 ,retr4 #aaa4 ,d 7add4 ,greek3 hoi en t4 ekkl474 ,brit4 ,mus4 ,addit4 #af1 #ahd4 fol4 #aeb b4 ,vulgate4 #afg ,so the place stands in ,evan4 #fd4 ,the liturgical notes are printed in a smaller type1 for distinction4 #afh ,the ,revision ,revised1 #cd-f4 #afi ,see ,the ,traditional ,text1 p4 #ajd4 #agj ,greek3 alla kai hmas epi ts ,eucharistias legontas1 'eis tous ainas tn ainn1' k4t4l4 ,contra ,haer4 lib4 i4 c4 #c4 #aga ,but the words of ,gregory of ,nyssa are doubtful4 ,see ,scrivener1 ,introduction1 ii4 p4 #cbe1 note #a4 #agb ,see my ,textual ,guide1 ,appendix ,v4 pp4 #aca-c 7,g4 ,bell ,sons74 ,i have increased the ,dean's list with a few additional authorities4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption ,,chiefly ,,intentional4 ,i4 ,harmonistic ,influence4 ,it must not be imagined that all the causes of the depravation of the text of ,holy ,scripture were instinctive1 and that mistakes arose solely because scribes were overcome by personal infirmity1 or were unconsciously the victims of surrounding circumstances4 ,there was often more design and method in their error4 ,they1 or those who directed them1 wished sometimes to correct and improve the copy or copies before them4 ,and indeed occasionally they desired to make the ,holy ,scriptures witness to their own peculiar belief4 ,or they had their ideas of taste1 and did not scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied was their enlightened judgement4 ,thus we can trace a tendency to bring the ,four ,records into one harmonious narrative1 or at least to excise or vary statements in one ,gospel which appeared to conflict with parallel statements in another4 ,or else1 some ,evangelical ,diatessaron1 or ,harmony1 or combined narrative now forgotten1 exercised an influence over them1 and whether consciously or not1--since it is difficult always to keep designed and unintentional mistakes apart1 and we must not be supposed to aim at scientific exactness in the arrangement adopted in this analysis1--induced them to adopt alterations of the pure ,text4 ,we now advance to some instances which will severally and conjointly explain themselves4 #a4 ,nothing can be more exquisitely precise than ,st4 ,john's way of describing an incident to which ,st4 ,mark 7xvi4 #i7 only refers2 viz4 our ,lord's appearance to ,mary ,magdalene1--the first of ,his appearances after ,his ,resurrection4 ,the reason is discoverable for every word the ,evangelist uses3--its form and collocation4 ,both ,st4 ,luke 7xxiv4 #c7 and previously ,st4 ,mark 7xvi4 #e7 expressly stated that the women who visited the ,sepulchre on the first ,easter morning1 'after they had entered in' 7,greek3 eiselthousai71 saw the ,angels4 ,st ,john explains that at that time ,mary was not with them4 ,she had separated herself from their company2--had gone in quest of ,simon ,peter and 'the other disciple4' ,when the women1 their visit ended1 had in turn departed from the ,sepulchre1 she was left in the garden alone4 ',mary was standing with her face towards the sepulchre weeping1--outside#agc4' ,all this1 singular to relate1 was completely misunderstood by the critics of the two first centuries4 ,not only did they identify the incident recorded in ,st4 ,john xx4 #aa1 #ab with ,st4 ,mark xv4 #e and ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #c1 #d1 from which1 as we have seen1 the first-named ,evangelist is careful to distinguish it2--not only did they further identify both places with ,st4 ,matt1 xxviii4 #b1 #cagd1 from which they are clearly separate2--but they considered themselves at liberty to tamper with the inspired text in order to bring it into harmony with their own convictions4 ,some of them accordingly altered ,greek3 pros to mnmeion into ,greek3 pros t mnmei 7which is just as ambiguous in ,greek as 'at the sepulchre' in ,english#age71 and ,greek3 ex they boldly erased4 ,it is thus that ,codex ,a exhibits the text4 ,but in fact this depravation must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed to an extraordinary extent3 for it disfigures the best copies of the ,old ,latin1 7the ,syriac being doubtful73 a memorable circumstance truly1 and in a high degree suggestive4 ,codex ,b1 to be sure1 reads ,greek3 heistkei pros t mnmei1 ex klaiousa1--merely transposing 7with many other authorities7 the last two words4 ,but then ,codex ,b substitutes ,greek3 elthousai for ,greek3 eiselthousai in ,st4 ,mark xvi4 #e1 in order that the second ,evangelist may not seem to contradict ,st4 ,matt1 xxviii4 #b1 #c4 ,so that1 according to this view of the matter1 the ,angelic appearance was outside the sepulchre#agf4 ,codex ,symbol3 ,aleph1 on the contrary1 is thorough4 ,not content with omitting ,greek3 ex1--7as in the next verse it leaves out ,greek3 duo1 in order to prevent ,st4 ,john xx4 #ab from seeming to contradict ,st4 ,matt4 xxviii4 #b1 #c1 and ,st4 ,mark xvi4 #e71--;it stands alone in reading ,greek3 ,,en t mnmei4 7,c and ,d are lost here47 ,when will men learn that these 'old uncials' are ignes fatui1--not beacon lights2 and admit that the texts which they exhibit are not only inconsistent but corrupt8 ,there is no reason for distrusting the received reading of the present place in any particular4 ,true1 that most of the uncials and many of the cursives read ,greek3 pros t mnmei3 but so did neither ,chrysostom#agg nor ,cyril#agh read the place4 ,and if the ,evangelist himself had so written1 is it credible that a majority of the copies would have forsaken the easier and more obvious1 in order to exhibit the less usual and even slightly difficult expression8 ,many1 by writing ,greek3 pros t mnmei1 betray themselves2 for they retain a sure token that the accusative ought to end the sentence4 ,i am not concerned however just now to discuss these matters of detail4 ,i am only bent on illustrating how fatal to the purity of the ,text of the ,gospels has been the desire of critics1 who did not understand those divine compositions1 to bring them into enforced agreement with one another4 ,the sectional system of ,eusebius1 ,i suspect1 is not so much the cause as the consequence of the ancient and inveterate misapprehensions which prevailed in respect of the history of the ,resurrection4 ,it is time however to proceed4 #b4 ,those writers who overlook the corruptions which the text has actually experienced through a mistaken solicitude on the part of ancient critics to reconcile what seemed to them the conflicting statements of different ,evangelists1 are frequently observed to attribute to this kind of officiousness expressions which are unquestionably portions of the genuine text4 ,thus1 there is a general consensus amongst critics of the destructive school to omit the words ,greek3 kai tines syn autais from ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #a4 ,their only plea is the testimony of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcl and certain of the ,latin copies1--a conjunction of authorities which1 when they stand alone1 we have already observed to bear invariably false witness4 ,indeed1 before we proceed to examine the evidence1 we discover that those four words of ,st4 ,luke are even required in this place4 ,for ,st4 ,matthew 7xxvii4 #fa71 and ,st4 ,mark after him 7xv4 #dg71 had distinctly specified two women as witnesses of how and where our ,lord's body was laid4 ,now they were the same women apparently who prepared the spices and ointment and hastened therewith at break of day to the sepulchre4 ,had we therefore only ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel we should have assumed that 'the ointment-bearers1' for so the ancients called them1 were but two 7,st4 ,matt4 xxviii4 #a74 ,that they were at least three1 even ,st4 ,mark shews by adding to their number ,salome 7xvi4 #a74 ,but in fact their company consisted of more than four2 as ,st4 ,luke explains when he states that it was the same little band of holy women who had accompanied our ,saviour out of ,galilee 7xxiii4 #ee1 cf4 viii4 #b74 ,in anticipation therefore of what he will have to relate in ver4 #aj1 he says in ver4 #a1 'and certain with them4' ,but how1 ,i shall be asked1 would you explain the omission of these words which to yourself seem necessary8 ,and after insisting that one is never bound to explain how the text of any particular passage came to be corrupted1 ,i answer1 that these words were originally ejected from the text in order to bring ,st4 ,luke's statement into harmony with that of the first ,evangelist1 who mentions none but ,mary ,magdalene and ,mary the mother of ,james and ,joses4 ,the proof is that four of the same ,latin copies which are for the omission of ,greek3 kai tines syn autais are observed to begin ,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #ee as follows1--,greek3 katakolouthsasai de ,,duo gynaikes4 ,the same fabricated reading is found in ,d4 ,it exists also in the ,codex which ,eusebius employed when he wrote his ,demonstratio ,evangelica4 ,instead therefore of wearying the reader with the evidence1 which is simply overwhelming1 for letting the text alone1 ,i shall content myself with inviting him to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned on our opponents4 ,there is indeed found to have been a corruption of the text hereabouts1 and of the words just now under discussion2 but it belongs to an exceedingly remote age2 and happily the record of it survives at this day only in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcdl and certain of the ,old ,latin copies4 ,calamitous however it is1 that what the ,church has long since deliberately refused to part with should1 at the end of so many centuries1 by ,lachmann and ,tregelles and ,tischendorf1 by ,alford and ,westcott and ,hort1 be resolutely thrust out of place2 and indeed excluded from the ,sacred ,text by a majority of the ,revisers4 ,a very interesting instance of such ,harmonistic ,influence may be found in the substitution of 'wine' 7,greek3 oinon7 for vinegar 7,greek3 oxos71 respecting which the details are given in the second ,appendix to the ,traditional ,text4 ,observe yet another instance of harmonizing propensities in the ,ancient ,church4 ,in ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel iv4 #a-ac1 no less than six copies of the ,old ,latin versions 7b c f g#a l q7 besides ,ambrose 7,com4 ,st4 ,luke1 #acdj71 are observed to transpose the second and third temptations2 introducing verses #i-ab between verses #d and #e2 in order to make the history of the ,temptation as given by ,st4 ,luke correspond with the account given by ,st4 ,matthew4 ,the scribe of the ,vercelli ,codex 7a7 was about to do the same thing2 but he checked himself when he had got as far as 'the pinnacle of the temple1'--which he seems to have thought as good a scene for the third temptation as 'a high mountain1' and so left it4 #c4 ,a favourite1 and certainly a plausible1 method of accounting for the presence of unauthorized matter in ,,mss4 is to suggest that1 in the first instance1 it probably existed only in the shape of a marginal gloss1 which through the inadvertence of the scribes1 in process of time1 found its way into the sacred text4 ,that in this way some depravations of ,scripture may possibly have arisen1 would hardly ,i presume be doubted4 ,but ,i suspect that the hypothesis is generally a wholly mistaken one2 having been imported into this subject-matter 7like many other notions which are quite out of place here71 from the region of the ,classics1--where 7as we know7 the phenomenon is even common4 ,especially is this hypothesis resorted to 7,i believe7 in order to explain those instances of assimilation which are so frequently to be met with in ,codd4 ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,another favourite way of accounting for instances of assimilation1 is by taking for granted that the scribe was thinking of the parallel or the cognate place4 ,and certainly 7as before7 there is no denying that just as the familiar language of a parallel place in another ,gospel presents itself unbidden to the memory of a reader1 so may it have struck a copyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade him to write1 not the words which he saw before him1 but the words which he remembered4 ,all this is certainly possible4 ,but ,i strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by any means the right way to explain the phenomena under discussion4 ,i am of opinion that such depravations of the text were in the first instance intentional4 ,i do not mean that they were introduced with any sinister motive4 ,my meaning is that there was a desire to remove obscurities1 or to reconcile incongruous passages1 or generally to improve the style of the authors1 and thus to add to the merits of the sacred writings1 instead of detracting from them4 ,such a mode of dealing with the holy deposit evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted it to understand the nature of the trust committed to the ,church1 just as similar action at the present day does in the case of such as load the ,new ,testament with 'various readings1' and illustrate it as they imagine with what are really insinuations of doubt1 in the way that they prepare an edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and sharpening the minds of youthful students4 ,there was intention1 and the intention was good3 but it was none the less productive of corruption4 ,i suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of those connected ,gospel narratives called ,diatessarons1 which are known to have existed anciently in the ,church1 we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem which at present is shrouded in obscurity1--and concerning the solution of which1 with such instruments of criticism as we at present possess1 we can do little else but conjecture4 ,i allude to those many occasions on which the oldest documents extant1 in narrating some incident which really presents no special difficulty1 are observed to diverge into hopeless variety of expression4 ,an example of the thing referred to will best explain my meaning4 ,take then the incident of our ,lord's paying tribute1--set down in ,st4 ,matt4 xvii4 #be1 #bf4 ,the received text exhibits1--',and when he ,peter had entered 7,greek3 hote eislthen7 into the house1 ,jesus was beforehand with him1 saying1 ,what thinkest thou1 ,simon8 ,of whom do earthly kings take toll or tribute8 of their sons or of strangers8' ,here1 for ,greek3 hote eislthen1 ,codex ,b 7but no other uncial7 substitutes ,greek3 elthonta3 ,codex ,symbol3 ,aleph 7but no other7 ,greek3 eiselthonta3 ,codex ,d 7but no other7 ,greek3 eiselthonti3 ,codex ,c 7but no other7 ,greek3 hote lthon3 while a fifth lost copy certainly contained ,greek3 eiselthontn2 and a sixth1 ,greek3 elthontn autn4 ,a very fair specimen this1 be it remarked in passing1 of the concordia discors which prevails in the most ancient uncial copies#agi4 ,how is all this discrepancy to be accounted for8 ,the ,evangelist proceeds1--',peter saith unto ,him 7,greek3 ,legei aut ho ,petros71 ,of strangers4' ,these four words ,c retains1 but continues--',now when he had said1 ,of strangers' 7,greek3 ,eipontos de autou1 apo tn allotrin72--which unauthorized clause1 all but the word ,greek3 autou1 is found also in ,symbol3 ,aleph1 but in no other uncial4 ,on the other hand1 for ,greek3 ,legei aut ho ,petros1 ,symbol3 ,aleph 7alone of uncials7 substitutes ,greek3 ,ho de eph3 and ,b 7also alone of uncials7 substitutes ,greek3 ,eipontos de1--and then proceeds exactly like the received text3 while ,d merely omits ,greek3 ho ,petros4 ,again ,i ask1--,how is all this discrepancy to be explained#ahj8 ,as already hinted1 ,i suspect that it was occasioned in the first instance by the prevalence of harmonized ,gospel narratives4 ,in no more loyal way can ,i account for the perplexing phenomenon already described1 which is of perpetual recurrence in such documents as ,codexes ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,d1 ,cureton's ,syriac1 and copies of the ,old ,latin version4 ,it is well known that at a very remote period some eminent persons occupied themselves in constructing such exhibitions of the ,evangelical history3 and further1 that these productions enjoyed great favour1 and were in general use4 ,as for their contents1--the notion we form to ourselves of a ,diatessaron1 is that it aspired to be a weaving of the fourfold ,gospel into one continuous narrative3 and we suspect that in accomplishing this object1 the writer was by no means scrupulous about retaining the precise words of the inspired original4 ,he held himself at liberty1 on the contrary1 7a7 to omit what seemed to himself superfluous clauses3 7b7 to introduce new incidents3 7c7 to supply picturesque details3 7d7 to give a new turn to the expression3 7e7 to vary the construction at pleasure3 7f7 even slightly to paraphrase4 ,compiled after some such fashion as ,i have been describing1 at a time too when the preciousness of the inspired documents seems to have been but imperfectly apprehended1--the works ,i speak of1 recommended by their graphic interest1 and sanctioned by a mighty name1 must have imposed upon ordinary readers4 ,incautious owners of ,codexes must have transferred without scruple certain unauthorized readings to the margins of their own copies4 ,a calamitous partiality for the fabricated document may have prevailed with some for whom copies were executed4 ,above all1 it is to be inferred that licentious and rash ,editors of ,scripture1--among whom ,origen may be regarded as a prime offender1--must have deliberately introduced into their recensions many an unauthorized gloss1 and so given it an extended circulation4 ,not that we would imply that permanent mischief has resulted to the ,deposit from the vagaries of individuals in the earliest age4 ,the ,divine ,author of ,scripture hath abundantly provided for the safety of ,his ,word written4 ,in the multitude of copies1--in ,lectionaries1--in ,versions1--in citations by the ,fathers1 a sufficient safeguard against error hath been erected4 ,but then1 of these multitudinous sources of protection we must not be slow to avail ourselves impartially4 ,the prejudice which would erect ,codexes ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph into an authority for the text of the ,new ,testament from which there shall be no appeal3--the superstitious reverence which has grown up for one little cluster of authorities1 to the disparagement of all other evidence wheresoever found2 this1 which is for ever landing critics in results which are simply irrational and untenable1 must be unconditionally abandoned1 if any real progress is to be made in this department of inquiry4 ,but when this has been done1 men will begin to open their eyes to the fact that the little handful of documents recently so much in favour1 are1 on the contrary1 the only surviving witnesses to corruptions of the ,text which the ,church in her corporate capacity has long since deliberately rejected4 ,but to proceed4 ,from the ,diatessaron of ,tatian and similar attempts to harmonize the ,gospels1 corruption of a serious nature has ensued in some well-known places1 such as the transference of the piercing of the ,lord's side from ,st4 ,john xix4 #cd to ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #diaha1 and the omission of the words 'and of an honeycomb' 7,greek3 kai apo tou melissiou kriou#ahb74 ,hence also1 in ,cureton's ,syriac#ahc1 the patch-work supplement to ,st4 ,matt4 xxi4 #i3 viz43--,greek3 polloi de 7,st4 ,mark xi4 #h7 ,greek3 exlthon eis hypantsin autou4 kai 7,st4 ,john xii4 #ac7 ,greek3 rxanto 444 chairontes ainein ton ,theon 444 peri pasn hn eidon 7,st4 ,luke xix4 #cg74 ,this self-evident fabrication1 'if it be not a part of the original ,aramaic of ,st4 ,matthew1' remarks ,dr4 ,cureton1 'would appear to have been supplied from the parallel passages of ,luke and ,john conjointly4' ,how is it that even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent scholar from hazarding the conjecture1 that such a self-evident deflection of his corrupt ,syriac ,codex from the course all but universally pursued is a recovery of one more genuine utterance of the ,holy ,ghost8 ,,footnotes3 #agc ,greek3 ,maria de heistkei pros to mnmeion klaiousa ex 7,st4 ,john xx4 #aa74 ,comp4 the expression ,greek3 pros to phs in ,st4 ,luke xxii4 #ef4 ,note1 that the above is not offered as a revised translation2 but only to shew unlearned readers what the words of the original exactly mean4 #agd ,note1 that in the sectional system of ,eusebius according to the ,greek1 the following places are brought together3-- 7,st4 ,matt4 xxviii7 7,st4 ,mark xvi7 7,st4 ,luke xxiv7 7,st4 ,john xx7 #a-d4 #b-e4 #a-d4 #a1 #aa1 #ab4 ,according to the ,syriac3-- #c1 #d4 #e4 #c1 #d1 #e7a_/b74 #aa1 #ab4 #age ,consider ,greek3 ho de ,petros heistkei pros t thyra ex 7,st4 ,john xviii4 #af74 ,has not this place1 by the way1 exerted an assimilating influence over ,st4 ,john xx4 #aa8 #agf ,hesychius1 qu4 #ea 7apud ,cotelerii ,eccl4 ,gr4 ,mon4 iii4 #dc71 explains ,st4 ,mark's phrase ,greek3 en tois dexiois as follows3--,greek3 dlonoti tou exterou splaiou4 #agg viii4 #eac4 #agh iv4 #ajgi4 #agi ,traditional ,text1 pp4 #ha-h4 #ahj ,i am tempted to inquire1--,by virtue of what verifying faculty do ,lachmann and ,tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of ,symbol3 ,aleph2 ,tischendorf1 ,alford1 ,w4 and ,hort1 the reading of ,b8 ,on the second occasion1 ,i venture to ask1--,what enabled the ,revisers1 with ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,westcott and ,hort1 to recognize in a reading1 which is the peculiar property of ,b1 the genuine language of the ,holy ,ghost8 ,is not a superstitious reverence for ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph betraying for ever people into error8 #aha ,revision ,revised1 p4 #cc4 #ahb ,traditional ,text1 ,appendix ,i1 pp4 #bdd-beb4 #ahc ,the ,lewis ,,ms4 is defective here4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption ,,chiefly ,,intentional4 ,,ii4 ,assimilation4 #a4 ,there results inevitably from the fourfold structure of the ,gospel1--from the very fact that the story of ,redemption is set forth in four narratives1 three of which often ran parallel1--this practical inconvenience3 namely1 that sometimes the expressions of one ,evangelist get improperly transferred to another4 ,this is a large and important subject which calls for great attention1 and requires to be separately handled4 ,the phenomena alluded to1 which are similar to some of those which have been treated in the last chapter1 may be comprised under the special head of ,assimilation4 ,it will ,i think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion if we determine to consider separately those instances of ,assimilation which may rather be regarded as deliberate attempts to reconcile one ,gospel with another3 indications of a fixed determination to establish harmony between place and place4 ,i am saying that between ordinary cases of ,assimilation such as occur in every page1 and extraordinary instances where per fas et nefas an enforced ,harmony has been established1-- which abound indeed1 but are by no means common1--,i am disposed to draw a line4 ,this whole province is beset with difficulties3 and the matter is in itself wondrously obscure4 ,i do not suppose1 in the absence of any evidence direct or indirect on the subject1--at all events ,i am not aware--that at any time has there been one definite authoritative attempt made by the ,universal ,church in her corporate capacity to remodel or revise the ,text of the ,gospels4 ,an attentive study of the phenomena leads me1 on the contrary1 to believe that the several corruptions of the text were effected at different times1 and took their beginning in widely different ways4 ,i suspect that ,accident was the parent of many2 and well meant critical assiduity of more4 ,zeal for the ,truth is accountable for not a few depravations3 and the ,church's ,liturgical and ,lectionary practice must insensibly have produced others4 ,systematic villainy ,i am persuaded has had no part or lot in the matter4 ,the decrees of such an one as ,origen1 if there ever was another like him1 will account for a strange number of aberrations from the ,truth3 and if the ,diatessaron of ,tatian could be recovered#ahd1 ,i suspect that we should behold there the germs at least of as many more4 ,but1 ,i repeat my conviction that1 however they may have originated1 the causes are not to be found in bad principle1 but either in infirmities or influences which actuated scribes unconsciously1 or in a want of understanding as to what is the ,church's duty in the transmission from generation to generation of the sacred deposit committed to her enlightened care4 #b4 #a4 ,when we speak of ,assimilation1 we do not mean that a writer while engaged in transcribing one ,gospel was so completely beguiled and overmastered by his recollections of the parallel place in another ,gospel1--that1 forsaking the expressions proper to the passage before him1 he unconsciously adopted the language which properly belongs to a different ,evangelist4 ,that to a very limited extent this may have occasionally taken place1 ,i am not concerned to deny3 but it would argue incredible inattention to what he was professing to copy1 on the one hand1--astonishing familiarity with what he was not professing to copy1 on the other1--that a scribe should have been capable of offending largely in this way4 ,but in fact a moderate acquaintance with the subject is enough to convince any thoughtful person that the corruptions in ,,mss4 which have resulted from accidental ,assimilation must needs be inconsiderable in bulk1 as well as few in number4 ,at all events1 the phenomenon referred to1 when we speak of ',assimilation1' is not to be so accounted for3 it must needs be explained in some entirely different way4 ,let me make my meaning plain3 7a7 ,we shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph1 in place of ,greek3 basanisai hmas 7in ,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #bi71 writes ,greek3 hmas apolesai1--it may have been his memory which misled him4 ,he may have been merely thinking of ,st4 ,mark i4 #bd1 or of ,st4 ,luke iv4 #cd4 7b7 ,again1 when in ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,b we find ,greek3 tassomenos thrust without warrant into ,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #i1 we see that the word has lost its way from ,st4 ,luke vii4 #h2 and we are prone to suspect that only by accident has it crept into the parallel narrative of the earlier ,evangelist4 7c7 ,in the same way ,i make no doubt that ,greek3 potam 7,st4 ,matt4 iii4 #f7 is indebted for its place in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc1 c41 to the influence of the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel 7i4 #e72 and ,i am only astonished that critics should have been beguiled into adopting so clear a corruption of the text as part of the genuine ,gospel4 7d7 ,to be brief3--the insertion by ,symbol3 ,aleph of ,greek3 adelphe 7in ,st4 ,matt4 vii4 #d7 is confessedly the result of the parallel passage in ,st4 ,luke vi4 #db4 ,the same scribe may be thought to have written ,greek3 t anem instead of ,greek3 tois anemois in ,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #bf1 only because he was so familiar with ,greek3 t anem in ,st4 ,luke viii4 #bd and in ,st4 ,mark iv4 #ci4--,the author of the prototype of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bd 7with whom by the way are some of the ,latin versions7 may have written ,greek3 echete in ,st4 ,matt1 xvi4 #h1 only because he was thinking of the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark viii4 #ag4--;,greek3 rxanto aganaktein 7,st4 ,matt4 xx4 #bd7 can only have been introduced into ,symbol3 ,aleph from the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark x4 #da1 and may have been supplied memoriter4--,st4 ,luke xix4 #ba is clearly not parallel to ,st4 ,matt4 xxv4 #bd2 yet it evidently furnished the scribe of ,symbol3 ,aleph with the epithet ,greek3 austros in place of ,greek3 sklros4--,the substitution by ,symbol3 ,aleph of ,greek3 hon partounto in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ae for ,greek3 hon thelon may seem to be the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark xv4 #f2 where1 as has been shewn#ahe1 instead of ,greek3 honper itounto1 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ab viciously exhibit ,greek3 hon partounto1 which ,tischendorf besides ,westcott and ,hort mistake for the genuine ,gospel4 ,who will hesitate to admit that1 when ,symbol3 ,aleph,l exhibit in ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #af1--;instead of the words ,greek3 pois hina ech zn ainion1--the formula which is found in the parallel place of ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ah1 viz4 ,greek3 poisas zn ainion klronoms1--those unauthorized words must have been derived from this latter place8 ,every ordinary reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe who first inserted them into ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel did so because1 for whatever reason1 he was more familiar with the latter formula than with the former4 7e7 ,but ,i should have been willing to go further4 ,i might have been disposed to admit that when ,symbol3 ,aleph,,dl introduce into ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #ab the clause ,greek3 legontes1 eirn t oik tout 7which last four words confessedly belong exclusively to ,st4 ,luke x4 #e71 the author of the depraved original from which ,symbol3 ,aleph,,dl were derived may have been only yielding to the suggestions of an inconveniently good memory3--may have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows in verse #ac that ,st4 ,matthew must have written1 ',peace be to this house2' though he found no such words in ,st4 ,matthew's text4 ,and so1 with the best intentions1 he may most probably have inserted them4 7f7 ,again4 ,when ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,evan4 #fa thrust into ,st4 ,matt4 ix4 #cd 7from the parallel place in ,st4 ,luke viii4 #ec7 the clause ,greek3 eidotes hoti apethanen1 it is of course conceivable that the authors of those copies were merely the victims of excessive familiarity with the third ,gospel4 ,but then1--although we are ready to make every allowance that we possibly can for memories so singularly constituted1 and to imagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to recollect or imagine instead of copying1 and possessed of an inconvenient familiarity with one particular ,gospel1--it is clear that our complaisance must stop somewhere4 ,instances of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion4 ,systematic 'assimilation' cannot be the effect of accident4 ,considerable interpolations must of course be intentional4 ,the discovery that ,cod4 ,d1 for example1 introduces at the end of ,st4 ,luke v4 #ad thirty-two words from ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel 7i4 #de--;ii4 #a1 ,greek3 ho de exelthn down to ,greek3 ,kapharnaoum71 opens our eyes4 ,this wholesale importation suggests the inquiry1--,how did it come about8 ,we look further1 and we find that ,cod4 ,d abounds in instances of ',assimilation' so unmistakably intentional1 that this speedily becomes the only question1 ,how may all these depravations of the sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted for8 ,and the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme licentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for ,codex ,d1 being the product of ignorance and carelessness combined with such looseness of principle1 as permitted the exercise of direct attempts to improve the sacred ,text by the introduction of passages from the three remaining ,gospels and by other alterations4 #c4 ,sometimes indeed the true ,text bears witness to itself1 as may be seen in the next example4 ,the little handful of well-known authorities 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl1 with a few copies of the ,old ,latin1 and one of the ,egyptian ,versions#ahf71 conspire in omitting from ,st4 ,john xvi4 #af the clause ,greek3 hoti eg hypag pros ton ,patera3 for which reason ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort omit those six words1 and ,lachmann puts them into brackets4 ,and yet1 let the context be considered4 ,our ,saviour had said 7ver4 #af71--';,a little while1 and ye shall not see ,me3 and again1 a little while1 and ye shall see ,me1 because ,i go to the ,father4' ,it follows 7ver4 #ag71--',then said some of ,his disciples among themselves1 ,what is this that ,he saith unto us1 ,a little while1 and ye shall not see ,me3 and again1 a little while1 and ye shall see ,me3 and1 ,because ,i go to the ,father8'--,now1 the context here1--the general sequence of words and ideas--in and by itself1 creates a high degree of probability that the clause is genuine4 ,it must at all events be permitted to retain its place in the ,gospel1 unless there is found to exist an overwhelming amount of authority for its exclusion4 ,what then are the facts8 ,all the other uncials1 headed by ,a and ,ib 7both of the fourth century71--every known ,cursive--all the ,versions1 7,latin1 ,syriac1 ,gothic1 ,coptic1 c47--are for retaining the clause4 ,add1 that ,nonnus#ahg 7,a4,d4 #djj7 recognizes it3 that the texts of ,chrysostom#ahh and of ,cyril#ahi do the same2 and that both those ,fathers 7to say nothing of ,euthymius and ,theophylact7 in their ,commentaries expressly bear witness to its genuineness3--and1 ,with what shew of reason can it any longer be pretended that some ,critics1 including the ,revisers1 are warranted in leaving out the words8444 ,it were to trifle with the reader to pursue this subject further4 ,but how did the words ever come to be omitted8 ,some early critic1 ,i answer1 who was unable to see the exquisite proprieties of the entire passage1 thought it desirable to bring ver4 #af into conformity with ver4 #ai1 where our ,lord seems at first sight to resyllable the matter4 ,that is all6 ,let it be observed--and then ,i will dismiss the matter--that the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one 7ver4 #ah71 as ,tischendorf candidly acknowledges4 ,the ,greek3 touto ti hestin of the ,evangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by ,,bdly to the ,greek3 ti estin touto which went immediately before4 #d4 ,were ,i invited to point to a beautifully described incident in the ,gospel1 ,i should find it difficult to lay my finger on anything more apt for my purpose than the transaction described in ,st4 ,john xiii4 #ba-be4 ,it belongs to the closing scene of our ,saviour's ,ministry4 ',verily1 verily1 ,i say unto you1' 7the words were spoken at the ,last ,supper71 'one of you will betray ,me4 ,the disciples therefore looked one at another1 wondering of whom ,he spake4 ,now there was reclining in the bosom of ,jesus 7,greek3 n de anakeimenos en t kolp tou ',i47 one of ,his disciples whom ,jesus loved4 ,to him therefore ,simon ,peter motioneth to inquire who it may be concerning whom ,he speaketh4 ,he then1 just sinking on the breast of ,jesus 7,greek3 epipesn de ekeinos houts epi to stthos tou ',i47 i4e4 otherwise keeping his position1 see above1 p4 #fj1 saith unto ,him1 ,lord1 who is it8' ,the ,greek is exquisite4 ,at first1 ,st4 ,john has been simply 'reclining 7,greek3 anakeimenos7 in the bosom' of his ,divine ,master3 that is1 his place at the ,supper is the next adjoining ,his1--for the phrase really means little more4 ,but the proximity is of course excessive1 as the sequel shews4 ,understanding from ,st4 ,peter's gesture what is required of him1 ,st4 ,john merely sinks back1 and having thus let his head fall 7,greek3 epipesn7 on 7or close to7 ,his ,master's chest 7,greek3 epi to stthos71 he says softly1--',lord1 who is it8' 444 ,the moment is perhaps the most memorable in the ,evangelist's life3 the position1 one of unutterable privilege4 ,time1 place1 posture1 action1--all settle so deep into his soul1 that when1 in his old age1 he would identify himself1 he describes himself as 'the disciple whom ,jesus loved2 who also at the ,supper' 7that memorable ,supper67 'lay 7,greek3 anepesen#aij7 on ,jesus' breast1' 7literally1 'upon ,his chest1'--,greek3 epi to stthos autou71 and said1 ',lord1 who is it that is to betray ,thee8' 7ch4 xxi4 #bj74444 ,yes1 and the ,church was not slow to take the beautiful hint4 ,his language so kindled her imagination that the early ,fathers learned to speak of ,st4 ,john the ,divine1 as ,greek3 ho epistthios1--'the 7recliner7 on the chest#aia4' ,now1 every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime picture is faithfully retained throughout by the cursive copies in the proportion of about eighty to one4 ,the great bulk of the ,,mss41 as usual1 uncial and cursive alike1 establish the undoubted text of the ,evangelist1 which is here the ,received ,text4 ,thus1 a vast majority of the ,,mss41 with ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ad at their head1 read ,greek3 epipesn in ,st4 ,john xiii4 #be4 ,chrysostom#aib and probably ,cyril#aic confirm the same reading4 ,so also ,nonnus#aid4 ,not so ,b and ,c with four other uncials and about twenty cursives 7the vicious ,evan4 #cc being at their head71 besides ,origen#aie in two places and apparently ,theodorus of ,mopsuestia#aif4 ,these by mischievously assimilating the place in ch4 xiii to the later place in ch4 xxi in which such affecting reference is made to it1 hopelessly obscure the ,evangelist's meaning4 ,for they substitute ,greek3 anapesn oun ekeinos k4t4l4 ,it is exactly as when children1 by way of improving the sketch of a great ,master1 go over his matchless outlines with a clumsy pencil of their own4 ,that this is the true history of the substitution of ,greek3 anapesn in ,st4 ,john xiii4 #be for the less obvious ,greek3 epipesn is certain4 ,origen1 who was probably the author of all the mischief1 twice sets the two places side by side and elaborately compares them2 in the course of which operation1 by the way1 he betrays the viciousness of the text which he himself employed4 ,but what further helps to explain how easily ,greek3 anapesn might usurp the place of ,greek3 epipesn#aig1 is the discovery just noticed1 that the ancients from the earliest period were in the habit of identifying ,st4 ,john1 as ,st4 ,john had identified himself1 by calling him 'the one that lay 7,greek3 ho anapesn7 upon the ,lord's chest4' ,the expression1 derived from ,st4 ,john xxi4 #bj1 is employed by ,irenaeus#aih 7,a4,d4 #agh7 and by ,polycrates#aii 7,bp4 of ,ephesus ,a4,d4 #aif72 by ,origen#bjj and by ,ephraim ,syrus#bja3 by ,epiphanius#bjb and by ,palladius#bjc3 by ,gregory of ,nazianzus#bjd and by his namesake of ,nyssa#bje3 by pseudo-,eusebius#bjf1 by pseudo-,caesarius#bjg1 and by pseudo-,chrysostom#bjh4 ,the only wonder is1 that in spite of such influences all the ,,mss4 in the world except about twenty-six have retained the true reading4 ,instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which this word has experienced at the hands of some ,critics4 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort1 have all in turn bowed to the authority of ,cod4 ,b and ,origen4 ,bishop ,lightfoot mistranslates#bji and contends on the same side4 ,alford informs us that ,greek3 epipesn has surreptitiously crept in 'from ,st4 ,luke xv4 #bj'3 7why should it8 how could it87 ',greek3 anapesn not seeming appropriate4' ,whereas1 on the contrary1 ,greek3 anapesn is the invariable and obvious expression1--,greek3 epipesn the unusual1 and1 till it has been explained1 the unintelligible word4 ,tischendorf1--who had read ,greek3 epipesn in #ahdh and ,greek3 anapesn in #ahei1--;in #ahfi reverts to his first opinion2 advocating with parental partiality what he had since met with in ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,is then the truth of ,scripture aptly represented by that fitful beacon-light somewhere on the ,french coast1--now visible1 now eclipsed1 now visible again1--which benighted travellers amuse themselves by watching from the deck of the ,calais packet8 ,it would be time to pass on4 ,but because in this department of study men are observed never to abandon a position until they are fairly shelled out and left without a pretext for remaining1 ,i proceed to shew that ,greek3 anapesn 7for ,greek3 epipesn7 is only one corrupt reading out of many others hereabouts4 ,the proof of this statement follows4 ,might it not have been expected that the old uncials' 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcd7 would exhibit the entire context of such a passage as the present with tolerable accuracy8 ,the reader is invited to attend to the results of collation3-- xiii4 #ba4-;,greek3 o ,symbol3 ,aleph,b3 ,greek3 umin leg tr4 ,b4 xiii4 #bb4-;,greek3 oun ,,bc3 ,greek3 oi ,ioudaioi ,symbol3 ,aleph3 ,greek3 aporountei ,d4 xiii4 #bc4-;,greek3 de ,b3 ,greek3 ek ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcd3-,greek3 o ,b3 ,greek3 kai ,d4 xiii4 #bd4 7for ,greek3 pythesthai tis an ei ,greek3 outos ,d7 ,greek3 kai legei aut1 eipe tis estin ,,bc3 7for ,greek3 legei7 ,greek3 elegen ,symbol3 ,aleph3 ,greek3 kai legei aut eipe tis estin peri ou legei ,symbol3 ,aleph4 xiii4 #be4 7for ,greek3 epipesn7 ,greek3 anapesn ,,bc3-,greek3 de ,,bc3 7for ,greek3 de7 ,greek3 oun ,symbol3 ,aleph,d2 -,greek3 outos ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ad4 xiii4 #bf4 ,greek3 oun ,,bc3 ,greek3 aut ,d3--,greek3 o ,b3 ,greek3 kai legei ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bd3 ,greek3 an ,d3 7for ,greek3 bapsas7 ,greek3 embapsas ,,ad3 ,greek3 baps 444 kai ds aut ,,bc3 ,greek3 psmou 7after ,greek3 psmion7 ,c3 7for ,greek3 embapsas7 ,greek3 bapsas ,d3 7for ,greek3 kai embapsas7 ,greek3 bapsas oun ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc3 -,greek3 to ,b3 ,greek3 lambanei kai ,,bc3 ,greek3 ,iskaritou ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc3 ,greek3 apo ,karytou ,d4 xiii4 #bg4-;,greek3 tote ,symbol3 ,aleph3-,greek3 meta to psmion tote ,d3 7for ,greek3 legei oun7 ,greek3 kai legei ,d3-,greek3 o ,b4 ,in these seven verses therefore1 7which present no special difficulty to a transcriber17 the ,codexes in question are found to exhibit at least thirty-five varieties1--for twenty-eight of which 7jointly or singly7 ,b is responsible3 ,symbol3 ,aleph for twenty-two3 ,c for twenty-one3 ,d for nineteen3 ,a for three4 ,it is found that twenty-three words have been added to the text3 fifteen substituted3 fourteen taken away2 and the construction has been four times changed4 ,one case there has been of senseless transposition4 ,simon1 the father of ,judas1 7not ,judas the traitor71 is declared by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcd to have been called ',iscariot4' ,even this is not all4 ,what ,st4 ,john relates concerning himself is hopelessly obscured2 and a speech is put into ,st4 ,peter's mouth which he certainly never uttered4 ,it is not too much to say that every delicate lineament has vanished from the picture4 ,what are we to think of guides like ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcd1 which are proved to be utterly untrustworthy8 #e4 ,the first two verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel have fared badly4 ,easy of transcription and presenting no special difficulty1 they ought to have come down to us undisfigured by any serious variety of reading4 ,on the contrary4 ,owing to entirely different causes1 either verse has experienced calamitous treatment4 ,i have elsewhere#baj proved that the clause ,greek3 huiou tou ,theou in verse #a is beyond suspicion4 ,its removal from certain copies of the ,gospel was originally due to heretical influence4 ,but because ,origen gave currency to the text so mutilated1 it re-appears mechanically in several ,fathers who are intent only on reproducing a certain argument of ,origen's against the ,manichees in which the mutilated text occurs4 ,the same ,origen is responsible to some extent1 and in the same way1 for the frequent introduction of ',isaiah's' name into verse #ba--whereas 'in the prophets' is what ,st4 ,mark certainly wrote2 but the appearance of ',isaiah' there in the first instance was due to quite a different cause4 ,in the meantime1 it is witnessed to by the ,latin1 ,syriac#baa1 ,gothic1 and ,egyptian versions1 as well as by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl,symbol3 ,delta1 and 7according to ,tischendorf7 by nearly twenty-five cursives2 besides the following ancient writers3 ,irenaeus1 ,origen1 ,porphyry1 ,titus1 ,basil1 ,serapion1 ,epiphanius1 ,severianus1 ,victor1 ,eusebius1 ,victorinus1 ,jerome1 ,augustine4 ,i proceed to shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading ,greek3 en t saia t propht instead of ,greek3 en tois prophtais in ,st4 ,mark i4 #b1 which has certainly imposed upon every recent editor and critic#bab1--;has been either overestimated or else misunderstood4 #a4 ,the testimony of the oldest versions1 when attention is paid to their contents1 is discovered to be of inferior moment in minuter matters of this nature4 ,thus1 copies of the ,old ,latin version thrust ,isaiah's name into ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #bb1 and ,zechariah's name into xxi4 #d3 as well as thrust out ,jeremiah's name from xxvii4 #i3--the first1 with ,curetonian1 ,lewis1 ,harkleian1 ,palestinian1 and ,d1--the second1 with ,chrysostom and ,hilary1--the third1 with the ,peshitto4 ,the ,latin and the ,syriac further substitute ,greek3 tou prophtou for ,greek3 tn prophtn in ,st4 ,matt4 ii4 #bc1--through misapprehension of the ,evangelist's meaning4 ,what is to be thought of ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph for introducing the name of ',isaiah' into ,st4 ,matt4 xiii4 #ce1--where it clearly cannot stand1 the quotation being confessedly from ,ps4 lxxviii4 #b2 but where nevertheless ,porphyry#bac1 ,eusebius#bad1 and pseudo-,jerome#bae certainly found it in many ancient copies8 #b4 ,next1 for the testimony of the ,uncial ,codexes ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl,symbol3 ,delta3--,if any one will be at the pains to tabulate the #ijjbaf new 'readings' adopted by ,tischendorf in editing ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 he will discover that for #dej1 or just half of them1--all the #dej1 as ,i believe1 being corruptions of the text1--,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl are responsible3 and further1 that their responsibility is shared on about #bjj occasions by ,d3 on about #bfe by ,c3 on about #cej by ,delta#bag4 ,at some very remote period therefore there must have grown up a vicious general reading of this ,gospel which remains in the few bad copies3 but of which the largest traces 7and very discreditable traces they are7 at present survive in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcdl,symbol3 ,delta4 ,after this discovery the avowal will not be thought extraordinary that ,i regard with unmingled suspicion readings which are exclusively vouched for by five of the same ,codexes3 e4g4 by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl,symbol3 ,delta4 #c4 ,the cursive copies which exhibit ',isaiah' in place of 'the prophet4' reckoned by ,tischendorf at 'nearly twenty-five1' are probably less than fifteen#bah1 and those1 almost all of suspicious character4 ,high time it is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were better understood4 #d4 ,from ,tischendorf's list of thirteen ,fathers1 serious deductions have to be made4 ,irenaeus and ,victor of ,antioch are clearly with the ,textus ,receptus4 ,serapion1 ,titus1 ,basil do but borrow from ,origen2 and1 with his argument1 reproduce his corrupt text of ,st4 ,mark i4 #b4 ,the last-named ,father however saves his reputation by leaving out the quotation from ,malachi2 so1 passing directly from the mention of ,isaiah to the actual words of that prophet4 ,epiphanius 7and ,jerome too on one occasion#bai7 does the same thing4 ,victorinus and ,augustine1 being ,latin writers1 merely quote the ,latin version 7'sicut scriptum est in ,isai propheta'71 which is without variety of reading4 ,there remain ,origen 7the faulty character of whose ,codexes has been remarked upon already71 ,porphyry#bbj the heretic 7who wrote a book to convict the ,evangelists of mis-statements#bba1 and who is therefore scarcely a trustworthy witness71 ,eusebius1 ,jerome and ,severianus4 ,of these1 ,eusebius#bbb and ,jerome#bbc deliver it as their opinion that the name of ',isaiah' had obtained admission into the text through the inadvertency of copyists4 ,is it reasonable1 on the slender residuum of evidence1 to insist that ,st4 ,mark has ascribed to ,isaiah words confessedly written by ,malachi8 ',the fact1' writes a recent editor in the true spirit of modern criticism1 'will not fail to be observed by the careful and honest student of the ,gospels4' ,but what if 'the fact' should prove to be 'a fiction' only8 ,and 7,i venture to ask7 would not 'carefulness' be better employed in scrutinizing the adverse testimony8 'honesty' in admitting that on grounds precarious as the present no indictment against an ,evangelist can be seriously maintained8 ,this proposal to revive a blunder which the ,church in her corporate capacity has from the first refused to sanction 7for the ,evangelistaria know nothing of it7 carries in fact on its front its own sufficient condemnation4 ,why1 in the face of all the copies in the world 7except a little handful of suspicious character71 will men insist on imputing to an inspired writer a foolish mis-statement1 instead of frankly admitting that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little handful of copies through the officiousness of incompetent criticism8 ,and do any inquire1--,how then did this perversion of the truth arise8 ,in the easiest way possible1 ,i answer4 ,refer to the ,eusebian tables1 and note that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows3-- ,st4 ,matt4 ,greek3 7i4e4 iii4 #c74 ,st4 ,mark4 ,greek3 b 7i4e4 i4 #c74 ,st4 ,luke4 ,greek3 z 7i4e4 iii4 #c-f74 ,st4 ,john4 ,greek3 i 7i4e4 i4 #bc7bbd4 ,now1 since the name of ,isaiah occurs in the first1 the third and the fourth of these places in connexion with the quotation from ,is4 xl4 #c1 what more obvious than that some critic with harmonistic proclivities should have insisted on supplying the second also1 i4e4 the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 with the name of the evangelical prophet1 elsewhere so familiarly connected with the passage quoted8 ,this is nothing else in short but an ordinary instance of ,assimilation1 so unskilfully effected however as to betray itself4 ,it might have been passed by with fewer words1 for the fraud is indeed transparent1 but that it has so largely imposed upon learned men1 and established itself so firmly in books4 ,let me hope that we shall not hear it advocated any more4 ,regarded as an instrument of criticism1 ,assimilation requires to be very delicately as well as very skilfully handled4 ,if it is to be applied to determining the text of ,scripture1 it must be employed1 ,i take leave to say1 in a very different spirit from what is met with in ,dr4 ,tischendorf's notes1 or it will only mislead4 ,is a word--a clause--a sentence--omitted by his favourite authorities ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl8 ,it is enough if that learned critic finds nearly the same word1--a very similar clause1--a sentence of the same general import1--in an account of the same occurrence by another ,evangelist1 for him straightway to insist that the sentence1 the clause1 the word1 has been imported into the commonly received ,text from such parallel place2 and to reject it accordingly4 ,but1 as the thoughtful reader must see1 this is not allowable1 except under peculiar circumstances4 ,for first1 whatever a priori improbability might be supposed to attach to the existence of identical expressions in two ,evangelical records of the same transaction1 is effectually disposed of by the discovery that very often identity of expression actually does occur4 ,and 7#b71 the only condition which could warrant the belief that there has been assimilation1 is observed to be invariably away from ,dr4 ,tischendorf's instances4--viz4 a sufficient number of respectable attesting witnesses3 it being a fundamental principle in the law of ,evidence1 that the very few are rather to be suspected than the many4 ,but further 7#c71 if there be some marked diversity of expression discoverable in the two parallel places2 and if that diversity has been carefully maintained all down the ages in either place2--then it may be regarded as certain1 on the contrary1 that there has not been assimilation2 but that this is only one more instance of two ,evangelists saying similar things or the same thing in slightly different language4 ,take for example the following case3--,whereas ,st4 ,matt4 7xxiv4 #ae7 speaks of 'the abomination of desolation ,greek3 to rhthen ,,dia ,danil tou prophtou1 standing 7,greek3 hests7 in the holy place'2 ,st4 ,mark 7xiii4 #ad7 speaks of it as ',greek3 to rhthen ,,upo ,danil tou prophtou standing 7,greek3 hestos7 where it ought not4' ,now1 because ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl with copies of the ,italic1 the ,vulgate1 and the ,egyptian versions omit from ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel the six words written above in ,greek1 ,tischendorf and his school are for expunging those six words from ,st4 ,mark's text1 on the plea that they are probably an importation from ,st4 ,matthew4 ,but the little note of variety which the ,holy ,spirit has set on the place in the second ,gospel 7indicated above in capital letters7 suggests that these learned men are mistaken4 ,accordingly1 the other fourteen uncials and all the cursives1--besides the ,peshitto1 ,harkleian1 and copies of the ,old ,latin--a much more weighty body of evidence--are certainly right in retaining the words in ,st4 ,mark xiii4 #ad4 ,take two more instances of misuse in criticism of ,assimilation4 ,st4 ,matthew 7xii4 #aj71 and ,st4 ,luke in the parallel place of his ,gospel 7xiv4 #c71 describe our ,lord as asking1--',is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day8' ,tischendorf finding that his favourite authorities in this latter place continue the sentence with the words 'or not8' assumes that those two words must have fallen out of the great bulk of the copies of ,st4 ,luke1 which1 according to him1 have here assimilated their phraseology to that of ,st4 ,matthew4 ,but the hypothesis is clearly inadmissible1--though it is admitted by most modern critics4 ,do not these learned persons see that the supposition is just as lawful1 and the probability infinitely greater1 that it is on the contrary the few copies which have here undergone the process of assimilation2 and that the type to which they have been conformed1 is to be found in ,st4 ,matt4 xxii4 #ag2 ,st4 ,mark xii4 #ad2 ,st4 ,luke xx4 #bb8 ,it is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of ,scripture has exerted this kind of assimilating influence over a little handful of copies4 ,thus1 some critics are happily agreed in rejecting the proposal of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdlr1 7backed scantily by their usual retinue of evidence7 to substitute for ,greek3 gemisai tn koilian autou apo1 in ,st4 ,luke xv4 #af1 the words ,greek3 chortasthnai ek4 ,but editors have omitted to point out that the words ,greek3 epethymei chortasthnai1 introduced in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of ,lazarus 7xvi4 #bj71 have simply been transplanted thither out of the parable of the prodigal son4 ,the reader has now been presented with several examples of ,assimilation4 ,tischendorf1 who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to be sufficiently conspicuous1 is observed constantly to discover cases of ,assimilation where none exist4 ,this is in fact his habitual way of accounting for not a few of the omissions in ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,and because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation1 it becomes the more necessary to set the reader on his guard against receiving such statements without a thorough examination of the evidence on which they rest4 #f4 ,the value--may ,i not say1 the use8--of these delicate differences of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness of the text is called in question4 ,take an example4 ,the following fifteen words are deliberately excluded from ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel 7vi4 #aa7 by some critics on the authority of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcdl,symbol3 ,delta1--a most suspicious company1 and three cursives2 besides a few copies of the ,old ,latin1 including the ,vulgate3--,greek3 amn leg hymin1 anektoteron estai ,sodomois ,gomorrois en hmerai krises1 h t polei ekein4 ,it is pretended that this is nothing else but an importation from the parallel place of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel 7x4 #ae74 ,but that is impossible3 for1 as the reader sees at a glance1 a delicate but decisive note of discrimination has been set on the two places4 ,st4 ,mark writes1 ,greek3 ,sodom,o,i,s ,gomorr,o,i,s3 ,st4 ,matthew1 ,greek3 ,g ,sodom,n ,,kai ,gomorr,n4 ,and this threefold1 or rather fourfold1 diversity of expression has existed from the beginning2 for it has been faithfully retained all down the ages3 it exists to this hour in every known copy of the ,gospel1-- except of course those nine which omit the sentence altogether4 ,there can be therefore no doubt about its genuineness4 ,the critics of the modern school 7,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort7 seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting those fifteen words4 ,the two places are clearly independent of each other4 ,it does but remain to point out that the exclusion of these fifteen words from the text of ,st4 ,mark1 has merely resulted from the influence of the parallel place in ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel 7ix4 #e71--where nothing whatever is found#bbe corresponding with ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #e--,st4 ,mark vi4 #aa4 ,the process of ,assimilation therefore has been actively at work here1 although not in the way which some critics suppose4 ,it has resulted1 not in the insertion of the words in dispute in the case of the very many copies2 but on the contrary in their omission from the very few4 ,and thus1 one more brand is set on ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcdl,symbol3 ,delta and their ,latin allies1--which will be found never to conspire together exclusively except to mislead4 #g4 ,because a certain clause 7e4g4 ,greek3 kai h lalia sou homoiazei in ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #gj7 is absent from ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcdl1 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort entirely eject these five precious words from ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 ,griesbach having already voted them 'probably spurious4' ,when it has been added that many copies of the ,old ,latin also1 together with the ,vulgate and the ,egyptian versions1 besides ,eusebius1 ignore their existence1 the present writer scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the words are perfectly genuine notwithstanding4 ,the thing is certain however1 and the ,revisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words of genuine ,scripture1 as ,i am going to shew4 #a4 ,now1 even if the whole of the case were already before the reader1 although to some there might seem to exist a prima facie probability that the clause is spurious1 yet even so1--it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth4 ,for let the parallel places in the first two ,gospels be set down side by side3-- ,st4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #gc4 ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #gj4 7#a7 ,greek3 ,alths kai su 7#a7 ,greek3 ,alths 7#b7 ,greek3 ex autn ei 7#b7 ,greek3 ex autn ei 7#c7 ,greek3 kai gar 7#c7 ,greek3 kai gar ,galilaios ei1 7#d7 ,greek3 h lalia sou dlon se poiei 7#d7 ,greek3 kai h lalia sou homoiazei4 ,what more clear than that the later ,evangelist is explaining what his predecessor meant by 'thy speech bewrayeth thee' or else is giving an independent account of the same transaction derived from the common source8 ,to ,st4 ,matthew1--a ,jew addressing ,jews1--it seemed superfluous to state that it was the peculiar accent of ,galilee which betrayed ,simon ,peter4 ,to ,st4 ,mark1--or rather to the readers whom ,st4 ,mark specially addressed1--the point was by no means so obvious4 ,accordingly1 he paraphrases1--'for thou art a ,galilean and thy speech correspondeth4' ,let me be shewn that all down the ages1 in ninety-nine copies out of every hundred1 this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfully retained1 and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress ,st4 ,mark's 7fourth7 explanatory clause with its unique verb ,greek3 homoiazei1 ,i straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent inquiry1--,what is the state of the text hereabouts8 ,what1 in fact1 the context8 ,this at least is not a matter of opinion1 but a matter of fact4 #a4 ,and first1 ,i discover that ,cod4 ,d1 in concert with several copies of the ,old ,latin 7a b c ff#b h q1 c471 only removes clause 7#d7 from its proper place in ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 in order to thrust it into the parallel place in ,st4 ,matthew1--where it supplants the ,greek3 h lalia sou dlon se poiei of the earlier ,evangelist2 and where it clearly has no business to be4 ,indeed the object of ,d is found to have been to assimilate ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel to ,st4 ,mark1--for ,d also omits ,greek3 kai su in clause 7#a74 #b4 ,the ,ethiopic version1 on the contrary1 is for assimilating ,st4 ,mark to ,st4 ,matthew1 for it transfers the same clause 7#d7 as it stands in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel 7,greek3 kai h lalia sou dlon se poiei7 to ,st4 ,mark4 #c4 ,evan4 #cc 7which1 because it exhibits an ancient text of a type like ,b1 has been styled with grim irony 'the ,queen of the ,cursives'7 is more brilliant here than usual2 exhibiting ,st4 ,mark's clause 7#d7 thus1--,greek3 kai gar h lalia sou dlon se homoiazei4 #d4 ,in ,c 7and the ,harkleian7 the process of ,assimilation is as conspicuous as in ,d1 for ,st4 ,mark's third clause 7#c7 is imported bodily into ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,c further omits from ,st4 ,mark clause 7#d74 #e4 ,in the ,vercelli ,codex 7a7 however1 the converse process is conspicuous4 ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel has been assimilated to ,st4 ,matthew's by the unauthorized insertion into clause 7#a7 of ,greek3 kai su 7which by the way is also found in ,m71 and 7in concert with the ,gothic and ,evann4 #gc1 #aca1 #adb997 by the entire suppression of clause 7#c74 #f4 ,cod4 ,l goes beyond all4 ,true to the craze of omission1 it further obliterates as well from ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel as from ,st4 ,mark's all trace of clause 7#d74 #g4 ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,b alone of ,codexes1 though in agreement with the ,vulgate and the ,egyptian version1 do but eliminate the final clause 7#d7 of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,but note1 lastly1 that-- #h4 ,cod4 ,a1 together with the ,syriac versions1 the ,gothic1 and the whole body of the cursives1 recognizes none of these irregularities3 but exhibits the commonly received text with entire fidelity4 ,on a survey of the premisses1 will any candid person seriously contend that ,greek3 kai h lalia sou homiazei is no part of the genuine text of ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #gj8 ,the words are found in what are virtually the most ancient authorities extant3 the ,syriac versions 7besides the ,gothic and ,cod4 ,a71 the ,old ,latin 7besides ,cod4 ,d7--retain them2--those in their usual place1--these1 in their unusual4 ,idle it clearly is in the face of such evidence to pretend that ,st4 ,mark cannot have written the words in question#bbf4 ,it is too late to insist that a man cannot have lost his watch when his watch is proved to have been in his own pocket at eight in the morning1 and is found in another man's pocket at nine4 ,as for ,c and ,l1 their handling of the ,text hereabouts clearly disqualifies them from being cited in evidence4 ,they are condemned under the note of ,context4 ,adverse testimony is borne by ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph3 and by them only4 ,they omit the words in dispute1--the ordinary habit of theirs1 and most easily accounted for4 ,but how is the punctual insertion of the words in every other known copy to be explained8 ,in the meantime1 it remains to be stated1--and with this ,i shall take leave of the discussion1--that hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clear marks of wilful and critical correction1 thoroughly carried out in ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph1 and only partially in ,cod4 ,b and some of its compeers2 the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of ,peter's denials with those of the other ,evangelists1 as to suppress the fact1 vouched for by ,st4 ,mark only1 that the cock crowed twice#bbg4' ,that incident shall be treated of separately4 ,can those principles stand1 which in the face of the foregoing statement1 and the evidence which preceded it1 justify the disturbance of the text in ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #gj8 ,we now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of the text of the ,new ,testament4 ,,footnotes3 #ahd ,this paper bears the date #ahgg3 but ,i have thought best to keep the words with this caution to the reader4 #ahe ,above1 p4 #cb4 #ahf ,the alleged evidence of ,origen 7iv4 #dec7 is nil2 the sum of it being that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between ,greek3 opsesthe me 7in ver4 #af71 and ,greek3 touto ti estin 7in ver4 #ah74 #ahg ,nonnus1--,greek3 hixomai eis genntra4 #ahh viii4 #dfe a and c4 #ahi iv4 #icb and #icc c4 #aij ,greek3 ana-keimenos epi-pesn4 ,used not to suggest over-familiarity 7874 #aia ,beginning with ,anatolius ,laodicenus1 ,a4,d4 #bgj 7ap4 ,galland4 iii4 #edh74 ,cf4 ,routh1 ,rell4 i4 #db4 #aib ,greek3 ,ouk anakeitai monon1 alla kai t stthei epipiptei 7,opp4 viii4 #dbc a74--,greek3 ,ti de kai epipiptei t stthei 7ibid4 d74 ,note that the passage ascribed to ',apolinarius' in ,cord4 ,cat4 p4 #cdb 7which includes the second of these two references7 is in reality part of ,chrysostom's ,commentary on ,st4 ,john 7ubi supra1 c d74 #aic ,cord4 ,cat4 p4 #cda4 ,but it is only in the ,greek3 keimenon 7or text7 that the verb is found1--,opp4 iv4 #gce4 #aid ,greek3 ho de thrasys oxei palm stthesin achrantoisi pesn perilmenos anr4 #aie iv4 #dcg c3 #ddj d4 #aif ,ibid4 p4 #cdb4 #aig ,even ,chrysostom1 who certainly read the place as we do1 is observed twice to glide into the more ordinary expression1 viz4 xiii4 #dbc1 line #ac from the bottom1 and p4 #dbd1 line #ah from the top4 #aih ,greek3 ho epi to stthos autou anapesn 7iii4 #a1 #a74 #aii ,greek3 ho epi to stthos tou ,kyriou anapesn 7ap4 ,euseb4 iii4 #ca74 #bjj ,greek3 ,ti dei peri tou anapesontos epi to stthos legein tou ',isou 7ibid4 vi4 #be4 ,opp4 iv4 #ie74 #bja ,greek3 ho epi t stthei tou phlogos anapesn 7,opp4 ii4 #di a4 ,cf4 #acc c74 #bjb 7,as quoted by ,polycrates73 ,opp4 i4 #ajfb3 ii4 #h4 #bjc ,greek3 tou eis to ts sophias stthos pists epanapesontos 7ap4 ,chrys1 xiii4 #ee74 #bjd ,greek3 ho epi to stthos tou ,isou anapauetai 7,opp4 i4 #eia74 #bje 7,as quoted by ,polycrates73 ,opp4 i4 #dhh4 #bjf ,wright's ,apocryphal ,acts 7fourth century71 translated from the ,syriac1 p4 #c4 #bjg 7,fourth or fifth century7 ap4 ,galland4 vi4 #acb4 #bjh ,ap4 ,chrys4 viii4 #bif4 #bji ,on a fresh ,revision1 c41 p4 #gc4--';,greek3 ,anapiptein1 7which occurs eleven times in the ,n4,t471 when said of guests 7,greek3 anakeimenoi7 at a repast1 denotes nothing whatever but the preliminary act of each in taking his place at the table2 being the ,greek equivalent for our sitting down to dinner4 ,so far only does it signify change of posture4 ,the notion of falling backward quite disappears in the notion of reclining or lying down4'--,in ,st4 ,john xxi4 #bj1 the language of the ,evangelist is the very mirror of his thought2 which evidently passed directly from the moment when he assumed his place at the table 7,greek3 anepesen71 to that later moment when 7,greek3 epi to stthos autou7 he interrogated his ,divine ,master concerning ,judas4 ,it is a general description of an incident1--for the details of which we have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which went before4 #baj ,traditional ,text1 ,appendix ,,iv4 #baa ,pesh4 and ,harkl43 ,cur4 and ,lew4 are defective4 #bab ,thus ,griesbach1 ,scholz1 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,wordsworth1 ,green1 ,scrivener1 ,mc,clellan1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers4 #bac ,in pseudo-,jerome's ,brev4 in ,psalm41 ,opp4 vii4 7ad calc47 #aih4 #bad ,mont4 i4 #dfb4 #bae ,ubi supra4 #baf ,omitting trifling variants4 #bag ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl are exclusively responsible on #de occasions3 ,c 7i4e4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcl71 on #bg3 ,d1 on #ce3 ,symbol3 ,delta1 on #gc3 ,,cd1 on #ai3 ,c,symbol3 ,delta1 on #aah3 ,d,symbol3 ,delta 7i4e4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl,symbol3 ,delta71 on #db3 ,,cd,symbol3 ,delta1 on #ff4 #bah ,in the text of ,evan4 #gb the reading in dispute is not found3 #bje1 #bjf are duplicates of #bji3 and #bbb1 #bee are only fragments4 ,there remain #a1 #bb1 #cc1 #fa1 #fc1 #aae1 #aca1 #aea1 #aeb1 #afa1 #ahd1 #bji1 #bec1 #cgb1 #cia3--of which the six at ,rome require to be re-examined4 #bai v4 #aj4 #bbj ,ap4 ,hieron4 vii4 #ag4 #bba ',evangelistas arguere falsitatis1 hoc impiorum est1 ,celsi1 ,porphyrii1 ,juliani4' ,hieron4 i4 #caa4 #bbb ,greek3 graphes toinun esti sphalma4 ,quoted 7from the lost work of ,eusebius ad ,marinum7 in ,victor of ,ant4's ,catena1 ed4 ,cramer1 p4 #bfg4 7,see ,simon1 iii4 #hi2 ,mai1 iv4 #bii2 ,matthaei's ,n4,t4 ii4 #bj1 c47 #bbc ',nos autem nomen ,isaiae putamus additum ,scriptorum vitio1 quod et in aliis locis probare possumus4' vii4 #ag 7,i suspect he got it from ,eusebius74 #bbd ,see ,studia ,biblica1 ii4 p4 #bdi4 ,syrian ,form of ,ammonian sections and ,eusebian ,canons by ,rev4 ,g4 ,h4 ,gwilliam1 ,b4,d4 ,mr4 ,gwilliam gives ,st4 ,luke iii4 #d-f1 according to the ,syrian form4 #bbe ,compare ,st4 ,mark vi4 #g-ac with ,st4 ,luke ix4 #a-f4 #bbf ,schulz1--'et ,greek3 lalia et ,greek3 omoiazei aliena a ,marco4' ,tischendorf--'omnino e ,matthaeo fluxit3 ipsum ,greek3 omoiazei glossatoris est4' ,this is foolishness1--not criticism4 #bbg ,scrivener's ,full ,collation of the ,cod4 ,sin41 c41 #bnd ed41 p4 xlvii4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption ,,chiefly ,,intentional4 ,,iii4 ,attraction4 #a4 ,there exist not a few corrupt ,readings1--and they have imposed largely on many critics1--which1 strange to relate1 have arisen from nothing else but the proneness of words standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into a likeness of ending1--whether in respect of grammatical form or of sound2 whereby sometimes the sense is made to suffer grievously1--sometimes entirely to disappear4 ,let this be called the error of ,attraction4 ,the phenomena of ',assimilation' are entirely distinct4 ,a somewhat gross instance1 which however has imposed on learned critics1 is furnished by the ,revised ,text and ,version of ,st4 ,john vi4 #ga and xiii4 #bf4 ',judas ,iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every ,christian ear is even awfully familiar4 ,the expression ,greek3 ,ioudas ,iskarits is found in ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #d and xxvi4 #ad3 in ,st4 ,mark iii4 #ai and xiv4 #aj3 in ,st4 ,luke vi4 #af1 and in xxii4 #ca with the express statement added that ,judas was so 'surnamed4' ,so far happily we are all agreed4 ,st4 ,john's invariable practice is to designate the traitor1 whom he names four times1 as ',judas ,iscariot1 the son of ,simon2'--jealous doubtless for the honour of his brother ,apostle1 ',jude 7,greek3 ,ioudas7 the brother of ,james#bbh'3 and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the traitor's identity4 ,who does not at once recall the ,evangelist's striking parenthesis in ,st4 ,john xiv4 #bb1--';,judas 7not ,iscariot7'8 ,accordingly1 in ,st4 ,john xiii4 #b the ,revisers present us with ',judas ,iscariot1 ,simon's son'3 and even in ,st4 ,john xii4 #d they are content to read ',judas ,iscariot4' ,but in the two places of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel which remain to be noticed1 viz4 vi4 #ga and xiii4 #bf1 instead of ',judas ,iscariot the son of ,simon' the ,revisers require us henceforth to read1 ',judas the son of ,simon ,iscariot4' ,and why8 ,only1 ,i answer1 because--in place of ,greek3 ,ioudan ,simnos ,iskari,t,n 7in vi4 #ga7 and ,greek3 ,iouda ,simnos ,iskari,t 7in xiii4 #bf7--;a little handful of copies substitute on both occasions ,greek3 ,iskari,,tou4 ,need ,i go on8 ,nothing else has evidently happened but that1 through the oscitancy of some very early scribe1 the ,greek3 ,iskari,t,n1 ,greek3 ,iskari,t1 have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive ,greek3 ,s,im,,nos 444 ,so transparent a blunder would have scarcely deserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered to remain1--where such btises are the rule and not the exception1--viz4 in the columns of ,codexes ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,but strange to say1 not only have the ,revisers adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages already mentioned1 but they have not let so much as a hint fall that any alteration whatsoever has been made by them in the inspired ,text4 #b4 ,another and a far graver case of ',attraction' is found in ,acts xx4 #bd4 ,st4 ,paul1 in his address to the elders of ,ephesus1 refers to the discouragements he has had to encounter4 ',but none of these things move me1' he grandly exclaims1 'neither count ,i my life dear unto myself1 so that ,i might finish my course with joy4' ,the ,greek for this begins ,greek3 all' oudenos logon poioumai3 where some second or third century copyist 7misled by the preceding genitive7 in place of ,greek3 logo,n writes ,greek3 logo,u2 with what calamitous consequence1 has been found largely explained elsewhere#bbi4 ,happily1 the error survives only in ,codd4 ,b and ,c3 and their character is already known by the readers of this book and the ,companion ,volume4 ,so much has been elsewhere offered on this subject that ,i shall say no more about it here3 but proceed to present my reader with another and more famous instance of attraction4 ,st4 ,paul in a certain place 7#b ,cor4 iii4 #c7 tells the ,corinthians1 in allusion to the language of ,exodus xxxi4 #ab1 xxxiv4 #a1 that they are an epistle not written on 'stony tables 7,greek3 en plaxi lithinais71' but on 'fleshy tables of the heart 7,greek3 en plaxi kardias sarkinais74' ,the one proper proof that this is what ,st4 ,paul actually wrote1 is not only 7#a7 ,that the ,copies largely preponderate in favour of so exhibiting the place3 but 7#b7 ,that the ,versions1 with the single exception of 'that abject slave of manuscripts the ,philoxenian or ,harkleian ,syriac1' are all on the same side3 and lastly 7#c7 ,that the ,fathers are as nearly as possible unanimous4 ,let the evidence for ,greek3 kardias 7unknown to ,tischendorf and the rest7 be produced in detail3-- ,in the second century1 ,irenaeus#bcj1--the ,old ,latin1--the ,peshitto4 ,in the third century1 ,origen seven times#bca1--the ,coptic version4 ,in the fourth century1 the ,dialogus#bcb1--;,didymus#bcc1--;,basil# bcd1--;,gregory ,nyss4#bce1--,marcus the ,monk#bcf1--;,chrysostom in two places#bcg1--,nilus#bch1--the ,vulgate1--and the ,gothic versions4 ,in the fifth century1 ,cyril#bci1--;,isidorus#bdj1--,theodoret #bda1--the ,armenian--and the ,ethiopic versions4 ,in the seventh century1 ,victor1 ,bp4 of ,carthage addressing ,theodorus ,p4#bdb ,in the eighth century1 ,j4 ,damascene#bdc 444 ,besides1 of the ,latins1 ,hilary#bdd1--;,ambrose#bde1--,optatus#b df1--;,jerome#bdg1-- ,tichonius#bdh1--;,augustine thirteen times#bdi1--;,fulgentius#bej1 and others#bea 444 ,if this be not overwhelming evidence1 may ,i be told what is#beb8 ,but then it so happens that--attracted by the two datives between which ,greek3 kardias stands1 and tempted by the consequent jingle1 a surprising number of copies are found to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd' and 'wholly unnatural reading#bec1' ,greek3 plaxi kardi,a,i,s sarkin,a,i,s4 ,and because 7as might have been expected from their character7 ,a#bed;,b,symbol3 ,aleph,,cd#bee are all five of the number1--,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort1 one and all adopt and advocate the awkward blunder#bef4 ,greek3 ,kardiais is also adopted by the ,revisers of #ahha without so much as a hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelmingly against themselves and in favour of the traditional ,text of the ,authorized ,version#beg4 ,,footnotes3 #bbh ,st4 ,luke vi4 #af2 ,acts i4 #ac2 ,st4 ,jude #a4 #bbi ,above1 pp4 #bh-ca4 #bcj #gec int4 #bca ii4 #hdc c4 ,also int ii4 #if1 #cjc2 iv4 #dai1 #dhi1 #ebi1 #eeh4 #bcb ,ap4 ,orig4 i4 #hff a1--interesting and emphatic testimony4 #bcc ,cord4 ,cat4 in ,ps4 i4 #bgb4 #bcd i4 #afa e4 ,cord4 ,cat4 in ,ps4 i4 #hdd4 #bce i4 #fhb 7,greek3 ouk en plaxi lithinais 444 all' en t ts kardias pyxi74 #bcf ,galland4 viii4 #dj b4 #bcg vii4 #b3 x4 #dge4 #bch i4 #bi4 #bci i4 #h3 ii4 #ejd3 v#b4 #fe4 7,aubert prints ,greek3 kardias sarkins4 ,the published ,concilia 7iii4 #adj7 exhibits ,greek3 kardias sarkinais4 ,pusey1 finding in one of his ,,mss4 ,greek3 all' en plaxi kardias lithinais 7sic71 prints ,greek3 kardias sarkinais47 ,ap4 ,mai1 iii4 #hi1 #ij4 #bdj #bii4 #bda iii4 #cjb4 #bdb ,concil4 vi4 #aed4 #bdc ii4 #abi4 #bdd #cdd4 #bde i4 #gfb3 ii4 #ffh1 #achj4 #bdf ,galland4 v4 #eje4 #bdg vi4 #fji4 #bdh ,galland4 viii4 #gdb dis4 #bdi i4 #fgb3 ii4 #di3 iii#a4 #dgb1 #efj3 iv4 #acjb3 v4 #gdc-d3 viii4 #caa3 x4 #ih1 #aja1 #ajd1 #ajg1 #aaj4 #bej ,galland4 xi4 #bdh4 #bea ,ps4-,ambrose1 ii4 #agf4 #beb ,yet strange to say1 ,tischendorf claims the support of ,didymus and ,theodoret for ,greek3 kardiais1 on the ground that in the course of their expository remarks they contrast ,greek3 kardiai sarkinai 7or ,greek3 logikai7 with ,greek3 plakes lithinai3 as if it were not the word ,greek3 plaxi which alone occasions difficulty4 ,again1 ,tischendorf enumerates ,cod4 ,e 7,paul7 among his authorities4 ,had he then forgotten that ,e is 'nothing better than a transcript of ,cod4 ,d 7,claromontanus71 made by some ignorant person'8 that 'the ,greek is manifestly worthless1 and that it should long since have been removed from the list of authorities'8 ,scrivener's ,introd41 #dth edit41 i4 #agg4 ,see also ,traditional ,text1 p4 #fe1 and note4 ,tischendorf is frequently inaccurate in his references to the fathers4 #bec ,scrivener's ,introd4 ii4 #bed4 #bed ,a in the ,epistles differs from ,a in the ,gospels4 #bee ,besides ,,glp and the following cursives1--#bi1 #cj1 #dd1 #de1 #df1 #dg1 #dh1 #ee1 #gd1 #ajd1 #ajf1 #aji1 #aab1 #aac1 #aae1 #acg1 #bai1 #bba1 #bch1 #beb1 #bee1 #beg1 #bfb1 #bgg4 #bef ,that ,i may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the other side1 let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence 7besides the testimony of many ,,mss47 is the ,harkleian version3--the doubtful testimony of ,eusebius 7for1 though ,valerius reads ,greek3 kardias1 the ,,mss4 largely preponderate which read ,greek3 kardiais in ,h4 ,e4 ,mart4 ,pal4 cxiii4 #f4 ,see ,burton's ed4 p4 #fcg73--;,cyril in one place1 as explained above3--and lastly1 a quotation from ,chrysostom on the ,maccabees1 given in ,cramer's ,catena1 vii4 #eie 7,greek3 en plaxi kardiais sarkinais71 which reappears at the end of eight lines without the word ,greek3 plaxi4 #beg ,the papers on ,assimilation and ,attraction were left by the ,dean in the same portfolio4 ,no doubt he would have separated them1 if he had lived to complete his work1 and amplified his treatment of the latter1 for the materials under that head were scanty4--,for #b ,cor4 iii4 #c1 see also a note of my own to p4 #fe of ,the ,traditional ,text4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption ,,chiefly ,,intentional4 ,,iv4 ,omission4 ,we have now to consider the largest of all classes of corrupt variations from the genuine ,text#beh--the omission of words and clauses and sentences1--a truly fertile province of inquiry4 ,omissions are much in favour with a particular school of critics2 though a habit of admitting them whether in ancient or modern times cannot but be symptomatic of a tendency to scepticism4 #a4 ,omissions are often treated as ',various ,readings4' ,yet only by an ,hibernian licence can words omitted be so reckoned3 for in truth the very essence of the matter is that on such occasions nothing is read4 ,it is to the case of words omitted however that this chapter is to be exclusively devoted4 ,and it will be borne in mind that ,i speak now of those words alone where the words are observed to exist in ninety-nine ,,mss4 out of a hundred1 so to speak2--being away only from that hundredth copy4 ,now it becomes evident1 as soon as attention has been called to the circumstance1 that such a phenomenon requires separate treatment4 ,words so omitted labour prima facie under a disadvantage which is all their own4 ,my meaning will be best illustrated if ,i may be allowed to adduce and briefly discuss a few examples4 ,and ,i will begin with a crucial case2--the most conspicuous doubtless within the whole compass of the ,new ,testament4 ,i mean the last twelve verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel2 which verses are either bracketed off1 or else entirely severed from the rest of the ,gospel1 by ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford and others4 ,the warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously with a portion of the sacred deposit is the fact that whereas ,eusebius1 for the statement rests solely with him1 declares that anciently many copies were without the verses in question1 our two oldest extant ,,mss4 conspire in omitting them4 ,but1 ,i reply1 the latter circumstance does not conduct to the inference that those verses are spurious4 ,it only proves that the statement of ,eusebius was correct4 ,the ,father cited did not1 as is evident from his words#bei1 himself doubt the genuineness of the verses in question2 but admitted them to be genuine4 ,he quotes two opinions2--the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness1 and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of the two1 since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former as being an off-hand expedient2 besides that he quotes several words out of the twelve verses1 and argues at great length upon the second hypothesis4 ,on the other hand1 one and that the least faulty of the two ,,mss4 witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving a vacant space where the omitted verses should have come in2 whilst the other was apparently copied from an exemplar containing the verses#bfj4 ,and all the other copies insert them1 except ,l and a few cursives which propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the verses1--together with all the versions1 except one ,old ,latin 7k71 the ,lewis ,codex1 two ,armenian ,,mss4 and an ,arabic ,lectionary1--besides more than ninety testimonies in their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancient witnesses#bfa2--such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting testimony over and over and over again4 ,beyond all this1 the cause of the error is patent4 ,some scribe mistook the ,greek3 ,telos occurring at the end of an ,ecclesiastical ,lection at the close of chapter xvi4 #h for the ',end' of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel#bfb4 ,that is the simple truth3 and the question will now be asked by an intelligent reader1 ',if such is the balance of evidence1 how is it that learned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses8' ,to this question there can be but one answer1 viz4 ',because those critics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafe guides1 and on behalf of ,omission4' ,we have already seen enough of the character of those guides1 and are now anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them so acceptable to minds of the present day4 ,and we can imagine nothing except the halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious passages in modern times1 and has extended to a supposed detection of passages which in fact are not spurious4 ,some people appear to feel delight if they can prove any charge against people who claim to be orthodox2 others without any such feeling delight in superior criticism2 and the flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste of many4 ,to the votaries of such criticism1 omissions of passages which they style 'interpolations1' offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields4 ,yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that ,omission is the besetting fault of transcribers4 ,it is so easy under the influence of the desire of accomplishing a task1 or at least of anxiety for making progress1 to pass over a word1 a line1 or even more lines than one4 ,as has been explained before1 the eye readily moves from one ending to a similar ending with a surprising tendency to pursue the course which would lighten labour instead of increasing it4 ,the cumulative result of such abridgement by omission on the part of successive scribes may be easily imagined1 and in fact is just what is presented in ,codex ,b#bfc4 ,besides these considerations1 the passages which are omitted1 and which we claim to be genuine1 bear in themselves the character belonging to the rest of the ,gospels1 indeed--in ,dr4 ,hort's expressive phrase--'have the true ring of genuineness4' ,they are not like some which some critics of the same school would fain force upon us#bfd4 ,but beyond all1--and this is the real source and ground of attestation1--they enjoy superior evidence from copies1 generally beyond comparison with the opposing testimony1 from ,versions1 and from ,fathers4 #b4 ,the fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much larger amount of proof than usual is required at the hands of those who would persuade us to cancel words which have been hitherto by all persons1--in all ages1--in all countries1--regarded as inspired ,scripture4 ,they have 7#a7 to account for the fact of those words' existence3 and next 7#b71 to demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the sacred page4 ,the discovery that from a few copies they are away1 clearly has very little to do with the question4 ,we may be able to account for the omission from those few copies3 and the instant we have done this1 the negative evidence--the argument e silentio--has been effectually disposed of4 ,a very different task--a far graver responsibility--is imposed upon the adverse party1 as may be easily shewn4 ,they must establish many modes of accounting for many classes and groups of evidence4 ,broad and sweeping measures are now out of date4 ,the burden of proof lies with them4 #c4 ,the force of what ,i am saying will be best understood if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced1 and individually considered4 ,and first1 let us take the case of an omitted word4 ,in ,st4 ,luke vi4 #a ,greek3 deuteroprt is omitted from some ,,mss4 ,westcott and ,hort and the ,revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows3--,greek3 ,egeneto de en sabbat diaporeuesthai auton dia sporimn4 ,now ,i desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult and peculiar a word as this1--for indeed the expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained1--should have found its way into every known ,evangelium except ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl and a few cursives1 if it be spurious8 ,how it came to be here and there omitted1 is intelligible enough4 7a7 ,one has but to glance at the ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph1 ,greek3 ,,to ,,en ,,sabbat ,greek3 ,,deuteropr,t in order to see that the like ending 7,greek3 ,t7 in the superior line1 fully accounts for the omission of the second line4 7b7 ,a proper lesson begins at this place2 which by itself would explain the phenomenon4 7c7 ,words which the copyists were at a loss to understand1 are often observed to be dropped3 and there is no harder word in the ,gospels than ,greek3 deuteroprtos4 ,but ,i repeat1--will you tell us how it is conceivable that a word nowhere else found1 and known to be a crux to commentators and others1 should have crept into all the copies except a small handful8 ,in reply to all this1 ,i shall of course be told that really ,i must yield to what is after all the weight of external evidence3 that ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl are not ordinary ,,mss4 but first-class authorities1 of sufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive ,,mss4 ,my rejoinder is plain3--,not only am ,i of course willing to yield to external evidence1 but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining ,greek3 deuteroprto--apo melissiou kriou--haras ton stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipte--the #adth verse of ,st4 ,matthew's xxiiird chapter--and the last twelve verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,for my own part1 ,i entirely deny the cogency of the proposed proof1 and ,i have clearly already established the grounds of my refusal4 ,who then is to be the daysman between us8 ,we are driven back on first principles1 in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to meet on some common ground1 and by the application of ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view4 ,as to these we must refer the reader to the first volume of this work4 ,various cases of omission have been just quoted1 and many have been discussed elsewhere4 ,accordingly1 it will not be necessary to exhibit this large class of corruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand4 ,but a few more instances are required1 in order that the reader may see in this connexion that many passages at least which the opposing school designate as ,interpolations are really genuine1 and that students may be placed upon their guard against the source of error that we are discussing4 #d4 ,and first as to the rejection of an entire verse4 ,the #ddth verse of ,st4 ,matt4 xxi1 consisting of the fifteen words printed at foot#bfe1 is marked as doubtful by ,tregelles1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers3--by ,tischendorf it is rejected as spurious4 ,we insist that1 on the contrary1 it is indubitably genuine2 reasoning from the antiquity1 the variety1 the respectability1 the largeness1 or rather1 the general unanimity of its attestation4 ,for the verse is found in the ,old ,latin1 and in the ,vulgate1--in the ,peshitto1 ,curetonian1 and ,harkleian ,syriac1--besides in the ,coptic1 ,armenian1 and ,ethiopic versions4 ,it is found also in ,origen#bff1-- ps4-,tatian#bfg--;,aphraates#bfh1--;,chr ysostom#bfi1--;,cyril ,alex4#bgj1-- the ,opus ,imperfectum#bga1--;,jerome#bgb1--;,augu stine#bgc3--;in ,codexes ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,c,symbol3 ,theta,symbol3 ,sigma,,xz,symbol3 ,delta,symbol3 ,pi,,efg ,,hklmsuv1--in short1 it is attested by every known ,codex except two of bad character1 viz4--,d1 #cc2 together with five copies of the ,old ,latin1 viz4--a b e ff#a ff#b4 ,there have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century3--at least eight of the fourth3--at least seven if not eight of the fifth3 after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is overwhelming4 ,how could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of ,cod4 ,d 7concerning which see above1 ,vol4 ,i4 c4 viii47 supported only by a single errant ,cursive and a little handful of copies of the ,old ,latin versions1 even although the ,lewis ,codex has joined this petty band8 ,but1 says ,tischendorf1--the verse is omitted by ,origen and by ,eusebius1--by ,irenaeus and by ,lucifer of ,cagliari1--as well as by ,cyril of ,alexandria4 ,i answer1 this most insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion4 ,the critic refers to the fact that ,irenaeus#bgd1 ,origen#bge1 ,eusebius#bgf and ,cyril#bgg having quoted 'the parable of the wicked husbandmen' in extenso 7viz4 from verse #cc to verse #dc71 leave off at verse #dc4 ,why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off8 ,why should they quote any further8 ,verse #dd is nothing to their purpose4 ,and since the ,gospel for ,monday morning in ,holy ,week verses #ah-dc1 in every known copy of the ,lectionary actually ends at verse #dc1--why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse8 ,but1 unfortunately for the critic1 ,origen and ,cyril 7as we have seen1--the latter expressly17 elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute4 ,and how can ,tischendorf maintain that ,lucifer yields adverse testimony#bgh8 ,that ,father quotes nothing but verse #dc1 which is all he requires for his purpose#bgi4 ,why should he have also quoted verse #dd1 which he does not require8 ,as well might it be maintained that ,macarius ,egyptius#bhj and ,philo of ,carpasus#bha omit verse #dd1 because 7like ,lucifer7 they only quote verse #dc4 ,i have elsewhere explained what ,i suspect occasioned the omission of ,st4 ,matt4 xxi4 #dd from a few ,western copies of the ,gospels#bhb4 ,tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel#bhc 7xx4 #ah7 is clearly untenable4 ,either place has its distinctive type1 which either has maintained all down the ages4 ,the single fact that ,st4 ,matt4 xxi4 #dd in the ,peshitto version has a sectional number to itself#bhd is far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than suspicion4 ,if a verse so elaborately attested as the present be not genuine1 we must abandon all hope of ever attaining to any certainty concerning the ,text of ,scripture4 ,in the meantime there emerges from the treatment which ,st4 ,matt4 xxi4 #dd has experienced at the hands of ,tischendorf1 the discovery that1 in the estimation of ,tischendorf1 ,cod4 ,d is a document of so much importance as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of all ages and countries in ,christendom4 #e4 ,i am guided to my next example1 viz4 the text of ,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #h1 by the choice deliberately made of that place by ,dr4 ,tregelles in order to establish the peculiar theory of ,textual ,revision which he advocates so strenuously2 and which1 ever since the days of ,griesbach1 has it must be confessed enjoyed the absolute confidence of most of the illustrious editors of the ,new ,testament4 ,this is1 in fact1 the second example on ,tregelles' list4 ,in approaching it1 ,i take leave to point out that that learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his readers by not setting before them in full the problem which he proposes to discuss4 ,thoroughly to understand this matter1 the student should be reminded that there is found in ,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #h1--;and parallel to it in ,st4 ,mark vii4 #f1-- ,st4 ,matt4 ',ye hypocrites1 well did ,isaiah prophesy of you saying1 ,this people draweth nigh unto ,me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips 7,greek3 engizei moi ho laos houtos t stomati autn1 kai tois cheilesi me tima71 but their heart is far from ,me4' ,st4 ,mark4 ',well did ,isaiah prophesy of you1 hypocrites1 as it is written1 ,this people honoureth ,me with their lips 7,greek3 houtos ho laos tois cheilesi me tima71 but their heart is far from ,me4' ,the place of ,isaiah referred to1 viz4 ch4 xxix4 #ac1 reads as follows in the ordinary editions of the ,,lxx3--,greek3 kai eipe ,kyrios1 engizei moi ho laos houtos en t stomati autou1 kai en tois cheilesin autn timsi me4 ,now1 about the text of ,st4 ,mark in this place no question is raised4 ,neither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nine ,,mss4 out of a hundred in respect of the text in ,st4 ,matthew4 ,but when reference is made to the two oldest copies in existence1 ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph1 we are presented with what1 but for the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark1 would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated reading4 ,both ,,mss4 conspire in exhibiting ,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #h1 as follows3--,greek3 ho laos houtos tois cheilesi me tima4 ,so that six words 7,greek3 engizei moi and ,greek3 t stomati autn1 kai7 are not recognized by them3 in which peculiarity they are countenanced by ,,dltc1 two cursive copies1 and the following versions3--,old ,latin except f1 ,vulgate1 ,curetonian1 ,lewis1 ,peshitto1 and ,bohairic1 7,cod4 ,a1 the ,sahidic and ,gothic versions1 being imperfect here47 ,to this evidence1 ,tischendorf adds a phalanx of ,fathers3--,clemens ,romanus 7,a4,d4 #gj71 ,ptolemaeus the ,gnostic 7,a4,d4 #aej71 ,clemens ,alexandrinus 7,a4,d4 #aij71 ,origen in three places 7,a4,d4 #baj71 ,eusebius 7,a4,d4 #cbe71 ,basil1 ,cyril of ,alexandria1 ,chrysostom3 and ,alford supplies also ,justin ,martyr 7,a4,d4 #aej74 ,the testimony of ,didymus 7,a4,d4 #cej71 which has been hitherto overlooked1 is express4 ,tertullian1 ,cyprian1 ,hilary1 are naturally found to follow the ,latin copies4 ,such a weight of evidence may not unreasonably inspire ,dr4 ,tregelles with an exceeding amount of confidence4 ,accordingly he declares 'that this one passage might be relied upon as an important proof that it is the few ,,mss4 and not the many which accord with ancient testimony4' ,availing himself of ,dr4 ,scrivener's admission of 'the possibility that the disputed words in the great bulk of the ,,mss4 were inserted from the ,septuagint of ,isaiah xxix4 #acbhe1' ,dr4 ,tregelles insists 'that on every true principle of textual criticism1 the words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the ,prophet4 ,this naturally explains their introduction1' 7he adds72 'and when once they had gained a footing in the text1 it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists1 who almost always preferred to make passages as full and complete as possible' 7p4 #aci74 ,dr4 ,tregelles therefore relies upon this one passage1--not so much as a 'proof that it is the few ,,mss4 and not the many which accord with ancient testimony'2--for one instance cannot possibly prove that2 and that is after all beside the real question2--but1 as a proof that we are to regard the text of ,codd4 ,b,symbol3 ,aleph in this place as genuine1 and the text of all the other ,codexes in the world as corrupt4 ,the reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from the days of ,griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancy between 'the few copies' on the one hand1 and the whole torrent of manuscript evidence on the other4 ,now1 as ,i am writing a book on the principles of ,textual ,criticism1 ,i must be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding1 though enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly respected name4 ,i venture to think that the exact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth3 viz4 that undoubtedly spurious readings1 although they may at one time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in ,,mss41 and to some extent may be observed even to have propagated themselves1 are yet discovered to die out speedily2 seldom indeed to leave any considerable number of descendants4 ,there has always in fact been a process of elimination going on1 as well as of self-propagation3 a corrective force at work1 as well as one of deterioration4 ,how else are we to account for the utter disappearance of the many monstra potius quam variae lectiones which the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times8 ,it is enough to appeal to a single place in ,jerome1 in illustration of what ,i have been saying#bhf4 ,to return however from this digression4 ,we are invited then to believe1--for it is well to know at the outset exactly what is required of us1--that from the fifth century downwards every extant copy of the ,gospels except five 7,,dltc1 #cc1 #abd7 exhibits a text arbitrarily interpolated in order to bring it into conformity with the ,greek version of ,isa4 xxix4 #ac4 ,on this wild hypothesis ,i have the following observations to make3-- #a4 ,it is altogether unaccountable1 if this be indeed a true account of the matter1 how it has come to pass that in no single ,,ms4 in the world1 so far as ,i am aware1 has this conformity been successfully achieved3 for whereas the ,septuagintal reading is ,greek3 engizei moi ho laos outos ,,en t stomati ,,autou1 kai ,,en tois cheilesin ,,aut,n ,,tim,,si me1--the ,evangelical ,text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than six particulars4 #b4 ,further1--,if there really did exist this strange determination on the part of the ancients in general to assimilate the text of ,st4 ,matthew to the text of ,isaiah1 how does it happen that not one of them ever conceived the like design in respect of the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark8 #c4 ,it naturally follows to inquire1--,why are we to suspect the mass of ,,mss4 of having experienced such wholesale depravation in respect of the text of ,st4 ,matthew in this place1 while yet we recognize in them such a marked constancy to their own peculiar type2 which however1 as already explained1 is not the text of ,isaiah8 #d4 ,further1--,i discover in this place a minute illustration of the general fidelity of the ancient copyists3 for whereas in ,st4 ,matthew it is invariably ,greek3 ho laos outos1 ,i observe that in the copies of ,st4 ,mark1--except to be sure in 7a7 ,codd4 ,b and ,d1 7b7 copies of the ,old ,latin1 7c7 the ,vulgate1 and 7d7 the ,peshitto 7all of which are confessedly corrupt in this particular17--it is invariably ,greek3 outos ho laos4 ,but now1--,is it reasonable that the very copies which have been in this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of ,st4 ,mark vii4 #f should be permitted to dictate to us against the great heap of copies in respect of their exhibition of ,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #h8 ,and yet1 if the discrepancy between ,codd4 ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph and the great bulk of the copies in this place did not originate in the way insisted on by the critics1 how is it to be accounted for8 ,now1 on ordinary occasions1 we do not feel ourselves called upon to institute any such inquiry1--as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do4 ,unbounded licence of transcription1 flagrant carelessness1 arbitrary interpolations1 omissions without number1 disfigure those two ancient ,,mss4 in every page4 ,we seldom trouble ourselves to inquire into the history of their obliquities4 ,but the case is of course materially changed when so many of the oldest of the ,fathers and all the oldest ,versions seem to be at one with ,codexes ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,let then the student favour me with his undivided attention for a few moments1 and ,i will explain to him how the misapprehension of ,griesbach1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles and the rest1 has arisen4 ,about the ,,mss4 and the ,versions these critics are sufficiently accurate3 but they have fatally misapprehended the import of the ,patristic evidence2 as ,i proceed to explain4 ,the established ,septuagintal rendering of ,isa4 xxix4 #ac in the ,apostolic age proves to have been this1--,greek3 ,engizei moi ho laos outos tois cheilesin autn timsi me3 the words ,greek3 en t stomati autn1 kai en being omitted4 ,this is certain4 ,justin ,martyr#bhg and ,cyril of ,alexandria in two places#bhh so quote the passage4 ,procopius ,gazaeus in his ,commentary on ,origen's ,hexapla of ,isaiah says expressly that the six words in question were introduced into the text of the ,septuagint by ,aquila1 ,symmachus1 and ,theodotion4 ,accordingly they are often observed to be absent from ,,mss4#bhi ,they are not found1 for example1 in the ,codex ,alexandrinus4 ,but the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was felt to be intolerable4 ,in fact1 without a colon point between ,greek3 outos and ,greek3 tois1 the result is without meaning4 ,when once the complementary words have been withdrawn1 ,greek3 engizei moi at the beginning of the sentence is worse than superfluous4 ,it fatally encumbers the sense4 ,to drop those two words1 after the example of the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 became thus an obvious proceeding4 ,accordingly the author of the 7so-called7 second ,epistle of ,clemens ,romanus 7 #c71 professing to quote the place in the prophet ,isaiah1 exhibits it thus1--,greek3 ,ho laos outos tois cheilesi me tima4 ,clemens ,alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two occasions#bij4 ,so does ,chrysostom#bia4 ,so does ,theodoret#bib4 ,two facts have thus emerged1 which entirely change the aspect of the problem3 the first1 7a7 ,that the words ,greek3 en t stomati autn1 kai en were anciently absent from the ,septuagintal rendering of ,isaiah xxix4 #ac3 the second1 7b7 that the place of ,isaiah was freely quoted by the ancients without the initial words ,greek3 engizei moi4 ,and after this discovery will any one be so perverse as to deny that on the contrary it must needs be ,codexes ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph1 and not the great bulk of the ,,mss41 which exhibit a text corrupted by the influence of the ,septuagint rendering of ,isaiah xxix4 #ac8 ,the precise extent to which the assimilating influence of the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel has been felt by the copyists1 ,i presume not to determine4 ,the essential point is that the omission from ,st4 ,matthew xv4 #h of the words ,greek3 ,t stomati autn1 kai1 is certainly due in the first instance to the ascertained ,septuagint omission of those very words in ,isaiah xxix4 #ac4 ,but that the text of ,st4 ,mark vii4 #f has exercised an assimilating influence on the quotation from ,isaiah is demonstrable4 ,for there can be no doubt that ,isaiah's phrase 7retained by ,st4 ,matthew7 is ,greek3 ho laos outos1--,st4 ,mark's ,greek3 outos ho laos4 ,and yet1 when ,clemens ,romanus quotes ,isaiah1 he begins--,greek3 outos ho laos#bic2 and so twice does ,theodoret#bid4 ,the reader is now in a position to judge how much attention is due to ,dr4 ,tregelles' dictum 'that this one passage may be relied upon' in support of the peculiar views he advocates3 as well as to his confident claim that the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine ,,mss4 out of a hundred 'must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the prophet4' ,it has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in the ancient ,greek text of the prophet the 'amplification' he speaks of did not exist3 it was the abbreviated text which was found there4 ,so that the very converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place4 ,freely accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process of assimilation1 occasioned by the ,septuagintal text of ,isaiah1 we differ from him only as to the direction in which that process has manifested itself4 ,he assumes that the bulk of the ,,mss4 have been conformed to the generally received reading of ,isaiah xxix4 #ac4 ,but it has been shewn that1 on the contrary1 it is the two oldest ,,mss4 which have experienced assimilation4 ,their prototypes were depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote period4 ,to state this matter somewhat differently4--,in all the extant uncials but five1 and in almost every known cursive copy of the ,gospels1 the words ,greek3 t stomati autn1 kai are found to belong to ,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #h4 ,how is the presence of those words to be accounted for8 ,the reply is obvious3--,by the fact that they must have existed in the original autograph of the ,evangelist4 ,such however is not the reply of ,griesbach and his followers4 ,they insist that beyond all doubt those words must have been imported into the ,gospel from ,isaiah xxix4 ,but ,i have shewn that this is impossible2 because1 at the time spoken of1 the words in question had no place in the ,greek text of the prophet4 ,and this discovery exactly reverses the problem1 and brings out the directly opposite result4 ,for now we discover that we have rather to inquire how is the absence of the words in question from those few ,,mss4 out of the mass to be accounted for8 ,the two oldest ,codexes are convicted of exhibiting a text which has been corrupted by the influence of the oldest ,septuagint reading of ,isaiah xxix4 #ac4 ,i freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient ,versions1 and all the following early writers1--,ptolemaeus#bie1 ,clemens ,alexandrinus#bif1 ,origen#big1 ,didymus#bih1 ,cyril#bii1 ,chrysostom#cjj1 and possibly three others of like antiquity#cja1--should all quote ,st4 ,matthew in this place from a faulty text4 ,but this does but prove at how extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun4 ,it probably dates from the first century4 ,especially does it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when1 as here1 they are plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority4 ,this is indeed no ordinary case4 ,there are elements of distrust here1 such as are not commonly encountered4 #f4 ,what ,i have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our ,lord's ,sermon on the ,mount3 viz4 ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dd2 which in almost every ,,ms4 in existence stands as follows3 7#a7 ,greek3 agapate tous echthrous humn1 7#b7 ,greek3 eulogeite tous katarmenous humas1 7#c7 ,greek3 kals poieite tois misousin#cjb humas1 7#d7 ,greek3 kai proseuchesthe huper tn epreazontn humas1 7#e7 ,greek3 kai dikontn hymas#cjc4 ,on the other hand1 it is not to be denied that there exists an appreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the passage in a shorter form4 ,the fact that ,origen six times#cjd reads the place thus3 ,greek3 agapate tous echthrous humn1 kai proseuchesthe huper tn dikontn humas4 7which amounts to a rejection of the second1 third1 and fourth clauses27--and that he is supported therein by ,b,symbol3 ,aleph1 7besides a few cursives7 the ,curetonian1 the ,lewis1 several ,old ,latin ,,mss41 and the ,bohairic#cje1 seems to critics of a certain school a circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses4 ,they are aware that ,cyprian#cjf1 and they are welcome to the information that ,tertullian#cjg once and ,theodoret once#cjh besides ,irenaeus#cji1 ,eusebius#caj1 and ,gregory of ,nyssa#caa exhibit the place in the same way4 ,so does the author of the ,dialogus contra ,marcionitas#cab1--whom however ,i take to be ,origen4 ,griesbach1 on far slenderer evidence1 was for obelizing all the three clauses4 ,but ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 ,tischendorf and the ,revisers reject them entirely4 ,i am persuaded that they are grievously mistaken in so doing1 and that the received text represents what ,st4 ,matthew actually wrote4 ,it is the text of all the uncials but two1 of all the cursives but six or seven2 and this alone ought to be decisive4 ,but it is besides the reading of the ,peshitto1 the ,harkleian1 and the ,gothic2 as well as of three copies of the ,old ,latin4 ,let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence of ,versions and ,fathers on this subject2 remembering that the point in dispute is nothing else but the genuineness of clauses #b1 #c1 #d4 ,and here1 at starting1 we make the notable discovery that ,origen1 whose practice was relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth clauses1--himself twice#cac quotes the first clause in connexion with the fourth3 while ,theodoret1 on two occasions#cad1 connects with clause #a what he evidently means for clause #b2 and ,tertullian once if not twice connects closely clauses #a1 #b2 and once1 clauses #a1 #b1 #ecae4 ,from which it is plain that neither ,origen nor ,theodoret1 least of all ,tertullian1 can be held to disallow the clauses in question4 ,they recognize them on the contrary1 which is simply a fatal circumstance1 and effectively disposes of their supposed hostile evidence4 ,but in fact the ,western ,church yields unfaltering testimony4 ,besides the three copies of the ,old ,latin which exhibit all the five clauses1 the ,vulgate retains the first1 third1 fifth and fourth4 ,augustine#caf quotes consecutively clauses #a1 #c1 #e3 ,ambrose#cag clauses #a1 #c1 #d1 #e--a1 #d1 #e3 ,hilary#cah1 clauses #a1 #d1 #e1 and 7apparently7 #b1 #d1 #e3 ,lucifer#cai1 clauses #a1 #b1 #c 7apparently71 #e3 pseudo-,epiphanius#cbj connects clauses #a1 #c1--a1 #c1 #e3 and ,pacian#cba1 clauses #e1 #b4 ,next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the ,greek ,fathers4 ,and first we turn to ,chrysostom#cbb who 7besides quoting the fourth clause from ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel by itself five times7 quotes consecutively clauses #a1 #c--;iii4 #afg2 #a1 #d--;iv4 #fai2 #b1 #d--v4 #dcf2 #d1 #c--;ii4 #cdj1 v4 #ef1 xii4 #fed2 #d1 #e--;ii4 #beh1 iii4 #cda2 #a1 #b1 #d--;iv4 #bfg2 #a1 #c1 #d1 #e--xii4 #dbe2 thus recognizing them all4 ,gregory ,nyss4#cbc quotes connectedly clauses #c1 #d1 #e4 ,eusebius#cbd1 clauses #d1 #e--b1 #d1 #e--a1 #c1 #d1 #e4 ,the ,apostolic ,constitutions#cbe 7third century71 clauses #a1 #c1 #d1 #e 7having immediately before quoted clause #b17--;also clauses #b1 #d1 #a4 ,clemens ,alex4#cbf 7,a4,d4 #aib71 clauses #a1 #b1 #d4 ,athenagoras#cbg 7,a4,d4 #agg71 clauses #a1 #b1 #e4 ,theophilus#cbh 7,a4,d4 #afh71 clauses #a1 #d4 ,while ,justin ,m4#cbi 7,a4,d4 #adj7 having paraphrased clause #a1 connects therewith clauses #b and #d4 ,and ,polycarp#ccj 7,a4,d4 #ajh7 apparently connects clauses #d and #e4 ,didache#cca 7,a4,d4 #ajj87 quotes #b1 #d1 #e and combines #a and #c 7pp4 #e1 #f74 ,in the face of all this evidence1 no one it is presumed will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading in ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dd4 ,all must see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately after that of the ,apostles had been indeed the bald1 curt thing which the critics imagine1 viz4 ,greek3 agapate tous echthrous humn1 kai proseuchesthe huper tn dikontn humas1-- by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dd have freely mentioned 'blessing those who curse1--doing good to those who hate1--and praying for those who despitefully use4' ,since there are but two alternative readings of the passage1--one longer1 one briefer1--every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest4 ,this result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfully recommended to the notice of the learned4 ,if it be not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the ,uncials and ,cursives extant1 it is clear that there can be no ,science of ,textual ,criticism4 ,the ,law of ,evidence must be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter4 ,nothing deserving of the name of 'proof' will ever be attainable in this department of investigation4 ,but if men admit that the ordinarily received text of ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dd has been clearly established1 then let the legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally recognized4 ,the unique value of ,manuscripts in declaring the exact text of ,scripture--the conspicuous inadequacy of ,patristic evidence by themselves1--have been made apparent3 and yet it has been shewn that ,patristic quotations are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose1--which is1 to enable us to decide between conflicting readings4 ,one more indication has been obtained of the corruptness of the text which ,origen employed1-- concerning which he is so strangely communicative1--and of which ,b,symbol3 ,aleph are the chief surviving examples2 and the probability has been strengthened that when these are the sole1 or even the principal witnesses1 for any particular reading1 that reading will prove to be corrupt4 ,mill was of opinion1 7and of course his opinion finds favour with ,griesbach1 ,tischendorf1 and the rest17 that these three clauses have been imported hither from ,st4 ,luke vi4 #bg1 #bh4 ,but1 besides that this is mere unsupported conjecture1 how comes it then to pass that the order of the second and third clauses in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel is the reverse of the order in ,st4 ,luke's8 ,no4 ,i believe that there has been excision here3 for ,i hold with ,griesbach that it cannot have been the result of accident#ccb4 ,i take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the ,guardian newspaper1 who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from before ,a4,d4 #djj on page #ajc of ,the ,traditional ,text to two on our side against seven1 or rather six#ccc1 on the other4 ,let me first say that on this perilous field ,i am not surprised at being obliged to re-judge or withdraw some authorities4 ,i admit that in the middle of a long catena of passages1 ,i did not lay sufficient stress1 as ,i now find1 upon the parallel passage in ,st4 ,luke vi4 #bg1 #bh4 ,after fresh examination1 ,i withdraw entirely ,clemens ,alex41 ,paed4 i4 #h1--,philo of ,carpasus1 ,i4 #g1--;,ambrose1 ,de ,abrahamo ii4 #cj1 ,ps4 cxviii4 #ab4 #ea1 and the two referred to ,athanasius4 ,also ,i do not quote ,origen1 ,cels4 viii4 #da1--;,eusebius in ,ps4 iii41--,apost4 ,const4 vii4 #d1--;,greg4 ,nyss41 ,in ,s4 ,stephanum1 because they may be regarded as doubtful1 although for reasons which ,i proceed to give they appear to witness in favour of our contention4 ,it is necessary to add some remarks before dealing with the rest of the passages4 #a4 ,it must be borne in mind1 that this is a question both negative and positive3--negative on the side of our opponents1 with all the difficulties involved in establishing a negative conclusion as to the non-existence in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel of clauses #b1 #c1 and #e1--;and positive for us1 in the establishment of those clauses as part of the genuine text in the passage which we are considering4 ,if we can so establish the clauses1 or indeed any one of them1 the case against us fails3 but unless we can establish all1 we have not proved everything that we seek to demonstrate4 ,our first object is to make the adverse position untenable3 when we have done that1 we fortify our own4 ,therefore both the ,dean and myself have drawn attention to the fact that our authorities are summoned as witnesses to the early existence in each case of 'some of the clauses1' if they do not depose to all of them4 ,we are quite aware of the reply3 but we have with us the advantage of positive as against negative evidence4 ,this advantage especially rules in such an instance as the present1 because alien circumstances govern the quotation1 and regulate particularly the length of it4 ,such quotation is always liable to shortening1 whether by leaving out intermediate clauses1 or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the passage4 ,therefore1 actual citation of separate clauses1 being undesigned and fortuitous1 is much more valuable than omission arising from what cause soever4 #b4 ,the reviewer says that 'all four clauses are read by both texts1' i4e4 in ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,luke1 and appears to have been unaware as regards the present purpose of the existence of the fifth clause1 or half-clause1 in ,st4 ,matthew4 ,yet the words--,greek3 huper 444 tn dikontn humas are a very label1 telling incontestibly the origin of many of the quotations4 ,sentences so distinguished with ,st4 ,matthew's label cannot have come from ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel4 ,the reviewer has often gone wrong here4 ,the ,greek3 huper--instead of the ,greek3 peri after ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl,symbol3 ,xi in ,st4 ,luke--should be to our opponents a sign betraying the origin1 though when it stands by itself--as in ,eusebius1 ,in ,ps4 iii4--,i do not press the passage4 #c4 ,nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the effects of the context in shewing to which source a quotation is to be referred4 ,it is a common custom for ,fathers to quote v4 #de in ,st4 ,matthew1 which is hardly conceivable if they had ,st4 ,luke vi4 #bg1 #bh before them1 or even if they were quoting from memory4 ,other points in the context of greater or less importance are often found in the sentence or sentences preceding or following the words quoted1 and are decisive of the reference4 ,the references as corrected are given in the note#ccd4 ,it will be seen by any one who compares the verifications with the reviewer's list1 how his failure to observe the points just explained has led him astray4 ,the effect upon the list given in ,the ,traditional ,text will be that before the era of ,st4 ,chrysostom twenty-five testimonies are given in favour of the ,traditional ,text of ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dd1 and adding ,tertullian from the ,dean nine against it4 ,and the totals on page #ajb1 lines #b and #c will be #ebb and #aga respectively4 #g4 ,especially have we need to be on our guard against conniving at the ejection of short clauses consisting of from twelve to fourteen letters1--which proves to have been the exact length of a line in the earliest copies4 ,when such omissions leave the sense manifestly imperfect1 no evil consequence can result4 ,critics then either take no notice of the circumstance1 or simply remark in passing that the omission has been the result of accident4 ,in this way1 ,greek3 hoi pateres autn1 though it is omitted by ,cod4 ,b in ,st4 ,luke vi4 #bf1 is retained by all the ,editors3 and the strange reading of ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph in ,st4 ,john vi4 #ee1 omitting two lines1 was corrected on the manuscript in the seventh century1 and has met with no assent in modern times4 ,greek3 ,,gar ,greek3 ,,sarxmoual,,th,s ,greek3 ,,estibr,,siskai ,greek3 ,,toaimamoual,,th,s ,greek3 ,,estiposis ,but when1 notwithstanding the omission of two or three words1 the sense of the context remains unimpaired1--the clause being of independent signification1--then great danger arises lest an attempt should be made through the officiousness of modern ,criticism to defraud the ,church of a part of her inheritance4 ,thus ,greek3 kai hoi syn aut 7,st4 ,luke viii4 #de7 is omitted by ,westcott and ,hort1 and is placed in the margin by the ,revisers and included in brackets by ,tregelles as if the words were of doubtful authority1 solely because some scribe omitted a line and was followed by ,b1 a few cursives1 the ,sahidic1 ,curetonian1 ,lewis1 and ,jerusalem ,versions4 ,when indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly remote period2 took place1 ,i mean1 in the third1 or more likely still in the second century2 then the fate of such omitted words may be predicted with certainty4 ,their doom is sealed4 ,every copy made from that defective original of necessity reproduced the defects of its prototype3 and if 7as often happens7 some of those copies have descended to our times1 they become quoted henceforward as if they were independent witnesses#cce4 ,nor is this all4 ,let the taint have been communicated to certain copies of the ,old ,latin1 and we find ourselves confronted with formidable because very venerable foes4 ,and according to the recently approved method of editing the ,new ,testament1 the clause is allowed no quarter4 ,it is declared without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to the ,text4 ,take1 as an instance of this1 the following passage in ,st4 ,luke xii4 #ci4 ',if' 7says our ,lord7 'the master of the house had known in what hour ,greek3 ,,oklept,s ,greek3 ,,erchetai ,greek3 ,,egr,,gor ,greek3 ,,senkai ,greek3 ,,oukana ,greek3 ,,ph,,ken his house to be broken through4' ,here1 the clause within brackets1 which has fallen out for an obvious reason1 does not appear in ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,d4 ,but the omission did not begin with ,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,two copies of the ,old ,latin are also without the words ,greek3 egrgorsen kai1--which are wanting besides in ,cureton's ,syriac4 ,tischendorf accordingly omits them4 ,and yet1 who sees not that such an amount of evidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the ejection of the clause as spurious8 ,what is the ',science' worth which cannot preserve to the body a healthy limb like this8 ,the instances of omission which have now been examined at some length must by no means be regarded as the only specimens of this class of corrupt passages#ccf4 ,many more will occur to the minds of the readers of the present volume and of the earlier volume of this work4 ,in fact1 omissions are much more common than ,additions1 or ,transpositions1 or ,substitutions3 and this fact1 that omissions1 or what seem to be omissions1 are apparently so common1--to say nothing of the very strong evidence wherewith they are attested--when taken in conjunction with the natural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages1 cannot but confirm the general soundness of the position4 ,how indeed can it possibly be more true to the infirmities of copyists1 to the verdict of evidence on the several passages1 and to the origin of the ,new ,testament in the infancy of the ,church and amidst associations which were not literary1 to suppose that a terse production was first produced and afterwards was amplified in a later age with a view to 'lucidity and completeness#ccg1' rather than that words and clauses and sentences were omitted upon definitely understood principles in a small class of documents by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes8 ,the reply to this question must now be left for candid and thoughtful students to determine4 ,,footnotes3 #beh ,it will be observed that these are empirical1 not logical1 classes4 ,omissions are found in many of the rest4 #bei ,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 chapter v4 and ,appendix ,b4 #bfj ,see ,dr4 ,gwynn's remarks in ,appendix ,,vii of ,the ,traditional ,text1 pp4 #bih-cja4 #bfa ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #db-de1 #dbb-dbd3 ,traditional ,text1 p4 #aji1 where thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before #djj ,a4,d4 #bfb ,the expression of ,jerome1 that almost all the ,greek ,,mss4 omit this passage1 is only a translation of ,eusebius4 ,it cannot express his own opinion1 for he admitted the twelve verses into the ,vulgate1 and quoted parts of them twice1 i4e4 ver4 #i1 ii4 #gdd-e1 ver4 #ad1 i4 #cbg c4 #bfc ,dr4 ,dobbin has calculated #ccj omissions in ,st4 ,matthew1 #cfe in ,st4 ,mark1 #dci in ,st ,luke1 #ceg in ,st4 ,john1 #chd in the ,acts1 and #fha in the ,epistles--#c1eef in all as far as ,heb4 ix4 #ad1 where it terminates4 ,dublin ,university ,magazine1 #ahei1 p4 #fbj4 #bfd ,such as in ,cod4 ,d after ,st4 ,luke vi4 #d4 ',on the same day ,he beheld a certain man working on the sabbath1 and said unto him1 ,man1 blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest2 but if thou knowest not1 thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law' 7,scrivener's translation1 ,introduction1 p4 #h74 ,so also a longer interpolation from the ,curetonian after ,st4 ,matt4 xx4 #bh4 ,these are condemned by internal evidence as well as external4 #bfe ,greek3 kai ho pesn epi ton lithon touton synthlasthsetai2 eph' on d' an pes1 likmsei auton4 #bff iv4 #be d1 #cdc d4--,what proves these two quotations to be from ,st4 ,matt4 xxi4 #dd1 and not from ,st4 ,luke xx4 #ah1 is1 that they alike exhibit expressions which are peculiar to the earlier ,gospel4 ,the first is introduced by the formula ,greek3 oudepote anegnte 7ver4 #db3 comp4 ,orig4 ii4 #gid c71 and both exhibit the expression ,greek3 epi ton lithon touton 7ver4 #dd71 not ,greek3 ep' ekeinon ton lithon4 ,vainly is it urged on the opposite side1 that ,greek3 pas ho pesn belongs to ,st4 ,luke1--whereas ,greek3 kai ho pesn is the phrase found in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,chrysostom 7vii4 #fgb7 writes ,greek3 pas ho piptn while professing to quote from ,st4 ,matthew2 and the author of ,cureton's ,syriac1 who had this reading in his original1 does the same4 #bfg ,p4 #aic4 #bfh ,p4 #aa4 #bfi vii4 #fgb a freely quoted as ,greg4 ,naz4 in the ,catena of ,nicetas1 p4 #ffi xii4 #bg d4 #bgj ,ap4 ,mai1 ii4 #dja dis4 #bga ,ap4 ,chrys4 vi4 #aga c4 #bgb vii4 #aga d4 #bgc iii#b4 #hf1 #bde3 v4 #ejj e1 #eih d4 #bgd #fhb-c 7,massuet #bgg74 #bge iii4 #ghf4 #bgf ,theoph4 #bce-f 7 ,mai1 iv4 #abb74 #bgg ii4 #ffj a1 b1 c4 #bgh ',praeterit et ,lucifer4' #bgi ,ap4 ,galland4 vi4 #aia d4 #bhj ,ibid4 vii4 #bj c4 #bha ,ibid4 ix4 #gfh a4 #bhb ,i am unable to find any place in the ,dean's writings where he has made this explanation4 ,the following note1 however1 is appended here3-- ,with verse #dc1 the long lesson for the ,monday in ,holy-week 7ver4 #ah-dc7 comes to an end4 ,verse #dd has a number all to itself 7in other words1 is sect4 #bfe7 in the fifth of the ,syrian ,canons1--which contains whatever is found exclusively in ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,luke4 #bhc ',omnino ex ,lc4 assumpta videntur4' #bhd ,the section in ,st4 ,matthew is numbered #bfe1--;in ,st4 ,luke1 #bgd3 both being referred to ,canon ,v1 in which ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,luke are exclusively compared4 #bhe ,vol4 i4 #ac4 #bhf ,letter to ,pope ,damasus4 ,see my book on ,st4 ,mark1 p4 #bh4 #bhg ,dial4 #gh1 ad fin4 7p4 #bgb74 #bhh ,opp4 ii4 #bae a3 v4 part ii4 #aah c4 #bhi ,see ,holmes and ,parsons' ed4 of the ,,lxx1--vol4 iv4 in loc4 #bij ,opp4 pp4 #adc and #bjf4 ,p4 #egg is allusive only4 #bia ,opp4 vii4 #aeh c3 ix4 #fch b4 #bib ,opp4 ii4 #acde3 iii4 #gfc-d4 #bic xv3--on which his learned editor 7,bp4 ,jacobson7 pertinently remarks1--',hunc locum ,prophetae ,clemens exhibuisset sicut a ,christo laudatam1 ,s4 ,marc4 vii4 #f1 si pro ,greek3 apestin dedisset ,greek3 apechei4' #bid ,opp4 i4 #aejb3 iii4 #aaad4 #bie ,ap4 ,epiphanium1 ,opp4 i4 #bah d4 #bif ,opp4 p4 #dfa4 #big ,opp4 iii4 #dib 7a remarkable place73 ii4 #gbc3 iv4 #aba4 #bih ,de ,trinitate1 p4 #bdb4 #bii ,opp4 ii4 #dac b4 ,observe how this evidence leads us to ,alexandria4 #cjj ,opp4 vii4 #ebb d4 ,the other place1 ix4 #fch b1 is uncertain4 #cja ,it is uncertain whether ,eusebius and ,basil quote ,st4 ,matthew or ,isaiah3 but a contemporary of ,chrysostom certainly quotes the ,gospel1--,chrys4 ,opp4 vi4 #dbe d 7cf4 p4 #dag1 line #aj74 #cjb ,but ,eus4,es #ehi ,greek3 tous m4 #cjc ,i have numbered the clauses for convenience4--,it will perhaps facilitate the study of this place1 if 7on my own responsibility7 ,i subjoin a representation of the same words in ,latin3-- 7#a7 ,diligite inimicos vestros1 7#b7 benedicite maledicentes vos1 7#c7 benefacite odientibus vos1 7#d7 et orate pro calumniantibus vos1 7#e7 et persequentibus vos4 #cjd ,opp4 iv4 #cbd bis1 #cbi bis1 #cea4 ,gall4 xiv4 ,app4 #ajf4 #cje ',a large majority1 all but five1 omit it4 ,some add it in the margin4' ,traditional ,text1 p4 #adi4 #cjf ,opp4 p4 #gi1 cf4 #adf4 #cjg ,scap4 c4 #a4 #cjh ,opp4 iv4 #idf4 #cji ,haer4 ,,iii4 xviii4 #e4 #caj ,dem4 ,evan4 xiii4 #g4 #caa ,in ,bapt4 ,christ4 #cab ,orig4 ,opp4 i4 #hab4 #cac ,opp4 i4 #gfh3 iv4 #cec4 #cad ,opp4 i4 #hbg3 ii4 #cii4 #cae ,spect4 c4 #af3 7,anim4 c4 #ce73 ,pat4 c4 #f4 #caf ,in ,ep4 ,joh4 ,,iv4 ,tract1 ix4 #c 7#a1 #c 7ver4 #de c4772 ,in ,ps4 cxxxviii4 #cg 7#a1 #c72 ,serm4 ,,xv4 #h 7#a1 #c1 #e72 ,serm4 ,,lxii4 in loc4 7#a1 #c1 #d1 #e74 #cag ,in ,ps4 xxxviii4 #b4 #cah ,opp4 pp4 #cjc1 #big4 #cai ,pro ,s4 ,athanas4 ii4 #cbj ,ps4 cxviii4 #aj4 #af2 #i4 #i4 #cba ,ep4 ii4 #cbb ,opp4 iii4 #afg3 iv4 #fai3 v4 #dcf3--;ii4 #cdj3 v4 #ef3 xii4 #fed3--;ii4 #beh3 iii4 #da3--;iv4 #bfg3 xii4 #dbe4 #cbc ,opp4 iii4 #cgi4 #cbd ,praep4 #fed3 ,ps4 #acg1 #fii3 ,es4 #ehi4 #cbe ,pp4 #c4 #aih4 #cbf ,opp4 p4 #fje and #cjg4 #cbg ,leg4 pro ,christian4 #aa4 #cbh ,ad ,autolycum1 iii4 #ad4 #cbi ,opp4 i4 #dj4 #ccj ,ad ,philipp4 c4 #ab4 #cca #a4 #ccb ,theodoret once 7iv4 #idf7 gives the verse as ,tischendorf gives it3 but on two other occasions 7i4 #hbg3 ii4 #cii7 the same ,theodoret exhibits the second member of the sentence thus1--,greek3 eulogeite tous dikontas humas 7so pseud4-,athan4 ii4 #ie71 which shews how little stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-named place furnishes4 ,origen also 7iv4 #cbd bis1 #cbi bis1 #cea7 repeatedly gives the place as ,tischendorf gives it--but on one occasion1 which it will be observed is fatal to his evidence 7i4 #gfh71 he gives the second member thus1--iv4 #cec3 ,greek3 kai proseuchesthe huper tn epreazontn humas444 #a4 #d4 ,next observe how ,clemens ,al4 7#fje7 handles the same place3-- ,greek3 agapate tous echthrous humn1 eulogeite tous katarmenous humas1 kai proseuchesthe huper tn epreazyntn humin1 kai ta homoia444 #a1 #b1 #d4--c1 #e4 ,justin ,m4 7i4 #dj7 quoting the same place from memory 7and with exceeding licence71 yet is observed to recognize in part both the clauses which labour under suspicion344 #a1 #b1 #d4--c1 #e4 ,greek3 euchesthe huper tn echthrn humn kai agapate tous misountas humas1 which roughly represents ,greek3 kai eulogeite tous katarmenous humin kai euchesthe huper tn epreazontn humas4 ,the clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards ,greek3 tous misountas humas4 ,but the required help is supplied by ,irenaeus 7i4 #eba71 who 7loosely enough7 quotes the place thus1-- ,diligite inimicos vestros1 et orate pro eis1 qui vos oderunt4 44 #a 7made up of #c1 #d74--b1 #e4 ,and yet more by the most venerable witness of all1 ,polycarp1 who writes3--ad ,philipp4 c4 #ab3-- ,orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos444 #d1 #e4--a1 #b1 #c4 ,i have examined ,didach ,justin1 ,irenaeus1 ,eusebius1 ,hippolytus1 ,cyril ,al41 ,greg4 ,naz41 ,basil1 ,athan41 ,didymus1 ,cyril ,hier41 ,chrys41 ,greg4 ,nyss41 ,epiph41 ,theod41 ,clemens4 ,and the following are the results3-- ,didach4 ,greek3 ,eulogeite tous katarmenous humin1 kai proseuchesthe huper tn echthrn humn1 nsteuete huper tn dikontn humas 444 humeis de agapate tous misountas humas444 #b1 #c1 #d1 #e4 ,aphraates1 ,dem4 ii4 ,the ,latin ,translation runs3--,diligite inimicos vestros1 benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit1 orate pro eis qui vos vexunt et persequuntur4 ,eusebius ,prae #fed444 #b1 #d1 #e1 omitting #a1 #c4 ,eusebius ,ps #fii444 #d1 #e1 omitting #a1 #b1 #c4 ,eusebius ,es #ehi444 #a1 #c1 #d1 #e1 omitting #b4 ,clemens ,al4 #fje444 #a1 #b1 #d1 omitting #c1 #e4 ,greg4 ,nyss4 iii4 #cgi444 #c1 #d1 #e1 omitting #a1 #b4 ,vulg4 ,diligite inimicos vestros1 benefacite his qui oderunt vos1 et orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos444 #a1 #c1 #e1 #d1 omitting #b4 ,hilary1 #big4 ,benedicite qui vos persequuntur1 et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos444 #b1 #d1 #e1 omitting the first and third4 ,hilary1 #cjc4 ,diligite inimicos vestros1 et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos444 #a1 #d1 #e1 omitting the second and third4 ,cf4 #abh4 ,cyprian1 #gi 7cf4 #adf74 ,diligite inimicos vestros1 et orate pro his qui vos persequuntur444 #a1 #e1 omitting #b1 #c1 #d4 ,tertullian4 ,diligite 7enim7 inimicos vestros1 7inquit17 et orate pro maledicentibus vos--which apparently is meant for a quotation of #a1 #b4 44 #a1 #b1 omitting #c1 #d1 #e4 ,tertullian4 ,diligite 7enim7 inimicos vestros1 7inquit17 et maledicentibus benedicite1 et orate pro persecutoribus vestris--which is a quotation of #a1 #b1 #e4 44 #a1 #b1 #e1 omitting #c1 #d4 ,tertullian4 ,diligere inimicos1 et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur4 44 #a1 #e1 omitting #b1 #c1 #d4 ,tertullian4 ,inimicos diligi1 maledicentes benedici444 #a1 #b1 omitting #c1 #d1 #e4 ,ambrose4 ,diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos3 orate pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos444 #a1 #c1 #d1 #e1 omitting #b4 ,ambrose4 ,diligite inimicos vestros1 orate pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos444 #a1 #d1 #e1 omitting #b1 #c4 ,augustine4 ,diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt3 et orate pro eis qui vos persequuntur444 #a1 #c1 #e1 omitting #b1 #d4 ',benedicite qui vos persequuntur1 et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos4' ,hilary1 #big4 ,cyril ,al4 twice 7i4 #bgj3 ii4 #hjg7 quotes the place thus1-- ,greek3 eu poieite tous echthrous humn1 kai proseuchesthe huper tn epreazontn humas4 ,chrys4 7iii4 #cee7 says ,greek3 autos gar eipen1 euchesthe huper tn echthrn ,greek3 humn and repeats the quotation at iii4 #cdj and xii4 #dec4 ,so ,tertull4 7,apol4 c4 #ca71 pro inimicis deum orare1 et persecutoribus nostris bone precari444 #a1 #e4 ,if the lost ,greek of ,irenaeus 7i4 #eba7 were recovered1 we should probably find ,greek3 agapate tous echthrous humn1 kai proseuchesthe huper tn misountn humas3 and of ,polycarp 7ad ,philipp4 c4 #ab71 ,greek3 proseuchesthe huper tn dikontn kai misountn humas4 #ccc ,dialogus ,adamantii is not adducible within my limits1 because 'it is in all probability the production of a later age4' ,my number was eight4 #ccd ,observe that #e ,greek3 huper 444 tn dikontn4 ,for-- ,didache 7 #a71 #b 7#c71 #c 7#b71 #d1 #e4 ,polycarp 7xii71 #c 7#b71 #e4 ,justin ,martyr1 ,apol4 i4 #ae1 #c 7#b71 #b 7#c71 #d 7#d71 #e8 ,greek3 huper tn echthrn 7,greek3 dikontn871 but the passage more like ,st4 ,luke1 the context more like ,st4 ,matt41 ver4 #de4 ,athenagoras 7,leg4 pro ,christian4 #aa71 #a1 #b 7#c74 #e4 ver4 #de4 ,tertullian 7,de ,patient1 vi71 #a1 #b 7#c71 #e1 pt4 ver4 #de4 ,add ,apol4 c4 #ca4 #a1 #e4 ,theophilus ,ant4 7,ad ,autolycum iii4 #ad71 #a1 #d 7#d71 ,greek3 hyper and ver4 #df4 ,clemens ,alex4 7,strom1 iv4 #ad71 #a1 #b 7#c71 #d 7#d71 pt4 ver4 #de2 7,strom1 vii4 #ad71 favours ,st4 ,matt4 ,origen 7,de ,orat4 i71 #a1 #d 7#d71 ,greek3 huper and in the middle of two quotations from ,st4 ,matthew2 7,cels4 viii4 #de71 #a1 #d 7#d7 ,greek3 huper and all ver4 #de4 ,eusebius 7,praep4 ,evan4 xiii4 #g71 #b 7#c71 #d 7#d71 #e1 all ver4 #de2 7,comment1 in ,is4 #ff71 #a1 #c 7#b71 #d 7#d71 #e1 also ver4 #de2 7,in ,ps4 cviii71 #d1 #e4 ,apost4 ,const1 7i4 #b71 #a1 #c 7#b71 #d 7#d71 #e1 ,greek3 huper and ver4 #de4 ,greg4 ,naz4 7,orat4 iv4 #abd71 #b 7#c71 #d 7#d71 #e1 ,greek3 hupereuchesthai4 ,greg4 ,nyss4 7,in ,bapt4 ,christi71 #c 7#b71 #d 7#d71 #e1 ,greek3 huper1 ver4 #de4 ,lucifer 7,pro ,s4 ,athan4 ii7 omits #d 7#d71 but quotes ver4 #dd 444 end of chapter4 ,pacianus 7,epist4 ii71 #b 7#c71 #e4 ,hilary 7,tract1 in ,ps4 cxviii4 #i4 #i71 #b 7#c71 #d 7#d71 #e2 7ibid4 #aj4 #af71 #a1 #d 7#d71 #e4 7,the reviewer omits 'ac persequentibus vos' in both cases47 ,ambrose 7,in ,ps4 xxxviii4 #b71 #a1 #c1 #d1 #e2 7,in ,ps4 xxxviii4 #aj71 #a1 #d 7#d71 #e4 ,aphraates 7,dem4 ii71 #a1 #b 7#c71 #d 7#d71 #e1 ,greek3 ethnikoi4 ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,apostles 7p4 #hi71 #b 7#c71 #c 7#b71 #d 7#d71 ver4 #de4 ,number #be4 #cce ,see ,traditional ,text1 p4 #ee4 #ccf ,for one of the two most important omissions in the ,new ,testament1 viz4 the ,pericope de ,adultera1 see ,appendix ,i4 ,see also ,appendix ,,ii4 #ccg ,westcott and ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #acd4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption ,,chiefly ,,intentional4 ,v4 ,transposition1 ,,vi4 ,substitution1 and ,,vii4 ,addition4 #a4 ,one of the most prolific sources of ,corrupt ,readings1 is ,transposition1 or the arbitrary inversion of the order of the sacred words1--generally in the subordinate clauses of a sentence4 ,the extent to which this prevails in ,codexes of the type of ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,,cd passes belief4 ,it is not merely the occasional writing of ,greek3 tauta panta for ,greek3 panta tauta1--or ,greek3 ho laos outos for ,greek3 outos ho laos1 to which allusion is now made3 for if that were all1 the phenomenon would admit of loyal explanation and excuse4 ,but what ,i speak of is a systematic putting to wrong of the inspired words throughout the entire ,codex2 an operation which was evidently regarded in certain quarters as a lawful exercise of critical ingenuity1--perhaps was looked upon as an elegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style of the original without materially interfering with the sense4 ,let me before going further lay before the reader a few specimens of ,transposition4 ,take for example ,st4 ,mark i4 #e1--;,greek3 kai ebaptizonto pantes1--is unreasonably turned into ,greek3 pantes kai ebaptizonto2 whereby the meaning of the ,evangelical record becomes changed1 for ,greek3 pantes is now made to agree with ,greek3 ,hierosolumitai1 and the ,evangelist is represented as making the very strong assertion that all the people of ,jerusalem came to ,st4 ,john and were baptized4 ,this is the private property of ,,bdl,symbol3 ,delta4 ,and sometimes ,i find short clauses added which ,i prefer to ascribe to the misplaced critical assiduity of ancient ,critics4 ,confessedly spurious1 these accretions to the genuine text often bear traces of pious intelligence1 and occasionally of considerable ability4 ,i do not suppose that they 'crept in' from the margin3 but that they were inserted by men who entirely failed to realize the wrongness of what they did1--the mischievous consequences which might possibly ensue from their well-meant endeavours to improve the work of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,take again ,st4 ,mark ii4 #c1 in which the order in ,greek3 pros auton paralytikon pherontes1--is changed by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl into ,greek3 pherontes pros auton paralytikon4 ,a few words are needed to explain to those who have not carefully examined the passage the effect of this apparently slight alteration4 ,our ,lord was in a house at ,capernaum with a thick crowd of people around ,him3 there was no room even at the door4 ,whilst ,he was there teaching1 a company of people come to ,him 7,greek3 erchontai pros auton71 four of the party carrying a paralytic on a bed4 ,when they arrive at the house1 a few of the company1 enough to represent the whole1 force their way in and reach ,him3 but on looking back they see that the rest are unable to bring the paralytic near to ,him 7,greek3 prosengisai aut#cch74 ,upon which they all go out and uncover the roof1 take up the sick man on his bed1 and the rest of the familiar story unfolds itself4 ,some officious scribe wished to remove all antiquity arising from the separation of ,greek3 paralytikon from ,greek3 airomenon which agrees with it1 and transposed ,greek3 pherontes to the verb it is attached to1 thus clumsily excluding the exquisite hint1 clear enough to those who can read between the lines1 that in the ineffectual attempt to bring in the paralytic only some of the company reached our ,lord's ,presence4 ,of course the scribe in question found followers in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl4 ,it will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition are of a kind which is without excuse and inadmissible4 ,such transposition consists in drawing back a word which occurs further on1 but is thus introduced into a new context1 and gives a new sense4 ,it seems to be assumed that since the words are all there1 so long as they be preserved1 their exact collocation is of no moment4 ,transpositions of that kind1 to speak plainly1 are important only as affording conclusive proof that such copies as ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,d preserve a text which has undergone a sort of critical treatment which is so obviously indefensible that the ,codexes themselves1 however interesting as monuments of a primitive age1--however valuable commercially and to be prized by learned and unlearned alike for their unique importance1--are yet to be prized chiefly as beacon-lights preserved by a watchful ,providence to warn every voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore already strewn with wrecks#cci4 ,transposition may sometimes be as conveniently illustrated in ,english as in ,greek4 ,st4 ,luke relates 7,acts ii4 #de1 #df7 that the first believers sold their goods 'and parted them to all men1 as every man had need4 ,and they1 continuing daily1' c4 ,for this1 ,cod4 ,d reads1 'and parted them daily to all men as every man had need4 ,and they continued in the temple4' #b4 ,it is difficult to divine for what possible reason most of these transpositions were made4 ,on countless occasions they do not in the least affect the sense4 ,often1 they are incapable of being idiomatically represented1 in ,english4 ,generally speaking1 they are of no manner of importance1 except as tokens of the licence which was claimed by disciples1 as ,i suspect1 of the ,alexandrian school or exercised unintentionally by careless or ignorant ,western copyists4 ,but there arise occasions when we cannot afford to be so trifled with4 ,an important change in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected by transposing its clauses2 and on one occasion1 as ,i venture to think1 the prophetic intention of the ,speaker is obscured in consequence4 ,i allude to ,st4 ,luke xiii4 #i1 where under the figure of a barren fig-tree1 our ,lord hints at what is to befall the ,jewish people1 because in the fourth year of ,his ,ministry it remained unfruitful4 ',lo1 these three years1' 7saith ,he to the dresser of ,his ,vineyard71 'come ,i seeking fruit on this fig-tree1 and find none2 cut it down2 why cumbereth it the ground8' ',spare it for this year also' 7is the rejoinder71 'and if it bear fruit1--well3 but if not1 next year thou shalt cut it down4' ,but on the strength of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bltw1 some recent ,critics would have us read1--',and if it bear fruit next year1--well3 but if not1 thou shalt cut it down'3--which clearly would add a year to the season of the probation of the ,jewish race4 ,the limit assigned in the genuine text is the fourth year3 in the corrupt text of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bltw1 two bad ,cursives1 and the two chief ,egyptian versions1 this period becomes extended to the fifth4 ,to reason about such transpositions of words1 a wearisome proceeding at best1 soon degenerates into the veriest trifling4 ,sometimes1 the order of the words is really immaterial to the sense4 ,even when a different shade of meaning is the result of a different collocation1 that will seem the better order to one man which seems not to be so to another4 ,the best order of course is that which most accurately exhibits the ,author's precise shade of meaning3 but of this the ,author is probably the only competent judge4 ,on our side1 an appeal to actual evidence is obviously the only resource3 since in no other way can we reasonably expect to ascertain what was the order of the words in the original document4 ,and surely such an appeal can be attended with only one result3 viz4 the unconditional rejection of the peculiar and often varying order advocated by the very few ,codexes1--a cordial acceptance of the order exhibited by every document in the world besides4 ,i will content myself with inviting attention to one or two samples of my meaning4 ,it has been made a question whether ,st4 ,luke 7xxiv4 #g7 wrote1--,greek3 legn1 ,hoti dei ton huion tou anthrpou paradothnai1 as all the ,,mss4 in the world but four1 all the ,versions1 and all the available ,fathers'#cdj evidence from ,a4,d4 #aej downwards attest3 or whether he wrote1--,greek3 legn ton huion tou anthrpou hoti dei paradothnai1 as ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcl1--and those four documents only--would have us believe8 ,the point which first strikes a scholar is that there is in this reading a familiar classicism which is alien to the style of the ,gospels1 and which may be a symptom of an attempt on the part of some early critic who was seeking to bring them into agreement with ancient ,greek models4 ,but surely also it is even obvious that the correspondence of those four ,codexes in such a particular as this must needs be the result of their having derived the reading from one and the same original4 ,on the contrary1 the agreement of all the rest in a trifling matter of detail like the present can be accounted for in only one way1 viz41 by presuming that they also have all been derived through various lines of descent from a single document3 but that document the autograph of the ,evangelist4 ,for the great number and variety of them necessitates their having been derived through various lines of descent4 ,indeed1 they must have the notes of number1 variety1 as well as continuity1 and weight also4 #c4 ,on countless occasions doubtless1 it is very difficult--perhaps impossible--to determine1 apart from external evidence1 which collocation of two or more words is the true one1 whether e4g4 ,greek3 echei zn for instance or ,greek3 zn echei#cda1--;,greek3 gerth euthes or ,greek3 euthes gerth#cdb1--;,greek3 chlous1 typhlous--or ,greek3 typhlous1 chlous#cdc1--shall be preferred4 ,the burden of proof rests evidently with innovators on ,traditional use4 ,obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man sits down before the ,gospel with the deliberate intention of improving the style of the ,evangelists by transposing their words on an average of seven 7,b71 eight 7,symbol3 ,aleph71 or twelve 7,d7 times in every page1 he is safe to convict himself of folly in repeated instances1 long before he has reached the end of his task4 ,thus1 when the scribe of ,symbol3 ,aleph1 in place of ,greek3 exousian edken aut kai krisin poiein#cdd1 presents us with ,greek3 kai krisin edken aut exousian poiein1 we hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense#cde4 ,and when ,,bd instead of ,greek3 eisi tines tn de hestkotn exhibit ,greek3 eise tn de tn hestkotn1 we cannot but conclude that the credit of those two ,,mss4 must be so far lowered in the eyes of every one who with true appreciation of the niceties of ,greek scholarship observes what has been done4 ,this characteristic of the old uncials is now commended to the attention of students1 who will find in the folios of those documents plenty of instances for examination4 ,most of the cases of ,transposition are petty enough1 whilst some1 as the specimens already presented to the reader indicate1 constitute blots not favourable to the general reputation of the copies on which they are found4 ,indeed1 they are so frequent that they have grown to be a very habit1 and must have propagated themselves4 ,for it is in this secondary character rather than in any first intention1 so to speak1 that ,transpositions1 together with ,omissions and ,substitutions and ,additions1 have become to some extent independent causes of corruption4 ,originally produced by other forces1 they have acquired a power of extension in themselves4 ,it is hoped that the passages already quoted may be found sufficient to exhibit the character of the large class of instances in which the pure ,text of the original ,autographs has been corrupted by ,transposition4 ,that it has been so corrupted1 is proved by the evidence which is generally overpowering in each case4 ,there has clearly been much intentional perversion3 carelessness also and ignorance of ,greek combined with inveterate inaccuracy1 characteristics especially of ,western corruption as may be seen in ,codex ,d and the ,old ,latin versions1 must have had their due share in the evil work4 ,the result has been found in constant slurs upon the sacred pages1 lessening the beauty and often perverting the sense1--a source of sorrow to the keen scholar and reverent ,christian1 and reiterated indignity done in wantonness or heedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the ,holy ,books4 #d4 ,all the ,corruption in the ,sacred ,text may be classed under four heads1 viz4 ,omission1 ,transposition1 ,substitution1 and ,addition4 ,we are entirely aware that1 in the arrangement adopted in this ,volume for purposes of convenience1 ,scientific ,method has been neglected4 ,the inevitable result must be that passages are capable of being classed under more heads than one4 ,but ,logical exactness is of less practical value than a complete and suitable treatment of the corrupted passages that actually occur in the four ,gospels4 ,it seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulousness that might bore our readers a disquisition upon ,substitution which has not forced itself into a place amongst ,dean ,burgon's papers1 although it is found in a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise4 ,substituted forms or words or phrases1 such as ,greek3 ,,os 7,greek3 hos7 for ,greek3 ,,ths 7,greek3 ,theos7#cdf ,greek3 porei for ,greek3 epoiei 7,st4 ,mark vi4 #bj71 or ,greek3 ouk oidate dokimazein for ,greek3 dokimazete 7,st4 ,luke xii4 #ef71 have their own special causes of substitution1 and are naturally and best considered under the cause which in each case gave them birth4 ,yet the class of ,substitutions is a large one1 if ,modifications1 as they well may be1 are added to it#cdg4 ,it will be readily concluded that some substitutions are serious1 some of less importance1 and many trivial4 ,of the more important class1 the reading of ,greek3 hamartmatos for ,greek3 krises 7,st4 ,mark iii4 #bi7 which the ,revisers have adopted in compliance with ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl,symbol3 ,delta and three ,cursives1 is a specimen4 ,it is true that ,d reads ,greek3 hamartias supported by the first corrector of ,c1 and three of the ,ferrar group 7#ac1 #fi1 #cdf73 and that the change adopted is supported by the ,old ,latin versions except f1 the ,vulgate1 ,bohairic1 ,armenian1 ,gothic1 ,lewis1 and ,saxon4 ,but the opposition which favours ,greek3 krises is made up of ,a1 ,c under the first reading and the second correction1 ,symbol3 ,phi,symbol3 ,sigma and eleven other ,uncials1 the great bulk of the ,cursives1 f1 ,peshitto1 and ,harkleian1 and is superior in strength4 ,the internal evidence is also in favour of the ,traditional reading1 both as regards the usage of ,greek3 enochos1 and the natural meaning given by ,greek3 krises4 ,greek3 ,hamartmatos has clearly crept in from ver4 #bh4 ,other instances of ,substitution may be found in the well-known ,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #de 7,greek3 tou hliou eklipontos71 ,st4 ,matt4 xi4 #bg 7,greek3 boultai apokalypsai71 ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd 7,greek3 oinon for ,greek3 oxos71 ,st4 ,mark i4 #b 7,greek3 ,hsaia for ,greek3 tois prophtais71 ,st4 ,john i4 #ah 7,greek3 ho ,monogens ,theos being a substitution made by heretics for ,greek3 ho ,monogens ,huios71 ,st4 ,mark vii4 #ca 7,greek3 dia ,sidnos for ,greek3 kai ,sidnos74 ,these instances may perhaps suffice3 many more may suggest themselves to intelligent readers4 ,though most are trivial1 their cumulative force is extremely formidable4 ,many of these changes arose from various causes which are described in many other places in this book4 #e4 ,the smallest of the four ,classes1 which upon a pure survey of the outward form divide among themselves the surface of the entire field of ,corruption1 is that of ,additions#cdh4 ,and the reason of their smallness of number is discoverable at once4 ,whilst it is but too easy for scribes or those who have a love of criticism to omit words and passages under all circumstances1 or even to vary the order1 or to use another word or form instead of the right one1 to insert anything into the sacred ,text which does not proclaim too glaringly its own unfitness--in a word1 to invent happily--is plainly a matter of much greater difficulty4 ,therefore to increase the ,class of ,insertions or ,additions or ,interpolations1 so that it should exceed the ,class of ,omissions1 is to go counter to the natural action of human forces4 ,there is no difficulty in leaving out large numbers of the ,sacred ,words3 but there is much difficulty in placing in the midst of them human words1 possessed of such a character and clothed in such an uniform1 as not to betray to keen observation their earthly origin4 ,a few examples will set this truth in clearer light4 ,it is remarkable that efforts at interpolation occur most copiously amongst the books of those who are least fitted to make them4 ,we naturally look amongst the representatives of the ,western school where ,greek was less understood than in the ,east where ,greek acumen was imperfectly represented by ,latin activity1 and where translation into ,latin and retranslation into ,greek was a prolific cause of corruption4 ,take then the following passage from the ,codex ,d 7,st4 ,luke vi4 #d73-- ',on the same day ,he beheld a certain man working on the sabbath1 and said to him1 ,man1 blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest2 but if thou knowest not1 thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law4' ,and another from the ,curetonian ,syriac 7,st4 ,matt4 xx4 #bh71 which occurs under a worse form in ,d4 ',but seek ye from little to become greater1 and not from greater to become less4 ,when ye are invited to supper in a house1 sit not down in the best place1 lest some one come who is more honourable than thou1 and the lord of the supper say to thee1 ,go down below1 and thou be ashamed in the presence of them that have sat down4 ,but if thou sit down in the lower place1 and one who is inferior to thee come in1 the lord also of the supper will say to thee1 ,come near1 and come up1 and sit down1 and thou shalt have greater honour in the presence of them that have sat down4' ,who does not see that there is in these two passages no real 'ring of genuineness'8 ,take next some instances of lesser insertions4 #f4 ,conspicuous beyond all things in the ,centurion of ,capernaum 7,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #ac7 was his faith4 ,it occasioned wonder even in the ,son of ,man4 ,do we not1 in the significant statement1 that when they who had been sent returned to the house1 'they found the servant whole that had been sick#cdi1' recognize by implication the assurance that the ,centurion1 because he needed no such confirmation of his belief1 went not with them2 but enjoyed the twofold blessedness of remaining with ,christ1 and of believing without seeing8 ,i think so4 ,be this however as it may1 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,cemux besides about fifty cursives1 append to ,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #ac the clearly apocryphal statement1 ',and the ,centurion returning to his house in that same hour found the servant whole4' ,it does not improve the matter to find that ,eusebius#cej1 besides the ,harkleian and the ,ethiopic versions1 recognize the same appendix4 ,we are thankful1 that no one yet has been found to advocate the adoption of this patent accretion to the inspired text4 ,its origin is not far to seek4 ,i presume it was inserted in order to give a kind of finish to the story#cea4 ,another and that a most remarkable ,addition may be found in ,st4 ,matt4 xxiv4 #cf1 into which the words ,greek3 oude ho ,huios1 'neither the ,son' have been transferred from ,st4 ,mark xiii4 #cb in compliance with a wholly insufficient body of authorities4 ,lachmann was the leader in this proceeding1 and he has been followed by ,tischendorf1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers4 ,the latter body add in their margin1 ',many authorities1 some ancient1 omit neither the ,son4' ,how inadequate to the facts of the case this description is1 will be seen when the authorities are enumerated4 ,but first of those who have been regarded by the majority of the ,revisers as the disposers of their decision1 according to the information supplied by ,tischendorf4 ,they are 7a7 of ,uncials ,symbol3 ,aleph 7in the first reading and as re-corrected in the seventh century7 ,,bd2 7b7 five ,cursives 7for a present of #cdf may be freely made to ,tischendorf72 7c7 ten ,old ,latin copies also the ,aureus 7,words471 some of the ,vulgate 7four according to ,wordsworth71 the ,palestinian1 ,ethiopic1 ,armenian2 7d7 ,origen 7,lat4 iii4 #hgd71 ,hilary 7#gcc;a71 ,cyril ,alex4 7,mai ,nova ,pp4 ,bibliotheca1 #dha71 ,ambrose 7i4 #adgh;f74 ,but ,irenaeus 7,lat4 i4 #chf71 ,cyril 7,zach4 #hjj71 ,chrysostom 7ad locum7 seem to quote from ,st4 ,mark4 ,so too1 as ,tischendorf admits1 ,amphilochius4 ,on the other hand we have1 7a7 the chief corrector of ,symbol3 ,aleph7ca7,symbol3 ,phi,symbol3 ,sigma with thirteen other ,uncials and the ,greek ,,mss4 of ,adamantius and ,pierius mentioned by ,jerome#ceb2 7b7 all the ,cursives1 as far as is known 7except the aforenamed72 7c7 the ,vulgate1 with the ,peshitto1 ,harkletan1 ,lewis1 ,bohairic1 and the ,sahidic2 7d7 ,jerome 7in the place just now quoted71 ,st4 ,basil who contrasts the text of ,st4 ,matthew with that of ,st4 ,mark1 ,didymus1 who is also express in declaring that the three words in dispute are not found in ,st4 ,matthew 7,trin4 #aie71 ,st4 ,john ,damascene 7ii4 #cdf71 ,apollonius ,philosophus 7,galland4 ix4 #bdg71 ,euthymius ,zigabenus 7in loc71 ,paulinus 7iii4 #ab71 ,st4 ,ambrose 7ii4 #fef;a71 and ,anastasius ,sinaita 7,migne1 lxxxix4 #ida74 ,theophylact 7i4 #acc71 ,hesychius ,presb4 7,migne1 lxiii4 #adb7 ,eusebius 7,galland4 ix4 #ehj71 ,facundus ,herm4 7,galland4 xi4 #ghb71 ,athanasius 7ii4 #ffj71 quote the words as from the ,gospel without reference1 and may therefore refer to ,st4 ,mark4 ,phoebadius 7,galland4 v4 #bea71 though quoted against the ,addition by ,tischendorf1 is doubtful4 ,on which side the balance of evidence inclines1 our readers will judge4 ,but at least they cannot surely justify the assertion made by the majority of the ,revisers1 that the ,addition is opposed only by 'many authorities1 some ancient1' or at any rate that this is a fair and adequate description of the evidence opposed to their decision4 ,an instance occurs in ,st4 ,mark iii4 #af which illustrates the carelessness and tastelessness of the handful of authorities to which it pleases many critics to attribute ruling authority4 ,in the fourteenth verse1 it had been already stated that our ,lord 'ordained twelve1' ,greek3 kai epoise ddeka2 but because ,symbol3 ,aleph,b,symbol3 ,delta and ,c 7which was corrected in the ninth century with a ,,ms4 of the ,ethiopic7 reiterate these words two verses further on1 ,tischendorf with ,westcott and ,hort assume that it is necessary to repeat what has been so recently told4 ,meanwhile eighteen other uncials 7including ,a,symbol3 ,phi,symbol3 ,sigma and the third hand of ,c72 nearly all the ,cursives2 the ,old ,latin1 ,vulgate1 ,peshitto1 ,lewis1 ,harkleian1 ,gothic1 ,armenian1 and the other ,,mss4 of the ,ethiopic omit them4 ,it is plainly unnecessary to strengthen such an opposition by researches in the pages of the ,fathers4 ,explanation has been already given1 how the introductions to ,lections1 and other ,liturgical formulae1 have been added by insertion to the ,text in various places4 ,thus ,greek3 ho ,isous has often been inserted1 and in some places remains wrongly 7in the opinion of ,dean ,burgon7 in the pages of the ,received ,text4 ,the three most important additions to the ,received ,text occur1 as ,dean ,burgon thought1 in ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #ah1 where ,greek3 en t phaner has crept in from v4 #f against the testimony of a large majority both of ,uncial and of ,cursive ,,mss43 in ,st4 ,matt4 xxv4 #ac1 where the clause ,greek3 en h ho huios tou anthrpou erchetai seemed to him to be condemned by a superior weight of authority3 and in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ce1 where the quotation 7,greek3 hina plrth 444 ebalon klron7 must be taken for similar reasons to have been originally a gloss4 ,,footnotes3 #cch ,greek3 prosengisai is transitive here1 like ,greek3 engiz in ,gen4 xlviii4 #aj1 #ac3 #b ,kings iv4 #f3 ,isaiah xlvi4 #ac4 #cci ,the following are the numbers of ,transpositions supplied by ,b1 ,symbol3 ,aleph1 and ,d in the ,gospels3--,b1 #b1jih3 ,symbol3 ,aleph1 #b1bii3 ,d1 #c1dga4 ,see ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #ab1 #ac4 #cdj ,marcion 7,epiph4 i4 #cag73 ,eusebius 7,mai1 iv4 #bff73 ,epiphanius 7i4 #cdh73 ,cyril 7,mai1 ii4 #dch73 ,john ,thess4 7,gall4 xiii4 #ahh74 #cda ,st4 ,john v4 #bf1 in ,symbol3 ,aleph #cdb ,st4 ,mark ii4 #ab1 in ,d4 #cdc ,st4 ,luke xiv4 #ac1 in ,symbol3 ,aleph,b4 #cdd ,st4 ,john v4 #bg4 #cde ',nec aliter' 7says ,tischendorf7 ',tertull4' 7,prax4 #ba71--';et judicium dedit illi facere in potestate4' ,but this 7begging the learned critic's pardon7 is quite a different thing4 #cdf ,see the very learned1 ingenious1 and satisfactory disquisition in ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #dbd-eja4 #cdg ,the numbers are3-- ,b1 substitutions1 #ice2 modifications1 #a1acb2 total1 #b1jfg4 ,symbol3 ,aleph1 #a1aad2 #a1bfe2 #b1cgi4 ,d1 #b1aba2 #a1ggb2 #c1hic4 ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #ab1 #ac4 #cdh ,b has #ecf words added in the ,gospels3 ,symbol3 ,aleph1 #hci3 ,d1 #b1bac4 ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #ab1 #ac4 ,the interpolations of ,d are notorious4 #cdi ,st4 ,luke vii4 #aj4 #cej ,theoph4 p4 #bab4 #cea ,an opposite fate1 strange to say1 has attended a short clause in the same narrative1 which however is even worse authenticated4 ,instead of ,greek3 oude en t ,isral tosautn pistin euron 7,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #aj71 we are invited henceforth to read ,greek3 par' oudeni tosautn pistin en t ,isral euron2--a tame and tasteless gloss1 witnessed to by only ,b1 and five cursives1--but having no other effect1 if it should chance to be inserted1 than to mar and obscure the ,divine utterance4 ,for when our ,saviour declares ',not even in ,israel have ,i found so great faith1' ,he is clearly contrasting this proficiency of an earnest ,gentile against whatever of a like nature ,he had experienced in ,his dealing with the ,jewish people2 and declaring the result4 ,he is contrasting ,jacob's descendants1 the heirs of so many lofty privileges1 with this ,gentile soldier3 their spiritual attainments with his2 and assigning the palm to him4 ,substitute ',with no one in ,israel have ,i found so great faith1' and the contrast disappears4 ,nothing else is predicated but a greater measure of faith in one man than in any other4 ,the author of this feeble attempt to improve upon ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel is found to have also tried his hand on the parallel place in ,st4 ,luke1 but with even inferior success3 for there his misdirected efforts survive only in certain copies of the ,old ,latin4 ,ambrose notices his officiousness1 remarking that it yields an intelligible sense2 but that1 'juxta ,graecos1' the place is to be read differently 7i4 #acgf47 ,it is notorious that a few copies of the ,old ,latin 7,augustine once 7iv4 #cbb71 though he quotes the place nearly twenty times in the usual way7 and the ,egyptian versions exhibit the same depravation4 ,cyril habitually employed an ,evangelium which was disfigured in the same way 7iii4 #hcc1 also ,opp4 v4 #edd1 ed4 ,pusey474 ,but are we out of such materials as these to set about reconstructing the text of ,scripture8 #ceb ',in quibusdam ,latinis codicibus additum est1 neque ,filius3 quum in ,graecis1 et maxime ,adamantii et ,pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum4 ,sed quia in nonnullis legitur1 disserendum videtur4' ,hier4 vii4 #aii a4 ',gaudet ,arius et ,eunomius1 quasi ignorantia magistri gloria discipulorum sit1 et dicunt3--,non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui ignorat4' ,ibid4 #f4 ,in vi4 #iai1 we may quote from ,st4 ,mark4 ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption ,,chiefly ,,intentional4 ,,viii4 ,glosses4 #a4 ',glosses1' properly so called1 though they enjoy a conspicuous place in every enumeration like the present1 are probably by no means so numerous as is commonly supposed4 ,for certainly every unauthorized accretion to the text of ,scripture is not a 'gloss'3 but only those explanatory words or clauses which have surreptitiously insinuated themselves into the text1 and of which no more reasonable account can be rendered than that they were probably in the first instance proposed by some ancient ,critic in the way of useful comment1 or necessary explanation1 or lawful expansion1 or reasonable limitation of the actual utterance of the ,spirit4 ,thus ,i do not call the clause ,greek3 nekrous egeirete in ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #h 'a gloss4' ,it is a gratuitous and unwarrantable interpolation1--nothing else but a clumsy encumbrance of the text#cec4 ,glosses1 or scholia1 or comments1 or interpretations1 are of various kinds1 but are generally confined to ,additions or ,substitutions1 since of course we do not omit in order to explain1 and transposition of words already placed in lucid order1 such as the sacred ,text may be reasonably supposed to have observed1 would confuse rather than illustrate the meaning4 ,a clause1 added in ,hebrew fashion#ced1 which may perhaps appear to modern taste to be hardly wanted1 must not therefore be taken to be a gloss4 ,sometimes a 'various reading' is nothing else but a gratuitous gloss2--the unauthorized substitution of a common for an uncommon word4 ,this phenomenon is of frequent occurrence1 but only in ,codexes of a remarkable type like ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,,cd4 ,a few instances follow3-- #a4 ,the disciples on a certain occasion 7,st4 ,matt4 xiii4 #cf71 requested our ,lord to 'explain' to them 7,greek3 ,,phrason hmin1 'they said'7 the parable of the tares4 ,so every known copy1 except two3 so1 all the ,fathers who quote the place1--viz4 ,origen1 five times#cee1-- ,basil#cef1--;,j4 ,damascene#ceg4 ,and so all the ,versions#ceh4 ,but because ,b-,symbol3 ,aleph1 instead of ,greek3 phrason1 exhibit ,greek3 ,,diasaph,,son 7'make clear to us'71--which is also once the reading of ,origen#cei1 who was but too well acquainted with ,codexes of the same depraved character as the archetype of ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph1--,lachmann1 ,tregelles 7not ,tischendorf71 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers of #ahha1 assume that ,greek3 diasaphson 7a palpable gloss7 stood in the inspired autograph of the ,evangelist4 ,they therefore thrust out ,greek3 phrason and thrust in ,greek3 diasaphson4 ,i am wholly unable to discern any connexion between the premisses of these critics and their conclusions#cfj4 #b4 ,take another instance4 ,greek3 ,pygm1--the obscure expression 7,symbol3 ,delta leaves it out7 which ,st4 ,mark employs in vii4 #c to denote the strenuous frequency of the ,pharisees' ceremonial washings1--is exchanged by ,cod4 ,symbol3 ,aleph1 but by no other known copy of the ,gospels1 for ,greek3 pykna1 which last word is of course nothing else but a sorry gloss4 ,yet ,tischendorf degrades ,greek3 pygm and promotes ,greek3 pykna to honour1--happily standing alone in his infatuation4 ,strange1 that the most industrious of modern accumulators of evidence should not have been aware that by such extravagances he marred his pretension to critical discernment6 ,origen and ,epiphanius--the only ,fathers who quote the place--both read ,greek3 pygm4 ,it ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere waste of time that we should argue out a point like this#cfa4 #b4 ,a gloss little suspected1 which--not without a pang of regret--,i proceed to submit to hostile scrutiny1 is the expression 'daily' 7,greek3 kath' hmeran7 in ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bc4 ,found in the ,peshitto and in ,cureton's ,syriac1--but only in some ,copies of the ,harkleian version#cfb3 found in most ,copies of the ,vulgate1--but largely disallowed by copies of the ,old ,latin#cfc3 found also in ,ephraem ,syrus#cfd1--;but clearly not recognized by ,origen#cfe3 found again in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ab and six other uncials1--but not found in ,,cde and ten others3 the expression referred to cannot1 at all events1 plead for its own retention in the text higher antiquity than can be pleaded for its exclusion4 ,cyril1 7if in such a matter the ,syriac translation of his ,commentary on ,st4 ,luke may be trusted17 is clearly an authority for reading ,greek3 kath' hmeran in ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bccff2 but then he elsewhere twice quotes ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bc in ,greek without it#cfg4 ,timotheus of ,antioch1 of the fifth century1 omits the phrase#cfh4 ,jerome again1 although he suffered 'quotidie' to stand in the ,vulgate1 yet1 when for his own purposes he quotes the place in ,st4 ,luke#cfi1--;ignores the word4 ,all this is calculated to inspire grave distrust4 ,on the other hand1 ,greek3 kath' hmeran enjoys the support of the two ,egyptian ,versions1--of the ,gothic1--of the ,armenian1--of the ,ethiopic4 ,and this1 in the present state of our knowledge1 must be allowed to be a weighty piece of evidence in its favour4 ,but the case assumes an entirely different aspect the instant it is discovered that out of the cursive copies only eight are found to contain ,greek3 kath hmeran in ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bccgj4 ,how is it to be explained that nine manuscripts out of every ten in existence should have forgotten how to transmit such a remarkable message1 had it ever been really so committed to writing by the ,evangelist8 ,the omission 7says ,tischendorf7 is explained by the parallel places#cga4 ,utterly incredible1 ,i reply2 as no one ought to have known better than ,tischendorf himself4 ,we now scrutinize the problem more closely2 and discover that the very locus of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty4 ,cyril once makes it part of ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #chcgb4 ,chrysostom twice connects it with ,st4 ,matt4 xvi4 #bdcgc4 ,jerome1 evidently regarding the phrase as a curiosity1 informs us that 'juxta antiqua exemplaria' it was met with in ,st4 ,luke xiv4 #bgcgd4 ,all this is in a high degree unsatisfactory4 ,we suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slight familiarity with the 'antiqua exemplaria' referred to by the ,critic2 and we freely avow that we have learned to reckon them among the least reputable of our acquaintance4 ,are they not represented by those ,evangelia1 of which several copies are extant1 that profess to have been 'transcribed from1 and collated with1 ancient copies at ,jerusalem'8 ,these uniformly exhibit ,greek3 kath hmeran in ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bccge4 ,but then1 if the phrase be a gloss1--it is obvious to inquire1--how is its existence in so many quarters to be accounted for8 ,its origin is not far to seek4 ,chrysostom1 in a certain place1 after quoting our ,lord's saying about taking up the cross and following ,him1 remarks that the words 'do not mean that we are actually to bear the wood upon our shoulders1 but to keep the prospect of death steadily before us1 and like ,st4 ,paul to die daily#cgf4' ,the same ,father1 in the two other places already quoted from his writings1 is observed similarly to connect the ,saviour's mention of 'bearing the ,cross' with the ,apostle's announcement--',i die daily4' ,add1 that ,ephraem ,syrus#cgg1 and ,jerome quoted already1--persistently connect the same two places together2 the last named ,father even citing them in immediate succession2--and the inference is unavoidable4 ,the phrase in ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bc must needs be a very ancient as well as very interesting expository gloss1 imported into the ,gospel from #a ,cor4 xv4 #ca1--;as ,mill#cgh and ,matthaei#cgi long since suggested4 ,sincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an expression with which one has been so long familiar1 we cannot suffer the sentimental plea to weigh with us when the ,truth of the ,gospel is at stake4 ,certain it is that but for ,erasmus1 we should never have known the regret3 for it was he that introduced ,greek3 kath hmeran into the ,received ,text4 ,the ,,ms4 from which he printed is without the expression3 which is also not found in the ,complutensian4 ,it is certainly a spurious accretion to the inspired ,text4 ,the attention of the reader is particularly invited to this last paragraph4 ,the learned ,dean has been sneered at for a supposed sentimental and effeminate attachment to the ,textus ,receptus4 ,he was always ready to reject words and phrases1 which have not adequate support2 but he denied the validity of the evidence brought against many texts by the school of ,westcott and ,hort1 and therefore he refused to follow them in their surrender of the passages4 #c4 ,indeed1 a great many 'various readings1' so called1 are nothing else but very ancient interpretations1--fabricated readings therefore1--of which the value may be estimated by the fact that almost every trace of them has long since disappeared4 ,such is the substitution of ,greek3 pheugei for ,greek3 anechrsen in ,st4 ,john vi4 #ae2--which1 by the way1 ,tischendorf thrusts into his text on the sole authority of ,symbol3 ,aleph1 some ,latin copies including the ,vulgate1 and ,cureton's ,syriac#chj3 though ,tregelles ignores its very existence4 ,that our ,lord's 'withdrawal' to the mountain on that occasion was of the nature of 'flight1' or 'retreat' is obvious4 ,hence ,chrysostom and ,cyril remark that ,he 'fled to the mountain4' ,and yet both ,fathers 7like ,origen and ,epiphanius before them7 are found to have read ,greek3 anechrsen4 ,almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse might ,tischendorf 7with ,symbol3 ,aleph7 have substituted ,greek3 anadeiknynai for ,greek3 hina poissin auton1 on the plea that ,cyril#cha says1 ,greek3 ztein auton anadeixai kai basilea4 ,we may on no account suffer ourselves to be imposed upon by such shallow pretences for tampering with the text of ,scripture3 or the deposit will never be safe4 ,a patent gloss1--rather an interpretation1--acquires no claim to be regarded as the genuine utterance of the ,holy ,spirit by being merely found in two or three ancient documents4 ,it is the little handful of documents which loses in reputation1--not the reading which gains in authority on such occasions4 ,in this way we are sometimes presented with what in effect are new incidents4 ,these are not unfrequently discovered to be introduced in defiance of the reason of the case2 as where 7,st4 ,john xiii4 #cd7 ,simon ,peter is represented 7in the ,vulgate7 as actually saying to ,st4 ,john1 ',who is it concerning whom ,he speaks8' ,other copies of the ,latin exhibit1 ',ask ,him who it is1' c43 while ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc 7for on such occasions we are treated to any amount of apocryphal matter7 would persuade us that ,st4 ,peter only required that the information should be furnished him by ,st4 ,john3--',say who it is of whom ,he speaks4' ,sometimes a very little licence is sufficient to convert the oratio obliqua into the recta4 ,thus1 by the change of a single letter 7in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bx7 ,mary ,magdalene is made to say to the disciples ',i have seen the ,lord' 7,st4 ,john xx4 #ah74 ,but then1 as might have been anticipated1 the new does not altogether agree with the old4 ,accordingly ,d and others paraphrase the remainder of the sentence thus1--'and she signified to them what ,he had said unto her4' ,how obvious is it to foresee that on such occasions the spirit of officiousness will never know when to stop6 ,in the ,vulgate and ,sahidic versions the sentence proceeds1 'and ,he told these things unto me4' ,take another example4 ,the ,hebraism ,greek3 meta salpingos phns megals 7,st4 ,matt4 xxiv4 #ca7 presents an uncongenial ambiguity to ,western readers1 as our own incorrect ,a4 ,v4 sufficiently shews4 ,two methods of escape from the difficulty suggested themselves to the ancients3--7a7 ,since 'a trumpet of great sound' means nothing else but 'a loud trumpet1' and since this can be as well expressed by ,greek3 salpingos megals1 the scribes at a very remote period are found to have omitted the word ,greek3 phns4 ,the ,peshitto and ,lewis 7interpreting rather than translating7 so deal with the text4 ,accordingly1 ,greek3 phns is not found in ,symbol3 ,aleph,l,symbol3 ,delta and five cursives4 ,eusebius#chb1 ,cyril ,jerus4#chc1 ,chrysostom#chd1 ,theodoret#che1 and even ,cyprian#chf are also without the word4 7b7 ,a less violent expedient was to interpolate ,greek3 kai before ,greek3 phns4 ,this is accordingly the reading of the best ,italic copies1 of the ,vulgate1 and of ,d4 ,so ,hilary#chg and ,jerome#chh1 ,severianus#chi1 ,asterius#cij1 ps4-,caesarius#cia1 ,damascene#cib and at least eleven cursive copies1 so read the place4--,there can be no doubt at all that the commonly received text is right4 ,it is found in thirteen uncials with ,b at their head3 in ,cosmas#cic1 ,hesychius#cid1 ,theophylact#cie4 ,but the decisive consideration is that the great body of the cursives have faithfully retained the uncongenial ,hebraism1 and accordingly imply the transmission of it all down the ages3 a phenomenon which will not escape the unprejudiced reader4 ,neither will he overlook the fact that the three 'old uncials' 7for ,a and ,c are not available here7 advocate as many different readings3 the two wrong readings being respectively countenanced by our two most ancient authorities1 viz4 the ,peshitto version and the ,italic4 ,it only remains to point out that ,tischendorf blinded by his partiality for ,symbol3 ,aleph contends here for the mutilated text1 and ,westcott and ,hort are disposed to do the same4 #d4 ,recent ,editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read in ,st4 ,john xviii4 #ad ,greek3 apothanein instead of ,greek3 apolesthai3--',now ,caiaphas was he who counselled the ,jews that it was expedient that one man should die' 7instead of 'perish'7 'for the people4' ,there is certainly a considerable amount of ancient testimony in favour of this reading3 for besides ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc1 it is found in the ,old ,latin copies1 the ,egyptian1 and ,peshitto versions1 besides the ,lewis ,,ms41 the ,chronicon1 ,cyril1 ,nonnus1 ,chrysostom4 ,yet may it be regarded as certain that ,st4 ,john wrote ,greek3 apolesthai in this place4 ,the proper proof of the statement is the consentient voice of all the copies1--except about nineteen of loose character3--we know their vagaries but too well1 and decline to let them impose upon us4 ,in real fact1 nothing else is ,greek3 apothanein but a critical assimilation of ,st4 ,john xviii4 #ad to xi4 #ej1--somewhat as 'die' in our ,a4 ,v4 has been retained by ,king ,james' translators1 though they certainly had ,greek3 apolesthai before them4 ,many of these glosses are rank1 patent1 palpable4 ,such is the substitution 7,st4 ,mark vi4 #aa7 of ,greek3 hos an topos m dextai hymas by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl,symbol3 ,delta for ,greek3 hosoi an m dexntai hymas1--which latter is the reading of the ,old ,latin and ,peshitto1 as well as of the whole body of uncials and cursives alike4 ,some ,critic evidently considered that the words which follow1 'when you go out thence1' imply that place1 not persons1 should have gone before4 ,accordingly1 he substituted 'whatsoever place' for 'whosoever#cif'3 another has bequeathed to us in four uncial ,,mss4 a lasting record of his rashness and incompetency4 ,since however he left behind the words ,greek3 mde akoussin hymn1 which immediately follow1 who sees not that the fabricator has betrayed himself8 ,i am astonished that so patent a fraud should have imposed upon ,tischendorf1 and ,tregelles1 and ,lachmann1 and ,alford1 and ,westcott and ,hort4 ,but in fact it does not stand alone4 ,from the same copies ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl,symbol3 ,delta 7with two others1 ,,cd7 we find the woe denounced in the same verse on the unbelieving city erased 7,greek3 amn leg hymin1 anektoteron estai ,sodomois ,gomorrois en hmerai krises1 t polei ekein74 ,quite idle is it to pretend 7with ,tischendorf7 that these words are an importation from the parallel place in ,st4 ,matthew4 ,a memorable note of diversity has been set on the two places1 which in all the copies is religiously maintained1 viz4 ,greek3 ,sodomois ,gomorrois1 in ,st4 ,mark3 ,greek3 g ,sodomn kai ,gomorrn1 in ,st4 ,matt4 ,it is simply incredible that this could have been done if the received text in this place had been of spurious origin4 #e4 ,the word ,greek3 apechei in ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #da has proved a stumbling-block4 ,the most obvious explanation is probably the truest4 ,after a brief pause#cig1 during which the ,saviour has been content to survey in silence ,his sleeping disciples2--or perhaps1 after telling them that they will have time and opportunity enough for sleep and rest when ,he shall have been taken from them2--,he announces the arrival of 'the hour1' by exclaiming1 ,greek3 ,apechei1--',it is enough2' or1 ',it is sufficient2' i4e4 ,the season for repose is over4 ,but the ',revisers' of the second century did not perceive that ,greek3 apechei is here used impersonally#cih4 ,they understood the word to mean 'is fully come'2 and supplied the supposed nominative1 viz4 ,greek3 to telos#cii4 ,other critics who rightly understood ,greek3 apechei to signify 'sufficit1' still subjoined 'finis4' ,the ,old ,latin and the ,syriac versions must have been executed from ,greek copies which exhibited1--,greek3 apechei to telos4 ,this is abundantly proved by the renderings adest finis 7f71--consummatus est finis 7a72 from which the change to ,greek3 apechei to telos ,,kai h hra 7the reading of ,d7 was obvious3 sufficit finis et hora 7d q72 adest enim consummatio2 et 7ff#b venit7 hora 7c72 or1 7as the ,peshitto more fully gives it71 appropinquavit finis1 et venit hora#djj4 ,jerome put this matter straight by simply writing sufficit4 ,but it is a suggestive circumstance1 and an interesting proof how largely the reading ,greek3 apechei to telos must once have prevailed1 that it is frequently met with in cursive copies of the ,gospels to this hour#dja4 ,happily it is an 'old reading' which finds no favour at the present day4 ,it need not therefore occupy us any longer4 ,as another instance of ancient ,glosses introduced to help out the sense1 the reading of ,st4 ,john ix4 #bb is confessedly ,greek3 hina ean tis auton homologsi ,christon4 ,so all the ,,mss4 but one1 and so the ,old ,latin4 ,so indeed all the ancient versions except the ,egyptian4 ,cod4 ,d alone adds ,greek3 einai3 but ,greek3 einai must once have been a familiar gloss3 for ,jerome retains it in the ,vulgate3 and indeed ,cyril1 whenever he quotes the place#djb1 exhibits ,greek3 ton ,christon einai4 ,not so however ,chrysostom#djc and ,gregory of ,nyssa#djd4 #f4 ,there is scarcely to be found1 amid the incidents immediately preceding our ,saviour's ,passion1 one more affecting or more exquisite than the anointing of ,his feet at ,bethany by ,mary the sister of ,lazarus1 which received its unexpected interpretation from the lips of ,christ ,himself4 ',let her alone4 ,against the day of ,my embalming hath she kept it4' 7,st4 ,john xii4 #g47 ,he assigns to her act a mysterious meaning of which the holy woman little dreamt4 ,she had treasured up that precious unguent against the day1--7with the presentiment of true ,love1 she knew that it could not be very far distant71--when ,his dead limbs would require embalming4 ,but lo1 she beholds ,him reclining at supper in her sister's house3 and yielding to a ,divine impulse she brings forth her reserved costly offering and bestows it on ,him at once4 ,ah1 she little knew1--she could not in fact have known1--that it was the only anointing those sacred feet were destined ever to enjoy6444 ,in the meantime through a desire1 as ,i suspect1 to bring this incident into an impossible harmony with what is recorded in ,st4 ,mark xvi4 #a1 with which obviously it has no manner of connexion1 a scribe is found at some exceedingly remote period to have improved our ,lord's expression into this3--',let her alone in order that against the day of ,my embalming she may keep it4' ,such an exhibition of the ,sacred ,text is its own sufficient condemnation4 ,what that critic exactly meant1 ,i fail to discover3 but ,i am sure he has spoilt what he did not understand3 and though it is quite true that ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bd with five other ,uncial ,,mss4 and ,nonnus1 besides the ,latin and ,bohairic1 ,jerusalem1 ,armenian1 and ,ethiopic versions1 besides four errant cursives so exhibit the place1 this instead of commending the reading to our favour1 only proves damaging to the witnesses by which it is upheld4 ,we learn that no reliance is to be placed even in such a combination of authorities4 ,this is one of the places which the ,fathers pass by almost in silence4 ,chrysostom#dje however1 and evidently ,cyril ,alex4#djf1 as well as ,ammonius#djg convey though roughly a better sense by quoting the verse with ,greek3 epoise for ,greek3 tetrken4 ,antiochus#djh is express4 ,a and eleven other uncials1 and the cursives 7with the petty exception already noted71 together with the ,peshitto1 ,harkleian 7which only notes the other reading in the margin71 ,lewis1 ,sahidic1 and ,gothic versions1 form a body of authority against the palpable emasculation of the passage1 which for number1 variety1 weight1 and internal evidence is greatly superior to the opposing body4 ,also1 with reference to continuity and antiquity it preponderates plainly1 if not so decisively2 and the context of ,d is full of blunders1 besides that it omits the next verse1 and ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph are also inaccurate hereabouts#dji4 ,so that the ,traditional text enjoys in this passage the support of all the ,notes of ,truth4 ,in accordance with what has been said above1 for ,greek3 ,aphes autn2 eis tn hmeran tou entaphiasmou mou tetrken auto 7,st4 ,john xii4 #g71 the copies which it has recently become the fashion to adore1 read ,greek3 aphes autn hina 444 trs auto4 ,this startling innovation1--which destroys the sense of our ,saviour's words1 and furnishes a sorry substitute which no one is able to explain#daj1--;is accepted by recent ,editors and some ,critics3 yet is it clearly nothing else but a stupid correction of the text1--introduced by some one who did not understand the intention of the ,divine ,speaker4 ,our ,saviour is here discovering to us an exquisite circumstance1--revealing what until now had been a profound and tender secret3 viz4 that ,mary1 convinced by many a sad token that the ,day of ,his departure could not be very far distant1 had some time before provided herself with this costly ointment1 and 'kept it' by her1--intending to reserve it against the dark day when it would be needed for the 'embalming' of the lifeless body of her ,lord4 ,and now it wants only a week to ,easter4 ,she beholds ,him 7with ,lazarus at ,his side7 reclining in her sister's house at supper1 amid circumstances of mystery which fill her soul with awful anticipation4 ,she divines1 with love's true instinct1 that this may prove her only opportunity4 ,accordingly1 she 'anticipates to anoint' 7,greek3 proelabe myrisai1 ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #h7 ,his ,body3 and1 yielding to an overwhelming impulse1 bestows upon ,him all her costly offering at once6444 ,how does it happen that some professed critics have overlooked all this8 ,any one who has really studied the subject ought to know1 from a mere survey of the evidence1 on which side the truth in respect of the text of this passage must needs lie4 #g4 ,our ,lord1 in ,his great ,eucharistic address to the eternal ,father1 thus speaks3--',i have glorified ,thee on the earth4 ,i have perfected the work which ,thou gavest ,me to do' 7,st4 ,john xvii4 #d74 ,two things are stated3 first1 that the result of ,his ,ministry had been the exhibition upon earth of the ,father's 'glory#daa'3 next1 that the work which the ,father had given the ,son to do#dab was at last finished#dac4 ,and that this is what ,st4 ,john actually wrote is certain3 not only because it is found in all the copies1 except twelve of suspicious character 7headed by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcl72 but because it is vouched for by the ,peshitto#dad and the ,latin1 the ,gothic and the ,armenian versions#dae3 besides a whole chorus of ,fathers2 viz4 ,hippolytus#daf1 ,didymus#dag1 ,eusebius#dah1 ,athanasius#dai1 ,basil#dbj1 ,chrysostom#dba1 ,cyril#dbb1 ps4-,polycarp#dbc1 the interpolator of ,ignatius#dbd1 and the authors of the ,apostolic ,constitutions#dbe3 together with the following among the ,latins3--,cyprian#dbf1 ,ambrose#dbg1 ,hilary#dbh1 ,zeno#dbi1 ,cassian#dcj1 ,novatian#dca1 certain ,arians#dcb1 ,augustine#dcc4 ,but the asyndeton 7so characteristic of the fourth ,gospel7 proving uncongenial to certain of old time1 ,d inserted ,greek3 kai4 ,a more popular device was to substitute the participle 7,greek3 teleisas7 for ,greek3 eteleisa3 whereby our ,lord is made to say that ,he had glorified ,his ,father's ,name 'by perfecting' or 'completing'--'in that ,he had finished'--the work which the ,father had given ,him to do2 which damages the sense by limiting it1 and indeed introduces a new idea4 ,a more patent gloss it would be hard to find4 ,yet has it been adopted as the genuine text by all the ,editors and all the ,critics4 ,so general is the delusion in favour of any reading supported by the combined evidence of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcl1 that the ,revisers here translate--',i glorified ,thee on the earth1 having accomplished 7,greek3 teleisas7 the work which ,thou hast given ,me to do3' without so much as vouchsafing a hint to the ,english reader that they have altered the text4 ,when some came with the message ',thy daughter is dead3 why troublest thou the ,master further8' the ,evangelist relates that ,jesus 'as soon as ,he heard 7,greek3 euthes akousas7 what was being spoken1 said to the ruler of the synagogue1 ,fear not3 only believe4' 7,st4 ,mark v4 #cf47 ,for this1 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl,symbol3 ,delta substitute 'disregarding 7,greek3 parakousas7 what was being spoken'3 which is nothing else but a sorry gloss1 disowned by every other copy1 including ,,acd1 and all the versions4 ,yet does ,greek3 parakousas find favour with ,teschendorf1 ,tregelles1 and others4 #h4 ,in this way it happened that in the earliest age the construction of ,st4 ,luke i4 #ff became misapprehended4 ,some ,western scribe evidently imagined that the popular saying concerning ,john ,baptist1--,greek3 ti apa to paidion touto estai1 extended further1 and comprised the ,evangelist's record1--,greek3 kai cheir ,kyriou n met' autou4 ,to support this strange view1 ,greek3 kai was altered into ,greek3 kai gar1 and ,greek3 esti was substituted for ,greek3 n4 ,it is thus that the place stands in the ,verona copy of the ,old ,latin 7b74 ,in other quarters the verb was omitted altogether3 and that is how ,d1 ,evan4 #ei with the ,vercelli 7a7 and two other copies of the ,old ,latin exhibit the place4 ,augustine#dcd is found to have read indifferently--'manus enim ,domini cum illo1' and 'cum illo est'3 but he insists that the combined clauses represent the popular utterance concerning the ,baptist#dce4 ,unhappily1 there survives a notable trace of the same misapprehension in ,symbol3 ,aleph-,,bcl which1 alone of ,,mss41 read ,greek3 kai gar 444 n#dcf4 ,the consequence might have been anticipated4 ,all recent ,editors adopt this reading1 which however is clearly inadmissible4 ,the received text1 witnessed to by the ,peshitto1 ,harkleian1 and ,armenian versions1 is obviously correct4 ,accordingly1 ,a and all the uncials not already named1 together with the whole body of the cursives1 so read the place4 ,with fatal infelicity the ,revisers exhibit ',for indeed the hand of the ,lord was with him4' ,they clearly are to blame3 for indeed the ,,ms4 evidence admits of no uncertainty4 ,it is much to be regretted that not a single very ancient ,greek ,father 7so far as ,i can discover7 quotes the place4 #i4 ,it seems to have been anciently felt1 in connexion with the first miraculous draught of fishes1 that ,st4 ,luke's statement 7v4 #g7 that the ships were so full that 'they were sinking' 7,greek3 hste bythizesthai auta7 requires some qualification4 ,accordingly ,c inserts ,greek3 d 7were 'just' sinking72 and ,d1 ,greek3 para ti 7'within a little'73 while the ,peshitto the ,lewis and the ,vulgate1 as well as many copies of the ,old ,latin1 exhibit 'ita ut pene4' ,these attempts to improve upon ,scripture1 and these paraphrases1 indicate laudable zeal for the truthfulness of the ,evangelist2 but they betray an utterly mistaken view of the critic's office4 ,the truth is1 ,greek3 bythizesthai1 as the ,bohairic translators perceived and as most of us are aware1 means 'were beginning to sink4' ,there is no need of further qualifying the expression by the insertion with ,eusebius#dcg of any additional word4 ,i strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of ',pyrrhus' into ,acts xx4 #d as the patronymic of ',sopater of ,beraea1' is to be accounted for in this way4 ,a very early gloss it certainly is1 for it appears in the ,old ,latin3 yet1 the ,peshitto knows nothing of it1 and the ,harkleian rejects it from the text1 though not from the margin4 ,origen and the ,bohairic recognize it1 but not ,chrysostom nor the ,ethiopic4 ,i suspect that some foolish critic of the primitive age invented ,greek3 ,pyrou 7or ,greek3 ,pyrrou7 out of ,greek3 ,beroiaios 7or ,greek3 ,berroiaios7 which follows4 ,the ,latin form of this was ',pyrus#dch1' ',pyrrhus1' or ',pirrus#dci4' ,in the ,sahidic version he is called the 'son of ,berus' 7,greek3 huios ,berou71--which confirms me in my conjecture4 ,but indeed1 if it was with some ,beraean that the gloss originated1--and what more likely8--it becomes an interesting circumstance that the inhabitants of that part of ,macedonia are known to have confused the p and b sounds#ddj4444 ,this entire matter is unimportant in itself1 but the letter of ,scripture cannot be too carefully guarded3 and let me invite the reader to consider1--,if ,st4 ,luke actually wrote ,greek3 ,spatros ,pyrrou ,beroiaios1 why at the present day should five copies out of six record nothing of that second word8 ,,footnotes3 #cec ,see ,the ,traditional ,text1 pp4 #ea-eb4 #ced ,st4 ,mark vi4 #cc4 ,see ,the ,traditional ,text1 p4 #hj4 #cee iii4 #c e3 #d b and c3 #ddb a3 #dha b4 ,note1 that the ,greek3 rhsis in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by ,de la ,rue from a ,catena on ,st4 ,luke in the ,mazarine ,library 7see his ,monitum1 iii4 #a74 ,a large portion of it 7viz4 from p4 #c1 line #be1 to p4 #d1 line #bi7 is ascribed to ',i4 ,geometra in ,proverbia' in the ,catena in ,luc4 of ,corderius1 p4 #bag4 #cef ii4 #cde4 #ceg ii4 #bdb4 #ceh ,the ,latin is edissere or dissere1 enarra or narra1 both here and in xv4 #ae4 #cei iv4 #bed a4 #cfj ,in ,st4 ,matthew xiii4 #cf the ,peshitto ,syriac has ,syriac letters 'declare to us' and in ,st4 ,matthew xv4 #ae the very same words1 there being no various reading in either of these two passages4 ,the inference is1 that the translators had the same ,greek word in each place1 especially considering that in the only other place where1 besides ,st4 ,matt4 xiii4 #cf1 v4 #a41 ,greek3 diasaphein occurs1 viz4 ,st4 ,matt4 xviii4 #ca1 they render ,greek3 diesaphsan by ,syriac letters--they made known4 ,since ,greek3 phrazein only occurs in ,st4 ,matt4 xiii4 #cf and xv4 #ae1 we cannot generalize about the ,peshitto rendering of this verb4 ,conversely1 ,syriac letters is used as the rendering of other ,greek words besides ,greek3 phrazein1 e4g4 of ,greek3 epiluein1 ,st4 ,mark iv4 #cd2 of ,greek3 diermneuein1 ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #bg2 of ,greek3 dianoigein1 ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #cb and ,acts xvii4 #c4 ,on the whole ,i have no doubt 7though it is not susceptible of proof7 that the ,peshitto had1 in both the places quoted above1 ,greek3 phrason4 #cfa ,in ,st4 ,mark vii4 #c1 the translators of the ,peshitto render whatever ,greek they had before them by ,syriac letters1 which means 'eagerly1' 'sedulously'2 cf4 use of the word for ,greek3 spoudais1 ,st4 ,luke vii4 #d2 ,greek3 epimels1 ,st ,luke xv4 #h4 ,the ,root means 'to cease'2 thence 'to have leisure for a thing'3 it has nothing to do with ',fist4' ,rev4 ,g4,h4 ,gwilliam4 #cfb ,harkl4 ,marg4 in loc41 and ,adler1 p4 #aae4 #cfc ,viz4 a b c e ff#b l q4 #cfd ,greek3 ',opheilei psych1 en t log tou ,kyriou katakolouthousa1 ton stauron autou kath' hmeran airein1 hs gegraptai2 tout' estin1 hetoims echousa hypomenein dia ,christon pasan thlipsin kai peirasmon1 k4t4l4 7ii4 #cbf e74 ,in the same spirit1 further on1 he exhorts to constancy and patience1--,greek3 ton epi tou ,kyriou thanaton en epithymiai pantote pro ophthalmn echontes1 kai 7kaths eirtai hypo tou ,kyriou7 kath' hmeran ton stauron airontes1 ho esti thanatos 7ii4 #ccb e74 ,it is fair to assume that ,ephraem's reference is to ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bc1 seeing that he wrote not in ,greek but in ,syriac1 and that in the ,peshitto the clause is found only in that place4 #cfe ,greek3 ,akoue ,louka legontos1--i4 #bha f4 ,also1 int4 iii4 #edc4 #cff ,pp4 #bba 7text71 #bbb1 #bbg4 #cfg ii4 #gea e1 #ggd e 7in ,es47--the proof that these quotations are from ,st4 ,luke2 that ,cyril exhibits ,greek3 arnsasth instead of ,greek3 aparn4 7see ,tischendorf's note on ,st4 ,luke ix4 #bc74 ,the quotation in i4 #dj 7,glaph47 may be from ,st4 ,matt4 xvi4 #bd4 #cfh ,migne1 vol4 lxxxvi4 pp4 #bef and #beg4 #cfi ,after quoting ,st4 ,mark viii4 #cd1--';aut juxta ,lucam1 dicebat ad cunctos3 ,si quis vult post me venire1 abneget semetipsum2 et tollat crucem suam1 et sequetur me4'--i4 #heb c4 ,this is found in his solution of ,,xi ,quaestiones1 'ad ,algasiam1'--free translations probably from the ,greek of some earlier ,father4 ,six lines lower down 7after quoting words found nowhere in the ,gospels71 ,jerome proceeds3--',quotidie credens in ,christum tollit crucem suam1 et negat seipsum4' #cgj ,this spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of ,evann4 #ac1 #fi1 #abd1 #cdf 7,ferrar's four72 and survives in certain other ,evangelia which enjoy a similar repute1--as #a1 #cc1 #gb 7with a marginal note of distrust71 #aca4 #cga ,they are ,st4 ,matt4 xvi4 #bd2 ,st4 ,mark viii4 #cd4 #cgb i4 #eig c 7,adorat47--elsewhere 7viz4 i4 #ba d2 #ebh c2 #ehj b2 iv4 #ajeh a2 v7#b74 #hc c7 ,cyril quotes the place correctly4 ,note1 that the quotation found in ,mai1 iii4 #abf1 which ,pusey edits 7v4 #dah71 in ,ep4 ad ,hebr41 is nothing else but an excerpt from the treatise de ,adorat4 i4 #ebh c4 #cgc ,in his ,commentary on ,st4 ,matt4 xvi4 #bd3--;,greek3 ,dia pantos tou biou touto dei poiein4 ,dineks gar1 phsi1 periphere ton thanaton touton1 kai kath hmeran hetoimos eso pros sphagn 7vii4 #eeg b74 ,again1 commenting on ch4 xix4 #ba1--;,greek3 ,dei progoumens akolouthein t ,christ toutesti1 panta ta par autou keleuomena poiein1 pros sphgas einai hetoimon1 kai thanaton kathmerinin 7p4 #fbi e73--words which ,chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch4 xvi4 #bd 7#fcj a74 #cgd i4 #idi b1--',quotidie 7inquit ,apostolus7 morior propter vestram salutem4 ,et ,dominus1 juxta antiqua exemplaria1 ,nisi quis tulerit crucem suam quotidie1 et sequntus fuerit me1 non potest meus esse discipulus'--,commenting on ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #ch 7vol4 vii4 p4 #fe b71 ,jerome remarks1--'in alio ,evangelio scribitur1--,qui non accipit crucem suam quotidie'3 but the corresponding place to ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #ch1 in the sectional system of ,eusebius 7,greek and ,syriac71 is ,st4 ,luke xiv4 #bg4 #cge ,viz4 ,evan4 #dgc 7#bpe74 #cgf ii4 #ff c1 d4 #cgg ,see above1 p4 #age1 note #b4 #cgh ,proleg4 p4 cxlvi4 #cgi ,n4,t4 7#ahjc71 i4 #cfh4 #chj ,lewis here agrees with ,peshitto4 #cha iv4 #gde4 #chb ,in ,ps4 #eja4 #chc #bbi and #bcf4 #chd vii4 #gcf3 xi4 #dgh4 #che ii4 #abji4 #chf #bfi4 #chg #egg4 #chh i4 #hha4 #chi ,ap4 ,chrys4 vi4 #dfj4 #cij ,ap4 ,greg4 ,nyss4 ii4 #beh4 #cia ,galland4 vi4 #ec4 #cib ii4 #cdf4 #cic ii4 #bfa1 #cbd4 #cid ,ap4 ,greg4 ,nyss4 iii4 #dbi4 #cie i4 #acb4 #cif ,the attentive student of the ,gospels will recognize with interest how gracefully the third ,evangelist ,st4 ,luke 7ix4 #e7 has overcome this difficulty4 #cig ,augustine1 with his accustomed acuteness1 points out that ,st4 ,mark's narrative shews that after the words of ',sleep on now and take your rest1' our ,lord must have been silent for a brief space in order to allow ,his disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already permitted them to enjoy4 ,presently1 ,he is heard to say1--',it is enough'--7that is1 ',ye have now slept and rested enough'72 and adds1 ',the hour is come4 ,behold1 the ,son of ,man is betrayed into the hands of sinners4' ',sed quia commemorata non est ipsa interpositio silentii ,domini1 propterea coartat intellectum1 ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur4'--iii#b4 #ajf a1 b4 ,the passage in question runs thus3--,greek3 ,katheidete to loipon kai anapauesthe4 apechei2 lthen h hra2 idou1 k4t4l4 #cih ,those who saw this1 explain the word amiss4 ,note the ,scholion 7,anon4 ,vat47 in ,possinus1 p4 #cba3--;,greek3 apechei1 toutesti1 peplrtai1 telos echei to kat' eme4 ,last ,twelve ,verses1 p4 #bbf1 note4 #cii ,i retract unreservedly what ,i offered on this subject in a former work 7,last ,twelve ,verses1 c41 pp4 #bbe1 #bbf74 ,i was misled by one who seldom indeed misleads1--the learned editor of the ,codex ,bezae 7in loco74 #djj ,so ,peshitto4 ,lewis1 venit hora1 appropinquat finis4 ,harkleian1 adest consummatio1 venit hora4 #dja ,greek3 apechei4 ,vg4 sufficit4 ,greek3 to telos1 #ac1 #fi1 #abd1 #bpe1 cscr1 #dg1 #ed1 #ef1 #fa1 #ahd1 #cdf1 #cdh1 #dci4 d1 q1 sufficit finis et hora4 f1 adest finis1 venit hora4 c1 ff#b1 adest enim consummatio1 et 7ff#b venit7 hora4 a1 consummatus est finis1 advenit hora4 ,it is certain that one formidable source of danger to the sacred text has been its occasional obscurity4 ,this has resulted1--7#a7 sometimes in the omission of words3 ,greek3 ,deuteroprton4 7#b7 ,sometimes in substitution1 as ,greek3 pygmi4 7#c7 ,sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter3 thus1 ,greek3 to telos1 as above4 #djb iii4 #aje3 iv4 #iac4 ,so also iv4 #fad4 #djc vi4 #bhc4 #djd i4 #cjg4 #dje viii4 #cib4 #djf iv4 #fif4 #djg ,cramer's ,cat4 in loc4 #djh #ajfc4 #dji ,e4g4 ver4 #a4 ,all the three officiously insert ,greek3 ho ,isous1 in order to prevent people from imagining that ,lazarus raised ,lazarus from the dead2 ver4 #d1 ,d gives the gloss1 ,greek3 apo ,karytou for ,greek3 ,iskarits2 ver4 #ac1 spells thus1--,greek3 hssana2 besides constant inaccuracies1 in which it is followed by none4 ,symbol3 ,aleph omits nineteen words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter1 besides adding eight and making other alterations4 ,b is far from being accurate4 #daj ',let her alone1 that she may keep it against the day of ,my burying' 7,alford74 ,but how could she keep it after she had poured it all out8--',suffer her to have kept it against the day of ,my preparation unto burial' 7,mc,clellan74 ,but ,greek3 hina trs could hardly mean that3 and the day of ,his ,greek3 entaphiasmos had not yet arrived4 #daa ,consider ii4 #aa and xi4 #dj3 ,st4 ,luke xiii4 #ag3 ,heb4 i4 #c4 #dab ,consider v4 #cf and iv4 #cd4 #dac ,consider ,st4 ,john xix4 #cj4 ,cf4 ,st4 ,luke xxii4 #cg4 #dad ,lewis1 'and the work ,i have perfected'3 ,harkleian1 'because the work1' c41 'because' being obelized4 #dae ,the ,bohairic and ,ethiopic are hostile4 #daf i4 #bde 7 ,constt4 ,app4 viii4 #a2 ap4 ,galland4 iii4 #aii74 #dag ,p4 #dai4 #dah ,mcell p4 #aeg4 #dai i4 #ecd4 #dbj ii4 #aif1 #bch3 iii4 #ci4 #dba v4 #bef3 viii4 #dge bis4 #dbb iii4 #edb3 iv4 #ied3 v#a4 #eii1 #fja1 #fad3 v#b4 #aeb4--;,in the following places ,cyril shews himself acquainted with the other reading1--iv4 #hgi3 v#a4 #afg1 #cff3 vi4 #abd4 #dbc ,polyc4 frg4 v 7ed4 ,jacobson74 #dbd ,ps4-,ignat4 #cbh4 #dbe ,ap4 ,gall4 iii4 #bae4 #dbf ,p4 #bhe4 #dbg ii4 #ede4 #dbh ,pp4 #eaj1 #haf1 #ajjh4 ,but opere constummato1 pp4 #hab1 #hae4--;,jerome also once 7iv4 #efc7 has opere completo4 #dbi ,ap4 ,gall4 v4 #ace4 #dcj ,p4 #cfg4 #dca ,ap4 ,gall4 iii4 #cjh4 #dcb ,ap4 ,aug4 viii4 #fbb4 #dcc iii#b4 #gfa3 viii4 #fdj4 #dcd v4 #aaff4 #dce ,ibid4 #aafe g1 #aaff a4 #dcf ,though the ,bohairic1 ,gothic1 ,vulgate1 and ,ethiopic versions are disfigured in the same way1 and the ,lewis reads 'is4' #dcg ,theoph4 #baf note3 ,greek3 hs kindyneuein auta bythisthnai4 #dch ,cod4 ,amiat4 #dci g1--at ,stockholm4 #ddj ,stephanus ,de ,urbibus in voc4 ,greek3 ,beroia4 ,,chapter ,,xiii4 ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption ,,chiefly ,,intentional4 ,,ix4 ,corruption by ,heretics4 #a4 ,the ,corruptions of the ,sacred ,text which we have been hitherto considering1 however diverse the causes from which they may have resulted1 have yet all agreed in this3 viz4 that they have all been of a lawful nature4 ,my meaning is1 that apparently1 at no stage of the business has there been mala fides in any quarter4 ,we are prepared to make the utmost allowance for careless1 even for licentious transcription2 and we can invent excuses for the mistaken zeal1 the officiousness if men prefer to call it so1 which has occasionally not scrupled to adopt conjectural emendations of the ,text4 ,to be brief1 so long as an honest reason is discoverable for a corrupt reading1 we gladly adopt the plea4 ,it has been shewn with sufficient clearness1 ,i trust1 in the course of the foregoing chapters1 that the number of distinct causes to which various readings may reasonably be attributed is even extraordinary4 ,but there remains after all an alarmingly large assortment of textual perturbations which absolutely refuse to fall under any of the heads of classification already enumerated4 ,they are not to be accounted for on any ordinary principle4 ,and this residuum of cases it is1 which occasions our present embarrassment4 ,they are in truth so exceedingly numerous2 they are often so very considerable2 they are1 as a rule1 so very licentious2 they transgress to such an extent all regulations2 they usurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness1 that we really know not what to think about them4 ,sometimes we are presented with gross interpolations1--apocryphal stories3 more often with systematic lacerations of the text1 or transformations as from an angel of light4 ,we are constrained to inquire1 ,how all this can possibly have come about8 ,have there even been persons who made it their business of set purpose to corrupt the sacred deposit of ,holy ,scripture entrusted to the ,church for the perpetual illumination of all ages till the ,lord should come8 ,at this stage of the inquiry1 we are reminded that it is even notorious that in the earliest age of all1 the ,new ,testament ,scriptures were subjected to such influences4 ,in the age which immediately succeeded the ,apostolic there were heretical teachers not a few1 who finding their tenets refuted by the plain ,word of ,god bent themselves against the written ,word with all their power4 ,from seeking to evacuate its teaching1 it was but a single step to seeking to falsify its testimony4 ,profane literature has never been exposed to such hostility4 ,i make the remark in order also to remind the reader of one more point of dissimilarity between the two classes of writings4 ,the inestimable value of the ,new ,testament entailed greater dangers1 as well as secured superior safeguards4 ,strange1 that a later age should try to discard the latter4 ,it is found therefore that ,satan could not even wait for the grave to close over ,st4 ,john4 ',many' there were already who taught that ,christ had not come in the flesh4 ,gnosticism was in the world already4 ,st4 ,paul denounces it by name#dda1 and significantly condemns the wild fancies of its professors1 their dangerous speculations as well as their absurd figments4 ,thus he predicts and condemns#ddb their pestilential teaching in respect of meats and drinks and concerning matrimony4 ,in his ,epistle to ,timothy#ddc he relates that ,hymeneus and ,philetus taught that the ,resurrection was past already4 ,what wonder if a flood of impious teaching broke loose on the ,church when the last of the ,apostles had been gathered in1 and another generation of men had arisen1 and the age of ,miracles was found to be departing if it had not already departed1 and the loftiest boast which any could make was that they had known those who had seen and heard the ,apostles of the ,lord4 ,the 'grievous wolves' whose assaults ,st4 ,paul predicted as imminent1 and against which he warned the heads of the ,ephesian ,church#ddd1 did not long 'spare the flock4' ,already1 while ,st4 ,john was yet alive1 had the ,nicolaitans developed their teaching at ,ephesus#dde and in the neighbouring ,church of ,pergamos#ddf4 ,our risen ,lord in glory announced to ,his servant ,john that in the latter city ,satan had established his dwelling-place#ddg4 ,nay1 while those awful words were being spoken to the ,seer of ,patmos1 the men were already born who first dared to lay their impious hands on the ,gospel of ,christ4 ,no sooner do we find ourselves out of ,apostolic times and among monuments of the primitive age than we are made aware that the sacred text must have been exposed at that very early period to disturbing influences which1 on no ordinary principles1 can be explained4 ,justin ,martyr1 ,irenaeus1 ,origen1 ,clement of ,alexandria1--among the ,fathers3 some ,old ,latin ,,mss4#ddh the ,bohairic and ,sahidic1 and coming later on1 the ,curetonian and ,lewis1--among the ,versions3 of the copies ,codd4 ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph3 and above all1 coming later down still1 ,cod4 ,d3--these venerable monuments of a primitive age occasionally present us with deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate1--quite impossible to overlook4 ,unauthorized appendixes1--tasteless and stupid amplifications1--plain perversions of the meaning of the ,evangelists1--wholly gratuitous assimilations of one ,gospel to another1--the unprovoked omission of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of high doctrinal import3--,how are such phenomena as these to be accounted for8 ,again1 in one quarter1 we light upon a systematic mutilation of the text so extraordinary that it is as if some one had amused himself by running his pen through every clause which was not absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what remained4 ,in another quarter we encounter the thrusting in of fabulous stories and apocryphal sayings which disfigure as well as encumber the text4--,how will any one explain all this8 ,let me however at the risk of repeating what has been already said dispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which is pretty sure to suggest itself to a person of intelligence after reading what goes before4 ,if the most primitive witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear false witness to the text of ,scripture1--whither are we to betake ourselves for the ,truth8 ,and what security can we hope ever to enjoy that any given exhibition of the text of ,scripture is the true one8 ,are we then to be told that in this subject-matter the maxim 'id verius quod prius' does not hold8 that the stream instead of getting purer as we approach the fountain head1 on the contrary grows more and more corrupt8 ,nothing of the sort1 ,i answer4 ,the direct reverse is the case4 ,our appeal is always made to antiquity2 and it is nothing else but a truism to assert that the oldest reading is also the best4 ,a very few words will make this matter clear2 because a very few words will suffice to explain a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to keep always before the eyes of the reader4 ,the characteristic note1 the one distinguishing feature1 of all the monstrous and palpable perversions of the text of ,scripture just now under consideration is this3--that they are never vouched for by the oldest documents generally1 but only by a few of them1--two1 three1 or more of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield conflicting testimony1 7which in this subject-matter is in fact contradictory74 ,in this way the oldest witnesses nearly always refute one another1 and indeed dispose of one another's evidence almost as often as that evidence is untrustworthy4 ,and now ,i may resume and proceed4 ,i say then that it is an adequate1 as well as a singularly satisfactory explanation of the greater part of those gross depravations of ,scripture which admit of no legitimate excuse1 to attribute them1 however remotely1 to those licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared by their contemporaries to have falsified1 mutilated1 interpolated1 and in whatever other way to have corrupted the ,gospel2 whose blasphemous productions of necessity must once have obtained a very wide circulation3 and indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold them4 ,what with those who like ,basilides and his followers invented a ,gospel of their own3--what with those who with the ,ebionites and the ,valentinians interpolated and otherwise perverted one of the four ,gospels until it suited their own purposes3--what with those who like ,marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the inspired text3--there must have been a large mass of corruption festering in the ,church throughout the immediate post-,apostolic age4 ,but even this is not all4 ,there were those who like ,tatian constructed ,diatessarons1 or attempts to weave the fourfold narrative into one1--',lives of ,christ1' so to speak2--and productions of this class were multiplied to an extraordinary extent1 and as we certainly know1 not only found their way into the remotest corners of the ,church1 but established themselves there4 ,and will any one affect surprise if occasionally a curious scholar of those days was imposed upon by the confident assurance that by no means were those many sources of light to be indiscriminately rejected1 but that there must be some truth in what they advanced8 ,in a singularly uncritical age1 the seductive simplicity of one reading1--the interesting fullness of another1--the plausibility of a thirds--was quite sure to recommend its acceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which were constructed by long since forgotten ,critics1 from which the most depraved and worthless of our existing texts and versions have been derived4 ,emphatically condemned by ,ecclesiastical authority1 and hopelessly outvoted by the universal voice of ,christendom1 buried under fifteen centuries1 the corruptions ,i speak of survive at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies which1 calamitous to relate1 the school of ,lachmann and ,tischendorf and ,tregelles look upon as oracular3 and in conformity with which many scholars are for refashioning the ,evangelical text under the mistaken title of ',old ,readings4' ,and now to proceed with my argument4 #b4 ,numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three centuries of the ,christian era1 they almost all agreed in this2--that they involved a denial of the eternal ,godhead of the ,son of ,man3 denied that ,he is essentially very and eternal ,god4 ,this fundamental heresy found itself hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the ,gospel1 which nevertheless it assailed with restless ingenuity3 and many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice which have survived to our own times4 ,it is a memorable circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which relate either to the eternal generation of the ,son1--to ,his ,incarnation1--or to the circumstances of ,his ,nativity1--which have suffered most severely1 and retain to this hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with4 ,i do not say that ,heretics were the only offenders here4 ,i am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much to blame as the impugners of the ,truth4 ,but it was at least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with the ,deposit4 ,they did but imitate the example set them by the assailing party4 ,it is indeed the calamitous consequence of extravagances in one direction that they are observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter4 ,accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think it wrong to fortify the ,truth by the insertion1 suppression1 or substitution of a few words in any place from which danger was apprehended4 ,in this way1 ,i am persuaded1 many an unwarrantable 'reading' is to be explained4 ,i do not mean that 'marginal glosses have frequently found their way into the text'3--that points to a wholly improbable account of the matter4 ,i mean1 that expressions which seemed to countenance heretical notions1 or at least which had been made a bad use of by evil men1 were deliberately falsified4 ,but ,i must not further anticipate the substance of the next chapter4 ,the men who first systematically depraved the text of ,scripture1 were as we now must know the heresiarchs ,basilides 7fl4 #acd71 ,valentinus 7fl4 #adj71 and ,marcion 7fl4 #aej73 three names which ,origen is observed almost invariably to enumerate together4 ,basilides#ddi and ,valentinus#dej are even said to have written ,gospels of their own4 ,such a statement is not to be severely pressed3 but the general fact is established by the notices1 and those are exceedingly abundant1 which the writers against ,heresies have cited and left on record4 ,all that is intended by such statements is that these old heretics retained1 altered1 transposed1 just so much as they pleased of the fourfold ,gospel3 and further1 that they imported whatever additional matter they saw fit3--not that they rejected the inspired text entirely1 and substituted something of their own invention in its place#dea4 ,and though1 in the case of ,valentinus1 it has been contended1 apparently with reason1 that he probably did not individually go to the same length as ,basilides1--who1 as well in respect of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles as of the four ,gospels1 was evidently a grievous offender#deb1--yet1 since it is clear that his principal followers1 who were also his contemporaries1 put forth a composition which they were pleased to style the ',gospel of ,truth#dec1' it is idle to dispute as to the limit of the rashness and impiety of the individual author of the heresy4 ,let it be further stated1 as no slight confirmation of the view already hazarded as to the probable contents of the 7so-called7 ,gospels of ,basilides and of ,valentinus1 that one particular ,gospel is related to have been preferred before the rest and specially adopted by certain schools of ancient ,heretics4 ,thus1 a strangely mutilated and depraved text of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel is related to have found especial favour with the ,ebionites#ded1 with whom the ,corinthians are associated by ,epiphanius3 though ,irenaeus seems to say that it was ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel which was adopted by the heretical followers of ,cerinthus4 ,marcion's deliberate choice of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel is sufficiently well known4 ,the ,valentinians appropriated to themselves ,st4 ,john#dee4 ,heracleon1 the most distinguished disciple of this school1 is deliberately censured by ,origen for having corrupted the text of the fourth ,evangelist in many places#def4 ,a considerable portion of his ,commentary on ,st4 ,john has been preserved to us3 and a very strange production it is found to have been4 ,concerning ,marcion1 who is a far more conspicuous personage1 it will be necessary to speak more particularly4 ,he has left a mark on the text of ,scripture of which traces are distinctly recognizable at the present day#deg4 ,a great deal more is known about him than about any other individual of his school4 ,justin ,martyr and ,irenaeus wrote against him3 besides ,origen and ,clement of ,alexandria1 ,tertullian in the ,west#deh1 and ,epiphanius in the ,east1 elaborately refuted his teaching1 and give us large information as to his method of handling ,scripture4 ,another writer of this remote time who1 as ,i am prone to think1 must have exercised sensible influence on the text of ,scripture was ,ammonius of ,alexandria4 ,but ,tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity appears to me to have caused alterations in the ,sacred ,text4 ,it is obviously no answer to anything that has gone before to insist that the ,evangelium of ,marcion 7for instance71 so far as it is recognizable by the notices of it given by ,epiphanius1 can very rarely indeed be shewn to have resembled any extant ,,ms4 of the ,gospels4 ,let it be even freely granted that many of the charges brought against it by ,epiphanius with so much warmth1 collapse when closely examined and severely sifted4 ,it is to be remembered that ,marcion's ,gospel was known to be an heretical production3 one of the many creations of the ,gnostic age1--it must have been universally execrated and abhorred by faithful men4 ,besides this lacerated text of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel1 there was an ,ebionite recension of ,st4 ,matthew3 a ,cerinthian exhibition of ,st4 ,mark3 a ,valentinian perversion of ,st4 ,john4 ,and we are but insisting that the effect of so many corruptions of the ,truth1 industriously propagated within far less than #ajj years of the date of the inspired verities themselves1 must needs have made itself sensibly felt4 ,add the notorious fact1 that in the second and third centuries after the ,christian era the text of the ,gospels is found to have been grossly corrupted even in orthodox quarters1--and that traces of these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles to the present hour1--and it seems impossible not to connect the two phenomena together4 ,the wonder rather is that1 at the end of so many centuries1 we are able distinctly to recognize any evidence whatever4 ,the proneness of these early ,heretics severally to adopt one of the four ,gospels for their own1 explains why there is no consistency observable in the corruptions they introduced into the text4 ,it also explains the bringing into one ,gospel of things which of right clearly belong to another--as in ,st4 ,mark iii4 #ad ,greek3 ous kai apostolous nomasen4 ,i do not propose 7as will presently appear7 in this way to explain any considerable number of the actual corruptions of the text3 but in no other way is it possible to account for such systematic mutilations as are found in ,cod4 ,b1--such monstrous additions as are found in ,cod4 ,d1--such gross perturbations as are continually met with in one or more1 but never in all1 of the earliest ,codexes extant1 as well as in the oldest ,versions and ,fathers4 ,the plan of ,tatian's ,diatessaron will account for a great deal4 ,he indulges in frigid glosses1 as when about the wine at the feast of ,cana in ,galilee he reads that the servants knew 'because they had drawn the water'2 or in tasteless and stupid amplifications1 as in the going back of the ,centurion to his house4 ,i suspect that the ,greek3 ti me ertas peri tou agathou1 ',why do you ask me about that which is good8' is to be referred to some of these tamperers with the ,divine ,word4 #c4 ,these professors of ',gnosticism' held no consistent theory4 ,the two leading problems on which they exercised their perverse ingenuity are found to have been 7#a7 the origin of ,matter1 and 7#b7 the origin of ,evil4 7#a7 ,they taught that the world's artificer 7'the ,word'7 was ,himself a creature of 'the ,father#dei4' ,encountered on the threshold of the ,gospel by the plain declaration that1 ',in the beginning was the ,word3 and the ,word was with ,god3 and the ,word was ,god'3 and presently1 ',all things were made by ,him'2--they were much exercised4 ,the expedients to which they had recourse were certainly extraordinary4 ,that ',beginning' 7said ,valentinus7 was the first thing which 'the ,father' created3 which ,he called ',only begotten ,son1' and also ',god'3 and in whom he implanted the germ of all things4 ,seminally1 that is1 whatsoever subsequently came into being was in ,him4 ',the ,word' 7he said7 was a product of this first-created thing4 ,and ',all things were made by ,him1' because in 'the ,word' was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds 7,aeons71 to which he assigned forms#dfj4 ,from which it is plain that1 according to ,valentinus1 'the ,word' was distinct from 'the ,son'2 who was not the world's ,creator4 ,both alike1 however1 he acknowledged to be ',god#dfa'3 but only1 as we have seen already1 using the term in an inferior sense4 ,heracleon1 commenting on ,st4 ,john i4 #c1 insists that 'all things' can but signify this perishable world and the things that are therein3 not essences of a loftier nature4 ,accordingly1 after the words 'and without ,him was not anything made1' he ventures to interpolate this clause1--'of the things that are in the world and in the creation#dfb4' ,true1 that the ,evangelist had declared with unmistakable emphasis1 'and without ,him was not anything' 7literally1 'was not even one thing'7 'made that was made4' ,but instead of 'not even one thing1' the ,valentinian ,gnostics appear to have written 'nothing#dfc'2 and the concluding clause 'that was made1' because he found it simply unmanageable1 ,valentinus boldly severed from its context1 making it the beginning of a fresh sentence4 ,with the ,gnostics1 ver4 #d is found to have begun thus1--',what was made in ,him was life4' ,of the change of ,greek3 oude hen into ,greek3 ouden#dfd traces survive in many of the ,fathers#dfe3 but ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,d are the only ,uncial ,,mss4 which are known to retain that corrupt reading4--,the uncouth sentence which follows 7,greek3 ho gegonen en aut z n71 singular to relate1 was generally tolerated1 became established in many quarters1 and meets us still at every step4 ,it was evidently put forward so perseveringly by the ,gnostics1 with whom it was a kind of article of the faith1 that the orthodox at last became too familiar with it4 ,epiphanius1 though he condemns it1 once employs it#dff4 ,occurring first in a fragment of ,valentinus#dfg3 next1 in the ,commentary of ,heracleon#dfh3 after that1 in the pages of ,theodotus the ,gnostic 7,a4,d4 #aib7dfi3 then1 in an exposure by ,hippolytus of the tenets of the ,naseni#dgj1 7a subsection of the same school72--the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable4 ,but inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal interpretation1 the heretical construction of ,st4 ,john i4 #c was endured by the ,church for full #bjj years4 ,clemens ,alex1 is observed thrice to adopt it#dga3 ,origen#dgb and ,eusebius#dgc fall into it repeatedly4 ,it is found in ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,cd3 apparently in ,cod4 ,a1 where it fills one line exactly4 ,cyril comments largely on it#dgd4 ,but as fresh heresies arose which the depraved text seemed to favour1 the ,church bestirred herself and remonstrated4 ,it suited the ,arians and the ,macedonians#dge1 who insisted that the ,holy ,ghost is a creature4 ,the former were refuted by ,epiphanius1 who points out that the sense is not complete until you have read the words ,greek3 ho gegonen4 ,a fresh sentence 7he says7 begins at ,greek3 ,en aut z n#dgf4 ,chrysostom deals with the latter4 ',let us beware of putting the full stop' 7he says7 'at the words ,greek3 oude hen1--as do the heretics4 ,in order to make out that the ,spirit is a creature1 they read ,greek3 ho gegonen en aut z n3 by which means the ,evangelist's meaning becomes unintelligible#dgg4' ,but in the meantime1 ,valentinus1 whose example was followed by ,theodotus and by at least two of the ,gnostic sects against whom ,hippolytus wrote1 had gone further4 ,the better to conceal ,st4 ,john's purpose1 the heresiarch falsified the inspired text4 ,in the place of1 ',what was made in ,him1 was life1' he substituted ',what was made in ,him1 is life4' ,origen had seen copies so depraved1 and judged the reading not altogether improbable4 ,clement1 on a single occasion1 even adopted it4 ,it was the approved reading of the ,old ,latin versions1--a memorable indication1 by the way1 of a quarter from which the ,old ,latin derived their texts1--which explains why it is found in ,cyprian1 ,hilary1 and ,augustine2 and why ,ambrose has so elaborately vindicated its sufficiency4 ,it also appears in the ,sahidic and in ,cureton's ,syriac2 but not in the ,peshitto1 nor in the ,vulgate4 ,nor in the ,bohairic ,in the meantime1 the only ,greek ,codexes which retain this singular trace of the ,gnostic period at the present day1 are ,codexes ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,d4 #d4 ,we may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the operations of ,heretics4 ,the good ,shepherd in a certain place 7,st4 ,john x4 #ad1 #ae7 says concerning ,himself--',i know ,my sheep and am known of ,mine1 even as the ,father knoweth ,me and ,i know the ,father'3 by which words ,he hints at a mysterious knowledge as subsisting between ,himself and those that are ,his4 ,and yet it is worth observing that whereas ,he describes the knowledge which subsists between the ,father and the ,son in language which implies that it is strictly identical on either side1 ,he is careful to distinguish between the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the ,creator by slightly varying the expression1--thus leaving it to be inferred that it is not1 neither indeed can be1 on either side the same4 ,god knoweth us with a perfect knowledge4 ,our so-called 'knowledge' of ,god is a thing different not only in degree1 but in kind#dgh4 ,hence the peculiar form which the sentence assumes#dgi3--;,greek3 ginsk ta ema1 kai ginskomai hypo tn emn4 ,and this delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained all down the ages1 being witnessed to at this hour by every ,,ms4 in existence except four now well known to us3 viz4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl4 ,the ,syriac also retains it1--as does ,macarius#dhj1 ,gregory ,naz4#dha1 ,chrysostom#dhb1 ,cyril#dhc1 ,theodoret#dhd1 ,maximus#dhe4 ,it is a point which really admits of no rational doubt3 for does any one suppose that if ,st4 ,john had written ',mine own know ,me1' #iif ,,mss4 out of #ajjj at the end of #a1hjj years would exhibit1 ',i am known of ,mine'8 ,but in fact it is discovered that these words of our ,lord experienced depravation at the hands of the ,manichaean heretics4 ,besides inverting the clauses1 7and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on the side of ,man47 ,manes 7,a4,d4 #bfa7 obliterated the peculiarity above indicated4 ,quoting from his own fabricated ,gospel1 he acquaints us with the form in which these words were exhibited in that mischievous production3 viz4 ,greek3 ginskei me ta ema1 kai ginsk ta ema4 ,this we learn from ,epiphanius and from ,basil#dhf4 ,cyril1 in a paper where he makes clear reference to the same heretical ,gospel1 insists that the order of knowledge must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended#dhg4--;,but then1 it is found that certain of the orthodox contented themselves with merely reversing the clauses1 and so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed--regardless of the exquisite refinement of expression to which attention was called at the outset4 ,copies must once have abounded which represented our ,lord as saying1 ',i know ,my own and ,my own know ,me1 even as the ,father knoweth ,me and ,i know the ,father'2 for it is the order of the ,old ,latin1 ,bohairic1 ,sahidic1 ,ethiopic1 ,lewis1 ,georgian1 ,slavonic1 and ,gothic1 though not of the ,peshitto1 ,harkleian1 and ,armenian2 and ,eusebius#dhh1 ,nonnus1 and even ,basil#dhi so read the place4 ,but no token of this clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of the ,gospels1--except ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl4 ,will it be believed that nevertheless all the recent ,editors of ,scripture since ,lachmann insist on obliterating this refinement of language1 and going back to the reading which the ,church has long since deliberately rejected1--to the manifest injury of the deposit8 ',many words about a trifle1'--some will be found to say4 ,yes1 to deny ,god's truth is a very facile proceeding4 ,its rehabilitation always requires many words4 ,i request only that the affinity between ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl and the ,latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement#dij1 may be carefully noted4 ,strange to say1 the true reading receives no notice from ,westcott and ,hort1 or the ,revisers#dia4 #e4 ,doctrinal4 ,the question of ,matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics freely dogmatized4 ,saturninus#dib 7,a4,d4 #abj7 and his followers taught that marriage was a production of ,hell4 ,we are not surprised after this to find that those places in the ,gospel which bear on the relation between man and wife exhibit traces of perturbation4 ,i am not asserting that the heretics themselves depraved the text4 ,i do but state two plain facts3 viz4 7#a7 ,that whereas in the second century certain heretical tenets on the subject of ,marriage prevailed largely1 and those who advocated as well as those who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the ,gospel for their proofs3 7#b7 ,it is accordingly found that not only does the phenomenon of 'various readings' prevail in those places of the ,gospel which bear most nearly on the disputed points1 but the 'readings' are exactly of that suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tampering with the text by men who had to maintain1 or else to combat1 opinions of a certain class4 ,i proceed to establish what ,i have been saying by some actual examples#dic4 ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #bi4 ,greek3 gynaika1 --,,bd abc ,orig4 ,st4 ,mark x4 #bi4 ,greek3 gynaika1 --,symbol3 ,aleph,,bd,symbol3 ,delta1 abc1 c4 ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #bi4 ,greek3 gynaika1 all allow it4 ,greek3 hotan de leg2 hoti pas hostis aphke gynaika1 ou touto phsin1 hste apls diaspasthai tous gamous1 k4t4l4 ,chrys4 vii4 #fcf ,e4 ,greek3 ,paradeigmatisai 7in ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #ai7 is another of the expressions which have been disturbed by the same controversy4 ,i suspect that ,origen is the author 7see the heading of the ,scholion in ,cramer's ,catenae7 of a certain uncritical note which ,eusebius reproduces in his 'quaestiones ad ,stephanum#did' on the difference between ,greek3 deigmatisai and ,greek3 paradeigmatisai2 and that with him originated the substitution of the uncompounded for the compounded verb in this place4 ,be that as it may1 ,eusebius certainly read ,greek3 paradeigmatisai 7,dem4 #cbj71 with all the uncials but two 7,,bz73 all the cursives but one 7,i74 ,will it be believed that ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 ,tischendorf1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort1 on such slender evidence as that are prepared to reconstruct the text of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel8 ,it sounds so like trifling with a reader's patience to invite his attention to an elaborate discussion of most of the changes introduced into the text by ,tischendorf and his colleagues1 that ,i knowingly pass over many hundreds of instances where ,i am nevertheless perfectly well aware of my own strength1--my opponent's weakness4 ,such discussions in fact become unbearable when the points in dispute are confessedly trivial4 ,no one however will deny that when three consecutive words of our ,lord are challenged they are worth contending for4 ,we are invited then to believe 7,st4 ,luke xxii4 #fg-h7 that ,he did not utter the bracketed words in the following sentence1--',if ,i tell you1 ye will not believe2 and if ,i ask you1 ye will not answer 7,me1 nor let ,me go74' ,now1 ,i invite the reader to inquire for the grounds of this assertion4 ,fifteen of the uncials 7including ,,ad71 and every known cursive1 besides all the ,latin and all the ,syriac copies recognize the bracketed words4 ,they are only missing in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,blt and their ally the ,bohairic4 ,are we nevertheless to be assured that the words are to be regarded as spurious8 ,let the reader then be informed that ,marcion left out seven words more 7viz4 all from1 ',and if ,i ask you' to the end71 and will he doubt either that the words are genuine or that their disappearance from four copies of bad character1 as proved by their constant evidence1 and from one version is sufficiently explained8 ,,footnotes3 #dda ,greek3 pseudnymou gnses #a ,tim4 vi4 #bj4 #ddb #a ,tim4 iv4 #a-c4 #ddc ii4 #ag4 #ddd ,acts xx4 #bi4 #dde ,rev4 ii4 #f4 #ddf ,rev4 ii4 #ae4 #ddg ,rev4 ii4 #ac4 #ddh ,chiefly the ,low ,latin amongst them4 ,tradit4 ,text4 chap4 vii4 p4 #acg4 #ddi ',ausus fuit et ,basilides scribere ,evangelium1 et suo illud nomine titulare4'--,orig4 ,opp4 iii4 #icc c3 ,iren4 i4 #bc3 ,clem4 ,al4 #dji1 #dbf1 #ejf1 #eji1 #edj1 #ede3 ,tertull4 c4 #df3 ,epiph4 #bd3 ,theodor4 i4 #d4 #dej ',evangelium habet etiam suum1 praeter haec nostra' 7,de ,praescript41 ad calcem74 #dea ,origen 7commenting on ,st4 ,luke x4 #be-bh7 says1--,greek3 tauta de eirtai prs tois apo ,oualentinou1 kai ,basilidou1 kai tous apo ,markinos4 echousi gar kai autoi tas lexeis en ti kath' heautous euangelii4 ,opp4 iii4 #iha ,a4 #deb ',licet non sint digni fide1 qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt1 ,marcionem loquor et ,basilidem et omnes ,haereticos qui vetus laniant ,testamentum3 tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus1 si saltem in novo continerent manus suas2 et non auderent ,christi 7ut ipsi iactitant7 boni ,dei ,filii1 vel ,evangelistas violare1 vel ,apostolos4 ,nunc vero1 quum et ,evangelia eius dissipaverint2 et ,apostolorum epistolas1 non ,apostolorum ,christi fecerunt esse1 sed proprias2 miror quomodo sibi ,christianorum nomen audeant vindicare4 ,ut enim de caeteris ,epistolis taceam1 7de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant1 evaserunt1 nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt72 ad ,timotheum videlicet utramque1 ad ,hebraeos1 et ad ,titum1 quam nunc conamur exponere4' ,hieron4 ,praef4 ad ,titum4 #dec ',hi vero1 qui sunt a ,valentino1 exsistentes extra omnem timorem1 suas conscriptiones praeferentes1 plura habere gloriantur1 quam sint ipsa ,evangelia4 ,siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae1 uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est1 ,veritatis ,evangelium titulent4' ,iren4 iii4 xi4 #i4 #ded ,see1 by all means1 ,epiphanius1 ,haer4 xxx4 c4 xiii2 also c4 iii4 #dee ',tanta est circa ,evangelia haec firmitas1 ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium reddant eis1 et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam4 ,ebionaei etenim eo ,evangelio quod est secundum ,matthaeum1 solo utentes1 ex illo ipso convincuntur1 non recte praesumentes de ,domino4 ,marcion autem id quod est secundum ,lucam circumcidens1 ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum1 blasphemus in solum existentem ,deum ostenditur4 ,qui autem ,iesum separant a ,christo1 et impassibilem perseverasse ,christum1 passum vero ,iesum dicunt1 id quod secundum ,marcum est praeferentes ,evangelium2 cum amore veritatis legentes illud1 corrigi possunt4 ,hi autem qui a ,valentino sunt1 eo quod est secundum ,joannem plenissime utentes1' c4 ,iren4 iii4 xi4 #g4 #def ,greek3 ,hraklen1 ho ts ,oualentinou schols dokimtatos4 ,clem4 ,al4 p4 #eie4 ,of ,heracleon it is expressly related by ,origen that he depraved the text of the ,gospel4 ,origen says 7iv4 #ff7 that ,heracleon 7regardless of the warning in ,prov4 xxx4 #f7 added to the text of ,st4 ,john i4 #c 7vii4 after the words ,greek3 egeneto oude en7 the words ,greek3 tn en t kosmi1 kai t ktisei4 ,heracleon clearly read ,greek3 ho gegonen en aut z n4 ,see ,orig4 iv4 #fd4 ,in ,st4 ,john ii4 #ai1 for ,greek3 en trisi1 he wrote ,greek3 en trit4 ,he also read 7,st4 ,john iv4 #ah7 7for ,greek3 pente71 ,greek3 ex andras esches4 #deg ,celsus having objected that believers had again and again falsified the text of the ,gospel1 refashioning it1 in order to meet the objections of assailants1 ,origen replies3 ,greek3 ,metacharaxantas de to euangelion allous ouk oida1 h tous apo ,markinos1 kai tous apo ,oualentinou1 oimai de kai tous apo ,loukanou4 touto de legomenon ou tou logou estin egklma1 alla tn tolmsantn rhadiourgsai ta euangelia4 ,opp4 i4 #daa ,b4 #deh ,de ,praesc4 ,haer4 c4 #ea4 #dei ,greek3 ,outos de dmiourgos kai poits toude tou pantos kosmou kai tn en aut 444 estai men katadeesteros tou teleiou ,theou 444 ate d kai genntos n1 kai ouk agenntos4 ,ptolemaeus1 ap4 ,epiph4 p4 #bag4 ,heracleon saw in the nobleman of ,capernaum an image of the ,demiurge who1 ,greek3 basilikos nomasth hoionei mikros tis basileus1 hypo katholikou basiles tetagmenos epi mikras basileias1 p4 #cgc4 #dfj ,greek3 ,o ,ianns 444 boulomenos eipein tn tn holn genesin1 kath' n ta panta proebalen ho ,patr1 archn tina hypotithetai1 to prton gennthen hypo tou theou1 hon d kai huion ,monogen kai ,theon keklken1 en h ta panta ho ,patr proebale spermatiks4 ,hypo de toutou phsi ton ,logon probeblsthai1 kai en aut tn holn tn ,ainn ousian1 n autos hysteron emorphsen ho ,logos4444 ,panta di' autou egeneto1 kai chris autou egeneto oude hen2 pasi gar tois met' auton ,aisi morphs kai geneses aitios ho ,logos egeneto4 #dfa ,greek3 ,en t ,patri kai ek tou ,patros h arch1 kai ek ts archs ho ,logos4 ,kals oun eipen2 en arch n ho ,logos2 n gar en t ,hui4 ,kai ho ,logos n pros ton ,theon2 kai gar h ',arch2 kai ,theos n ho ,logos1 akolouths4 ,to gar ek ,theou gennthen ,theos estin4--,ibid4 p4 #ajb4 ,compare the ,excerpt4 ,theod4 ap4 ,clem4 ,al4 c4 vi4 p4 #ifh4 #dfb ,ap4 ,orig4 #ich4 #i4 #dfc ,so ,theodotus 7p4 #ihj71 and so ,ptolemaeus 7ap4 ,epiph4 i4 #bag71 and so ,heracleon 7ap4 ,orig4 p4 #ied74 ,also ,meletius the ,semi-,arian 7ap4 ,epiph4 i4 #hhb74 #dfd ,see ,the ,traditional ,text1 p4 #aac4 #dfe ,clem4 ,al4 always has ,greek3 oude hen 7viz4 pp4 #acd1 #aef1 #bgc1 #gfi1 #ghg1 #hjc1 #hab1 #hae1 #hbj73 but when he quotes the ,gnostics 7p4 #hch7 he has ,greek3 ouden4 ,cyril1 while writing his treatise ,de ,trinitate1 read ,greek3 ouden in his copy4 ,eusebius1 for example1 has ,greek3 oude hen1 fifteen times2 ,greek3 ouden only twice1 viz4 ,praep4 #cbb3 ,esai4 #ebi4 #dff ,opp4 ii4 #gd4 #dfg ,ap4 ,iren4 #ajb4 #dfh ,ibid4 #idj4 #dfi ,ap4 ,clem4 ,al4 #ifh1 #igc4 #dgj ,philosoph4 #ajg4 ,but not when he is refuting the tenets of the ,peratae3 ,greek3 oude hen1 ho gegonen4 en aut z estin4 en aut de1 phsin1 h ,eua gegonen1 h ,eua z4 ,ibid4 p4 #acd4 #dga ,opp4 #aad1 #bah1 #ajji4 #dgb ,cels4 vi4 #e3 ,princip4 ,,ii4 ix4 #d3 ,,iv4 i4 #cj3 ,in ,joh4 i4 #bb1 #cd3 ii4 #f1 #aj1 #ab1 #ac bis3 ,in ,rom4 iii4 #aj1 #ae3 ,haer4 v4 #aea4 #dgc ,psalm4 #adf1 #bce1 #bde3 ,marcell4 #bcg4 ,not so in ,ecl4 #ajj3 ,praep4 #cbb1 #edj4 #dgd ,greek3 ,anagkais phsin1 ho gegonen1 eni aut z n4 ou monon phsi1 di autou ta panta egeneto1 alla kai ei ti gegonen n en aut h z4 tout' estin1 ho monogens tou ,theo logos1 h pantn arch1 kai systasis horatn te kai aoratn 444 autos gar hyparchn h kata physin z1 to einai kai zn kai kineisthai polytrops tois ousi charisetai4 ,opp4 iv4 #di e4 ,he understood the ,evangelist to declare concerning the ,greek3 ,logos1 that1 ,greek3 panta di' autou egeneto1 kai n en tois genomenois hs z4 ,ibid4 #fj c4 #dge ,greek3 ,outoi de boulontai auto einai ktisma ktismatos4 phasi gar1 hoti panto di' autou gegone1 kai chris autou egeneto oude hen4 ara1 phasi1 kai to ,pneuma ek tn poimatn hyparchei1 epeid panta di' autou gegone4 ,opp4 i4 #gda4 ,which is the teaching of ,eusebius1 ,marcell4 #ccc-d4 ,the ,macedonians were an offshoot of the ,arians4 #dgf i4 #ggh ,d1 #ggi ,b4 ,see also ii4 #hj4 #dgg ,opp4 viii4 #dj4 #dgh ,consider #a ,john ii4 #c1 #d3 and read ,basil ii4 #ahh b1 c4 ,see p4 #bjg1 note #d4 ,consider also ,gal4 iv4 #i4 ,so ,cyril ,al4 iv4 #fee a1 ,greek3 kai proegn mallon h egnsth par' hmn4 #dgi ,chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this3--,greek3 hina m ts gnses ison ton metron nomisis1 akouson ps diorthoutai auto ti epaggi2 ginsk ta ema1 phsi1 kai ginskomai hypo tn emn4 all' ouk is h gnsis1 k4t4l4 viii4 #cec d4 #dhj ,p4 #ch4 7,gall4 vii4 #bf47 #dha i4 #bih1 #fac4 #dhb viii4 #cea1 #cec d and e4 #dhc iv4 #feb c1 #fec a1 #fed d4 #dhd i4 #gdh3 iv4 #cgd1 #eej4 #dhe ,in ,dionys4 ,ar4 ii4 #aib4 #dhf ,greek3 ,phsi de ho autos ,mans 444 ta ema probata ginskei me1 kai ginsk ta ema probata4 7,epiphan4 i4 #fig47--;,again1--,greek3 hrpasen ho hairetikos pros tn idian kataskeun ts blasphmias4 idou1 phsin1 eirtai2 hoti ginasousi 7lower down1 ,greek3 ginskei7 ,greek3 me ta ema1 kai ginsk ta ema4 7,basil ii4 #ahh a1 b47 #dhg ,greek3 ,en taxei t oikeia kai prepdestat tn pragmatn ekasta titheis4 ou gar eph1 ginskei me ta ema1 kai ginsk ta ema1 all' heauton egnkata proteron eispherei ta idia probata1 eith' outs gnsthsesthai phsi par autn 444 ouch hmeis auton epegnkamen prtoi1 epegn de hmas prton autos 444 ouch hmeis rxametha tou pragmatos1 all' ho ek ,theou ,theos monogens4--iv4 #fed d1 #fee a4 7,note1 that this passage appears in a mutilated form1 viz4 #aba words are omitted1 in the ,catena of ,corderius1 p4 #bfg1--where it is wrongly assigned to ,chrysostom3 an instructive instance47 #dhh ,in ,ps4 #dhi3 in ,es4 #eji3 ,theoph4 #ahe1 #beh1 #bfj4 #dhi ii4 #ahh a3--which is the more remarkable1 because ,basil proceeds exquisitely to shew 7#ahhf7 that man's 'knowledge' of ,god consists in his keeping of ,god's ,commandments4 7#a ,john ii4 #c1 #d47 ,see p4 #bjf1 note #a4 #dij ,so ,jerome1 iv4 #dhd3 vii4 #dee4 ,strange1 that neither ,ambrose nor ,augustine should quote the place4 #dia ,see ,revision ,revised1 p4 #bbj4 #dib ,or ,saturnilus--,greek3 to de gamein kai gennan apo tou ,satana phsin einai4 p4 #bde1 l4 #ch4 ,so ,marcion1 #bec4 #dic ,the ,,ms4 breaks off here1 with references to ,st4 ,mark x4 #g1 ,eph4 v4 #ca-b 7on which the ,dean had accumulated a large array of references71 ,st4 ,mark x4 #bi-cj1 with a few references1 but no more4 ,i have not had yet time or strength to work out the subject4 #did ,mai1 iv4 #bba4 ,,chapter ,,xiv4 ,,causes ,,of ,,corruption ,,chiefly ,,intentional4 ,x4 ,corruption by the ,orthodox4 #a4 ,another cause why1 in very early times1 the ,text of the ,gospels underwent serious depravation1 was mistaken solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the purity of the ,catholic faith4 ,these persons1 like certain of the moderns1 ,beza for example1 evidently did not think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired ,text4 ,if any expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency1 they altered it1 or transplanted it1 or removed it bodily from the sacred page4 ,about the uncritical nature of what they did1 they entertained no suspicion3 about the immorality of the proceeding1 they evidently did not trouble themselves at all4 ,on the contrary1 the piety of the motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount of licence4 ,the copies which had undergone this process of castigation were even styled 'corrected1'--and doubtless were popularly looked upon as 'the correct copies' like our 'critical texts'4 ,an illustration of this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned by ,epiphanius4 ,he states 7ii4 #cf7 that the orthodox1 out of jealousy for the ,lord's ,divinity1 eliminated from ,st4 ,luke xix4 #da the record that our ,saviour 'wept4' ,we will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth4 ,but when the same ,father adds1--',in the uncorrected copies 7,greek3 en tois adiorthtois antigraphois7 is found ,he wept1' ,epiphanius is instructive4 ,perfectly well aware that the expression is genuine1 he goes on to state that ',irenaeus quoted it in his work against ,heresies1 when he had to confute the error of the ,docetae#die4' ',nevertheless1' ,epiphanius adds1 'the orthodox through fear erased the record4' ,so then1 the process of 'correction' was a critical process conducted on utterly erroneous principles by men who knew nothing whatever about ,textual ,criticism4 ,such recensions of the ,text proved simply fatal to the ,deposit4 ,to 'correct' was in this and such like cases simply to 'corrupt4' ,codexes ,b,symbol3 ,aleph,d may be regarded as specimens of ,codexes which have once and again passed through the hands of such a corrector or ,greek3 diorthts4 ,st4 ,luke 7ii4 #dj7 records concerning the infant ,saviour that 'the child grew1 and waxed strong in spirit4' ,by repeating the selfsame expression which already1--viz4 in chap4 i4 #hj1--;had been applied to the ,childhood of the ,forerunner#dif1 it was clearly the design of the ,author of ,scripture to teach that the ,word 'made flesh' submitted to the same laws of growth and increase as every other ,son of ,adam4 ,the body 'grew1'--the spiritual part 'waxed strong4' ,this statement was nevertheless laid hold of by the enemies of ,christianity4 ,how can it be pretended 7they asked7 that ,he was 'perfect ,god' 7,greek3 teleios ,theos71 of whom it is related in respect of ,his spirit that he 'waxed strong#dig'8 ,the consequence might have been foreseen4 ,certain of the orthodox were ill-advised enough to erase the word ,greek3 pneumati from the copies of ,st4 ,luke ii4 #dj2 and lo1 at the end of #a1ejj years1 four 'corrected' copies1 two ,versions1 one ,greek ,father1 survive to bear witness to the ancient fraud4 ,no need to inquire which1 what1 and who these be4 ,but because it is ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bdl1 ,origen#dih1 and the ,latin1 the ,egyptian and ,lewis which are without the word ,greek3 pneumati1 ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 ,tischendorf1 and the ,revisers jump to the conclusion that ,greek3 pneumati is a spurious accretion to the ,text4 ,they ought to reverse their proceeding2 and recognize in the evidence one more indication of the untrustworthiness of the witnesses4 ,for1--how then is it supposed that the word 7,greek3 pneumati7 ever obtained its footing in the ,gospel8 ,for all reply we are assured that it has been imported hither from ,st4 ,luke i4 #hj4 ,but1 we rejoin1 ,how does the existence of the phrase ,greek3 ekrataiouto pneumati in i4 #hj explain its existence in ii4 #dj1 in every known copy of the ,gospels except four1 if in these #iif places1 suppose1 it be an interpolation8 ,this is what has to be explained4 ,is it credible that all the remaining uncials1 and every known cursive copy1 besides all the lectionaries1 should have been corrupted in this way3 and that the truth should survive exclusively at this time only in the remaining four2 viz4 in ,b,symbol3 ,aleph1--the sixth century ,cod4 ,d1--and the eighth century ,cod4 ,l8 ,when then1 and where did the work of depravation take place8 ,it must have been before the sixth century1 because ,leontius of ,cyprus#dii quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length3--before the fifth1 because1 besides ,cod4 ,a1 ,cyril#ejj ,theodoret#eja and ps4-,caesarius#ejb recognize the word3--before the fourth1 because ,epiphanius#ejc1 ,theodore of ,mopsuestia#ejd1 and the ,gothic version have it3--before the third1 before nearly all of the second century1 because it is found in the ,peshitto4 ,what more plain than that we have before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of the orthodox8 one more sample of the infelicity of modern criticism8 #b4 ,theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of ,st4 ,john viii4 #dj1 when they pretended to shew from ,scripture that ,christ is mere ,man#eje4 ,i am persuaded that the reading 'of ,my ,father#ejf1'--with which ,origen#ejg1 ,epiphanius#ejh1 ,athanasius#eji1 ,chrysostom#eaj1 ,cyril ,alex4#eaa1 and ,theodoret#eab prove to have been acquainted1--was substituted by some of the orthodox in this place1 with the pious intention of providing a remedy for the heretical teaching of their opponents4 ,at the present day only six cursive copies are known to retain this trace of a corruption of ,scripture which must date from the second century4 ,we now reach a most remarkable instance4 ,it will be remembered that ,st4 ,john in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse4 ,he had said 7ver4 #ad7 that 'the ,word was made flesh1' c42 a statement which ,valentinus was willing to admit4 ,but1 as we have seen1 the heresiarch and his followers denied that 'the ,word' is also 'the ,son' of ,god4 ,as if in order to bar the door against this pretence1 ,st4 ,john announces 7ver4 #ah7 that 'the only begotten ,son1 which is in the bosom of the ,father1 he hath declared him'3 thus establishing the identity of the ,word and the ,only begotten ,son4 ,what else could the ,valentinians do with so plain a statement1 but seek to deprave it8 ,accordingly1 the very first time ,st4 ,john i4 #ah is quoted by any of the ancients1 it is accompanied by the statement that the ,valentinians in order to prove that the 'only begotten' is 'the ,beginning1' and is ',god1' appeal to the words1--'the only begotten ,god who is in the bosom of the ,father#eac1' c4 ,inasmuch1 said they1 as the ,father willed to become known to the worlds1 the ,spirit of ,gnosis produced the 'only begotten' ',gnosis1' and therefore gave birth to ',gnosis1' that is to 'the ,son'3 in order that by 'the ,son' 'the ,father' might be made known4 ,while then that 'only begotten ,son' abode 'in the bosom of the ,father1' ,he caused that here upon earth should be seen1 alluding to ver4 #ad1 one 'as the only begotten ,son4' ,in which1 by the way1 the reader is requested to note that the author of the ,excerpta ,theodoti 7a production of the second century7 reads ,st4 ,john i4 #ah as we do4 ,i have gone into all these strange details1--derived1 let it be remembered1 from documents which carry us back to the former half of the second century1--because in no other way is the singular phenomenon which attends the text of ,st4 ,john i4 #ah to be explained and accounted for4 ,sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is1 this verse of ,scripture is observed to exhibit perturbations which are even extraordinary4 ,irenaeus once writes ,greek3 ho 8 ,greek3 monogens uios3 once1 ,greek3 ho 8 ,greek3 monogens uios ,theos3 once1 ,greek3 ho monogens uios ,theou#ead3 ,clemens ,alex41 ,greek3 ho monogens uios ,theos monos#eae2 which must be very nearly the reading of the ,codex from which the text of the ,vercelli ,copy of the ,old ,latin was derived#eaf4 ,eusebius four times writes ,greek3 ho monogens uios#eag3 twice1 ,greek3 monogens ,theos#eah3 and on one occasion gives his reader the choice of either expression1 explaining why both may stand#eai4 ,gregory ,nyss4#ebj and ,basil#eba1 though they recognize the usual reading of the place1 are evidently vastly more familiar with the reading ,greek3 ho monogens ,theos#ebb3 for ,basil adopts the expression thrice#ebc1 and ,gregory nearly thirty-three times as often#ebd4 ,this was also the reading of ,cyril ,alex4#ebe1 whose usual phrase however is ,greek3 ho monogens tou ,theou logos#ebf4 ,didymus has only 8 cp4 context ,greek3 ho monogens ,theos1--for which he once writes ,greek3 ho monogens ,theos logos#ebg4 ,cyril of ,jer4 seems to have read ,greek3 ho monogens monos#ebh4 ,i have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in the form in which the ,dean left it4 ,it evidently has not the perfection that attends some of his papers1 and would have been amplified and improved if his life had been spared4 ,more passages than he noticed1 though limited to the ante-,chrysostom period1 are referred to in the companion volume#ebi4 ,the portentous number of mentions by ,gregory of ,nyssa escaped me1 though ,i knew that there were several4 ,such repetitions of a phrase could only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and representative number4 ,indeed1 ,i often quoted at least on our side less than the real number of such reiterations occurring in one passage1 because in course of repetition they came to assume for such a purpose a parrot-like value4 ,but the most important part of the ,dean's paper is found in his account of the origin of the expression4 ,this inference is strongly confirmed by the employment of it in the ,arian controversy4 ,arius reads ,greek3 ,theos 7ap4 ,epiph4 #gc--,tischendorf71 whilst his opponents read ,greek3 ,huios4 ,so ,faustinus seven times 7,i noted him only thrice71 and ,victorinus ,afer six 7#aj7 times in reply to the ,arian ,candidus#ecj4 ,also ,athanasius and ,hilary of ,poictiers four times each1 and ,ambrose eight 7add ,epp4 ,i4 xxii4 #e74 ,it is curious that with this history admirers of ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph should extol their reading over the ,traditional reading on the score of orthodoxy4 ,heresy had and still retains associations which cannot be ignored3 in this instance some of the orthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics#eca4 ,none may read ,holy ,scripture just as the idea strikes them4 #c4 ,all are familiar with the received text of #a ,cor4 xv4 #dg3--;,greek3 ho prtos anthrpos ek gs choikos2 ho deuteros anthrpos ho ,kyrios ex ouranou4 ,that this place was so read in the first age is certain3 for so it stands in the ,syriac4 ,these early heretics however of whom ,st4 ,john speaks1 who denied that ',jesus ,christ had come in the flesh#ecb' and who are known to have freely 'taken away from the words' of ,scripture#ecc1 are found to have made themselves busy here4 ,if 7they argued7 'the second man' was indeed 'the ,lord-from-,heaven1' how can it be pretended that ,christ took upon ,himself human flesh#ecd8 ,and to bring out this contention of theirs more plainly1 they did not hesitate to remove as superfluous the word 'man' in the second clause of the sentence4 ,there resulted1--',the first man was of the earth1 earthy3 ,greek3 ho deuteros ,kyrios ex ouranou#ece4' ,it is thus that ,marcion#ecf 7,a4,d4 #acj7 and his followers#ecg read the place4 ,but in this subject-matter extravagance in one direction is ever observed to beget extravagance in another4 ,i suspect that it was in order to counteract the ejection by the heretics of ,greek3 anthrpos in ver4 #dg1 that1 early in the second century1 the orthodox retaining ,greek3 anthrpos1 judged it expedient to leave out the expression ,greek3 ho ,kyrios1 which had been so unfairly pressed against them2 and were contented to read1--'the second man was from heaven4' ,a calamitous exchange1 truly4 ,for first1 7,i71 ,the text thus maimed afforded countenance to another form of misbelief4 ,and next1 7,,ii71 ,it necessitated a further change in #a ,cor4 xv4 #dg4 7,i7 ,it furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that ,christ was ',man' before ,he came into the ,world4 ,this heresy came to a head in the persons of ,apolinarius#ech and ,photinus2 in contending with whom1 ,greg4 ,naz4#eci and ,epiphanius#edj are observed to argue with disadvantage from the mutilated text4 ,tertullian#eda1 and ,cyprian#edb after him1 knew no other reading but 'secundus homo de ,caelo1'--which is in fact the way this place stands in the ,old ,latin4 ,and thus1 from the second century downwards1 two readings 7for the ,marcionite text was speedily forgotten7 became current in the ,church3--7#a7 ,the inspired language of the ,apostle1 cited at the outset1--which is retained by all the known copies1 except nine2 and is vouched for by ,basil#edc1 ,chrysostom#edd1 ,theodotus#ede1 ,eutherius#edf1 ,theodorus ,mops4#edg1 ,damascene#edh1 ,petrus ,siculus#edi1 and ,theophylact#eej3 and 7#b7 ,the corrected 7i4e4 the maimed7 text of the orthodox2--,greek3 ho deuteros2 anthrpos ex ouranou3 with which1 besides the two ,gregories#eea1 ,photinus#eeb and ,apolinarius the heretics were acquainted2 but which at this day is only known to survive in ,symbol3 ,aleph99,,bcd99,,efg and two cursive copies4 ,origen#eec1 and 7long after him7 ,cyril1 employed both readings#eed4 7,,ii7 ,but then1 7as all must see7 such a maimed exhibition of the text was intolerable4 ,the balance of the sentence had been destroyed4 ,against ,greek3 ho prtos anthrpos1 ,st4 ,paul had set ,greek3 ho deuteros anthrpos3 against ,greek3 ek gs--,greek3 ex ouranou3 against ,greek3 choikos--,greek3 ho ,kyrios4 ,remove ,greek3 ho ,kyrios1 and some substitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to ,greek3 choikos4 ,taking a hint from what is found in ver4 #dh1 some one 7plausibly enough17 suggested ,greek3 epouranios3 and this gloss so effectually recommended itself to ,western ,christendom1 that having been adopted by ,ambrose#eee1 by ,jerome#eef 7and later by ,augustine#eeg17 it established itself in the ,vulgate#eeh1 and is found in all the later ,latin writers#eei4 ,thus then1 a third rival reading enters the field1--which because it has well-nigh disappeared from ,greek ,,mss41 no longer finds an advocate4 ,our choice lies therefore between the two former3--viz4 7a7 the received1 which is the only well-attested reading of the place3 and 7b7 the maimed text of the ,old ,latin1 which ,jerome deliberately rejected 7,a4,d4 #chj71 and for which he substituted another even worse attested reading4 7,note1 that these two ,western fabrications effectually dispose of one another47 ,it should be added that ,athanasius#efj lends his countenance to all the three readings4 ,but now1 let me ask1--,will any one be disposed1 after a careful survey of the premisses1 to accept the verdict of ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles and the rest1 who are for bringing the ,church back to the maimed text of which ,i began by giving the history and explaining the origin8 ,let it be noted that the one question is1--shall ,greek3 ho ,kyrios be retained in the second clause1 or not8 ,but there it stood within thirty years of the death of ,st4 ,john3 and there it stands1 at the end of eighteen centuries in every extant copy 7including ,,aklp7 except nine4 ,it has been excellently witnessed to all down the ages1--viz4 ,by ,origen1 ,hippolytus1 ,athanasius1 ,basil1 ,chrysostom1 ,cyril1 ,theodotus1 ,eutherius1 ,theodore ,mops41 ,damascene and others4 ,on what principle would you now reject it8444 ,with critics who assume that a reading found in ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcdefg must needs be genuine1--it is vain to argue4 ,and yet the most robust faith ought to be effectually shaken by the discovery that four1 if not five 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,acfg7 of these same ,,mss41 by reading 'we shall all sleep2 but we shall not all be changed1' contradict ,st4 ,paul's solemn announcement in ver4 #ea3 while a sixth 7,d7 stands alone in substituting 'we shall all rise2 but we shall not all be changed4'--,in this very verse1 ,c is for introducing ,greek3 ,adam into the first clause of the sentence3 ,,fg1 for subjoining ,greek3 ho ouranios4 ,when will men believe that guides like these are to be entertained with habitual distrust8 to be listened to with the greatest caution8 to be followed1 for their own sakes1--never8 ,i have been the fuller on this place1 because it affords an instructive example of what has occasionally befallen the words of ,scripture4 ,very seldom indeed are we able to handle a text in this way4 ,only when the heretics assailed1 did the orthodox defend3 whereby it came to pass that a record was preserved of how the text was read by the ancient ,father4 ,the attentive reader will note 7a7 ,that all the changes which we have been considering belong to the earliest age of all3--7b7 ,that the corrupt reading is retained by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc and their following3 the genuine text1 in the great bulk of the copies3--7c7 ,that the first mention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic3--7d7 ,that the orthodox introduced a change in the interests1 as they fancied1 of truth1 but from utter misapprehension of the nature and authority of the ,word of ,god3--and 7e7 that under the ,divine ,providence that change was so effectually thrown out1 that decisive witness is found on the other side4 #d4 ,closely allied to the foregoing1 and constantly referred to in connexion with it by those ,fathers who undertook to refute the heresy of ,apolinarius1 is our ,lord's declaration to ,nicodemus1--',no man hath ascended up to heaven1 but ,he that came down from heaven1 even the ,son of ,man which is in heaven' 7,st4 ,john iii4 #ac74 ,christ 'came down from heaven' when ,he became incarnate3 and having become incarnate1 is said to have 'ascended up to ,heaven1' and 'to be in ,heaven1' because 'the ,son of ,man1' who was not in heaven before1 by virtue of the hypostatical union was thenceforward evermore 'in heaven4' ,but the ,evangelist's language was very differently taken by those heretics who systematically 'maimed and misinterpreted that which belongeth to the human nature of ,christ4' ,apolinarius1 who relied on the present place1 is found to have read it without the final clause 7,greek3 ho n en t ouran72 and certain of the orthodox 7as ,greg4 ,naz41 ,greg4 ,nyssa1 ,epiphanius1 while contending with him17 shew themselves not unwilling to argue from the text so mutilated4 ,origen and the author of the ,dialogus once1 ,eusebius twice1 ,cyril not fewer than nineteen times1 also leave off at the words 'even the ,son of ,man'3 from which it is insecurely gathered that those ,fathers disallowed the clause which follows4 ,on the other hand1 thirty-eight ,fathers and ten ,versions maintain the genuineness of the words ,greek3 ho n en t ouran#efa4 ,but the decisive circumstance is that1--besides the ,syriac and the ,latin copies which all witness to the existence of the clause1--the whole body of the uncials1 four only excepted 7,symbol3 ,aleph,,bltb71 and every known cursive but one 7#cc7--;are for retaining it4 ,no thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the foregoing without inferring from the facts which have emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of depravations of the inspired verity4 ,for let me not be supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was the work of ,apolinarius4 ,like the rest1 it is probably older by at least #aej years4 ,apolinarius1 in whose person the heresy which bears his name came to a head1 did but inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error2 and these had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of the deposit4 #eefb4 ,the matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by inviting the reader's attention to another famous place4 ,there is a singular consent among the ,critics for eliminating from ,st4 ,luke ix4 #ed-f1 twenty-four words which embody two memorable sayings of the ,son of ,man4 ,the entire context is as follows3--',lord1 wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them1 7as ,elias did78 ,but he turned1 and rebuked them1 7and said1 ,ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of47 7,for the ,son of ,man is not come to destroy men's lives1 but to save them47 ,and they went to another village4' ,the three bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in dispute4 ,the first of these clauses 7,greek3 hs kai ,hlias epoise71 which claims to be part of the inquiry of ,st4 ,john and ,st4 ,james1 ,mill rejected as an obvious interpolation4 ',res ipsa clamat4 ,quis enim sanus tam insignia deleverit#efc8' ,griesbach retained it as probably genuine4--,the second clause 7,greek3 kai eipen1 ,ouk oidate hoiou pneumatos este hymeis7 he obelized as probably not genuine3--the third 7,greek3 ho gar huios tou anthrpou ouk lthe psychas anthrpn apolesai1 alla ssai7 he rejected entirely4 ,lachmann also retains the first clause1 but rejects the other two4 ,alford1 not without misgiving1 does the same4 ,westcott and ,hort1 without any misgiving about the third clause1 are 'morally certain' that the first and second clauses are a ,western interpolation4 ,tischendorf and ,tregelles are thorough4 ,they agree1 and the ,revisers of #ahha1 in rejecting unceremoniously all the three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly1 thus4--,greek3 ,kyrie1 theleis eipmen pyr katabnai apo tou ouranou1 kai analsai autous2 strapheis de epetimsen autois4 kai eporeuthsan dsan eis heteran kmn4 ,now it may as well be declared at once that ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl,symbol3 ,xi l g#a ,cyrluc#efd1 two ,,mss4 of the ,bohairic 7d #c1 d #b71 the ,lewis1 and two cursives 7#ga1 #aeg7 are literally the only authority1 ancient or modern1 for so exhibiting the text in all its bare crudeness4 ,against them are arrayed the whole body of ,,mss4 uncial and cursive1 including ,,acd2 every known lectionary2 all the ,latin1 the ,syriac 7,cur4 om4 ,clause #a71 and indeed every other known version3 besides seven good ,greek ,fathers beginning with ,clemens ,alex4 7,a4,d4 #aij71 and five ,latin ,fathers beginning with ,tertullian 7,a4,d4 #aij73 ,cyprian's testimony being in fact the voice of the ,fourth ,council of ,carthage1 ,a4,d4 #bec4 ,if on a survey of this body of evidence any one will gravely tell me that the preponderance of authority still seems to him to be in favour of the shorter reason1 ,i can but suggest that the sooner he communicates to the world the grounds for his opinion1 the better4 7#a7 ,in the meantime it becomes necessary to consider the disputed clauses separately1 because ancient authorities1 rivalling modern critics1 are unable to agree as to which they will reject1 which they will retain4 ,i begin with the second4 ,what persuades so many critics to omit the precious words ,greek3 kai eipen1 ,ouk oidate hoiou pneumatos este hymeis1 is the discovery that these words are absent from many uncial ,,mss41--,symbol3 ,aleph,,abc and nine others2 besides1 as might have been confidently anticipated from that fact1 also from a fair proportion of the cursive copies4 ,it is impossible to deny that prima facie such an amount of evidence against any words of ,scripture is exceedingly weighty4 ,pseudo-,basil 7ii4 #bga7 is found to have read the passage in the same curt way4 ,cyril1 on the other hand1 seems to have read it differently4 ,and yet1 the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it is perceived that this disputed clause is recognized by ,clemens#efe 7,a4,d4 #aij72 as well as by the ,old ,latin1 by the ,peshitto1 and by the ,curetonian ,syriac3 for the fact is thus established that as well in ,eastern as in ,western ,christendom the words under discussion were actually recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before the oldest of the extant uncials came into existence4 ,when it is further found that 7besides ,ambrose1 ,jerome1 ,augustine17 the ,vulgate1 the ,old ,egyptian1 the ,harkleian ,syriac and the ,gothic versions also contain the words in question2 and especially that ,chrysostom in four places1 ,didymus1 ,epiphanius1 ,cyril and ,theodoret1 besides ,antiochus1 familiarly quote them1 it is evident that the testimony of antiquity in their favour is even overwhelming4 ,add that in eight uncial ,,mss4 7beginning with ,d7 the words in dispute form part of the text of ,st4 ,luke1 and that they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive copies1--7only six out of the twenty which ,scrivener has collated being without them17--and it is plain that at least five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied4 7#b7 ,the third clause 7,greek3 ho gar huios tou anthrpou ouk lthe psychas anthrpn apolesai1 alla ssai7 rests on precisely the same solid evidence as the second2 except that the testimony of ,clemens is no longer available1--but only because his quotation does not extend so far4 ,cod4 ,d also omits this third clause2 which on the other hand is upheld by ,tertullian1 ,cyprian and ,ambrose4 ,tischendorf suggests that it has surreptitiously found its way into the text from ,st4 ,luke xix4 #aj1 or ,st4 ,matt1 xviii4 #aa4 ,but this is impossible2 simply because what is found in those two places is essentially different3 namely1--,greek3 lthe gar ho huios tou anthrpou ztsai kai#eff ,greek3 ssai to apollos4 7#c7 ,we are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt an illustration is here afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists between documents of the oldest class4 ,this divergence becomes most conspicuous when we direct our attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost clause of the three1 ,greek3 hs kai lias epoisen3 for here we make the notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty1 but also different4 ,codexes ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph are now forsaken by all their former allies except ,l,symbol3 ,xi and a single cursive copy4 ,true1 they are supported by the ,curetonian ,syriac1 the ,vulgate and two copies of the ,old ,latin4 ,but this time they find themselves confronted by ,codexes ,,acd with thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the cursives2 the ,peshitto1 ,coptic1 ,gothic1 and ,harkleian versions2 by ,clemens1 ,jerome1 ,chrysostom1 ,cyril and pseudo-,basil4 ,in respect of antiquity1 variety1 respectability1 numbers1 they are therefore hopelessly outvoted4 ,do any inquire1 ,how then has all this contradiction and depravation of ,codexes ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abc7,d7 come about8 ,i answer as follows3-- ,it was a favourite tenet with the ,gnostic heretics that the ,law and the ,gospel are at variance4 ,in order to establish this1 ,marcion 7in a work called ,antitheses7 set passages of the ,new ,testament against passages of the ,old2 from the seeming disagreement between which his followers were taught to infer that the ,law and the ,gospel cannot have proceeded from one and the same author#efg4 ,now here was a place exactly suited to his purpose4 ,the ,god of the ,old ,testament had twice sent down fire from heaven to consume fifty men4 ,but 'the ,son of ,man1' said our ,saviour1 when invited to do the like1 'came not to destroy men's lives but to save them4' ,accordingly1 ,tertullian in his fourth book against ,marcion1 refuting this teaching1 acquaints us that one of ,marcion's ',contrasts' was ,elijah's severity in calling down fire from ,heaven1--and the gentleness of ,christ4 ',i acknowledge the seventy of the judge1' ,tertullian replies2 'but ,i recognize the same severity on the part of ,christ towards ,his ,disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar calamity on a ,samaritan village#efh4' ,from all of which it is plain that within seventy years of the time when the ,gospel was published1 the text of ,st4 ,luke ix4 #ed-f stood very much as at present4 ,but then it is further discovered that at the same remote period 7about ,a4,d4 #acj7 this place of ,scripture was much fastened on by the enemies of the ,gospel4 ,the ,manichaean heretics pressed believers with it#efi4 ,the disciples' appeal to the example of ,elijah1 and the reproof they incurred1 became inconvenient facts4 ,the consequence might be foreseen4 ,with commendable solicitude for ,god's honour1 but through mistaken piety1 certain of the orthodox 7without suspicion of the evil they were committing7 were so ill-advised as to erase from their copies the twenty-four words which had been turned to mischievous account as well as to cause copies to be made of the books so mutilated3 and behold1 at the end of #a1gjj years1 the calamitous result6 ,of these three clauses then1 which are closely interdependent1 and as ,tischendorf admits#egj must all three stand or all three fall together1 the first is found with ,,acd1 the ,old ,latin1 ,peshitto1 ,clement1 ,chrysostom1 ,cyril1 ,jerome1--not with ,symbol3 ,aleph,b the ,vulgate or ,curetonian4 ,the second and third clauses are found with ,old ,latin1 ,vulgate1 ,peshitto1 ,harkleian1 six ,greek and five ,latin ,fathers1--not with ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcd4 ,while ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,b are alone in refusing to recognize either first1 second or third clause4 ,and this is a fair sample of that 'singular agreement' which is sometimes said to subsist between 'the lesser group of witnesses4' ,is it not plain on the contrary that at a very remote period there existed a fierce conflict1 and consequent hopeless divergence of testimony about the present passage2 of which #a1gjj years#ega have failed to obliterate the traces8 ,had ,symbol3 ,aleph,b been our only ancient guides1 it might of course have been contended that there has been no act of spoliation committed3 but seeing that one half of the missing treasure is found with their allies1 ,,acd1 ,clement ,alex41 ,chrysostom1 ,cyril1 ,jerome1--the other half with their allies1 ,old ,latin1 ,harkleian1 ,clement1 ,tertullian1 ,cyprian1 ,ambrose1 ,didymus1 ,epiphanius1 ,chrysostom1 ,cyril1 ,theodoret1 ,jerome1 ,augustine#egb1--;it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set up4 ,the endeavour to establish agreement among the witnesses by a skilful distribution or rather dislocation of their evidence1 a favourite device with the ,critics1 involves a fallacy which in any other subject would be denied a place4 ,i trust that henceforth ,st4 ,luke ix4 #ed-f will be left in undisputed possession of its place in the sacred ,text1--to which it has an undoubted right4 ,a thoughtful person may still inquire1 ,can it however be explained further how it has come to pass that the evidence for omitting the first clause and the two last is so unequally divided8 ,i answer1 the disparity is due to the influence of the ,lectionaries4 ,let it be observed then that an ancient ,ecclesiastical ,lection which used to begin either at ,st4 ,luke ix4 #dd1 or else at verse #di and to extend down to the end of verse #efegc1 ended thus1--,greek3 hs kai lias epoise2 strapheis de epetimsen autois4 kai eporeuthsan eis hetepan kmn#egd4 ,it was the ,lection for ,thursday in the fifth week of the new year2 and as the reader sees1 it omitted the two last clauses exactly as ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abc do4 ,another ,ecclesiastical ,lection began at verse #ea and extended down to verse #eg1 and is found to have contained the two last clauses#ege4 ,i wish therefore to inquire3--,may it not fairly be presumed that it is the ,lectionary practice of the primitive age which has led to the irregularity in this perturbation of the sacred ,text8 ,,footnotes3 #die ,greek3 ,pros tois doksei ton ,christon pephnenai legontas4 #dif ,greek3 ,to de paidion uxane1 kai ekrataiouto pneumati4 #dig ,it is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first ,dialogus of pseudo-,caesarius 7,gall4 vi4 #ag1 #bj74 #dih ,opp4 iii4 #iec1 #ied1--with suspicious emphasis4 #dii ,ed4 ,migne1 vol4 #ic1 p4 #aeha a1 b 7,novum ,auct4 i4 #gjj74 #ejj ,when ,cyril writes 7,scholia1 ed4 ,pusey1 vol4 vi4 #efh71--;,greek3 ,to de paidion uxane kai ekrataiouto ,,pneumati1 plroumenon ,,sophia kai ,,chariti4 kaitoi kata physin panteleios estin hs ,theos kai ex idion plrmatos dianemei tois agiois ta ,,pneumatika1 kai autos estin ,,sophia1 kai ts ,,charitos ho dotr1--it is clear that ,greek3 pneumati must have stood in ,cyril's text4 ,the same is the reading of ,cyril's ,treatise1 ,de ,incarnatione 7,mai1 ii4 #eg73 and of his ,commentary on ,st4 ,luke 7ibid4 p4 #acf74 ,one is surprised at ,tischendorf's perverse inference concerning the last-named place4 ,cyril had begun by quoting the whole of ver4 #dj in exact conformity with the traditional text 7,mai1 ii4 #acf74 ,at the close of some remarks 7found both in ,mai and in ,cramer's ,catena71 ,cyril proceeds as follows1 according to the latter3--,greek3 ho ,euangelists eps uxane kai ekrataiouto ,,kai ,,ta ,,ex,s4 ,surely this constitutes no ground for supposing that he did not recognize the word ,greek3 pneumati1 but rather that he did4 ,on the other hand1 it is undeniable that in ,v4 ,p4 ii4 #ach and #aci 7 ,concilia iii4 #bda d1 #bdd a71 from ,pusey's account of what he found in the ,,mss4 7vii4 ,p4 i4 #bgg-h71 the word ,greek3 pneumati must be suspected of being an unauthorized addition to the text of ,cyril's treatise1 ,de ,rect fide ad ,pulcheriam et ,eudociam4 #eja ii4 #aeb3 iv4 #aab3 v4 #abj1 #aba 7four times74 #ejb ,greek3 ,ei teleios esti ,theos ho ,christos1 ps ho euangelists legei1 to de paidion ,isous uxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati2--,s4 ,caesarii1 ,dialogus ,i1 ,quaest4 #bd 7ap4 ,galland4 vi4 #ag c74 ,and see ,quaest4 #cj4 #ejc ii4 #cf d4 #ejd ,fragmenta ,syriaca1 ed4 ,sachau1 p4 #ec4--,the only other ,greek ,fathers who quote the place are ,euthymius and ,theophylact4 #eje ,greek3 ,hn kousa para tou ,theou4 ,epiph4 i4 #dfc4 #ejf ,instead of ,greek3 para tou ,theou4 #ejg i4 #daj3 iv4 #bid1 #ecd4 ,elsewhere he defends and employs it4 #ejh i4 #bfj1 #dfc3 ii4 #di4 #eji i4 #gje4 #eaj viii4 #cfe4 #eaa 7,glaph47 i4 #ah4 #eab iv4 #hc1 #dcj4 ,but both ,origen 7i4 #gje3 iv4 #cbj1 #djb7 and ,cyril 7iv4 #eed3 v4 #geh7 quote the traditional reading2 and ,cyril 7iv4 #edi7 distinctly says that the latter is right1 and ,greek3 para tou patros wrong4 #eac ,excerpt4 ,theod4 #ifh4--;,heracleon's name is also connected by ,origen with this text4 ,valentinus 7ap4 ,iren4 #ajj7 says1 ,greek3 on d kai uion ,monogen kai ,theon keklken4 #ead ,pp4 #fbg1 #fcj1 #dff4 #eae ,p4 #ief4 #eaf ',deum nemo vidit umquam3 nisi unicus filius solus1 sinum patris ipse enarravit4'--7,comp4 ,tertullian3--',solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse exposuit' 7,prax4 c4 #h4 ,cp4 c4 #ba73 but he elsewhere 7ibid4 c4 #ae7 exhibits the passage in the usual way47 ,clemens writes1--,greek3 tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou ,patrus1 hon ho monoogens huios ,theos monos exgsato 7#ief71 and in the ,excerpt4 ,theod4 we find ,greek3 outos ton kolpon ton ,patros exgsato ho ,str 7#ifi74 ,but this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our ,lord is often spoken of by the ,fathers as ,greek3 h dexia tou hypsistou 444 kolpos de ts dexias ho ,patr4 7,greg4 ,nyss4 i4 #aib47 #eag ,ps4 #ddj 7--,greek3 ho73 ,marcell4 #afe1 #agi1 #bgc4 #eah ,marcell4 #ccd3 ,theoph4 #ad4 #eai ,marcell4 #acb4 ,read on to p4 #acd4 #ebj ,opp4 ii4 #dff4 #eba ,opp4 iii4 #bc1 #ceh4 #ebb ,greg4 ,nyss4 ,opp4 i4 #aib1 #ffc 7,greek3 ,theos pants ho monogens1 ho en tois kolpois n tou ,patros1 outs eipontos tou ,iannou74 ,also ii4 #dcb1 #ddg1 #dej1 #dgj1 #ejf3 always ,greek3 en tois kolpois4 ,basil1 ,opp4 iii4 #ab4 #ebc ,basil1 ,opp4 iii4 #ad1 #af1 #aag3 and so ,eunomius 7ibid4 i4 #fbc74 #ebd ,contra ,eunom4 ,i have noted ninety-eight places4 #ebe ,cyril 7iv4 #ajd7 paraphrases ,st4 ,john i4 #ah thus3--,greek3 autos gar ,theos n ho monogens1 en kolpois n tou theou kai patros1 tautn pros hmas epoisato tn exgsin4 ,presently 7p4 #aje71 he says that ,st4 ,john ,greek3 kai monogen theon apokalei ton huion1 kai en kolpois einai phsi tou patros4 ,but on p4 #ajg he speaks quite plainly3 ,greek3 ho monogens1 phsi1 ,theos1 ho n eis ton kolpon tou patros1 ekeinos exgsato4 epeid gar eph monogen kai ,theon1 tithsin euthys1 ho n en tois kolpois tou patros4--,so v4 #acg1 #gfh4 ,and yet he reads ,greek3 huios in v4 #cfe1 #dcg3 vi4 #ij4 #ebf ,he uses it seventeen times in his ,comm4 on ,isaiah 7ii4 #d1 #ce1 #abb1 c471 and actually so reads ,st4 ,john i4 #ah in one place 7,opp4 vi4 #ahg74 ,theodoret once adopts the phrase 7,opp4 v4 #d74 #ebg ,de ,trin4 #gf1 #adj1 #cg;a3--#bg4 #ebh ,p4 #aag4 #ebi ,traditional ,text1 p4 #aac1 where the references are given4 #ecj ,who quoted ,arius' words3--',subsistit ante tempora et aeones plenus ,deus1 unigenitus1 et immutabilis4' ,but ,i cannot yet find ,tischendorf's reference4 #eca ,the reading ,greek3 ,huios is established by unanswerable evidence4 #ecb ,the ,gnostics ,basilides and ,valentinus were the direct precursors of ,apolonius1 ,photinus1 ,nestorius1 c41 in assailing the ,catholic doctrine of the ,incarnation4 ,their heresy must have been actively at work when ,st4 ,john wrote his first 7iv4 #a1 #b1 #c7 and second 7ver4 #g7 ,epistles4 #ecc ,rev4 xxii4 #ai4 #ecd ,greek3 ,epipdsin hmin hoi hairetikoi legontes2 idou ouk anelabe sarka ho ,christos2 ho deut4 gar phsin anthr4 ho k4 ex ouranou4 ,chrys4 iii4 #aad b4 #ece ,greek3 ,tn gar kata sarka gnnsin tou ,christou anelein boulomenoi1 enllaxan to1 ho deuteros anthrpos2 kai epoisan1 ho deuteros ,kyrios4 ,dial4 ap4 ,orig4 i4 #hfh4--,marcion had in fact already substituted ,greek3 ,kyrios for ,greek3 anthrpos in ver4 #de3 7'the last ,lord became a quickening spirit'37 ,tertull4 ii4 #cjd--;a fabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by ,marcion's followers3--,greek3 ho eschatos ,kyrios eis pn4 z4 ,dial4 ubi supra4 ,greek3 edei gar autous1 ei ge ta euangelia etimn1 m peritemnein ta euangelia1 m mer tn euangelin exyphelein1 m hetera prosthnai1 mte log1 mte idia gnm ta euangelia prosgraphein4444 prosgegraphkasi goun hosa beboulntai1 kai exypheilanto hosa kekrikasi4 ,titus of ,bostra c4 ,manichaeos 7,galland4 v4 #cbh74 #ecf ,tertull4 ii4 #cjd1 7,primus homo de humo terrenus1 secundus ,dominus de ,caelo74 #ecg ,dial ,orig4 i4 #hfh1 7,greek3 ho deuteros ,kyrios ex ouranou74 #ech ,greek3 ,to de pantn chaleptaton en tais ekklsiastikais symphorais1 h tn ',apolinaristn esti parrsia4 ,greg4 ,naz4 ii4 #afg4 #eci ii4 #afh1--;a very interesting place4 ,see also p4 #hg4 #edj i4 #hca4 #eda ii4 #ddc1 #eca4 #edb ,pp4 #ahj1 #bji1 #bfj1 #bhi1 #cjg 7primus homo de terrae limo1 c474 #edc iii4 #dj4 #edd iii4 #aad four times3 x4 #cid1 #cie4 ,once 7xi4 #cgd7 he has ,greek3 ho deut4 anthr4 ouranios ex ouranou4 #ede iv4 #ajea4 #edf ,ap4 ,thdt4 v4 #aace4 #edg ,ap4 ,galland4 viii4 #fbf1 #fbg4 #edh i4 #bbb 7where for ,greek3 anthr4 he reads ,greek3 ,adam71 #efc4 ,also ii4 #abj1 #cdf4 #edi ',adversus ,manichaeos1'--ap4 ,mai1 iv4 #fh1 #fi4 #eej ii4 #bbh3--;,greek3 ouch hoti ho anthrpos1 toi to anthrpinon proslmma1 ex ouranou n1 hs ho aphrn ,apolinarios elrei4 #eea ,naz4 ii4 #hg 7,thdt4 iv4 #fb71 #afh4--,nyss4 ii4 #aa4 #eeb ,ap4 ,epiphan4 i4 #hcj4 #eec #eei 7with the ,text4 ,recept473 iv4 #cjb not4 #eed ,hippolytus may not be cited in evidence1 being read both ways4 7,cp4 ed4 ,fabr4 ii4 #cj3--;ed4 ,lagarde1 #ach4 #ae3--;ed4 ,galland4 ii4 #dhc47--,neither may the expression ,greek3 tou deuterou ex ouranou anthrpou in ,pet4 ,alex4 7ed4 ,routh1 ,rell4 ,sacr4 iv4 #dh7 be safely pressed4 #eee ,primus homo de terra1 terrenus3 secundus homo de caelo caelestis4--i4 #aafh1 #acfc3 ii4 #bfe1 #ige4 ,and so ps4-,ambr4 ii4 #aff1 #dcg4 #eef ii4 #bih3 iv4 #icj3 vii4 #bif4 #eeg ,the places are given by ,sabatier in loc4 #eeh ,only because it is the ,vulgate reading1 ,i am persuaded1 does this reading appear in ,orig4 interp4 ii4 #hd1 #he3 iii4 #iea3 iv4 #edf4 #eei ,as ,philastrius 7ap4 ,galland4 vii4 #dib1 #eaf74--,pacianus 7ib4 #bge74--,marius ,mercator 7ib4 viii4 #ffd74--;,capreolus 7ib4 ix4 #dic74 ,but see the end of the next ensuing note4 #efj ,vol4 i4 p4 #abge1--;,greek3 ho deuteros anthr4 ho ,kyrios ex ouranou ouranios3--on which he remarks1 7if indeed it be he71 ,greek3 idou gar amphoterthen ouranios anthrpos onomazetai4 ,and lower down1--,greek3 ,kyrios1 dia tn mian hypostasin2 deut4 men anthr41 kata tn henmenn anthrpotta4 ex ouranou de1 kata tn theotta4--,p4 #ddh1--;,greek3 ho deuteros anthr4 ex ouranou epouranios4--,ap4 ,montf4 ii4 #ac 7 ,galland4 v4 #afg71--;,greek3 ho deut4 anthr4 ex ouranou4--,note that ,maximinus1 an ,arian bishop1 ,a4,d4 #dbg-h 7ap4 ,augustin4 viii4 #ffc7 is found to have possessed a text identical with the first of the preceding3--',ait ipse ,paulus1 ,primus homo ,adam de terra terrenus1 secundus homo ,dominus de ,caelo caelestis advenit4' #efa ,see ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #acb-e3 and ,the ,traditional ,text1 p4 #aad4 #efb ,this paper is marked as having been written at ,chichester in #ahgg1 and is therefore earlier than the ,dean's later series4 #efc ,proleg4 #dah4 #efd ,the text of ,st4 ,luke ix4 #ea-f prefixed to ,cyril's fifty-sixth ,sermon 7p4 #cec7 is the text of ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph1--an important testimony to what ,i suppose may be regarded as the ,alexandrine ,textus ,receptus of this place in the fifth century4 ,but then no one supposes that ,cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his ,sermons4 ,we therefore refer to the body of his discourse2 and discover that the ,syriac translator has rendered it 7as usual7 with exceeding licence4 ,he has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood in the original text3--,greek3 eidenai gar chr1 hoti hs mp ts neas kekratkotes charitos1 all' eti ts proteras echomenoi syntheias1 touto eipon1 pros lian aphorntes ton pyri kataphlexanta dis tous pentkonta kai tous goumenous autn1 7,cramer's ,cat4 ii4 p4 #ha4 ,cf4 ,corderii1 ,cat4 p4 #bfc4 ,also ,matthaei4 ,n4 ,t4 in loc41 pp4 #ccc-d47 ,now the man who wrote that1 must surely have read ,st4 ,luke ix4 #ed1 #ee as we do4 #efe ,see the fragment 7and ,potter's note71 ,opp4 p4 #ajai3 also ,galland4 ii4 #aeg4 ,first in ,hippolyt41 ,opp4 ed4 ,fabric1 ii4 #ga4 #eff ,in ,st4 ,matt4 xviii4 #aa1 the words ,greek3 ztsai kai do not occur4 #efg ,bp4 ,kaye's ,tertullian1 p4 #dfh4 ',agnosco iudicis severitatem4 ,e contrario ,christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos super ilium viculum ,samaritarum4' ,marc4 iv4 #bc 7see ii4 p4 #bba74 ,he adds1--',let ,marcion also confess that by the same terribly severe judge ,christ's leniency was foretold2' and he cites in proof ,is4 xlii4 #b and #a ,kings xix4 #ab 7'sed in spiritu miti'74 #efh ,augustine 7viii4 #aaa-aej1 #aea-ahb7 writes a book against him4 ,and he discusses ,st4 ,luke ix4 #ed-e on p4 #aci4 ,addas ,adimantus 7a disciple of ,manes7 was the author of a work of the same kind4 ,augustine 7viii4 #fjf c7 says of it1--'ubi de utroque ,testamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate1 velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno ,deo esse non posse1 sed alterum ab altero4' ,cerdon was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet 7#fje a74 ,then ,marcion his pupil1 then ,apelles1 and then ,patricius4 #efi ,titus ,bostr4 adv4 ,manichaeos 7ap4 ,galland4 v4 #cbi b71 leaving others to note the correspondences between the ,new and the ,old ,testament1 proposes to handle the ',contrasts'3 ,greek3 pros autas tas antitheseis tn login chrsmen4 ,at pp4 #cci e1 #cdj a1 b1 he confirms what ,tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven4 #egj ,verba ,greek3 hs kai 4 epoise cur quis addiderit1 planum4 ,eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba ,greek3 str4 de epeti4 autois excipiunt4 ,gravissimum est quod testium additamentum ,greek3 ho gar huios1 c4 ab eadem manu derivandum est1 nec per se solum pro spurio haberi potest2 cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctoritate arctissime cum prioribus4 7,n4 ,t4 ed4 #ahfi1 p4 #edd47 #ega ,secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circumferri consueverit1 dubitari nequit4 7,ibid47 #egb ,the following are the references left by the ,dean4 ,i have not had time or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this ,,ms4 and the last4 ,jerome4--,apostoli in ,lege versati 444 ulcisci nituntur iniuriam1 et imitari ,eliam1 c4 ,dominus1 qui non ad iudicandum venerat1 sed ad salvandum1 c4 444 increpat eos quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis ,evangelicae1 c4 7i4 #heg b1 c1 d47 ,cyprian1 ,synodical ,epistle4--',filius hominis non venit animas hominum perdere1 sed salvare4' p4 #ih4 ,a4,d4 #bec4 ,tatian4--,veni1 inquit1 animam salvam facere4 7,carn4 c4 #ab et #aj3 and ,anim4 c4 #ac47 ,augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the words twice1--x4 #gf1 #dhb4 ,cp4 ii4 #eic a4 ,greek3 ,kai ho ,kyrios pros tous apostolous eipontas en pyri kolasai tous m dexamenous autous kata ton lian2 ,ouk oidate phsi poiou pneumatos este4 7p4 #ajai47 ,theodoret1 iii4 #aaai4 7,greek3 poiou47 ,epiph4 ii4 #ca4 7,greek3 hoiou47 ,basil1 ii4 #bga 7,eth47 quotes the whole place4 ,augustine4--,respondit eis ,dominus1 dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii essent1 et quod ipse liberare venisset1 non perdere4 viii4 #aci b4 ,cp4 iii4 7#b71 #aid b4 ,cyril ,al4--,greek3 ,mp ts neas kekratkotes charitos 444 touto eipon1 ton lian aphorntes ton pyri k4t4l4 ,cord4 ,cat4 #bfc ,cram4 ,cat4 #ha4 ,also iv4 #ajag4--;,by a strange slip of memory1 ,cyril sets down a reproof found in ,st4 ,matthew3 but this is enough to shew that he admits that some reproof finds record in the ,gospel4 ,chrys4 vii4 #efg e3 x4 #cje d3 vii4 #cdf a3 ix4 #fgg c4 ,opus ,imp4 ap4 ,chrys4 vi4 #baa1 #bai4 ,didymus4--,greek3 ,ouk oidate oiou pneumatos estin ho huios tou anthrpou4 ,de ,trin4 p4 #ahh4 #egc ,evst4 #dh 7,matthaei's c73 ,evst4 #aej 7,harl4 #eeih74 #egd ,see ,matthaei1 ,n4,t4 #aghf1 vol4 ii4 p4 #ag4 #ege ,i have been unable to discover this ,lection4 ,,appendix ,i4 ,,pericope ,,de ,,adultera4 ,i have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem of all3 viz4 those twelve famous verses of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel 7chap4 vii4 #ec to viii4 #aa7 which contain the history of 'the woman taken in adultery1'--the pericope de adultera1 as it is called4 ,altogether indispensable is it that the reader should approach this portion of the ,gospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largest preparation4 ,convenient would it be1 no doubt1 if he could further divest himself of prejudice2 but that is perhaps impossible4 ,let him at least endeavour to weigh the evidence which shall now be laid before him in impartial scales4 ,he must do so perforce1 if he would judge rightly3 for the matter to be discussed is confessedly very peculiar3 in some respects1 even unique4 ,let me convince him at once of the truth of what has been so far spoken4 ,it is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen centuries two instances1 and but two1 should exist of a considerable portion of ,scripture left to the mercy1 so to speak1 of ',textual ,criticism4' ,twelve consecutive ,verses in the second ,gospel--as many consecutive ,verses in the fourth--are in this predicament4 ,it is singular1 ,i say1 that the ,providence which has watched so marvellously over the fortunes of the ,deposit1--the ,divine ,wisdom which has made such ample provision for its security all down the ages1 should have so ordered the matter1 that these two co-extensive problems have survived to our times to be tests of human sagacity1--trials of human faithfulness and skill4 ,they present some striking features of correspondence1 but far more of contrast1--as will presently appear4 ,and yet the most important circumstance of all cannot be too soon mentioned3 viz4 that both alike have experienced the same calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics4 ,by common consent the most recent editors deny that either set of ,verses can have formed part of the ,gospel as it proceeded from the hands of its inspired author4 ,how mistaken is this opinion of theirs in respect of the ',last twelve verses of the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,mark1' has been already demonstrated in a separate treatise4 ,i must be content in this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict of many critics concerning ,st4 ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa4 ,that ,i shall be able to satisfy those persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was offered concerning ,st4 ,mark's last twelve verses1 ,i am not so simple as to expect4 ,but ,i trust that ,i shall have with me all candid readers who are capable of weighing evidence impartially1 and understanding the nature of logical proof1 when it is fully drawn out before them1--which indeed is the very qualification that ,i require of them4 ,and first1 the case of the pericope de adultera requires to be placed before the reader in its true bearings4 ,for those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminary considerations which1 once clearly apprehended1 are all but decisive of the point at issue4 ,there is a fundamental obstacle1 ,i mean1 in the way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from the context in which it stands1 which they seem to have overlooked4 ,i proceed to explain4 ,sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness of the ,pericope under review4 ,in other words1 the question before us is not by any means1--,shall these ,twelve ,verses be admitted--or1 ,must they be refused admission--into the ,sacred ,text8 ,that point has been settled long1 long ago4 ,st4 ,john's ,twelve verses are in possession4 ,let those eject them who can4 ,they are known to have occupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years4 ,there never was a time--as far as is known--- when they were not where1--and to all intents and purposes what--they now are4 ,is it not evident1 that no merely ordinary method of proof1--no merely common argument1--will avail to dislodge ,twelve such ,verses as these8 ',twelve such ,verses1' ,i say4 ,for it is the extent of the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable4 ,we have here to do with no dubious clause1 concerning which ancient testimony is divided2 no seeming gloss1 which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits1 and to have crept in as from the margin2 no importation from another ,gospel2 no verse of ,scripture which has lost its way2 no weak amplification of the ,evangelical meaning2 no tasteless appendix1 which encumbers the narrative and almost condemns itself4 ,nothing of the sort4 ,if it were some inconsiderable portion of ,scripture which it was proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancient evidence1 the proceeding would be intelligible4 ,but ,i take leave to point out that a highly complex and very important incident--as related in twelve consecutive verses of the ,gospel--cannot be so dealt with4 ,squatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with a notice of ejectment3 but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the ,heptarchy1 may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process4 ,this--to speak without a figure--is a connected and very striking portion of the sacred narrative3--the description of a considerable incident1 complete in itself1 full of serious teaching1 and of a kind which no one would have ever dared to invent4 ,those who would assail it successfully must come forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usually employed in textual warfare4 ,it shall be presently shewn that these ,twelve ,verses hold their actual place by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelve verses which can be named in the ,gospel3 but it would be premature to enter upon the proof of that circumstance now4 ,i prefer to invite the reader's attention1 next to the actual texture of the pericope de adultera1 by which name 7as already explained7 the last verse of ,st4 ,john vii4 together with verses #a-aa of ch4 viii4 are familiarly designated4 ,although external testimony supplies the sole proof of genuineness1 it is nevertheless reasonable to inquire what the verses in question may have to say for themselves4 ,do they carry on their front the tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so confidently seek to fasten upon them8 ,or do they1 on the contrary1 unmistakably bear the impress of ,truth8 ,the first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrative concerning 'the woman taken in adultery' is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses3 being preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different character and complexion4 ,let these be first produced and studied3 'and every man went to his own house3 but ,jesus went to the ,mount of ,olives4' ',and again1 very early in the morning1 ,he presented ,himself in the ,temple2 and all the people came unto ,him3 and ,he sat down and taught them4' ,now as every one must see1 the former of these two paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end of a narrative4 ,it purports to be the conclusion of something which went before1 not to introduce something which comes after4 ,without any sort of doubt1 it is ,st4 ,john's account of what occurred at the close of the debate between certain members of the ,sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day of the ,feast of ,tabernacles4 ,the verse in question marks the conclusion of the ,feast1--implies in short that all is already finished4 ,remove it1 and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly4 ,retain it1 and all proceeds methodically2 while an affecting contrast is established1 which is recognized to be strictly in the manner of ,scripture#egf4 ,each one had gone to his home3 but the homeless ,one had repaired to the ,mount of ,olives4 ,in other words1 the paragraph under discussion is found to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent narrative3 proves to be a fragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine ,scripture4 ,by consequence1 itself must needs be genuine also#egg4 ,it is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in the same predicament as those which follow3 are as ill supported by ,,ms4 evidence as the other ten3 and must therefore share the same fate as the rest4 ,the statement is incorrect1 to begin with2 as shall presently be shewn4 ,but1 what is even better deserving of attention1 since confessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to fall together1 it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicion that certain of them1 at all events1 must needs be genuine1 throws real doubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has been passed in a lump upon all the rest4 ,i proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which some ,critics in their eagerness have overlooked4 ,the reader will bear in mind that--contending1 as ,i do1 that the entire ,pericope under discussion is genuine ,scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its lawful context1--,i began by examining the upper extremity1 with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces of being a fractured edge4 ,the result is just what might have been anticipated4 ,the first two of the verses which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine ,scripture4 ,how then about the other extremity8 ,note1 that in the oracular ,codexes ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph immediate transition is made from the words 'out of ,galilee ariseth no prophet1' in ch4 vii4 #e;a1 to the words ',again therefore ,jesus spake unto them1 saying1' in ch4 viii4 #ab4 ,and we are invited by all the adverse ,critics alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the ,evangelist4 ,but the thing is incredible4 ,look back at what is contained between ch4 vii4 #cg and #e;a1 and note--7a7 ,that two hostile parties crowded the ,temple courts 7ver4 #dj-db73 7b7 ,that some were for laying violent hands on our ,lord 7ver4 #dd73 7c7 ,that the ,sanhedrin1 being assembled in debate1 were reproaching their servants for not having brought ,him prisoner1 and disputing one against another#egh 7ver4 #de-eb74 ,how can the ,evangelist have proceeded1--',again therefore ,jesus spake unto them1 saying1 ,i am the light of the world'8 ,what is it supposed then that ,st4 ,john meant when he wrote such words8 ,but on the contrary1 survey the context in any ordinary copy of the ,new ,testament1 and his meaning is perfectly clear4 ,the last great day of the ,feast of ,tabernacles is ended4 ,it is the morrow and 'very early in the morning4' ,the ,holy ,one has 'again presented ,himself in the ,temple' where on the previous night ,he so narrowly escaped violence at the hands of ,his enemies1 and ,he teaches the people4 ,while thus engaged1--the time1 the place1 ,his own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness and love1--a rabble rout1 headed by the ,scribes and ,pharisees1 enter on the foulest of errands2 and we all remember with how little success4 ,such an interruption need not have occupied much time4 ,the ,woman's accusers having departed1 our ,saviour resumes ,his discourse which had been broken off4 ',again therefore' it is said in ver4 #ab1 with clear and frequent reference to what had preceded in ver4 #b--';,jesus spake unto them1 saying1 ,i am the light of the world4' ,and had not that saying of ,his reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness which ,his words1 a few moments before1 had succeeded in dispelling1 as to the orb of glory which already flooded the ,temple ,court with the effulgence of its rising1--,his own visible emblem and image in the ,heavens8444 ,i protest that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery1'--so introduced1 so dismissed1--all is lucid and coherent3 without those connecting links1 the story is scarcely intelligible4 ,these twelve disputed verses1 so far from 'fatally interrupting the course of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 if retained in the text#egi1' prove to be even necessary for the logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand4 ,but even that is not all4 ,on close and careful inspection1 the mysterious texture of the narrative1 no less than its 'edifying and eminently ,christian' character1 vindicates for the ,pericope de adultera a right to its place in the ,gospel4 ,let me endeavour to explain what seems to be its spiritual significancy3 in other words1 to interpret the transaction4 ,the ,scribes and ,pharisees bring a woman to our ,saviour on a charge of adultery4 ,the sin prevailed to such an extent among the ,jews that the ,divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion4 ,on the present occasion our ,lord is observed to revive ,his own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion4 ,the trial by the bitter water1 or water of conviction#ehj1 was a species of ordeal1 intended for the vindication of innocence1 the conviction of guilt4 ,but according to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious1 unless the husband was himself innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife4 ,let the provisions of the law1 contained in ,num4 v4 #af to #bd1 be now considered4 ,the accused ,woman having been brought near1 and set before the ,lord1 the priest took 'holy water in an earthen vessel1' and put 'of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water4' ,then1 with the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand1 he charged the woman by an oath4 ,next1 he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter water2 causing the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse4 ,whereupon if she were guilty1 she fell under a terrible penalty1--her body testifying visibly to her sin4 ,if she was innocent1 nothing followed4 ,and now1 who sees not that the ,holy ,one dealt with ,his hypocritical assailants1 as if they had been the accused parties8 ,into the presence of incarnate ,jehovah verily they had been brought3 and perhaps when ,he stooped down and wrote upon the ground1 it was a bitter sentence against the adulterer and adulteress which ,he wrote4 ,we have but to assume some connexion between the curse which ,he thus traced 'in the dust of the floor of the tabernacle' and the words which ,he uttered with ,his lips1 and ,he may with truth be declared to have 'taken of the dust and put in on the water1' and 'caused them to drink of the bitter water which causeth the curse4' ,for when1 by ,his ,holy ,spirit1 our great ,high ,priest in ,his human flesh addressed these adulterers1--what did ,he but present them with living water#eha 'in an earthen vessel#ehb'8 ,did ,he not further charge them with an oath of cursing1 saying1 ',if ye have not gone aside to uncleanness1 be ye free from this bitter water3 but if ye be defiled'--,on being presented with which alternative1 did they not1 self-convicted1 go out one by one8 ,and what else was this but their own acquittal of the sinful woman1 for whose condemnation they shewed themselves so impatient8 ,surely it was 'the water of conviction' 7,greek3 to hydr tou elegmou7 as it is six times called1 which they had been compelled to drink2 whereupon1 'convicted 7,greek3 elegchomenoi7 by their own conscience1' as ,st4 ,john relates1 they had pronounced the other's acquittal4 ,finally1 note that by ,himself declining to 'condemn' the accused woman1 our ,lord also did in effect blot out those curses which ,he had already written against her in the dust1--when ,he made the floor of the sanctuary ,his 'book4' ,whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition--and ,i am not concerned to defend it in every detail1--on turning to the opposite contention1 we are struck with the slender amount of actual proof with which the assailants of this passage seem to be furnished4 ,their evidence is mostly negative--a proceeding which is constantly observed to attend a bad cause3 and they are prone to make up for the feebleness of their facts by the strength of their assertions4 ,but my experience1 as one who has given a considerable amount of attention to such subjects1 tells me that the narrative before us carries on its front the impress of ,divine origin4 ,i venture to think that it vindicates for itself a high1 unearthly meaning4 ,it seems to me that it cannot be the work of a fabricator4 ,the more ,i study it1 the more ,i am impressed with its ,divinity4 ,and in what goes before ,i have been trying to make the reader a partaker of my own conviction4 ,to come now to particulars1 we may readily see from its very texture that it must needs have been woven in a heavenly loom4 ,only too obvious is the remark that the very subject-matter of the chief transaction recorded in these twelve verses1 would be sufficient in and by itself to preclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are a spurious addition to the genuine ,gospel4 ,and then we note how entirely in ,st4 ,john's manner is the little explanatory clause in ver4 #f1--',this they said1 tempting ,him1 that they might have to accuse ,him#ehc4' ,we are struck besides by the prominence given in verses #f and #h to the act of writing1--allusions to which1 are met with in every work of the last ,evangelist#ehd4 ,it does not of course escape us how utterly beyond the reach of a ,western interpolator would have been the insertion of the article so faithfully retained to this hour before ,greek3 lithon in ver4 #g4 ,on completing our survey1 as to the assertions that the pericope de adultera 'has no right to a place in the text of the four ,gospels1'--is 'clearly a ,western interpolation1 though not ,western of the earliest type#ehe1' 7whatever that may mean71 and so forth1--we can but suspect that the authors very imperfectly realize the difficulty of the problem with which they have to deal4 ,dr4 ,hort finally assures us that 'no accompanying marks would prevent' this portion of ,scripture 'from fatally interrupting the course of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel if retained in the text'3 and when they relegate it accordingly to a blank page at the end of the ,gospels within 'double brackets1' in order 'to shew its inferior authority'2--we can but read and wonder at the want of perception1 not to speak of the coolness1 which they display4 ,quousque tandem8 ,but it is time to turn from such considerations as the foregoing1 and to inquire for the direct testimony1 which is assumed by recent ,editors and ,critics to be fatal to these twelve verses4 ,tischendorf pronounces it 'absolutely certain that this narrative was not written by ,st4 ,john#ehf4' ,one1 vastly his superior in judgement 7,dr4 ,scrivener7 declares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere ,criticism1 the passage must needs be abandoned#ehg4' ,tregelles is 'fully satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel#ehh4' ,alford shuts it up in brackets1 and like ,tregelles puts it into his footnotes4 ,westcott and ,hort1 harsher than any of their predecessors1 will not1 as we have seen1 allow it to appear even at the foot of the page4 ,to reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of this precious portion of ,god's written ,word would be a joyless and an unprofitable task4 ,according to ,green1 'the genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained#ehi4' ,hammond is of opinion that 'it would be more satisfactory to separate it from its present context1 and place it by itself as an appendix to the ,gospel#eij4' ,a yet more recent critic 'sums up1' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to the genuineness of the passage#eia4' ,the opinions of ,bishops ,wordsworth1 ,ellicott1 and ,lightfoot1 shall be respectfully commented upon by-and-by4 ,in the meantime1 ,i venture to join issue with every one of these learned persons4 ,i contend that on all intelligent principles of sound ,criticism the passage before us must be maintained to be genuine ,scripture2 and that without a particle of doubt ,i cannot even admit that 'it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other passage of ,scripture whatever#eib4' ,i contend that it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the rest of ,scripture1 and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same ,gospel which can be named3 but--like countless other places--it is found for whatever reason to have given offence in certain quarters3 and in consequence has experienced very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also3--but especially of the latter4 ,in other words1 these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of genuineness less conspicuously than any other twelve consecutive verses in the same ,gospel4 ,but that is all4 ,the one only question to be decided is the following3--,on a review of the whole of the evidence1--is it more reasonable to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accretion to the ,gospel8 ,or to admit that they must needs be accounted to be genuine8444 ,i shall shew that they are at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which is absolutely overwhelming4 ,i read with satisfaction that my own convictions were shared by ,mill1 ,matthaei1 ,adler1 ,scholz1 ,vercellone4 ,i have also the learned ,ceriani on my side4 ,i should have been just as confident had ,i stood alone3--such is the imperative strength of the evidence4 ,to begin then4 ,tischendorf--7who may be taken as a fair sample of the assailants of this passage7--commences by stating roundly that the ,pericope is omitted by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abcltx,symbol3 ,delta1 and about seventy cursives4 ,i will say at once1 that no sincere inquirer after truth could so state the evidence4 ,it is in fact not a true statement4 ,a and ,c are hereabout defective4 ,no longer possible therefore is it to know with certainty what they either did1 or did not1 contain4 ,but this is not merely all4 ,i proceed to offer a few words concerning ,cod4 ,a4 ,woide1 the learned and accurate#eic editor of the ,codex ,alexandrinus1 remarked 7in #aghe7--';,historia adulterae videtur in hoc codice defuisse4' ,but this modest inference of his1 subsequent ,critics have represented as an ascertained fact1 ,tischendorf announces it as 'certissimum4' ,let me be allowed to investigate the problem for myself4 ,woide's calculation1--7which has passed unchallenged for nearly a hundred years1 and on the strength of which it is now-a-days assumed that ,cod4 ,a must have exactly resembled ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,b in omitting the pericope de adultera17--was far too roughly made to be of any critical use#eid4 ,two leaves of ,cod4 ,a have been here lost3 viz4 from the word ,greek3 katabainn in vi4 #ej to the word ,greek3 legeis in viii4 #eb3 a lacuna 7as ,i find by counting the letters in a copy of the ordinary text7 of as nearly as possible #h1hje letters1--allowing for contractions1 and of course not reckoning ,st4 ,john vii4 #ec to viii4 #aa4 ,now1 in order to estimate fairly how many letters the two lost leaves actually contained1 ,i have inquired for the sums of the letters on the leaf immediately preceding1 and also on the leaf immediately succeeding the hiatus2 and ,i find them to be respectively #d1ccg and #d1cjc3 together1 #h1fdj letters4 ,but this1 it will be seen1 is insufficient by #afe letters1 or eight lines1 for the assumed contents of these two missing leaves4 ,are we then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere a blank space equivalent to eight lines8 ,impossible1 ,i answer4 ,there existed1 on the contrary1 a considerable redundancy of matter in at least the second of those two lost leaves4 ,this is proved by the circumstance that the first column on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the unique phenomenon of being encumbered1 at its summit1 by two very long lines 7containing together fifty-eight letters71 for which evidently no room could be found on the page which immediately preceded4 ,but why should there have been any redundancy of matter at all8 ,something extraordinary must have produced it4 ,what if the ,pericope de adultera1 without being actually inserted in full1 was recognized by ,cod4 ,a8 ,what if the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word of ,st4 ,john viii4 #c1 and then had suddenly checked himself8 ,we cannot tell what appearance ,st4 ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa presented in ,codex ,a1 simply because the entire leaf which should have contained it is lost4 ,enough however has been said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair to throw ,symbol3 ,aleph,,ab into one and the same category1--with a 'certissimum1'--as ,tischendorf does4 ,as for ,l and ,symbol3 ,delta1 they exhibit a vacant space after ,st4 ,john vii4 #eb1--which testifies to the consciousness of the copyists that they were leaving out something4 ,these are therefore witnesses for1--not witnesses against1--the passage under discussion4--,x being a ,commentary on the ,gospel as it was read in ,church1 of course leaves the passage out4--,the only uncial ,,mss4 therefore which simply leave out the pericope1 are the three following--,symbol3 ,aleph,,bt3 and the degree of attention to which such an amount of evidence is entitled1 has been already proved to be wondrous small4 ,we cannot forget moreover that the two former of these copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing alone on a memorable occasion3--they alone exhibit ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses4 ,but ,i shall be reminded that about seventy ,,mss4 of later date are without the pericope de adultera3 that the first ,greek ,father who quotes the pericope is ,euthymius in the twelfth century3 that ,tertullian1 ,origen1 ,chrysostom1 ,cyril1 ,nonnus1 ,cosmas1 ,theophylact1 knew nothing of it3 and that it is not contained in the ,syriac1 the ,gothic1 or the ,egyptian versions4 ,concerning every one of which statements ,i remark over again that no sincere lover of ,truth1 supposing him to understand the matter about which he is disputing1 could so exhibit the evidence for this particular problem4 ,first1 because so to state it is to misrepresent the entire case4 ,next1 because some of the articles of indictment are only half true3--in fact are untrue4 ,but chiefly1 because in the foregoing enumeration certain considerations are actually suppressed which1 had they been fairly stated1 would have been found to reverse the issue4 ,let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry in my own way4 ,the first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly to understand what the problem before him actually is4 ,twelve verses then1 which1 as a matter of fact1 are found dovetailed into a certain context of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 the ,critics insist must now be dislodged4 ,but do the ,critics in question prove that they must8 ,for unless they do1 there is no help for it but the pericope de adultera must be left where it is4 ,i proceed to shew first1 that it is impossible1 on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve verses from their actual context4--,next1 ,i shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the assailants of the passage1 do not by any means prove the point they are intended to prove2 but admit of a sufficient and satisfactory explanation4--,thirdly1 it shall be shewn that the said explanation carries with it1 and implies1 a weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in dispute1 which is absolutely overwhelming4--,lastly1 the positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence1 which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal4 ,to some people ,i may seem to express myself with too much confidence4 ,let it then be said once for all1 that my confidence is inspired by the strength of the arguments which are now to be unfolded4 ,when the ,author of ,holy ,scripture supplies such proofs of ,his intentions1 ,i cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in them4 ,now ,i begin by establishing as my first proposition that1 7#a7 ,these twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the ,gospels reaches4 ,and this1 because it is a mere matter of fact1 is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient ,latin version of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel4 ,we are thus carried back to the second century of our era3 beyond which1 testimony does not reach4 ,the pericope is observed to stand in situ in ,codd4 b c e ff#b g h j4 ,jerome 7,a4,d4 #che71 after a careful survey of older ,greek copies1 did not hesitate to retain it in the ,vulgate4 ,it is freely referred to and commented on by himself#eie in ,palestine3 while ,ambrose at ,milan 7#cgd7 quotes it at least nine times#eif2 as well as ,augustine in ,north ,africa 7#cif7 about twice as often#eig4 ,it is quoted besides by ,pacian#eih1 in the north of ,spain 7#cgj71--;by ,faustus#eii the ,african 7#djj71--;by ,rufinus#fjj at ,aquileia 7#djj71--;by ,chrysologus#fja at ,ravenna 7#dcc71--;by ,sedulius#fjb a ,scot 7#dcd74 ,the unknown authors of two famous treatises#fjc written at the same period1 largely quote this portion of the narrative4 ,it is referred to by ,victorius or ,victorinus 7#deg71--;by ,vigilius of ,tapsus#fjd 7#dhd7 in ,north ,africa1--by ,gelasius#fje1 bp4 of ,rome 7#dib71--;by ,cassiodorus#fjf in ,southern ,italy1--by ,gregory the ,great#fjg1 and by other ,fathers of the ,western ,church4 ,to this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in ,latin4 ,for the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in ,greek1--from which language no one doubts that they derived their knowledge1 through a translation4 ,but in fact we are not left to ,latin authorities4 ,out of thirty-eight copies of the ,bohairic version the pericope de adultera is read in fifteen1 but in three forms which will be printed in the ,oxford edition4 ,in the remaining twenty-three1 it is left out4 ,how is it intelligible that this passage is thus found in nearly half the copies--except on the hypothesis that they formed an integral part of the ,memphitic version8 ,they might have been easily omitted3 but how could they have been inserted8 ,once more4 ,the ,ethiopic version 7fifth century71--the ,palestinian ,syriac 7which is referred to the fifth century71--the ,georgian 7probably fifth or sixth century71--to say nothing of the ,slavonic1 ,arabic and ,persian versions1 which are of later date1--all contain the portion of narrative in dispute4 ,the ,armenian version also 7fourth-fifth century7 originally contained it2 though it survives at present in only a few copies4 ,add that it is found in ,cod4 ,d1 and it will be seen that in all parts of ancient ,christendom this portion of ,scripture was familiarly known in early times4 ,but even this is not all4 ,jerome1 who was familiar with ,greek ,,mss4 7and who handled none of later date than ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph71 expressly relates 7#chj7 that the pericope de adultera 'is found in many copies both ,greek and ,latin#fjh4' ,he calls attention to the fact that what is rendered 'sine peccato' is ,greek3 anamarttos in the ,greek3 and lets fall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies which exhibited 7in ver4 #h7 ,greek3 egraphan enos ekastou autn tas amartias1--a reading which survives to this day in one uncial 7,u7 and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth ,gospel#fji4 ,whence is it--let me ask in passing--that so many ,critics fail to see that positive testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse negative testimony of ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bt1--aye1 and of ,,ac to boot if they were producible on this point8 ,how comes it to pass that the two ,codexes1 ,symbol3 ,aleph and ,b1 have obtained such a mastery--rather exercise such a tyranny--over the imagination of many ,critics as quite to overpower their practical judgement8 ,we have at all events established our first proposition3 viz4 that from the earliest period to which testimony reaches1 the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery' occupied its present place in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel4 ,the ,critics eagerly remind us that in four cursive copies 7#ac1 #fi1 #abd1 #cdf71 the verses in question are found tacked on to the end of ,st4 ,luke xxi4 ,but have they then forgotten that 'these four ,codexes are derived from a common archetype1' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and1 ,i may add1 corrupt copy8 ,the same ,critics are reminded that in the same four ,codexes commonly called the ,ferrar ,group 'the agony and bloody sweat' 7,st4 ,luke xxii4 #dc1 #dd7 is found thrust into ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel between ch4 xxvi4 #ci and #dj4 ,such licentiousness on the part of a solitary exemplar of the ,gospels no more affects the proper place of these or of those verses than the superfluous digits of a certain man of ,gath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human being appertain but five fingers1 and to either foot but five toes4 ,it must be admitted then that as far back as testimony reaches the passage under discussion stood where it now stands in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel4 ,and this is my first position4 ,but indeed1 to be candid1 hardly any one has seriously called that fact in question4 ,no1 nor do any 7except ,dr4 ,hort#faj7 doubt that the passage is also of the remotest antiquity4 ,adverse ,critics do but insist that however ancient1 it must needs be of spurious origin3 or else that it is an afterthought of the ,evangelist3--concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by-and-by4 ,it clearly follows1--indeed it may be said with truth that it only remains1--to inquire what may have led to its so frequent exclusion from the sacred ,text8 ,for really the difficulty has already resolved itself into that4 ,and on this head1 it is idle to affect perplexity4 ,in the earliest age of all1--the age which was familiar with the universal decay of heathen virtue1 but which had not yet witnessed the power of the ,gospel to fashion society afresh1 and to build up domestic life on a new and more enduring basis2--at a time when the greatest laxity of morals prevailed1 and the enemies of the ,gospel were known to be on the look out for grounds of cavil against ,christianity and its ,author2--what wonder if some were found to remove the pericope de adultera from their copies1 lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches of the seventh commandment8 ,the very subject-matter1 ,i say1 of ,st4 ,john viii4 #c-aa would sufficiently account for the occasional omission of those nine verses4 ,moral considerations abundantly explain what is found to have here and there happened4 ,but in fact this is not a mere conjecture of my own4 ,it is the reason assigned by ,augustine for the erasure of these twelve verses from many copies of the ,gospel#faa4 ,ambrose1 a quarter of a century earlier1 had clearly intimated that danger was popularly apprehended from this quarter#fab3 while ,nicon1 five centuries later1 states plainly that the mischievous tendency of the narrative was the cause why it had been expunged from the ,armenian version#fac4 ,accordingly1 just a few ,greek copies are still to be found mutilated in respect of those nine verses only4 ,but in fact the indications are not a few that all the twelve verses under discussion did not by any means labour under the same degree of disrepute4 ,the first three 7as ,i shewed at the outset7 clearly belong to a different category from the last nine1--a circumstance which has been too much overlooked4 ,the ,church in the meantime for an obvious reason had made choice of ,st4 ,john vii4 #cg-viii4 #ab--the greater part of which is clearly descriptive of what happened at the ,feast of ,tabernacles--for her ,pentecostal lesson3 and judged it expedient1 besides omitting as inappropriate to the occasion the incident of the woman taken in adultery1 to ignore also the three preceding verses2--making the severance begin1 in fact1 as far back as the end of ch4 vii4 #eb4 ,the reason for this is plain4 ,in this way the allusion to a certain departure at night1 and return early next morning 7,st4 ,john vii4 #ec3 viii4 #a71 was avoided1 which entirely marred the effect of the lection as the history of a day of great and special solemnity1--'the great day of the ,feast4' ,and thus it happens that the gospel for the day of ,pentecost was made to proceed directly from ',search and look3 for out of ,galilee ariseth no prophet1' in ch4 vii4 #eb1--to ',then spake ,jesus unto them1 saying1 ,i am the light of the world1' in ch4 viii4 #ab2 with which it ends4 ,in other words1 an omission which owed its beginning to a moral scruple was eventually extended for a liturgical consideration2 and resulted in severing twelve verses of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel--ch4 vii4 #ec to viii4 #aa--;from their lawful context4 ,we may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition1 which is 7#b7 ,that by the very construction of her ,lectionary1 the ,church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognised the narrative in question as an integral part of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 and as standing in its traditional place1 from an exceedingly remote time4 ,take into your hands at random the first ,,ms4 copy of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel which presents itself1 and turn to the place in question4 ,nay1 ,i will instance all the four ,evangelia which ,i call mine1--all the seventeen which belong to ,lord ,zouch1--all the thirty-nine which ,baroness ,burdett-,coutts imported from ,epirus in #ahgj-b4 ,now all these copies--7and nearly each of them represents a different line of ancestry7--are found to contain the verses in question4 ,how did the verses ever get there8 ,but the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is behind4 ,some out of the ,evangelia referred to are observed to have been prepared for ecclesiastical use3 in other words1 are so rubricated throughout as to shew where1 every separate lection had its 'beginning' 7,greek3 arch71 and where its 'end' 7,greek3 telos74 ,and some of these lections are made up of disjointed portions of the ,gospel4 ,thus1 the lection for ,whitsunday is found to have extended from ,st4 ,john vii4 #cg to ,st4 ,john viii4 #ab2 beginning at the words ,greek3 t eschat hmera t megal1 and ending--,greek3 to phs ts zs3 but over-leaping the twelve verses now under discussion3 viz4 vii4 #ec to viii4 #aa4 ,accordingly1 the word 'over-leap' 7,greek3 hyperba7 is written in all the copies after vii4 #eb1--whereby the reader1 having read on to the end of that verse1 was directed to skip all that followed down to the words ,greek3 kai mketi hamartane in ch4 viii4 #aa3 after which he found himself instructed to 'recommence' 7,greek3 arxai74 ,again ,i ask 7and this time does not the riddle admit of only one solution871--,when and how does the reader suppose that the narrative of 'the woman taken in adultery' first found its way into the middle of the lesson for ,pentecost8 ,i pause for an answer3 ,i shall perforce be told that it never 'found its way' into the lection at all3 but having once crept into ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 however that may have been effected1 and established itself there1 it left those ancient men who devised the ,church's ,lectionary without choice4 ,they could but direct its omission1 and employ for that purpose the established liturgical formula in all similar cases4 ,but first1--,how is it that those who would reject the narrative are not struck by the essential foolishness of supposing that twelve fabricated verses1 purporting to be an integral part of the fourth ,gospel1 can have so firmly established themselves in every part of ,christendom from the second century downwards1 that they have long since become simply ineradicable8 ,did the ,church then1 pro hac vice1 abdicate her function of being 'a witness and a keeper of ,holy ,writ'8 ,was she all of a sudden forsaken by the inspiring ,spirit1 who1 as she was promised1 should 'guide her into all ,truth'8 ,and has she been all down the ages guided into the grievous error of imputing to the disciple whom ,jesus loved a narrative of which he knew nothing8 ,for1 as ,i remarked at the outset1 this is not merely an assimilated expression1 or an unauthorized nominative1 or a weakly-supported clause1 or any such trifling thing4 ,although be it remarked in passing1 ,i am not aware of a single such trifling excrescence which we are not able at once to detect and to remove4 ,in other words1 this is not at all a question1 like the rest1 about the genuine text of a passage4 ,our inquiry is of an essentially different kind1 viz4 ,are these twelve consecutive verses ,scripture at all1 or not8 ,divine or human8 ,which8 ,they claim by their very structure and contents to be an integral part of the ,gospel4 ,and such a serious accession to the ,deposit1 ,i insist1 can neither have 'crept into' the ,text1 nor have 'crept out' of it4 ,the thing is unexampled1--is unapproached1--is impossible4 ,above all1--7the reader is entreated to give the subject his sustained attention71--,is it not perceived that the admission involved in the hypothesis before us is fatal to any rational pretence that the passage is of spurious origin8 ,we have got back in thought at least to the third or fourth century of our era4 ,we are among the ,fathers and ,doctors of the ,eastern ,church in conference assembled3 and they are determining what shall be the ,gospel for the great ,festival of ,pentecost4 ',it shall begin' 7say they7 'at the thirty-seventh verse of ,st4 ,john vii1 and conclude with the twelfth verse of ,st4 ,john viii4 ,but so much of it as relates to the breaking up of the ,sanhedrin1--to the withdrawal of our ,lord to the ,mount of ,olives1--and to ,his return next morning to the ,temple1--had better not be read4 ,it disturbs the unity of the narrative4 ,so also had the incident of the woman taken in adultery better not be read4 ,it is inappropriate to the ,pentecostal ,festival4' ,the ,authors of the great ,oriental ,liturgy therefore admit that they find the disputed verses in their copies3 and thus they vouch for their genuineness4 ,for none will doubt that1 had they regarded them as a spurious accretion to the inspired page1 they would have said so plainly4 ,nor can it be denied that if in their corporate capacity they had disallowed these twelve verses1 such an authoritative condemnation would most certainly have resulted in the perpetual exclusion from the ,sacred ,text of the part of these verses which was actually adopted as a ,lection4 ,what stronger testimony on the contrary can be imagined to the genuineness of any given portion of the everlasting ,gospel than that it should have been canonized or recognized as part of ,inspired ,scripture by the collective wisdom of the ,church in the third or fourth century8 ,and no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance that the present ,pentecostal lection has been thus maimed and mutilated in respect of twelve of its verses4 ,there is nothing at all extraordinary in the treatment which ,st4 ,john vii4 #cg-viii4 #ab has here experienced4 ,the phenomenon is even of perpetual recurrence in the ,lectionary of the ,east1--as will be found explained below#fad4 ,permit me to suppose that1 between the ,treasury and ,whitehall1 the remote descendant of some ,saxon thane occupied a small tenement and garden which stood in the very middle of the ample highway4 ,suppose further1 the property thereabouts being ,government property1 that the road on either side of this estate had been measured a hundred times1 and jealously watched1 ever since ,westminster became ,westminster4 ,well1 an act of ,parliament might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor of this singular estate to surrender his patrimony2 but ,i submit that no government lawyer would ever think of setting up the plea that the owner of that peculiar strip of land was an impostor4 ,the man might have no title-deeds to produce1 to be sure2 but counsel for the defendant would plead that neither did he require any4 ',this man's title' 7counsel would say7 'is--occupation for a thousand years4 ,his evidences are--the allowance of the ,state throughout that long interval4 ,every procession to ,st4 ,stephen's--every procession to the ,abbey--has swept by defendant's property--on this side of it and on that1--since the days of ,edward the ,confessor4 ,and if my client refuses to quit the soil1 ,i defy you--except by violence--to get rid of him4' ,in this way then it is that the testimony borne to these verses by the ,lectionary of the ,east proves to be of the most opportune and convincing character4 ,the careful provision made for passing by the twelve verses in dispute3--the minute directions which fence those twelve verses off on this side and on that1 directions issued we may be sure by the highest ,ecclesiastical authority1 because recognized in every part of the ancient ,church1--not only establish them effectually in their rightful place1 but 7what is at least of equal importance7 fully explain the adverse phenomena which are ostentatiously paraded by adverse critics2 and which1 until the clue has been supplied1 are calculated to mislead the judgement4 ,for now1 for the first time1 it becomes abundantly plain why ,chrysostom and ,cyril1 in publicly commenting on ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 pass straight from ch4 vii4 #eb to ch4 viii4 #ab4 ,of course they do4 ,why should they1--how could they1--comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation8 ,the same thing is related 7in a well-known 'scholium'7 to have been done by ,apolinarius and ,theodore of ,mopsuestia4 ,origen also1 for aught ,i care1--though the adverse critics have no right to claim him1 seeing that his commentary on all that part of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel is lost2--but ,origen's name1 as ,i was saying1 for aught ,i care1 may be added to those who did the same thing4 ,a triumphant refutation of the proposed inference from the silence of these many ,fathers is furnished by the single fact that ,theophylact must also be added to their number4 ,theophylact1 ,i say1 ignores the pericope de adultera--passes it by1 ,i mean1--exactly as do ,chrysostom and ,cyril4 ,but will any one pretend that ,theophylact1--writing in ,a4,d4 #ajgg1--;did not know of ,st4 ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa8 ,why1 in nineteen out of every twenty copies within his reach1 the whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found4 ,the proposed inference from the silence of certain of the ,fathers is therefore invalid4 ,the argument e silentio--always an insecure argument1--proves inapplicable in this particular case4 ,when the antecedent facts have been once explained1 all the subsequent phenomena become intelligible4 ,but a more effectual and satisfactory reply to the difficulty occasioned by the general silence of the ,fathers1 remains to be offered4 ,there underlies the appeal to ,patristic authority an opinion1--not expressed indeed1 yet consciously entertained by us all1--which in fact gives the appeal all its weight and cogency1 and which must now by all means be brought to the front4 ,the fact that the ,fathers of the ,church were not only her ,doctors and ,teachers1 but also the living voices by which alone her mind could be proclaimed to the world1 and by which her decrees used to be authoritatively promulgated2--this fact1 ,i say1 it is which makes their words1 whenever they deliver themselves1 so very important3 their approval1 if they approve1 so weighty2 their condemnation1 if they condemn1 so fatal4 ,but then1 in the present instance1 they do not condemn4 ,they neither approve nor condemn4 ,they simply say nothing4 ,they are silent3 and in what precedes1 ,i have explained the reason why4 ,we wish it had been otherwise4 ,we would give a great deal to persuade those ancient oracles to speak on the subject of these twelve verses3 but they are all but inexorably silent4 ,nay1 ,i am overstating the case against myself4 ,two of the greatest ,fathers 7,augustine and ,ambrose7 actually do utter a few words2 and they are to the effect that the verses are undoubtedly genuine3--',be it known to all men' 7they say7 'that this passage is genuine3 but the nature of its subject-matter has at once procured its ejection from ,,mss41 and resulted in the silence of ,commentators4' ,the most learned of the ,fathers in addition practically endorses the passage2 for ,jerome not only leaves it standing in the ,vulgate where he found it in the ,old ,latin version1 but relates that it was supported by ,greek as well as ,latin authorities4 ,to proceed however with what ,i was about to say4 ,it is the authoritative sentence of the ,church then on this difficult subject that we desiderate4 ,we resorted to the ,fathers for that3 intending to regard any quotations of theirs1 however brief1 as their practical endorsement of all the twelve verses3 to infer from their general recognition of the passage1 that the ,church in her collective capacity accepted it likewise4 ,as ,i have shewn1 the ,fathers decline1 almost to a man1 to return any answer4 ,but1--,are we then without the ,church's authoritative guidance on this subject8 ,for this1 ,i repeat1 is the only thing of which we are in search4 ,it was only in order to get at this that we adopted the laborious expedient of watching for the casual utterances of any of the giants of old time4 ,are we1 ,i say1 left without the ,church's opinion8 ,not so1 ,i answer4 ,the reverse is the truth4 ,the great ,eastern ,church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder4 ,in all her ,patriarchates1 as far back as the written records of her practice reach1--and they reach back to the time of those very ,fathers whose silence we felt to be embarrassing1--the ,eastern ,church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for ,october #h4 ,a more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce in evidence4 ,any pretence to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portion of ,scripture so singled out by the ,church for honour1 were nothing else but monstrous4 ,it would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue3 viz4 to inquire what amount of respect is due to the ,church's authority in determining the authenticity of ,scripture8 ,i appeal not to an opinion1 but to a fact3 and that fact is1 that though the ,fathers of the ,church for a very sufficient reason are very nearly silent on the subject of these twelve verses1 the ,church herself has spoken with a voice of authority so loud that none can affect not to hear it3 so plain1 that it cannot possibly be misunderstood4 ,and let me not be told that ,i am hereby setting up the ,lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the ,text of the ,new ,testament3 still less let me be suspected of charging on the collective body of the faithful whatever irregularities are discoverable in the ,codexes which were employed for the public reading of ,scripture4 ,such a suspicion could only be entertained by one who has hitherto failed to apprehend the precise point just now under consideration4 ,we are not examining the text of ,st4 ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa4 ,we are only discussing whether those twelve verses en bloc are to be regarded as an integral part of the fourth ,gospel1 or as a spurious accretion to it4 ,and that is a point on which the ,church in her corporate character must needs be competent to pronounce2 and in respect of which her verdict must needs be decisive4 ,she delivered her verdict in favour of these twelve verses1 remember1 at a time when her copies of the ,gospels were of papyrus as well as 'old uncials' on vellum4--,nay1 before 'old uncials' on vellum were at least in any general use4 ,true1 that the transcribers of ,lectionaries have proved themselves just as liable to error as the men who transcribed ,evangelia4 ,but then1 it is incredible that those men forged the ,gospel for ,st4 ,pelagia's day3 impossible1 if it were a forgery1 that the ,church should have adopted it4 ,and it is the significancy of the ,church having adopted the pericope de adultera as the lection for ,october #h1 which has never yet been sufficiently attended to3 and which ,i defy the ,critics to account for on any hypothesis but one3 viz4 that the pericope was recognized by the ancient ,eastern ,church as an integral part of the ,gospel4 ,now when to this has been added what is implied in the rubrical direction that a ceremonious respect should be shewn to the ,festival of ,pentecost by dropping the twelve verses1 ,i submit that ,i have fully established my second position1 viz4 ,that by the very construction of her ,lectionary the ,church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognized the narrative in question1 as an integral part of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 and as standing in its traditional place1 from an exceedingly remote time4 ,for1--7,i entreat the candid reader's sustained attention71--the circumstances of the present problem altogether refuse to accommodate themselves to any hypothesis of a spurious original for these verses2 as ,i proceed to shew4 ,repair in thought to any collection of ,,mss4 you please2 suppose to the ,british ,museum4 ,request to be shewn their seventy-three copies of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 and turn to the close of his seventh chapter4 ,at that particular place you will find1 in sixty-one of these copies1 these twelve verses3 and in thirty-five of them you will discover1 after the words ,greek3 ,prophts ek ts ,galilaias ouk eg4 a rubrical note to the effect that 'on ,whitsunday1 these twelve verses are to be dropped2 and the reader is to go on at ch4 viii4 #ab4' ,what can be the meaning of this respectful treatment of the ,pericope in question8 ,how can it ever have come to pass that it has been thus ceremoniously handled all down the ages8 ,surely on no possible view of the matter but one can the phenomenon just now described be accounted for4 ,else1 will any one gravely pretend to tell me that at some indefinitely remote period1 7#a7 ,these verses were fabricated3 7#b7 ,were thrust into the place they at present occupy in the sacred text3 7#c7 ,were unsuspectingly believed to be genuine by the ,church2 and in consequence of which they were at once passed over by her direction on ,whitsunday as incongruous1 and appointed by the ,church to be read on ,october #h1 as appropriate to the occasion8 7#c7 ,but further4 ,how is it proposed to explain why one of ,st4 ,john's after-thoughts should have fared so badly at the ,church's hands2--another1 so well8 ,i find it suggested that perhaps the subject-matter may sufficiently account for all that has happened to the pericope de adultera3 ,and so it may1 no doubt4 ,but then1 once admit this1 and the hypothesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory3 fails even to touch the difficulty which it professes to remove4 ,for if men were capable of thinking scorn of these twelve verses when they found them in the 'second and improved edition of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1' why may they not have been just as irreverent in respect of the same verses1 when they appeared in the first edition8 ,how is it one whit more probable that every ,greek ,father for a thousand years should have systematically overlooked the twelve verses in dispute when they appeared in the second edition of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 than that the same ,fathers should have done the same thing when they appeared in the first#fae8 7#d7 ,but the hypothesis is gratuitous and nugatory3 for it has been invented in order to account for the phenomenon that whereas twelve verses of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel are found in the large majority of the later ,copies1--the same verses are observed to be absent from all but one of the five oldest ,codexes4 ,but how1 7,i wish to be informed17 is that hypothesis supposed to square with these phenomena8 ,it cannot be meant that the 'second edition' of ,st4 ,john did not come abroad until after ,codd4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,abct were written8 ,for we know that the old ,italic version 7a document of the second century7 contains all the three portions of narrative which are claimed for the second edition4 ,but if this is not meant1 it is plain that some further hypothesis must be invented in order to explain why certain ,greek ,,mss4 of the fourth and fifth centuries are without the verses in dispute4 ,and this fresh hypothesis will render that under consideration 7as ,i said7 nugatory and shew that it was gratuitous4 ,what chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary suggestion is its irreverence4 ,it assumes that the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,john was composed like any ordinary modern book3 capable therefore of being improved in the second edition1 by recension1 addition1 omission1 retractation1 or what not4 ,for we may not presume to limit the changes effected in a second edition4 ,and yet the true ,author of the ,gospel is confessedly ,god the ,holy ,ghost3 and ,i know of no reason for supposing that ,his works are imperfect when they proceed forth from ,his ,hands4 ,the cogency of what precedes has in fact weighed so powerfully with thoughtful and learned ,divines that they have felt themselves constrained1 as their last resource1 to cast about for some hypothesis which shall at once account for the absence of these verses from so many copies of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 and yet retain them for their rightful owner and author1--,st4 ,john4 ,singular to relate1 the assumption which has best approved itself to their judgement has been1 that there must have existed two editions of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1--the earlier edition without1 the later edition with1 the incident under discussion4 ,it is ,i presume1 in order to conciliate favour to this singular hypothesis1 that it has been further proposed to regard ,st4 ,john v4 #c1 #d and the whole of ,st4 ,john xxi1 7besides ,st4 ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa71 as after-thoughts of the ,evangelist4 #a4 ,but this is unreasonable3 for nothing else but the absence of ,st4 ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa1 from so many copies of the ,gospel has constrained the ,critics to regard those verses with suspicion4 ,whereas1 on the contrary1 there is not known to exist a copy in the world which omits so much as a single verse of chap4 xxi4 ,why then are we to assume that the whole of that chapter was away from the original draft of the ,gospel8 ,where is the evidence for so extravagant an assumption8 #b4 ,so1 concerning ,st4 ,john v4 #c1 #d3 to which there really attaches no manner of doubt1 as ,i have elsewhere shewn#faf4 ,thirty-two precious words in that place are indeed omitted by ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc3 twenty-seven by ,d4 ,but by this time the reader knows what degree of importance is to be attached to such an amount of evidence4 ,on the other hand1 they are found in all other copies3 are vouched for by the ,syriac#fag and the ,latin versions3 in the ,apostolic ,constitutions1 by ,chrysostom1 ,cyril1 ,didymus1 and ,ammonius1 among the ,greeks1--by ,tertullian1 ,ambrose1 ,jerome1 ,augustine among the ,latins4 ,why a passage so attested is to be assumed to be an after-thought of the ,evangelist has never yet been explained3 no1 nor ever will be4 7#e7 ,assuming1 however1 just for a moment the hypothesis correct for argument's sake1 viz4 that in the second edition of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel the history of the woman taken in adultery appeared for the first time4 ,invite the authors of that hypothesis to consider what follows4 ,the discovery that five out of six of the oldest uncials extant 7to reckon here the fragment ,t7 are without the verses in question2 which yet are contained in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the despised cursives3--what other inference can be drawn from such premisses1 but that the cursives fortified by other evidence are by far the more trustworthy witnesses of what ,st4 ,john in his old age actually entrusted to the ,church's keeping8 ,the ,,ms4 here leaves off1 except that a few pencilled words are added in an incomplete form4 ,i have been afraid to finish so clever and characteristic an essay4 ,,footnotes3 #egf ,compare #a ,sam4 xxiv4 #bb3--';,and ,saul went home3 but ,david and his men gat them up into the hold4' #a ,kings xviii4 #db3--',so ,ahab went up to eat and to drink3 and ,elijah went up to the top of ,carmel1 and he cast himself down upon the earth1 and put his face between his knees4' ,esther iii4 #ae3--';,and the king and ,haman sat down to drink2 but the city of ,shushan was perplexed4' ,such are the idioms of the ,bible4 #egg ,ammonius 7,cord4 ,cat4 p4 #baf71 with evident reference to it1 remarks that our ,lord's words in verses #cg and #ch were intended as a viaticum which all might take home with them1 at the close of this1 'the last1 the great day of the feast4' #egh ,so ,eusebius3--- ,greek3 ,ote kata to auto synachthentes hoi tn ,ioudain ethnous archontes epi ts ,hierousalm1 synedrion epoisanto kai skepsin ops auton apolessin en h hoi men thanaton autou katepsphisanto2 heteroi de antelegon1 s ho ,nikodmos1 k4t4l4 7in ,psalmos1 p4 #bcj a74 #egi ,westcott and ,hort's prefatory matter 7#ahgj7 to their revised ,text of the ,new ,testament1 p4 xxvii4 #ehj ,so in the ,,lxx4 ,see ,num4 v4 #aa-ca4 #eha ,ver4 #ag4 ,so the ,,lxx4 #ehb #b ,cor4 iv4 #g3 v4 #a4 #ehc ,compare ch4 vi4 #f1 #ga3 vii4 #ci3 xi4 #ac1 #ea3 xii4 #f1 #cc3 xiii4 #aa1 #bh3 xxi4 #ai4 #ehd ,consider ch4 xix4 #ai1 #bj1 #ba1 #bb3 xx4 #cj1 #ca3 xxi4 #bd1 #be4--a ,john i4 #d3 ii4 #a1 #g1 #h1 #ab1 #ac1 #ad1 #ba1 #bf3 v4 #ac4--b ,john #e1 #ab4--c ,john #i1 #ac4--,rev4 passim1 especially i4 #aa1 #ai3 ii4 #a1 c43 x4 #d3 xiv4 #ac3 xvii4 #h3 xix4 #i3 xx4 #ab1 #ae3 xxi4 #e1 #bg3 xxii4 #ah1 #ai4 #ehe ,westcott and ,hort1 ibid4 pp4 xxvii1 xxvi4 #ehf ,novum ,testamentum1 #ahfi1 p4 #hbi4 #ehg ,plain ,introduction1 #ahid1 ii4 #cfd4 #ehh ,printed ,texts1 #ahed1 p4 #cda4 #ehi ,developed ,criticism1 p4 #hb4 #eij ,outlines1 c41 p4 #ajc4 #eia ,nicholson's ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 p4 #ada4 #eib ,scrivener1 ut supra1 ii4 #cfh4 #eic ,i insert this epithet on sufficient authority4 ,mr4 ,edw4 ,a4 ,guy1 an intelligent young ,american1--himself a very accurate observer and a competent judge1--collated a considerable part of ,cod4 ,a in #ahge1 and assured me that he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the ,codex and ,woide's reprint4 ,one instance of italicism was in fact all that had been overlooked in the course of many pages4 #eid ,it is inaccurate also4 ,his five lines contain eight mistakes4 ,praefat4 p4 xxx1 #hf4 #eie ii4 #fcj1 addressing ,rufinus1 ,a4,d4 #djc4 ,also ii4 #gdh-i4 #eif i4 #bia1 #fib1 #gjg1 #acfg3 ii4 #ffh1 #hid1 #ajhb3 iii4 #hib-c1 #hif-g4 #eig i4 #cj3 ii4 #ebg1 #ebi-cj3 iii#a4 #ggd3 iii#b4 #aeh1 #ahc1 #eca-b 7where he quotes the place largely and comments upon it73 iv4 #adi1 #dff 7largely quoted71 #aabj3 v4 #hj1 #abcj 7largely quoted in both places73 vi4 #djg1 #dac3 viii4 #cgg1 #egd4 #eih ,pacian 7,a4,d4 #cgb7 refers the ,novations to the narrative as something which all men knew4 ',nolite in ,evangelio legere quod pepercerit ,dominus etiam adulterae confitenti1 quam nemo damnarat8' ,pacianus1 ,op4 ,epist4 iii4 ,contr4 ,novat4 7,a4,d4 #cgb74 ,ap4 ,galland4 vii4 #bfg4 #eii ,ap4 ,augustin4 viii4 #dfc4 #fjj ,in his translation of ,eusebius4 ,nicholson1 p4 #ec4 #fja ,chrysologus1 ,a4,d4 #dcc1 ,abp4 of ,ravenna4 ,venet4 #agdb4 ,he mystically explains the entire incident4 ,serm4 cxv4 #e4 #fjb ,sedulius 7,a4,d4 #dce7 makes it the subject of a poem1 and devotes a whole chapter to it4 ,ap4 ,galland4 ix4 #eec and #eij4 #fjc ',promiss4' ,de ,promissionibus dimid4 temp4 7saec4 iv74 ,quotes viii4 #d1 #e1 #i4 ,p4 #b1 c4 #bb1 col4 #adg b4 ,ignot4 ,auct41 ,de ,vocatione omnium ,gentium 7circa1 ,a4,d4 #ddj71 ap4 ,opp4 ,prosper4 ,aquit4 7#aghb71 i4 p4 #dfj-a3--';,adulteram ex legis constitutione lapidandam 444 liberavit 444 cum executores praecepti de conscientiis territi1 trementem ream sub illius iudicio reliquissent4444 ,et inclinatus1 id est ad humana dimissus 444 digito scribebat in terram1 ut legem mandatorum per gratiae decreta vacuaret1' c4 #fjd ,wrongly ascribed to ,idacius4 #fje ,gelasius ,p4 ,a4,d4 #dib4 ,conc4 iv4 #abce4 ,quotes viii4 #c1 #g1 #aj1 #aa4 #fjf ,cassiodorus1 ,a4,d4 #ead4 ,venet4 #agbi4 ,quotes viii4 #aa4 ,see ii4 p4 #if1 #c1 #e-ahj4 #fjg ,dialogues1 xiv4 #ae4 #fjh ii4 #gdh3--;,in evangelio secundum ,ioannem in multis et ,graecis et ,latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere1 quae accusata est apud ,dominum4 #fji ,greek3 henos hekastou autn tas hamartias4 ,ev4 #ie1 #dj1 #dh1 #fd1 #gc1 #ajj1 #abb1 #abg1 #adb1 #bcd1 #bfd1 #bfg1 #bgd1 #dcc1 #aae1 #aba1 #fjd1 #gcf4 #faj ,appendix1 p4 #hh4 #faa vi4 #djg3--,sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret1 ita ut nonnulli modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei1 7credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis71 illud quod de adulterae indulgentia ,dominus fecit1 auferrent de codicibus suis3 quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit1 ',iam deinceps noli peccare2' aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico ,deo illius peccati remissione sanari1 ne offenderentur insani4 ,de coniug4 adult4 ii4 cap4 #g4 i4 #gjg3--;,fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit imperitis ,evangelii lectio1 quae decursa est1 in quo advertistis adulteram ,christo oblatam1 eamque sine damnatione dimissam4 ,nam profecto si quis en auribus accipiat otiosis1 incentivum erroris incurrit1 cum leget quod ,deus censuerit adulterium non esse damnandum4 #fab ,epist4 #eh4 ,quid scribebat8 nisi illud ,propheticum 7,jer4 xxii4 #bi-cj71 ,terra1 terra1 scribe hos vivos abdicatos4 #fac ,constt4 ,app4 7,gen4 in4 #di74 ,nicon 7,gen4 iii4 #bej74 ,i am not certain about these two references4 #fad ,two precious verses 7viz4 the forty-third and forty-fourth7 used to be omitted from the lection for ,tuesday before ,quinquagesima1--viz4 ,st4 ,luke xxii4 #ci-xxiii4 #a4 ,the lection for the preceding ,sabbath 7viz4 ,st4 ,luke xxi4 #h-cf7 consisted of only the following verses1--ver4 #h1 #i1 #be-bg1 #cc-cf4 ,all the rest 7viz4 verses #aj-bd and #bh-cb7 was omitted4 ,on the ensuing ,thursday1 ,st4 ,luke xxiii was handled in a similar style3 viz4 ver4 #a-ca1 #cc1 #dd-ef alone were read1--all the other verses being left out4 ,on the first ,sabbath after ,pentecost 7,all ,saints'71 the lesson consisted of ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #cb1 #cc1 #cg-ch3 xix4 #bg-cj4 ,on the fifteenth ,sabbath after ,pentecost1 the lesson was ,st4 ,matt4 xxiv4 #a-i1 #ac 7leaving out verses #aj1 #aa1 #ab74 ,on the sixteenth ,sabbath after ,pentecost1 the lesson was ,st4 ,matt4 xxiv4 #cd-cg1 #db-dd 7leaving out verses #ch-da74 ,on the sixth ,sabbath of ,st4 ,luke1--the lesson was ch4 viii4 #bf-ce followed by verses #ch and #ci4 #fae ',this celebrated paragraph 444 was probably not contained in the first edition of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel but added at the time when his last chapter was annexed to what had once been the close of his narrative1--xx4 #cj1 #ca4' ,scrivener's ,introduction to ,cod4 ,d1 p4 #ej4 #faf ,in an unpublished paper4 #fag ,it is omitted in some ,,mss4 of the ,peshitto4 ,,appendix ,,ii4 ,,conflation ,,and ,,the ,,so-,,called ,,neutral ,,text4 ,some of the most courteous of our critics1 in reviewing the companion volume to this1 have expressed regret that we have not grappled more closely than we have done with ,dr4 ,hort's theory4 ,i have already expressed our reasons4 ,our object has been to describe and establish what we conceive to be the true principles of ,sacred ,textual ,science4 ,we are concerned only in a secondary degree with opposing principles4 ,where they have come in our way1 we have endeavoured to remove them4 ,but it has not entered within our design to pursue them into their fastnesses and domiciles4 ,nevertheless1 in compliance with a request which is both proper and candid1 ,i will do what ,i can to examine with all the equity that ,i can command an essential part of ,dr4 ,hort's system1 which appears to exercise great influence with his followers4 #a4 ,,conflation4 ,dr4 ,hort's theory of ',conflation' may be discovered on pp4 #ic-ajg4 ,the want of an index to his ,introduction1 notwithstanding his ample ',contents1' makes it difficult to collect illustrations of his meaning from the rest of his treatise4 ,nevertheless1 the effect of ,conflation appears to be well described in his words on p4 #acc3--',now however the three great lines were brought together1 and made to contribute to a text different from all4' ,in other words1 by means of a combination of the ,western1 ,alexandrian1 and ',neutral' ,texts--'the great lines of transmission 444 to all appearance exclusively divergent1'--the ',syrian' text was constructed in a form different from any one and all of the other three4 ,not that all these three were made to contribute on every occasion4 ,we find 7p4 #ic7 ,conflation1 or ,conflate ,readings1 introduced as proving the 'posteriority of ,syrian to ,western 444 and other 444 readings4' ,and in the analysis of eight passages1 which is added1 only in one case 7,st4 ,mark viii4 #bf7 are more than two elements represented1 and in that the third class consists of 'different conflations' of the first and second#fah4 ,perhaps ,i may present ,dr4 ,hort's theory under the form of a diagram3-- ,western ,readings4 ,other ,readings4 --------------------- ,syrian ,text4 ,our theory is the converse in main features to this4 ,we utterly repudiate the term ',syrian' as being a most inadequate and untrue title for the ,text adopted and maintained by the ,catholic ,church with all her intelligence and learning1 during nearly fifteen centuries according to ,dr4 ,hort's admission3 and we claim from the evidence that the ,traditional ,text of the ,gospels1 under the true name1 is that which came fresh from the pens of the ,evangelists2 and that all variations from it1 however they have been entitled1 are nothing else than corrupt forms of the original readings4 ,our diagram in rough presentation will therefore assume this character3-- ,traditional ,text4--- -,western ,readings4 -w -x -y -z -etc4 -,alexandrian ,readings4 ,it should be added1 that w1 x1 y1 z1 c41 denote forms of corruption4 ,we do not recognize the ',neutral' at all1 believing it to be a ,caesarean combination or recension1 made from previous texts or readings of a corrupt character4 ,the question is1 which is the true theory1 ,dr4 ,hort's or ours8 ,the general points that strike us with reference to ,dr4 ,hort's theory are3-- 7#a7 ,that it is very vague and indeterminate in nature4 ,given three things1 of which ,x includes what is in ,y and ,z1 upon the face of the theory either ,x may have arisen by synthesis from ,y and ,z1 or ,x and ,z may owe their origin by analysis to ,x4 7#b7 ,upon examination it is found that ,dr4 ,hort's arguments for the posteriority of ,d are mainly of an internal character1 and are loose and imaginative1 depending largely upon personal or literary predilections4 7#c7 ,that it is exceedingly improbable that the ,church of the fourth and fifth centuries1 which in a most able period had been occupied with discussions on verbal accuracy1 should have made the gross mistake of adopting 7what was then7 a modern concoction from the original text of the ,gospels1 which had been written less than three or four centuries before2 and that their error should have been acknowledged as truth1 and perpetuated by the ages that succeeded them down to the present time4 ,but we must draw nearer to ,dr4 ,hort's argument4 ,he founds it upon a detailed examination of eight passages1 viz4 ,st4 ,mark vi4 #cc2 viii4 #bf2 ix4 #ch2 ix4 #di2 ,st4 ,luke ix4 #aj2 xi4 #ed2 xii4 #ah2 xxiv4 #ec4 #a4 ,remark that eight is a round and divisible number4 ,did the author decide upon it with a view of presenting two specimens from each ,gospel8 ,to be sure1 he gives four from the first two1 and four from the two last1 only that he confines the batches severally to ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke4 ,did the strong style of ,st4 ,matthew1 with distinct meaning in every word1 yield no suitable example for treatment8 ,could no passage be found in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 where not without parallel1 but to a remarkable degree1 extreme simplicity of language1 even expressed in alternative clauses1 clothes soaring thought and philosophical acuteness8 ,true1 that he quotes ,st4 ,john v4 #cg as an instance of ,conflation by the ,codex ,bezae which is anything but an embodiment of the ,traditional or ',syrian' ,text1 and xiii4 #bd which is similarly irrelevant4 ,neither of these instances therefore fill up the gap1 and are accordingly not included in the selected eight4 ,what can we infer from this presentment1 but that ',conflation' is probably not of frequent occurrence as has been imagined1 but may indeed be--to admit for a moment its existence--nothing more than an occasional incident8 ,for surely1 if specimens in ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,john had abounded to his hand1 and accordingly ',conflation' had been largely employed throughout the ,gospels1 ,dr4 ,hort would not have exercised so restricted1 and yet so round a choice4 #b4 ,but we must advance a step further4 ,dean ,burgon as we have seen has calculated the differences between ,b and the ,received ,text at #g1egh1 and those which divide ,symbol3 ,aleph and the ,received ,text as reaching #h1igb4 ,he divided these totals respectively under #b1hgg and #c1dee omissions1 #eef and #hci additions1 #b1jih and #b1bii transpositions1 and #b1jfg and #b1cgi substitutions and modifications combined4 ,of these classes1 it is evident that ,conflation has nothing to do with ,additions or ,transpositions4 ,nor indeed with ,substitutions1 although one of ,dr4 ,hort's instances appears to prove that it has4 ,conflation is the combination of two 7or more7 different expressions into one4 ,if therefore both expressions occur in one of the elements1 the ,conflation has been made beforehand1 and a substitution then occurs instead of a conflation4 ,so in ,st4 ,luke xii4 #ah1 ,b1 c1 read ,greek3 ton siton kai ta agatha mou which ,dr4 ,hort#fai considers to be made by ,conflation into ,greek3 ta genmata mou kai ta agatha mou1 because ,greek3 ta genmata mou is found in ,western documents4 ,the logic is strange1 but as ,dr4 ,hort has claimed it1 we must perhaps allow him to have intended to include with this strange incongruity some though not many ,substitutions in his class of instances1 only that we should like to know definitely what substitutions were to be comprised in this class4 ,for ,i shrewdly suspect that there were actually none4 ,omissions are now left to us1 of which the greater specimens can hardly have been produced by ,conflation4 ,how1 for instance1 could you get the last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 or the ,pericope de ,adultera1 or ,st4 ,luke xxii4 #dc-dd1 or any of the rest of the forty-five whole verses in the ,gospels upon which a slur is cast by the ,neologian school8 ,consequently1 the area of ,conflation is greatly reduced4 ,and ,i venture to think1 that supposing for a moment the theory to be sound1 it could not account for any large number of variations1 but would at the best only be a sign or symptom found every now and then of the derivation attributed to the ,received ,text4 #c4 ,but we must go on towards the heart of the question4 ,and first to examine ,dr4 ,hort's eight instances4 ,unfortunately1 the early patristic evidence on these verses is scanty4 ,we have little evidence of a direct character to light up the dark sea of conjecture4 7#a7 ,st4 ,mark 7vi4 #bb7 relates that on a certain occasion the multitude1 when they beheld our ,saviour and his disciples on their way in a ship crossing to the other side of the lake1 ran together 7,greek3 synedramon7 from all their cities to the point which ,he was making for 7,greek3 ekei71 and arrived there before the ,lord and ,his followers 7,greek3 prolthon autous71 and on ,his approach came in a body to ,him 7,greek3 synlthon pros auton74 ,and on disembarking 7,greek3 kai exelthn71 i4e4 7,greek3 ek tou ploiou1 ver4 #cb71 c4 ,it should be observed1 that it was only the ,apostles who knew that ,his ultimate object was 'a desert place' 7ver4 #ca1 #cj73 the indiscriminate multitude could only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was going3 and up to what ,i have described as the disembarkation 7ver4 #cd71 nothing has been said of ,his movements1 except that ,he was in the boat upon the lake4 ,the account is pictorial4 ,we see the little craft toiling on the lake1 the people on the shores running all in one direction1 and on their reaching the heights above the place of landing watching ,his approach1 and then descending together to ,him to the point where ,he is going to land4 ,there is nothing weak or superfluous in the description4 ,though condensed 7what would a modern history have made of it871 it is all natural and in due place4 ,now for ,dr4 ,hort4 ,he observes that one clause 7,greek3 kai prolthon autous7 is attested by ,b,symbol3 ,aleph and their followers2 another 7,greek3 kai synlthon autou or ,greek3 lthon autou1 which is very different from the ',syrian' ,greek3 synlthon pros auton7 by some ,western documents2 and he argues that the entire form in the ,received ,text1 ,greek3 kai prolthon autous1 kai synlthon pros auton1 was formed by ,conflation from the other two4 ,i cannot help observing that it is a suspicious mark1 that even in the case of the most favoured of his chosen examples he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of his elements of ,conflation as virtually to doctor it in order to bring it strictly to the prescribed pattern4 ,when we come to his arguments he candidly admits1 that 'it is evident that either ,symbol3 delta 7the ,received ,text7 is conflate from ,symbol3 alpha 7,b,symbol3 ,aleph7 and ,symbol3 beta 7,western71 or ,symbol3 alpha and ,symbol3 beta are independent simplifications of ,symbol3 delta'2 and that 'there is nothing in the sense of ,symbol3 delta that would tempt to alteration1' and that 'accidental' omission of one or other clause would 'be easy4' ,but he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause that the difference between ,greek3 autou and ,greek3 pros auton is really in his favour1 chiefly because ,greek3 autou would very likely if it had previously existed been changed into ,greek3 pros auton--which no one can doubt2 and that ',greek3 synlthon pros auton is certainly otiose after ,greek3 synedramon ekei1' which shews that he did not understand the whole meaning of the passage4 ,his argument upon what he terms ',intrinsic ,probability' leads to a similar inference4 ,for simply ,greek3 exelthn cannot mean that ',he came out of ,his retirement in some sequestered nook to meet them1' such a nook being not mentioned by ,st4 ,mark1 whereas ,greek3 ploion is2 nor can ,greek3 ekei denote 'the desert region4' ,indeed the position of that region or nook was known before it was reached solely to our ,lord and ,his ,apostles3 the multitude was guided only by what they saw1 or at least by vague surmise4 ,accordingly1 ,dr4 ,hort's conclusion must be reversed4 ',the balance of ,internal ,evidence of ,readings1 alike from ,transcriptional and from ,intrinsic ,probability1 is decidedly' not 'in favour of ,symbol3 delta from ,symbol3 alpha and ,symbol3 beta1' but 'of ,symbol3 alpha and ,symbol3 beta from ,symbol3 delta4' ,the reading of the ,traditional ,text is the superior both as regards the meaning1 and as to the probability of its pre-existence4 ,the derivation of the two others from that is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is termed ,omission4 ,above all1 the ,traditional reading is proved by a largely over-balancing weight of evidence4 7#b7 ',to examine other passages equally in detail would occupy too much space4' ,so says ,dr4 ,hort3 but we must examine points that require attention4 ,st4 ,mark viii4 #bf4 ,after curing the blind man outside ,bethsaida1 our ,lord in that remarkable period of ,his career directed him1 according to the ,traditional reading1 7,symbol3 alpha7 neither to enter into that place1 ,greek3 mde eis tn kmn eiselths1 nor 7,symbol3 beta7 to tell what had happened to any inhabitant of ,bethsaida 7,greek3 mde eips tini en t km74 ,either some one who did not understand the ,greek1 or some matter-of-fact and officious scholar1 or both1 thought or maintained that ,greek3 tini en t km must mean some one who was at the moment actually in the place4 ,so the second clause got to be omitted from the text of ,b,symbol3 ,aleph1 who are followed only by one cursive and a half 7the first reading of #a being afterwards corrected71 and the ,bohairic version1 and the ,lewis ,,ms4 ,the ,traditional reading is attested by ,,acn,symbol3 ,sigma and thirteen other ,uncials1 all ,cursives except eight1 of which six with ,symbol3 ,phi read a consolidation of both clauses1 by several versions1 and by ,theophylact 7i4 #baj7 who is the only ,father that quotes the place4 ,this evidence ought amply to ensure the genuineness of this reading4 ,but what says ,dr4 ,hort8 ',here ,symbol3 alpha is simple and vigorous1 and it is unique in the ,new ,testament3 the peculiar ,greek3 ,mde has the terse force of many sayings as given by ,st4 ,mark1 but the softening into ,greek3 ,m by ,symbol3 ,aleph99 shews that it might trouble scribes4' ,it is surely not necessary to controvert this4 ,it may be said however that ,symbol3 alpha is bald as well as simple1 and that the very difficulty in ,symbol3 beta makes it probable that that clause was not invented4 ,to take ,greek3 tini en t km ,hebraistically for ,greek3 tini tn en t km1 like the ,greek3 tis en hymin of ,st4 ,james v4 #aifbj1 need not trouble scholars1 ,i think4 ,otherwise they can follow ,meyer1 according to ,winer's ,grammar 7,,ii4 #eaa71 and translate the second ,greek3 mde nor even4 ,at all events1 this is a poor pillar to support a great theory4 7#c7 ,st4 ,mark ix4 #ch4 ',master1 we saw one casting out devils in ,thy name1 7,symbol3 beta7 who doth not follow us1 and we forbad him 7,symbol3 alpha7 because he followeth not us4' ,here the authority for ,symbol3 alpha is ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bcl,symbol3 ,delta1 four ,cursives1 f1 ,bohairic1 ,peshitto1 ,ethiopic1 and the ,lewis ,,ms4 ,for ,symbol3 beta there are ,d1 two ,cursives1 all the ,old ,latin but f and the ,vulgate4 ,for the ,traditional ,text1 i4e4 the whole passage1 ,a,symbol3 ,phi,symbol3 ,sigma,n eleven ,uncials1 all the ,cursives but six1 the ,harkleian 7yet obelizes ,symbol3 alpha7 and ,gothic versions1 ,basil 7ii4 #beb71 ,victor of ,antioch 7,cramer1 ,cat4 i4 #cfe71 ,theophylact 7i4 #bai73 and ,augustine quotes separately both omissions 7,symbol3 alpha ix4 #ecc1 and ,symbol3 beta ,,iii4 ii4 #aec74 ,no other ,fathers1 so far as ,i can find1 quote the passage4 ,dr4 ,hort appears to advance no special arguments on his side1 relying apparently upon the obvious repetition4 ,in the first part of the verse1 ,st4 ,john describes the case of the man3 in the second he reports for our ,lord's judgement the grounds of the prohibition which the ,apostles gave him4 ,is it so certain that the original text of the passage contained only the description1 and omitted the reason of the prohibition as it was given to the non-follower of our ,lord8 ,to me it seems that the simplicity of ,st4 ,mark's style is best preserved by the inclusion of both4 ,the ,apostles did not curtly forbid the man3 they treated him with reasonableness1 and in the same spirit ,st4 ,john reported to his ,master all that occurred4 ,besides this1 the evidence on the ,traditional side is too strong to admit of it not being the genuine reading4 7#d7 ,st4 ,mark ix4 #di4 ',for 7,symbol3 alpha7 every one shall be salted with fire1 7,symbol3 beta7 and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt4' ,the authorities are-- ,symbol3 alpha4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl,symbol3 ,delta1 fifteen ,cursives1 some ,,mss4 of the ,bohairic1 some of the ,armenian1 and the ,lewis4 ,symbol3 beta4 ,d1 six copies of the ,old ,latin1 three ,,mss4 of the ,vulgate4 ,chromatius of ,aquileia 7,galland4 viii4 #cch74 ,trad4 ,text4 ,,ac,symbol3 ,phi,symbol3 ,sigma,n and twelve more ,uncials1 all ,cursives except fifteen1 two ,old ,latin1 ,vulgate1 ,peshitto1 ,harkleian1 some ,,mss4 of ,ethiopic and ,armenian1 ,gothic1 ,victor of ,antioch 7,cramer's ,cat4 i4 #cfh71 ,theophylact 7i4 #bba74 ,this evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the ,traditional reading4 ,but now for ,dr4 ,hort4 ',a reminiscence of ,lev4 vii4 #ac 444 has created ,symbol3 beta out of ,symbol3 alpha4' ,but why should not the reminiscence have been our ,lord's8 ,the passage appears like a quotation1 or an adaptation1 of some authoritative saying4 ,he positively advances no other argument than the one just quoted1 beyond stating two points in which the alteration might be easily effected4 7#e7 ,st4 ,luke ix4 #aj4 ',he took 7,his ,apostles7 and withdrew privately ,symbol3 alpha4 ,into a city called ,bethsaida ,greek3 7eis polin kaloumenn ,b474 ,symbol3 beta4 ,into a desert place 7,greek3 eis topon ermon71 or ,into a desert place called ,bethsaida1 or of ,bethsaida4 ,trad4 ,text4 ,into a desert place belonging to a city called ,bethsaida4' ,the evidence for these readings respectively is-- ,symbol3 alpha4 ,,blx,symbol3 ,xi1 with one correction of ,symbol3 ,aleph 7,ca71 one ,cursive1 the ,bohairic and ,sahidic4 ,d reads ,greek3 kmn4 ,symbol3 beta4 ,the first and later readings 7,cb7 of ,symbol3 ,aleph1 four ,cursives81 ,curetonian1 some variant ,old ,latin 7,symbol3 beta#b71 ,peshitto also variant 7,symbol3 beta#c74 ,trad4 ,text4 ,a 7with ,greek3 ermon topon7 ,c twelve ,uncials1 all ,cursives except three or five1 ,harkleian1 ,lewis 7omits ,greek3 ermon71 ,ethiopic1 ,armenian1 ,gothic1 with ,theophylact 7i4 #cc74 ,remark the curious character of ,symbol3 alpha and ,symbol3 beta4 ,in ,dr4 ,hort's ,neutral ,text1 which he maintains to have been the original text of the ,gospels1 our ,lord is represented here as having withdrawn in private 7,greek3 kat' idian1 which the ,revisers shirking the difficulty translate inaccurately 'apart'7 into the city called ,bethsaida4 ,how could there have been privacy of life in a city in those days8 ,in fact1 ,greek3 kat' idian necessitates the adoption of ,greek3 topon ermon1 as to which the ,peshitto 7,symbol3 beta#c7 is in substantial agreement with the ,traditional ,text4 ,bethsaida is represented as the capital of a district1 which included1 at sufficient distance from the city1 a desert or retired spot4 ,the group arranged under ,symbol3 beta is so weakly supported1 and is evidently such a group of fragments1 that it can come into no sort of competition with the ,traditional reading4 ,dr4 ,hort confines himself to shewing how the process he advocates might have arisen1 not that it did actually arise4 ,indeed1 this position can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established that it did so arise4 7#f7 ,st4 ,luke xi4 #ed4 ',the ,scribes and ,pharisees began to urge ,him vehemently and to provoke ,him to speak of many things 7,greek3 enedreuontes threusai71 ,symbol3 alpha4 ,laying wait for ,him to catch something out of ,his mouth4 ,symbol3 beta4 ,seeking to get some opportunity 7,greek3 aphormn tina7 for finding out how to accuse ,him 7,greek3 hina eursin katgorsai72 or1 for accusing ,him 7,greek3 hina katgorssin autou74 ,trad4 ,text4 ,laying wait for ,him1 and seeking to catch something 7,greek3 ztountes threusai ti7 out of ,his mouth1 that they might accuse ,him4' ,the evidence is-- ,symbol3 alpha4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bl1 ,bohairic1 ,ethiopic1 ,cyril ,alex4 7,mai1 ,nov4 ,pp4 ,bibliotheca1 ii4 #hg1 iii4 #bdi1 not accurately74 ,symbol3 beta4 ,d1 ,old ,latin except f1 ,curetonian4 ,trad4 ,text4 ,,ac twelve ,uncials1 all ,cursives 7except five which omit ,greek3 ztountes71 ,peshitto1 ,lewis 7with omission71 ,vulgate1 ,harkleian1 ,theophylact 7i4 #cfc74 ,as to genuineness1 the evidence is decisive4 ,the reading ,symbol3 ,alpha is ,alexandrian1 adopted by ,b,symbol3 ,aleph1 and is bad ,greek into the bargain1 ,greek3 enedreuontes threusai being very rough1 and being probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the ,greek language4 ,if ,symbol3 alpha was the original1 it is hard to see how ,symbol3 beta could have come from it4 ,that the figurative language of ,symbol3 alpha was replaced in ,symbol3 beta by a simply descriptive paraphrase1 as ,dr4 ,hort suggests1 seems scarcely probable4 ,on the other hand1 the derivation of either ,symbol3 alpha or ,symbol3 beta from the ,traditional ,text is much easier4 ,a scribe would without difficulty pass over one of the participles lying contiguously with no connecting conjunction1 and having a kind of ,homoeoteleuton4 ,and as to ,symbol3 beta1 the distinguishing ,greek3 aphormn tina would be a very natural gloss1 requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying ,greek3 labein4 ,this is surely a more probable solution of the question of the mutual relationship of the readings than the laboured account of ,dr4 ,hort1 which is too long to be produced here4 7#g7 ,st4 ,luke xii4 #ah4 ',i will pull down my barns1 and build greater1 and there will ,i bestow all ,symbol3 alpha4 ,my corn and my goods4 ,symbol3 beta4 ,my crops 7,greek3 ta genmata mou74 ,my fruits 7,greek3 tous karpous mou74 ,trad4 ,text4 ,my crops 7,greek3 ta genmata mou7 and my goods4' ,this is a faulty instance1 because it is simply a substitution1 as ,dr4 ,hort admitted1 in ,symbol3 alpha of the more comprehensive word ,greek3 genmata for ,greek3 siton1 and a simple omission of ,greek3 kai ta agatha mou in ,symbol3 beta4 ,and the admission of it into the selected eight shews the difficulty that ,dr4 ,hort must have experienced in choosing his examples4 ,the evidence is-- ,symbol3 alpha4 ,,btlx and a correction of ,symbol3 ,aleph7ac71 eight ,cursives1 ,peshitto1 ,bohairic1 ,sahidic1 ,armenian1 ,ethiopic4 ,symbol3 beta4 ,symbol3 ,aleph99,d1 three ,cursives1 b ff i q1 ,curetonian and ,lewis1 ,st4 ,ambrose 7i4 #egc74 ,trad4 ,text4 ,,aq thirteen ,uncials4 ,all ,cursives except twelve1 f1 ,vulgate1 ,harkleian1 ,cyril ,alex4 7,mai1 ii4 #bid-e7 bis1 ,theophylact 7i4 #cgj71 ,peter ,chrysologus 7,migne #eb1 #dij-a7 bis4 ,no more need be said3 substitutions and omissions are too common to require justification4 7#h7 ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #ec4 ',they were continually in the temple ,symbol3 alpha4 ,blessing ,god 7,greek3 eulogountes74 ,symbol3 beta4 ,praising ,god 7,greek3 ainountes74 ,trad4 ,text4 ,praising and blessing ,god4' ,the evidence is-- ,symbol3 alpha4 ,symbol3 ,aleph,,bc99,l1 ,bohairic1 ,palestinian1 ,lewis4 ,symbol3 beta4 ,d1 seven ,old ,latin4 ,trad4 ,text4 ,,ac#b twelve ,uncials1 all ,cursives1 c f q1 ,vulgate1 ,peshitto1 ,harkleian1 ,armenian1 ,ethiopic1 ,theophylact 7i4 #dig74 ,dr4 ,hort adds no remarks4 ,he seems to have thought1 that because he had got an instance which outwardly met all the requirements laid down1 therefore it would prove the conclusion it was intended to prove4 ,now it is evidently an instance of the omission of either of two words from the complete account by different witnesses4 ,the ,evangelist employed both words in order to emphasize the gratitude of the ,apostles4 ,the words are not tautological4 ,greek3 ,ainos is the set praise of ,god1 drawn out in more or less length1 properly as offered in addresses to ,him#fba4 ,greek3 ,eulogia includes all speaking well of ,him1 especially when uttered before other men4 ,thus the two expressions describe in combination the life of gratitude exhibited unceasingly by the expectant and the infant ,church4 ,continually in the temple they praised ,him in devotion1 and told the people of ,his glorious works4 #d4 ,such are the eight weak pillars upon which ,dr4 ,hort built his theory which was to account for the existence of his ,neutral ,text1 and the relation of it towards other ,texts or classes of readings4 ,if his eight picked examples can be thus demolished1 then surely the theory of ,conflation must be utterly unsound4 ,or if in the opinion of some of my readers my contention goes too far1 then at any rate they must admit that it is far from being firm1 if it does not actually reel and totter4 ,the opposite theory of omission appears to be much more easy and natural4 ,but the curious phenomenon that ,dr4 ,hort has rested his case upon so small an induction as is supplied by only eight examples--if they are not in fact only seven--has not yet received due explanation4 ,why1 he ought to have referred to twenty-five or thirty at least4 ,if ,conflation is so common1 he might have produced a large number of references without working out more than was enough for illustration as patterns4 ,this question must be investigated further4 ,and ,i do not know how to carry out such an investigation better1 than to examine some instances which come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each ,gospel4 ,it must be borne in mind1 that for ,conflation two differently-attested phrases or words must be produced which are found in combination in some passage of the ,traditional ,text4 ,if there is only one which is omitted1 it is clear that there can be no ,conflation because there must be at least two elements to conflate3 accordingly our instances must be cases1 not of single omission1 but of double or alternative omission4 ,if again there is no ,western reading1 it is not a ,conflation in ,dr4 ,hort's sense4 ,and finally1 if the remaining reading is not a ',neutral' one1 it is not to ,dr4 ,hort's liking4 ,i do not say that my instances will conform with these conditions4 ,indeed1 after making a list of all the omissions in the ,gospels1 except those which are of too petty a character such as leaving out a pronoun1 and having searched the list with all the care that ,i can command1 ,i do not think that such instances can be found4 ,nevertheless1 ,i shall take eight1 starting from the beginning of ,st4 ,matthew1 and choosing the most salient examples1 being such also that1 if ,dr4 ,hort's theory be sound1 they ought to conform to his requirements4 ,similarly1 there will come then four from either of ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke1 and eight from ,st4 ,john4 ,this course of proceeding will extend operations from the eight which form ,dr4 ,hort's total to thirty-two4 ,a4 ,in ,st4 ,matthew we have 7#a7 i4 #be1 ,greek3 auts ton prtotokon and ,greek3 ton ,huion2 7#b7 v4 #bb1 ,greek3 eik and ,greek3 t adelph autou2 7#c7 ix4 #ac1 ,greek3 eis metanoian2 7#d7 x4 #c1 ,greek3 ,lebbaios and ,greek3 ,thaddaios2 7#e7 xii4 #bb1 ,greek3 typhlon kai and ,greek3 kphon2 7#f7 xv4 #e1 ,greek3 ton patera autou and ,greek3 7h7 tn mtera autou1 7#g7 xviii4 #ce1 ,greek3 apo tn kardin hymn and ,greek3 ta paraptmata autn2 and 7#h7 xxvi4 #c1 ,greek3 hoi presbyteroi 7kai7 hoi ,grammateis4 ,i have had some difficulty in making up the number4 ,of those selected as well as ,i could1 seven are cases of single omission or of one pure omission apiece1 though their structure presents a possibility of two members for ,conflation2 whilst the ,western element comes in sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and the retention2 and1 thirdly1 in some cases1 as in 7#b7 and 7#c71 the support is not only ,western1 but universal4 ,consequently1 all but 7#d7 are excluded4 ,of 7#d7 ,dr4 ,hort remarks1 7,notes on ,select ,readings1 p4 #aa7 that it is 'a case of ,conflation of the true and the chief ,western ,texts1' and accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle4 ,b4 ,from ,st4 ,mark we get1 7#a7 i4 #a1 ,greek3 ,huiou tou ,theou and ,greek3 ,isou ,christou2 7#b7 i4 #b1 ,greek3 emprosthen sou and ,greek3 pro prospou sou 7cp4 ix4 #ch72 7#c7 iii4 #ae1 ,greek3 therapeuein tas nosous 7kai7 and ,greek3 ekballein ta daimonia2 7#d7 xiii4 #cc1 ,greek3 agrypneite and ,greek3 7kai7 proseuchesthe4 ,all these instances turn out to be cases of the omission of only one of the parallel expressions4 ,the omission in the first is due mainly to ,origen 7see ,traditional ,text1 ,appendix ,,iv73 in the three last there is ,western evidence on both sides4 ,c4 ,st4 ,luke yields us1 7#a7 ii4 #e1 ,greek3 gynaiki and ,greek3 memnsteumen2 7#b7 iv4 #d1 ,greek3 epi panti rhmati ,theou1 or ,greek3 ep' art mon2 7#c7 viii4 #ed1 ,greek3 ekbaln ex pantas 7kai71 or ,greek3 kratsas ts cheiros auts2 xi4 #d1 ,greek3 7alla7 rhysai hmas apo tou ponrou1 or ,greek3 m eisenenks hmas eis peirasmon4 ,in all these cases1 examination discloses that they are examples of pure omission of only one of the alternatives4 ,the only evidence against this is the solitary rejection of ,greek3 memnsteumen by the ,lewis ,codex4 ,d4 ,we now come to ,st4 ,john4 ,see 7#a7 iii4 #ae1 ,greek3 m apoltai1 or ,greek3 ech zn ainion2 7#b7 iv4 #ad1 ,greek3 ou m dipss eis ton aina1 or ,greek3 to hydr ho ds aut gensetai en aut pg hydatos1 k4t4l42 7#c7 iv4 #db1 ,greek3 ho ,christos1 or ,greek3 ho str tou kosmou2 7#d7 iv4 #ea1 ,greek3 kai apngeilan and ,greek3 legontes2 7#e7 v4 #af1 ,greek3 kai eztoun auton apokteinai and ,greek3 edikon auton2 7#f7 vi4 #ea1 ,greek3 hn eg ds1 or ,greek3 hou eg ds2 7#g7 ix4 #a1 #be1 ,greek3 kai eipen or ,greek3 apekrith2 7#h7 xiii4 #ca1 #cb1 ,greek3 ei ho ,theos edoxasth en aut1 and ,greek3 kai ho ,theos edoxasth en aut4 ,all these instances turn out to be single omissions3--a fact which is the more remarkable1 because ,st4 ,john's style so readily lends itself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving the same result in meaning1 that we should expect conflations to shew themselves constantly if the ,traditional ,text had so coalesced4 ,how surprising a result3--almost too surprising4 ,does it not immensely strengthen my contention that ,dr4 ,hort took wrongly ,conflation for the reverse process8 ,that in the earliest ages1 when the ,church did not include in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since1 the wear and tear of time1 aided by unfaith and carelessness1 made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved a temporary chipping of the ,sacred ,text all through the ,holy ,gospels8 ,and1 in fact1 that ,conflation at least as an extensive process1 if not altogether1 did not really exist4 #b4 ,,the ,,neutral ,,text4 ,here we are brought face to face with the question respecting the ,neutral ,text4 ,what in fact is it1 and does it deserve the name which ,dr4 ,hort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it8 ,what is the relation that it bears to other so-called ,texts8 ,so much has been already advanced upon this subject in the companion volume and in the present1 that great conciseness is here both possible and expedient4 ,but it may be useful to bring the sum or substance of those discussions into one focus4 #a4 ,the so-called ,neutral ,text1 as any reader of ,dr4 ,hort's ,introduction will see1 is the text of ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph and their small following4 ,that following is made up of ,z in ,st4 ,matthew1 ,symbol3 ,delta in ,st4 ,mark1 the fragmentary ,symbol3 ,xi in ,st4 ,luke1 with frequent agreement with them of ,d1 and of the eighth century ,l2 with occasional support from some of the group of ,cursives1 consisting of #a1 #cc1 #aah1 #aca1 #aeg1 #bje1 #bji1 and from the ,ferrar group1 or now and then from some others1 as well as from the ,latin k1 and the ,egyptian or other versions4 ,this perhaps appears to be a larger number than our readers may have supposed1 but rarely are more than ten ,,mss4 found together1 and generally speaking less1 and often much less than that4 ,to all general intents and purposes1 the ,neutral ,text is the text of ,b-,symbol3 ,aleph4 #b4 ,following facts and avoiding speculation1 the ,neutral ,text appears hardly in history except at the ,semiarian period4 ,it was almost disowned ever after3 and there is no certainty--nothing more than inference which we hold1 and claim to have proved1 to be imaginary and delusive1--that1 except as represented in the corruption which it gathered out of the chaos of the earliest times1 it made any appearance4 #c4 ,thus1 as a matter of history acknowledged by ,dr4 ,hort1 it was mainly superseded before the end of the century of its emergence by the ,traditional ,text1 which1 except in the tenets of a school of critics in the nineteenth century1 has reigned supreme ever since4 #d4 ,that it was not the original text of the ,gospels1 as maintained by ,dr4 ,hort1 ,i claim to have established from an examination of the quotations from the ,gospels made by the ,fathers4 ,it has been proved that not only in number1 but still more conclusively in quality1 the ,traditional ,text enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all the kinds of corruption advocated by some critics which ,i have just now mentioned#fbb4 ,this conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of the early versions4 #e4 ,the inferiority of the ',neutral ,text' is demonstrated by the overwhelming weight of evidence which is marshalled against it on passages under dispute4 ,this glaring contrast is increased by the disagreement among themselves of the supporters of that ,text1 or class of readings4 ,as to antiquity1 number1 variety1 weight1 and continuity1 that ,text falls hopelessly behind3 and by internal evidence also the texts of ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph1 and still more the eccentric text of the ,western ,d1 are proved to be manifestly inferior4 #f4 ,it has been shewn also by evidence1 direct as well as inferential1 that ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph issued nearly together from the library or school of ,caesarea4 ,the fact of their being the oldest ,,mss4 of the ,new ,testament in existence1 which has naturally misled people and caused them to be credited with extraordinary value1 has been referred1 as being mainly due1 to their having been written on vellum according to the fashion introduced in that school1 instead of the ordinary papyrus4 ,the fact of such preservation is really to their discredit1 instead of resounding to their honour1 because if they had enjoyed general approval1 they would probably have perished creditably many centuries ago in the constant use for which they were intended4 ,such are the main points in the indictment and in the history of the ,neutral ,text1 or rather--to speak with more appropriate accuracy1 avoiding the danger of drawing with too definite a form and too deep a shade--of the class of readings represented by ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph4 ,it is interesting to trace further1 though very summarily1 the connexion between this class of readings and the corruptions of the ,original ,text which existed previously to the early middle of the fourth century4 ,such brief tracing will lead us to a view of some causes of the development of ,dr4 ,hort's theory4 ,the analysis of ,corruption supplied as to the various kinds of it by ,dean ,burgon has taught us how they severally arose4 ,this is fresh in the mind of readers1 and ,i will not spoil it by repetition4 ,but the studies of textual critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruption chiefly under the two heads of the ,western or ,syrio-,low-,latin class1 and in a less prominent province of the ,alexandrian4 ,dr4 ,hort's ,neutral is really a combination of those two1 with all the accuracy that these phenomena admit4 ,but of course1 if the ,neutral were indeed the original ,text1 it would not do for it to be too closely connected with one of such bad reputation as the ,western1 which must be kept in the distance at all hazards4 ,therefore he represented it--all unconsciously no doubt and with the best intention--as one of the sources of the ,traditional1 or as he called it the ',syrian' ,text4 ,hence this imputed connexion between the ,western and the ,traditional ,text became the essential part of his framework of ,conflation1 which could not exist without it4 ,for any permanent purpose1 all this handiwork was in vain4 ,to say no more1 ,d1 which is the chief representative of the ,western ,text1 is too constant a supporter of the peculiar readings of ,b and ,symbol3 ,aleph not to prove its near relationship to them4 ,the ',neutral' ,text derives the chief part of its support from ,western sources4 ,it is useless for ,dr4 ,hort to disown his leading constituents4 ,and on the other hand1 the ,syrio-,low-,latin ,text is too alien to the ,traditional to be the chief element in any process1 ,conflate or other1 out of which it could have been constructed4 ,the occasional support of some of the ,old ,latin ,,mss4 is nothing to the point in such a proof4 ,they are so fitful and uncertain1 that some of them may witness to almost anything4 ,if ,dr4 ,hort's theory of ,conflation had been sounder1 there would have been no lack of examples4 ',naturam expellas furca3 tamen usque recurret4' ,he was tempted to the impossible task of driving water uphill4 ,therefore ,i claim1 not only to have refuted ,dr4 ,hort1 whose theory is proved to be even more baseless than ,i ever imagined1 but by excavating more deeply than he did1 to have discovered the cause of his error4 ,no3 the true theory is1 that the ,traditional ,text--not in superhuman perfection1 though under some superhuman ,guidance--is the embodiment of the original ,text of the ,new ,testament4 ,in the earliest times1 just as false doctrines were widely spread1 so corrupt readings prevailed in many places4 ,later on1 when ,christianity was better understood1 and the ,church reckoned amongst the learned and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects of the world1 and many clever men of inferior character endeavoured to vitiate ,doctrine and lower ,christian life1 evil rose to the surface1 and was in due time after a severe struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day4 ,so heresy was rampant for a while1 and was then replaced by true and well-grounded belief4 ,with great ability and with wise discretion1 the ,deposit whether of ,faith or ,word was verified and established4 ,general ,councils decided in those days upon the ,faith1 and the ,creed when accepted and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good and bequeathed to future ages4 ,so it was both as to the ,canon and the ,words of ,holy ,scripture1 only that all was done quietly4 ,as to the latter1 hardly a footfall was heard4 ,but none the less1 corruption after short-lived prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity1 whilst the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true ,text upon a firm and lasting basis4 ,and so ,i venture to hold1 now that the question has been raised1 both the learned and the well-informed will come gradually to see1 that no other course respecting the ,words of the ,new ,testament is so strongly justified by the evidence1 none so sound and large-minded1 none so reasonable in every way1 none so consonant with intelligent faith1 none so productive of guidance and comfort and hope1 as to maintain against all the assaults of corruption ,,the ,,traditional ,,text4 ,,footnotes3 #fah ,dr4 ,hort has represented ,neutral readings by ,symbol3 alpha1 ,western by ,symbol3 beta1 as far as ,i can understand1 'other' by ,symbol3 gamma1 and ',syrian' 7,traditional7 by ,symbol3 delta4 ,but he nowhere gives an example of ,symbol3 gamma4 #fai ,introduction1 p4 #ajc4 #fbj ,cp4 ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #b1 #c4 ,greek3 ,tis is used with ,greek3 ex1 ,st4 ,luke xi4 #ae1 xxiv4 #bd2 ,st4 ,john vi4 #fd1 vii4 #be1 ix4 #af1 xi4 #cg1 #df2 ,acts xi4 #bj1 xiii4 #a1 c4 #fba ,thus ,greek3 epainos is used for a public encomium1 or panegyric4 #fbb ,an attempt in the ,guardian has been made in a review full of errors to weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an unique set of details4 ,a correction both of the reviewer's figures in one instance and of my own may be found above1 pp4 #add-aec4 ,there is no virtue in an exact proportion of #c3 #b1 or of #f3 #a4 ,a great majority will ultimately be found on our side4 ,,general ,,index4 ,a4 ,symbol3 ,aleph or ,sinaitic ,,ms41 #b1 #aif4 ,accident1 #h2 pure ,a41 #cd-ce4 ,addition1 #aff-g1 #bgj4 ,ages1 earliest1 #b4 ,alexandrian error1 #de2 readings1 ,app4 ,,ii4 #bfh1 #bhd4 ,alford1 passim4 ,ammonius1 #bjj4 ,antiquity1 our appeal always made to1 #aid-e4 ,apolinarius1 or-is 7or ,apoll471 #bbd1 #beg4 ,arians1 #bjd1 #bah4 ,assimilation1 #ajj-abg2 what it was1 #aja-b2 must be delicately handled1 #aae ,attraction1 #abc-g4 ,b4 ,b or ,vatican ,,ms41 #b1 #h1 #aif2 kakigraphy of1 #fd note3 virtually with ,symbol3 ,aleph the ',neutral' text1 #bhb4 ,basilides1 #aie1 #aig-i1 #bah note #b4 ,blunder1 history of a1 #bd-g4 ,bohairic ,version1 #bdi1 and passim4 ,c4 ,caesarea1 library of1 #bhd4 ,cerinthus1 #bja4 ,clement of ,alexandria1 #aic4 ,conflation1 #bff-hb4 ,correctors of ,,mss41 #ba4 ,corruption1 first origin of1 #c-h2 classes of #h-i1 #bc2 general1 #aj-bc2 prevailed from the first1 #ab2 the most corrupt authorities1 #h1 #ad2 in early ,fathers1 #aic-d4 ,curetonian ,version1 passim4 ,see ,traditional ,text4 ,cursive ,,mss41 a group of eccentric1 #bhc2 ,ferrar group1 #bhb4 ,d4 ,d or ,codex ,bezae1 #h4 ,symbol3 ,delta1 or ,sangallensis1 #h4 ,damascus1 #e4 ,diatessarons1 #hi1 #if-h1 #aja4 ,see ,tatian4 ,doxology1 in the ,lord's ,prayer1 #ha-h4 ,e4 ,eclogadion1 #fi4 ,epiphanius1 #cje1 #baa-b4 ,erasmus1 #aj4 ,error1 slight clerical1 #cg-ca4 ,euroclydon1 #df4 ,evangelistaria 7the right name71 #fg4 ,f4 ,falconer's ,st4 ,paul's voyage1 #df-g4 ,fathers1 passim2 earliest1 #aic4 ,faustinus1 #bah4 ,ferrar group of ,cursives1 #bhb4 ,field1 ,dr41 #bh note #e1 #cj and note #b4 ,g4 ,galilee of the ,gentiles1 #d-e4 ,genealogy1 #bb4 ,see ,traditional ,text4 ,glosses1 #id-e1 #ih1 #agb-ij2 described1 #agb4 ,gospels1 the four1 probable date of1 #g4 ,guardian1 review in1 ,pref41 #aej-b1 #bhc note4 ,gwilliam1 ,rev4 ,g4 ,h41 #aae note4 ,h4 ,harmonistic influence1 #hi-ii4 ,heracleon1 #aij1 #bjb1 #bjd1 #bae note #b4 ,heretics1 corruptions by1 #aii-baj2 not always dishonest1 #aia2 very numerous1 #aii c4 ,homoeoteleuton1 #cf-da2 explained1 #h ,i4 ,inadvertency1 #ba1 #bc4 ,internal evidence1 ,pref4 ,interpolations1 #aff-g4 ,irenaeus1 ,st41 #aic4 ,itacism1 #h1 #ef-hf4 ,j4 ,justin ,martyr1 ,st41 #aic4 ,l4 ,l or ,codex ,regius1 #h4 ,lachmann1 passim4 ,last ,twelve ,verses1 #gb1 #abi-cj4 ,latin ,,mss41 ,old1 passim2 ,low-,latin1 #h4 ,see ,traditional ,text4 ,lectionaries1 #fg-ha2 ecclesiastical prefaces to1 #ga4 ,lewis ,,ms41 passim1 #aid4 ,liturgical influence1 #fg-hh4 ,m4 ,macedonians1 #bjd4 ,manes1 #bjg4 ,manichaeans1 #bjf4 ,manuscripts1 six classes of1 #ab2 existing number of1 #ab2 frequent inaccuracies in1 #ab2 more serious faults1 #bj-a2 and passim4 ,marcion1 #gj1 #aie1 #aig1 #aii1 #bjj1 #bai4 ,matrimony1 #bjh4 ,menologion1 #fi4 ,n4 ,naaseni1 #bjd4 ',neutral ,text1' #bfg1 #bhb-f4 ,o4 ,omissions1 #abh-aef2 the largest of all classes1 #abh2 not 'various readings1' #abh2 prejudice in favour of1 #acj-a2 proof of1 #aca-b2 natural cause of corruption1 #bgj4 ,origen1 #ec-e1 #ih1 #aja1 #aaa-c1 #aij1 #aic1 #bji4 ,orthodox1 corruption by1 #baa-ca1 misguided1 #baa4 ,p4 ,papyrus ,,mss41 #b4 ,see ,traditional ,text4 ,parallel passages1 #ie4 ,pella1 #g4 ,pericope de ,adultera1 #bcb-fe4 ,peshitto ,version1 passim4 ,see ,traditional ,text4 ,porphyry1 #aad4 ,r4 ,revision1 #aj-ac4 ,rose1 ,rev4 ,w4 ,f41 #fa note #c4 ,s4 ,greek3 ,sabbatokuriakai1 #fh4 ,sahidic ,version1 #aid4 ,saturninue1 or ,saturnilus1 #bjh and note #c4 ,scrivener's ,introduction 7#dth ,ed471 ,miller's1 passim4 ,semiarianism1 #b4 ,substitution1 #afd-e1 #bgj1 #bgg4 ,synaxarion1 #fi4 ,t4 ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #h1 #ih1 #aja1 #aif1 #bjj4 ,textualism of the ,gospels1 different from ,t4 of profane writings1 #ad4 ,theodotus1 #bje1 #bad4 ,tischendorf1 #aab-c1 #agf1 #ahb1 and passim2 misuse of ,assimilation1 #aah4 ,traditional ,text1 #a-d2 not ,received ,text1 #a4 ,see ,volume on it4 ,transcriptional ,mistakes1 #ee4 ,transposition1 #aeg-fc2 character of1 #afc1 #bgj4 ,tregelles1 #cd1 #acf1 #ach4 ,u4 ,uncials1 #db-ee4 ,v4 ,valentinus1 #aig-i1 #bja1 #bjb-e1 #bae1 #bah note #b4 ,various readings1 #ad-af4 ,vellum1 #b4 ,vercellone1 #dg note4 ,versions1 passim4 ,victorinus ,afer1 #bah4 ,w4 ,western ,readings or ,text1 #f1 #bff-he4 ,z4 ,z or ,dublin palimpsest1 #h4 ,,index ,,ii4 ,,passages ,,of ,,the ,,new ,,testament ,,discussed4 ,st4 ,matthew3 i4 #ai #bji iii4 #f #ajb #af #agj-a iv4 #bc #ea-b v4 #dd #add-ec vi4 #ac #ha-h #ah #aga vii4 #d #ajb viii4 #i #ajb #ac #afg-h #bf #ajc #bi #ajb ix4 #bd #ajd #ce #gd x4 #ab #ajc xi4 #bc #bg xii4 #aj #aag xiii4 #cf #agc #dd #hj-a xv4 #h #acf-dd xvi4 #h #ajc xix4 #i #ci #af #ajc xx4 #bd #ajc #bh #age xxi4 #i #ii #dd #acd-f xxii4 #bc #di-ej xxiii4 #ad #ch xxiv4 #ae #aaf #ca #agi-hj #cf #afi-gj xxv4 #ac #aga xxvii4 #ae #ajc #ag #ec-e #be-f #ia #ce #aga ,st4 ,mark3 i4 #b #aaa-e #e #aeg-h ii4 #c #aeh-i iv4 #f #fc-d v4 #cf #ahh vi4 #aa #aah-i1 #aha-b #cb #cb-c #cc #bga-c vii4 #ad #ce #ai #fa-c #ca #gc-c viii4 #a #cd #bf #bgc-d ix4 #ch #bga #di #bge x4 #af #dh xii4 #ag #dh xiv4 #dj #dh #da #ahb-c #gj #aai-bb xv4 #f #cb #bh #ge-h xvi4 #i-bj #gb1 #abi-cj ,st4 ,luke3 i4 #ff #ahh-i ii4 #ad #ba-b1 #ca-b #ae #cf iii4 #ad #bja #bi #afe iv4 #a-ac #id v4 #g #ajh #ad #ajd vi4 #a #acb-c #d #afg #bf #aec vii4 #c #agd #ba #ej ix4 #a #gd #aj #bge-f #ed-f #bbd-ca x4 #ae #bh #be #ge xi4 #ed #bgf-g xii4 #ah #bgg-h #ci #aee xiii4 #i #afj-a xiv4 #c #aag xv4 #af #aag #ag #dc-e #bd #fa #cb #fa xvi4 #ba #dj #be #fj xvii4 #cg #dh-i xix4 #ba #ajc #da #bab xxii4 #fg-h #baj xxiii4 #aa #ej-a #bg #ea #db #eg xxiv4 #a #ib-d #g #afa #ec #bgh ,st4 ,john3 i4 #c-d #bjc #ah #bae-h1 #afe ii4 #dj #bab-d iii4 #ac #bbc-d iv4 #ae #dh v4 #d #ej #bg #afb v4 #dd #de vi4 #aa #cg-h #ae #ch1 #agh #ee #aec-d #ga #abd viii4 #dj #bad-e ix4 #bb #ahc x4 #ad-ae #bjf-h #bi #bd-g xii4 #a1 #b #eg-i #g #ahd-f #ac #ii xiii4 #ba-e #ajf-aa #bd #agi #be #fj #bf #abd #cg #ce xvi4 #af #aje xvii4 #d #ahf-h xviii4 #ad #ahj-a xx4 #aa #ij-b ,acts3 ii4 #de-f #aei iii4 #a #gh-hj xviii4 #f #bg xx4 #d #aij #bd #bh1 #abd-e xxvii4 #ad #df-g #cg #bg xxviii4 #a #bh #a ,cor43 xv4 #dg #bai-bc #b ,cor43 iii4 #c #abe-g ,titus3 ii4 #e #fe-f ,heb43 vii4 #a #ec #b ,pet43 i4 #ba #eb-c ,rev4 i4 #e #ei-fj ,,the ,,end4